If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with their nonprofit Clinton Foundation, have established at least five shell companies in Delaware, according to tax filings highlighted on Monday.
Those companies include two for the couple's personal finances and three for the foundation, according to the documents, which were first reported by the Washington Free Beacon.
All five are filed at 1209 North Orange Street in Wilmington. The address is shared with companies like Google, Apple, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, Ford, General Electric and more than 280,000 others that use the facility to take advantage of the state's tax laws.
Of course, we don't expect the mainstream media to hold Hillary to the same standard that they're holding Donald Trump to.
On Sunday, the New York Times reported that Donald Trump's businesses took considerable losses in 1995. The Times speculates that writing off said losses could have allowed Trump to avoid Federal income taxes for close to two decades.
According to Hillary's tax returns--which she's published on her website--the Democratic nominee reported close to $700,000 in long-term capital losses in 2015:
According to the IRS, such long-term capital losses could have been used to reduce Clinton's taxable income in 2015.
The hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 claims to have hacked into the Clinton Foundation’s computer servers.
“I hacked the Clinton Foundation server and downloaded hundreds of thousands of docs and donors’ databases,” the hacker said in a statement posted online Tuesday.
Believed to be affiliated with the Russian government, Guccifer 2.0 released a screen shot of a list of files said to be from the Clinton non-profit’s servers. A massive 820 megabyte file was also released on the site as well as links to several databases containing donor information.
The legitimacy of the documents has not been independently verified.
Nice meme. Wheres the one with a picture of Hillary that says "Deletes emails and GOP spend millions trying to indict her despite their own members doing exactly the same thing on multiple occasions....OUTRAGE!" followed by Trump: "Made illegal deals with Cuba and Iran which funded terrorism...MEH"?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Nice meme. Wheres the one with a picture of Hillary that says "Deletes emails and GOP spend millions trying to indict her despite their own members doing exactly the same thing on multiple occasions....OUTRAGE!" followed by Trump: "Made illegal deals with Cuba and Iran which funded terrorism...MEH"?
Not even close. As the days go by, it is becoming clearer the Comey had no intention of perusing charges against Clinton because Obama would have to be charged as well. As Huma said in her 302 "How is that NOT classified?" I love that Obama email alias [email protected]
I notice no-one is asking for Trump to be sent to Gitmo for treasonously breaching trade embargos funding terrorists either. Its literally the mother of all double standards. If Hillary had been caught doing that Chongo and Badkosh would have dropped dead from 117 simultaneous apoplectic aneurisms. Each.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I notice no-one is asking for Trump to be sent to Gitmo for treasonously breaching trade embargos funding terrorists either. Its literally the mother of all double standards. If Hillary had been caught doing that Chongo and Badkosh would have dropped dead from 117 simultaneous apoplectic aneurisms. Each.
Apparently, the FBI forgot to visit the Cornell Law
Library. Word for word from the Cornell Law Library Former
United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that
not only is Hillary Clinton's private email server illegal, it
"disqualifies" her from holding any federal office. Very
specifically points to one federal law, Title 18. Section
2071.
For those of us who do not have United States Code committed to
memory, here's what it says:
“(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates,
obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent
to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map,
book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with
any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in
any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the
United States, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or
both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map,
book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully
conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or
destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any
office under the United States. As used in
this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office
held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of
the United States.”
Yes, it explicitly states "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."
Shouldn't voters know that?
The media won't tell them.
So it's up to us.
But yes, and I gave you a reason why they would protect Trump. Other Republicans would get behind Pence, the ones who have abandoned Trump. That has to suit the Dems at this point.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Apparently, the FBI forgot to visit the Cornell Law
Library. Word for word from the Cornell Law Library Former
United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that
not only is Hillary Clinton's private email server illegal, it
"disqualifies" her from holding any federal office.
Shouldn't voters know that?
The media won't tell them.
So it's up to us.
Both clauses mention intent which is really hard to prove without a confession or other documentary evidence.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Both clauses mention intent which is really hard to prove without a confession or other documentary evidence.
The part of the law I have seen quoted does not require intent. Gross negligence is the threshold. In Comey's press statement it was was met. He said she was "extremely careless"
The part of the law I have seen quoted does not require intent. Gross negligence is the threshold. In Comey's press statement it was was met. He said she was "extremely careless"
To a layman that may be the case. But as a matter of law "extremely careless" and "gross negligence" are two very different things. Hence why he did NOT use the latter phrase in his statement.
Both clauses mention intent which is really hard to prove without a confession or other documentary evidence.
The intent only needs to be "remove" which she did with by setting up the private server in the first place.
She intentionally "mutilated" the records by deleting classified emails (illegal in the first place) after getting a subpeona for them (defying a congressional subpeona).
The intent only needs to be "remove" which she did with by setting up the private server in the first place.
She intentionally "mutilated" the records by deleting classified emails (illegal in the first place) after getting a subpeona for them (defying a congressional subpeona).
Just because they were erased, doesn't mean it was deliberate. You'll never prove otherwise unless you uncover an email saying "They wanted my emails so I deliberately deleted them all."
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
The tech used Bleach Bit AFTER the subpoena was issued and AFTER the conference call.
Maybe the order to erase was sent in error. Your understanding of legally acceptable proof is shaky. I'm not kidding when I say you pretty much need to have documentation with a detailed confession on it to prove intent.
If you had a recording of a meeting where someone explained to her that she shouldn't erase them and why and she signed a document saying she understood, then walked out of that meeting and phoned a guy and told him to erase it all, the call would need to be recorded too and if it was "Erase it all", that wouldn't be enough. It would have to be "We're in trouble if you don't erase it all now so burn the lot and don't get leave any trace." Its really hard to prove intent.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Maybe the order to erase was sent in error. Your understanding of legally acceptable proof is shaky. I'm not kidding when I say you pretty much need to have documentation with a detailed confession on it to prove intent.
If you had a recording of a meeting where someone explained to her that she shouldn't erase them and why and she signed a document saying she understood, then walked out of that meeting and phoned a guy and told him to erase it all, the call would need to be recorded too and if it was "Erase it all", that wouldn't be enough. It would have to be "We're in trouble if you don't erase it all now so burn the lot and don't get leave any trace." Its really hard to prove intent.
Did she violate the NDA she signed? read section 3
Maybe the order to erase was sent in error. Your understanding of legally acceptable proof is shaky. I'm not kidding when I say you pretty much need to have documentation with a detailed confession on it to prove intent.
If you had a recording of a meeting where someone explained to her that she shouldn't erase them and why and she signed a document saying she understood, then walked out of that meeting and phoned a guy and told him to erase it all, the call would need to be recorded too and if it was "Erase it all", that wouldn't be enough. It would have to be "We're in trouble if you don't erase it all now so burn the lot and don't get leave any trace." Its really hard to prove intent.
Intent is not required. 18 USC 793 (f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Emphasis mine.
There's alot of idiots quoting another law, 18 USC 1924, and since that law requires intent the idiots are quoting that and pretending it's the only law in existence.
Gross negligence is intent. Well more like the lack of it.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Intent is not required. 18 USC 793 (f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Emphasis mine.
There's alot of idiots quoting another law, 18 USC 1924, and since that law requires intent the idiots are quoting that and pretending it's the only law in existence.
More fodder for the next debate. Maybe she will say she was channeling Abe Lincoln again.
Democrats and Hillary Clinton have hammered Donald Trump over his alleged ties to Russia and Vladimir Putin. Everything from accusing him of being naive of the Russian threat to straight-up colluding with Putin on hacks to “steal the election.” But in actuality, while Trump is simply playing politics when it comes to Putin, Hillary has bragged about how close she and the probable dictator are.
So while serving as our nation's top dipolomat, she acted diplomatically? Will the horror never end!?!
No, bragging about how tight her and Putin are. I guess it's different because she is telling Putin what a good environmentalist he is.
Democrats and Hillary Clinton have hammered Donald Trump over his alleged ties to Russia and Vladimir Putin. Everything from accusing him of being naive of the Russian threat to straight-up colluding with Putin on hacks to “steal the election.” But in actuality, why Trump is simply playing politics when it comes to Putin, Hillary has bragged about how close she and the probable dictator are.
“I said, ‘You know, Mr. Prime Minister, we actually have some things in common. We both want to protect wildlife, and I know how committed you are to protecting the tiger,’” Clinton reportedly told the audience. “I mean, all of a sudden, he sat up straight and his eyes got big and he goes, ‘You care about the tiger? I said, ‘I care about the tiger, I care about the elephant, I care about the rhinoceros, I care about the whale.’”
Then, she said, Putin invited her to what she described as his “private inner sanctum.”
Again, this shouldn’t shock anyone. Hillary loves to cozy up to dictators and anyone else willing to grant her money and power. She and her husband have sold out American interests for money and power. She dares to call Trump a traitor, but she is the only one who has committed sedition against this great land of ours!
No, bragging about how tight her and Putin are. I guess it's different because she is telling Putin what a good environmentalist he is.
Ahhh... I think I see the issue. You are projecting your own bias to misinterpret what she actually said.
She does not claim to be close to him, or part of his 'inner sanctum,' but rather she is showing how she used psychology by discussing common interests (Tiger conservation) with Putin to forward a diplomatic conversation with a world leader. She was invited into his 'inner sanctum,' which I imagine was a meeting room at the summit.
This is exactly what is expected of the Secretary of State- to discuss matters of state with world leaders.
One cas easily argue with Clinton's effectiveness as SoS (I'm certainly no fan of her record), but in this case, she did her job.
A friend recently voiced their doubts and fears about a Hillary Clinton presidency and it made me think.
In a few weeks’ time Americans will go to the polls. Over the last year I have posted harsh words about Donald Trump, and people have got on my case for it. “Oh Father, why are you being so political?” I find people only object to a priest being “political” when he is criticizing the candidate they like–but that’s another matter.
I have been critical of Trump’s character because character matters. I have attempted to be equally critical of Clinton’s character because I think she is equally (or more) duplicitous, scheming, manipulative and dishonest.
There is another distinction between the two candidates, however, that ought to be considered. Trump may be an egotist, but Hillary is an ideologue.
An egotist is out for himself and nobody else. He is likely to be a greedy, lustful, dishonest bully. An egotist can ride roughshod over others to get his own way and will always believe himself to be superior and to deserve everything he grabs for himself.
However, an egotist might just, maybe, if we’re lucky, realize what a stinker he is. He’s not in it for anything other than himself, and he might just wake up one day and realize that its empty, he’s empty and doing everything for himself is not getting him anywhere.
In other words, the egotist is reformable. The egotist might realize what an idiotic, immature person he is being and want to be better.
An ideologue, on the other hand, is irreformable. An ideologue is driven by a high minded belief that they are right, their philosophy is right, their political judgement is right and their cause is right. The ideologue will do anything to promote their cause and reach their objective, and they will do so believing all the time that they are doing good.
The egotist might just figure out that what he has done is bad. The ideologue never will.
Secular ideologues believe in a brave new world. They believe in making the world a better place. They really do, and they really believe that their economic philosophies, their political plans and their Machiavellian manipulations are the way to make the world a better place.
Secular ideologues are also utilitarians. They believe that works is good and what does not work is bad. If abortion reduces the number of poor people or black people or Hispanic people, then abortion is good because it helps to eliminate poverty. If euthanasia helps reduce the number of infirm, expensive and helpless old people, and getting rid of them helps the economy, then euthanasia is good.
If supporting same sex marriage wins votes and brings in political donations, then supporting same sex marriage is good because the great plan to “fundamentally change America” must move on and the great plan needs money.
If “equality for all” is an ideological dream then anyone who seems to stand in the way must be eliminated.
Anyone who has picked up on my thoughts over the last year will know that I think Trump is a bad man and will be a bad president, but at least he might one day realize he is a bad person.
Hillary Clinton will never come to that realization about herself.
So I guess people will have to choose: the Ideologue or the Egotist.
Late last week Wikileaks released a number of Wall Street speech transcripts belonging to Hillary Clinton, speeches she repeatedly refused to release on her own. Not only do the transcripts reveal the former Secretary of State taking private positions different than those she took publicly on a number of issues, but also exposing national security secrets during her remarks.
During one of her speeches to a group of Canadian businessmen, Clinton talked about secret details of the Osama bin Laden raid. The CIA has not yet issued comment about whether she was approved to do so.
From the transcript:
The amount of work that was required to get a strong-enough basis of information on which to plan took more than a decade .?.?. and then all of a sudden putting this matrix together and saying, This guy used to protect bin Laden — he has just made a phone call. He said this in the phone call. We need to figure out where he is. Then we need to follow him.
And that is how we found this compound in Abbottaba.
It is important to point out Navy SEAL Mark Owen, who was part of SEAL Team Six which raided the bin Laden compound, discussed classified details in his book No Easy Day without prior approval. The book quickly became a New York Times Best Seller when it was released. The Pentagon and CIA pulled the book from stores, launched an investigation of Owen and fellow SEALs he communicated with about the book and he is being forced to turn over all of the profits to the Defense Department.
If Clinton was unauthorized to share the information she did about the raid, there's no doubt she won't face the same consequences.
At this point with the Clintons and the DNC controlling the MSM and such I pretty much DON'T believe ANY of the pro Clinton stuff or the Anti-Trump stuff. I really am done with the MSM lies and propaganda.
Report!
Top