Trump Is Out Of Line, Again

JosephsDreams · Aug 23, 2016

[video=youtube;dMJUWqbJ3Jg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMJUWqbJ3Jg[/video]

Sirk · Aug 23, 2016

Utah said:

While ironically placing a stake in their self perceived high ground. The worst thing about liberals is their arrogance. They like to put theirs noses in the air. They think of themselves as above others...esp conservatives.

Utah · Aug 23, 2016

Sirk said:

One day Jesus will humble them beyond their wildest imagination and realization, and we will bear witness to it all.

Mitspa · Aug 23, 2016

JosephsDreams said:

One thing about Trump, you will never hear him making lame and desperate excuses like Hill-a-beans.
------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton's pathetic ‘Colin Powell made me do it’ defense

By Rich Lowry

August 22, 2016 | 8:25pm

The influence that Colin Powell has over Hillary Clinton is something to behold.
His word is her command. When he tells her to break the law and endanger the nation’s secrets, she doesn’t hesitate. She salutes smartly and does as she is told.
Clinton has been desperate for the moral cover of Colin Powell for her e-mail arrangement since the scandal first broke last year. Now we’ve learned that Clinton told the FBI that Powell advised her to use private e-mail as secretary of state at a dinner in 2009. This escalates Clinton’s e-mail defense from, “Hey, Colin Powell did it, too,” all the way to, “Colin Powell made me do it.”
The Powell defense has given Clinton shills something to say on TV, but doesn’t make much sense.
While the former general used a private e-mail as secretary of state, it was at a time when the department didn’t have a robust e-mail system of its own. And he obviously didn’t set up his own private server.
After Powell left State, the department’s rules steadily got stricter about using official e-mail for State Department business and preserving e-mail records — and Clinton blew through them all.
On the advice, we are supposed to believe, of none other than Colin Powell, the Professor Moriarty of Clinton’s illicit e-mail practices.
The New York Times reported last week that at a dinner party hosted by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and that included other former secretaries of state, Albright asked Clinton’s predecessors what counsel they would give her. Allegedly, Powell didn’t advise Clinton (channeling Winston Churchill) that “diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions,” or (channelling Will Durant) that “to say nothing, especially when speaking, is half the art of diplomacy,” or even to avoid a land war in Asia.
He told her to use private e-mail.
Powell now says that’s not how he remembers it. If Clinton really wanted someone’s permission to use private e-mail, she could have asked the State Department, which she never did. In a new book, the left-wing journalist Joe Conason writes that Clinton had already decided to use private e-mail months before the Albright dinner.
Of course she had, and for her own reasons. She wanted to hide as much of her business as possible from journalists and congressional committees seeking information on how she operated. Given the gross intermingling of State Department and Clinton Foundation business, this was only prudent.
If Hillary had her way, no one would know that Clinton Foundation honcho Doug Band tried to get donor Gilbert Chagoury a meeting with the recent ambassador to Lebanon, and Hillary aide Huma Abedin (who, amazingly, held positions at both the State Department and the foundation) was extremely solicitous.
No one would know that, in the latest revelation, when Band wanted the crown prince of Bahrain to see Hillary, Abedin coordinated with him on trying to set up the meeting.
No wonder that Colin Powell finds Hillary’s effort to enlist him as one of the justifications for her private server so galling. Over the weekend, Powell told a reporter, “her people have been trying to pin it on me.”
Referring to a description of his e-mail practices he sent to her (at her request), Powell said, “The truth is, she was using [her private server] for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did.”
No one forced Hillary to use her private e-mail for State Department business in a manner so flagrantly against the rules that in any other circumstance (i.e., if she weren’t the Democratic nominee for president), she would be vulnerable to sanction and prosecution.
And no one forced her and her husband to run their foundation as a vast pay-to-play scheme whose inner workings must be shielded from public view. That’s her responsibility and no one else’s — certainly not Colin Powell’s.

I heard Powell is ready to support Trump and make a commercial about how big a liar Hillary is.

Voldemort · Aug 23, 2016

Mitspa said:

Powell lost even more credibility with me when he backed Barack Obama. He could endorse Bernie Sanders at this point and I wouldn't see it as a net positive or negative.

KimPetras · Aug 23, 2016

Voldemort said:

"Colon" Powell stinks. He's a political sellout. I hope he speaks the truth about Hillary. It still won't make me like him after he was Obama's lap dog in his 2 terms. Powell is attracted to slime... Bush's SoS, Obama's lapdog... so it won't be surprising if he cozies up to Trump.

Mitspa · Aug 23, 2016

Powell would be huge voice for Trump ..and could really hurt Hillary

peacenik · Aug 23, 2016

Mitspa said:

Same nonsense you wrote before.

The taxpayers paid $40 million for the crimes committed by the cops. Learn to post the truth as required in the Bible.

JosephsDreams · Aug 23, 2016

Serial killer Gary Ridgway cost the United States $816 million

Crime doesn't pay, supposedly. But it does costsociety something. The question is how much.

Researchers at Iowa State University recently attempted to run the numbers. They wanted to include not just the direct costs—the damaged property and lost careers and prison upkeep and lawyer fees—but also the broader and more intangible societal costs, such as more frequent police patrols, more complicated alarm systems, and more expensive life-insurance plans. If we knew how much a crime costs society, their reasoning went, maybe we could better decide how much money to spend trying to stop it.

[COLOR=#9B9B9B !important]

They found that each burglary in the United States—a car break-in, for example—costs $41,288. For armed robberies the cost increases eightfold, to $335,733. Every aggravated assault costs $145,379. Each rape costs $448,532.
[/COLOR]
Then there is murder. The researchers, led by sociologist Matt DeLisi, put the price tag at a whopping $17,252,656. That means in 2009, according to the FBI, murder cost the United States almost $263 billion—nearly as much the federal government annually spends on Medicaid.

The estimated murder cost is transferable, DeLisi says: Any murder, anywhere in the country, costs society somewhere on the order of $17 million. That means the worst offender in the Iowa State study, convicted of nine killings, imposed a $153 million cost on society. The 48 convicted murders of Gary Ridgway, perhaps the most prolific American murderer currently in prison, cost the country $816 million. (He apparently committed dozens more.)

DeLisi and his colleagues' estimate is only the biggest and the latest to emerge from universities and research centers. Criminologists, sociologists, and economists have been helping the government quantify the costs of crime and the benefits of punishment for at least a decade. It's because prison has become so very expensive for taxpayers. More than one in 100 American adults is behind bars, by far the highest incarceration rate in the world. The federal, state, and local governments spend more than $50 billion a year on jails and prisons, according to the Pew Economic Mobility Project. All of that spending has created a thirst for data and a better understanding of where, when it comes to violent crime, there can be thrift.

The grandfather of violent-crime cost estimates is Mark Cohen, formerly a professor of law and business at Vanderbilt University and currently a researcher at Resources for the Future, a think tank on environmental issues. In the mid-1980s, the U.S. Sentencing Commission hired Cohen to help it come up with more consistent and effective sentencing policies.

But when Cohen looked for cost-benefit studies on crime prevention and punishment, he found almost none. And the ones he did find seemed terribly flawed. One study, for instance, determined an early-release program to be cost-effective—but only because it estimated the cost of a recidivist criminal raping a victim at just $300. "The researchers were just looking at medical costs," Cohen says. "We had no idea how much [crime] was costing society."

So he set off to find out, and in 1998 wrote the landmark paper in the field. "The Monetary Value of Saving a High-Risk Youth" estimated that preventing a young offender from going into a life of crime might save society $1.7 million to $2.3 million—encouraging states and local governments to spend more on prevention programs for violent children and teens. Since then, he has calculated estimates for dozens of scenarios, including estimates on the cost of murder and other violent crimes.

Cohen's innovation—used in DeLisi's estimate—was to borrow the technique of "willingness to pay" estimates from other fields to help calculate the costs of murder and other crimes more broadly. Economists had developed the methodology to gauge the price of invaluable, intangible goods for which a market would never exist—the value of a forest to residents of a nearby town, for example. To put a number on it, researchers would ask residents how much they would pay to preserve the forest or prevent its development. The researchers would then factor these answers into their estimate of the forest's monetary value.

To put a price on murder, researchers perform a poll. They ask a nationally representative sample of people how much they would pay to reduce the incidence of homicide in their community by 10 percent. Then they can extrapolate how much society writ large would offer to stop a single murder.

The answer? For homicide and other forms of violent crime, Americans are willing to pay a whole lot. In DeLisi's study it is not the "victim costs, criminal justice system costs, lost productivity estimates for both the victim and the criminal" that make up the bulk of the $17 million cost, though all of those are included. It's the "estimates on the public's resulting willingness to pay to prevent future violence." That accounts for a bit more than $12 million per murder.

"That number sounds like a lot, but people radically change their behavior in response to violent crime," DeLisi says. "Think about the D.C. sniper case, for instance. When that happened, two people on a rampage changed the behavior of millions of people. It was not just the cost of the state spending thousands of dollars on extra patrols and traffic stops, and the cost of the 10 left dead."

Still, the $17 million figure sounds high to Cohen. Why? Traditionally, willingness to pay is considered one yardstick for determining the cost of murder—an alternative and more comprehensive measure than the calculate-all-the-costs-and-add-them-up method. Adding them together is counting twice, he says. Cohen and other researchers generally estimate the price of murder at $10 million to $12 million—just the "willingness to pay" number.

peacenik · Aug 23, 2016

back on topic:

JosephsDreams · Aug 23, 2016

Criminals cost society. Killers belong in jail for ore then societal reasons. Criminals cost us more then the police ever will.

I checked around and have heard that Hillary and other related groups are paying people to disrupt Trumps speeches, to cause chaos with demonstrations, and to place trolls on sites such as these to cause division.
They get paid in many different ways, but bottom line is they are paid for their unsavory acts.

JosephsDreams · Aug 23, 2016

d President Trump be that bad?

The establishment would have you thinking that.
Marco Rubio repeated the same platitudes and half-truths several times following his embarrassing performance on Super Tuesday—Trump is a racist, Trump is not a conservative, Trump isn’t electable, etc. The reaction? Everyone laughed.
Nothing changed at the Thursday night debate. Many of the attacks leveled at Trump seemed to be made up by a junior high school focus group. Those that actually had substance—and there were a few great barbs by both the candidates and the moderators—questioned not only Trump’s honesty and integrity, but also his “conservative credentials.”
Trump, the establishment says (along with the anti-Trump crowd), is all image and no substance, a “reality TV star” who doesn’t understand the Constitution or American government. His “debate” performance seemed to solidify this critique. After all, Trump does not give concrete answers to policy questions and maybe spends too much time on the size of his hands.
But let us consider five reasons why the establishment and the anti-Trump crowd may be wrong about a President Trump:1.) “I’ll look into it”: A President Trump who will “look into” a particular situation is not the same as a president who will unconstitutionally legislate from the Oval Office. We have seen that Trump has good advisors, particularly Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a man whom no one would confuse with a weak-kneed liberal. Sessions has been the most vocal opponent of illegal immigration in the Senate. Does anyone think that his influence would lead to a Gang of Eight scenario and compromise from President Trump? “Looking into it” might produce a push for even more stringent immigration policies from Congress. If Trump says he will support it, Congress would be foolish not to act.
2.) Trump won’t start WWIII: Among the remaining candidates (including the Democrats), Trump has been the most vocal opponent of military adventurism. He has suggested he will take the fight to ISIS, but Trump has been insistent in his belief that the Iraq war was a mistake, that American blood has been shed in a misguided attempt to restructure the Middle East, and that a real conservative American foreign policy would place American interests first, ahead of those of foreign nations. Trump’s foreign policy would be closest to the founding generation’s desire for peaceful neutrality. As a businessman, Trump understands that peace produces prosperity, both for the American federal republic and the people who reside here.
3.) We may get Judge Napolitano: No, not Janet Napolitano, but Judge Andrew Napolitano for the Supreme Court. Critics have charged that Trump would likely appoint a rabid leftist for the bench, perhaps his sister, but in a recent interview, Trump advisor Roger Stone hinted that Andrew Napolitano might be Trump’s first choice to take Antonin Scalia’s seat on the bench. It would make sense. Napolitano has a high profile in the media and is rock solid on civil liberties. And though he appears regularly on Fox News, he is not an establishment favorite, nor would he be an establishment choice. It would be as unconventional as a Trump presidency. That is good for America. Who needs another Harvard lawyer on the Supreme Court bench? We have a clear example of how a Harvard Law grad has screwed up America. He currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Hillary Clinton thought he would make a good Supreme Court justice.
4.) Trump brings back the Reagan coalition: It wasn’t that long ago that people used to salivate over the 1980s Reagan coalition of blue-collar Democrats and white-collar Republicans. Trump has that kind of appeal. This is why his message resonates across the political spectrum and why many Americans are supporting him. If the Republican Party is serious about a “big tent” philosophy, Trump is their guy. Most conservatives vote Republican because they lack real alternatives. It is better, they think, to hold their nose and pull the lever for Mitt Romney than vote for Barack Obama. This hasn’t worked, and American knows it. Trump represents real America, what Glenn Beck recently derided as the “bubba effect,” and real America is ready to kick the establishment to the curb. They want jobs, security, and someone who isn’t afraid to stand up to the cultural Marxism of the establishment, both Left and Right. Reagan would agree. He nailed the “bubba” vote as well. That worked out ok.
5.) Trump cleans up corruption: Trump has made clear that he intends to prosecute Hillary Clinton if elected president. That is a good start, and candidate Hillary doesn’t stand a chance against the verbal onslaught Trump would bring to a Trump v. Clinton campaign. She has never encountered someone like Trump as a candidate. He is not awe struck by the Clinton machine. But more than that, Trump prides himself on efficiency. Grover Cleveland, the last good Democrat elected to the executive office, rode a wave of anti-corruption into the executive mansion and proceeded to remove as much of the cancer from Washington as possible. It would not be hard to image a similar great purge of establishment corruption from D.C. should Trump be elected. It would be like shining lights on cockroaches. Clinton would be the first target, but other vestiges of Washington corruption would be getting a Trump scrubbing. Who wouldn’t want that?
At the end of the day, Americans should ask, “Do we want a chief legislator, a dictator in chief who already has an agenda and like Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Obama etc., will force Congress into submission?” We have already seen how that screwed up America. Think the New Deal, Fair Deal, and the Great Society. Making America great again will take a different kind of leadership, one in which “I’ll look into it” is preferable to “I’ll act even if it’s unconstitutional.

JosephsDreams · Aug 23, 2016

For example, labor unions made contributions of millions to the Clinton’s foundation. Now, this is odd because unions generally only contribute tocampaigns not charities. However campaign contributions can only be used forcampaign expenses. The money given to the foundation can be used for anything…. like cash payments to the Clintons as “director’s salaries.”

Inside the Clinton donor network. Two Clintons. 41 years. $3 billion(washingtonpost.com)
The Clinton Foundation Scam Exposed
So, what?

Colombian ‘investment firm’ deletes online information after it’s revealed to be owned by the Clinton family
ExxonMobil was sponsoring the Clinton Foundation with up to 5 million dollars a year–which is suspicious in itself. When ExxonMobil cut off its sponsorship and Clinton found a pretense to call for an investigation of the company. (freebeacon.com)

.
.
Curious how Hillary and Bill Clinton amassed a net worth of over $100 million?

Bestselling author, Peter Schweizer, in his 2015 book,Clinton Cash: TheUntold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, documents of how Hillary and Bill work the Clinton Foundation scam, including:

How Secretary of State Clinton was involved in allowing the transfer of nearly 50 percent of US domesticuranium output to the Russian government, benefiting large donors to the Clinton Foundation;

How multimillion-dollar contracts forHaiti disaster relief were awarded to donors and friends of Hillary and Bill;

While Hillary was Secretary of State, Bill received large payments for speeches from foreign businesses and governments with matters pending before the State Department;

How the Clintons’ joint visit to Colombia, with a Canadian billionaire who was a top Clinton Foundation donor, was followed by the grant of lucrativelogging rights to the Canadian billionaire;

How Bill received $2 million for speeches from the largest shareholder in the Keystone Pipeline project, even as Hillary played a role in approving it.

.

Pay to play.

Hillary Clinton’s Culture Of CorruptionClinton Foundation Refuses to Release Names of 1,076 Secret Foreign Donors.

Hillary’s Pledge of Allegiance to Campaign Donors from Israel

Clintons Earned Over $3.5 Million in Paid Addresses to Pro-Israel Organizations

Hillary Clinton gave a speech in Washington at the Saban Forum of Brookings 12/6/2015. Speaking of Netanyahu, Clinton was asked by Saban what she would do on her first day in office and she said dutifully:

On the first day I would extend an invitation to the Israeli prime minister to come to the United States hopefully within the first month, certainly as soon as it could be arranged to do exactly what I briefly outlined. To work toward very much strengthening and intensifying our relationship on military matters, on terrorism and on everything else that we can do more to cooperate on that will send a strong message to our own peoples as well as the rest of the world. So that is on my list for the first day. (Source)

In her November 2015 article titled “How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel — and Benjamin Netanyahu,” published in the Jewish newspaper Forward, Clinton vowed to continue to oppose BDS. . . . “As secretary of state, I requested more assistance for Israel every year,” she boasted.

Israel first! <kiss, kiss>

.
Like Wall Street’s Corruption? Vote Hillary!

Since 2013 Hillary Clinton Has Been Paid $21.7 Million by Wall Street for Only 92 Short “Speeches”

Speeches are a convenient pretense for writing someone a very big check. Yeah, uh huh, half a mil is a fair payment for a 20 minute speech, nudge nudge wink wink . . .

Pay to Play? Hillary Got Paid More than Most Americans Make in a Lifetime for Speeches at Wall Street Banks

Love Fest: Lloyd Blankfein, chairman & CEO of Goldman Sachs, and Hillary Clinton during the 2014 Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting.

Why Wall Street Loves Hillary

Clinton rakes in Wall Street cash (CNBC.com)
Want more Wall Street corruption? Vote Hillary!

Hillary Vows to Protect Americans From the 1%, While Being Funded by the 1% – Top donors include, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley

Hillary takes millions from Wall Street while pretending to speak for ordinary working people[SUP]1[/SUP] [SUP]2[/SUP] [SUP]3[/SUP] [SUP]4[/SUP] [SUP]5[/SUP] [SUP]6[/SUP] [SUP]7[/SUP] [SUP]8[/SUP] [SUP]9[/SUP] [SUP]10[/SUP] [SUP]11[/SUP]

Hillary Fights to Keep Wall Street Speeches Secret

I’ll get you.

The campaign of Hillary Clinton is pushing the panic button over the prospective release of secret transcripts of high-dollar speeches she made to Goldman Sachs that threaten to expose portray her as a two-faced un-progressive Wall Street elitist who is out of touch with the common people. (Source)Which, of course, she is . . .

No Reporters Allowed At Hillary’s Wall Street Speeches

Hillary Clinton, Wall Street’s Puppet, Laughs When Asked if She Will Release Transcripts of Her Goldman Sachs Speeches

Goldman Sachs Is a Top Donor to Hillary Clinton

In 2000 the Clinton’s claimed they were “dead broke.” Yet, the Clinton’s now have a net worth of over $100 million. How did the Clinton’s amass so much money?

Wall Street was protected from prosecutions relating to their role in the 2008 financial crisis, despite overwhelming evidence

.

peacenik · Aug 23, 2016

JosephsDreams said:

Re cost to society, white collar crimes cost society far more than street crimes. But if you were the victim of a cop's cri,inal actions you would not be so forgiving.

I have also heard that Trump's fan boys have disrupted other meetings. Recently, a Muslim who was pro Trump was kicked out of one of his meeting because they mistook him for a terrorist! Imagine the impact that will have on his own campaign.

JosephsDreams · Aug 23, 2016

All the bad things Hillary Clinton has done. Numbers 21 to 50.

21. She’s a conservative “mousewife” who refused to break up her own family.
22. She’s in favor of single moms.
23. She refused to be a single mom.
24. When she was first lady of Arkansas, she pandered to conservative voters by dyeing her hair.
25. Before that, she totally insulted them by refusing to.
26. She’s a frump.
27. She spends too much money on designer dresses.
28. She has “cankles.”
29. She has a grating voice.
30. She yells into the microphone.
31. She spent 18 years in Arkansas and some of the people she knew turned out to be crazy rednecks and crooks.
32. She’s in the pay of the mafia.
33. She’s in the pay of the Chinese government.
34. She’s in the pay of the Wall Street banks.
35. In order to suppress the billing records from her time at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, she cleverly packed them up and took them to the White House rather than shredding them.
36. When she handed over the documents to public officials, they couldn’t find any evidence she’d committed any crimes, so she must have doctored them.
37. Congress spent tens of millions of dollars and six years investigating her investment in the Whitewater real-estate project, and, while they didn’t actually find anything, they wouldn’t have spent all that money if there weren’t something there.
38. By cleverly hiding all evidence of her crimes in the Whitewater affair, she caused Congress to waste all that taxpayers’ money.
39. When she ran for senator of New York, she was still a fan of the Chicago Cubs.
40. She once said the Clintons were thinking of adopting a child, and they didn’t follow through.
41. She was photographed holding her hand near her mouth during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
42. She’s got brain damage.
43. She’s old.
44. She’s really ambitious and calculating, unlike all the other people running for president.
45. She secretly supported Palestinian terrorists, Puerto Rican terrorists and Guatemalan terrorists.
46. She secretly supported a group that wants to give Maine back to the Indians.
47. She’s a secret follower of “radical prophet” Saul Alinsky.
48. She did her law degree at Yale, and it’s a well-known “socialist finishing school.”
49. When she was young, she did things to build up her résumé rather than just for their own good.
50. When Bill was president, she “allowed” him to keep people waiting

peacenik · Aug 23, 2016

^ more anti Hillary lies

JosephsDreams · Aug 23, 2016

This is not so much a political appointment with monetary benefits that she is lusting after, it is more of a business position that happens to also have some political clout.
I can only imagine how she and Bill will use the position of president to further line their pockets.
And she has the audacity to criticize Trump because he is a business man.

Wake up America !!!

Here’s how much Hillary Clinton was paid for her 2013-2015 speeches:

4/18/2013, Morgan Stanley, Washington, DC: $225,000

4/24/2013, Deutsche Bank, Washington, DC: $225,000

4/24/2013, National Multi Housing Council, Dallas, Texas: $225,000

4/30/2013, Fidelity Investments, Naples, Fla.: $225,000

5/8/2013, Gap Inc., San Francisco, Calif.: $225,000

5/14/2013, Apollo Management Holdings LP, New York, NY: $225,000

5/16/2013, Itau BBA USA Securities, New York, NY: $225,000

5/21/2013, Vexizon Communications Inc., Washington, DC: $225,000

5/29/2013, Sanford C. Bernstein and Co. LLC, New York, NY: $225,000

6/4/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group, Palmetto Bluffs, SC: $225,000

6/6/2013, Spencer Stuart, New York, NY: $225,000

6/16/2013, Society for Human Resource Management, Chicago, Ill.:$285,000

6/17/2013, Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids, Mich.:$225,000

6/20/2013, Boston Consulting Group Inc., Boston, Mass.: $225,000

6/20/2013, Let’s Talk Entertainment Inc., Toronto, Canada: $250,000

6/24/2013, American Jewish University, Universal City, Calif.: $225,000

6/24/2013, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Company LP, Palos Verdes, Calif.:$225,000

7/11/2013, UBS Wealth Management, New York, NY: $225,000

8/7/2013, Global Business Travel Association, San Diego, Calif.:$225,000

8/12/2013, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Las Vegas, Nev.:$225,000

9/18/2013, American Society for Clinical Pathology, Chicago, Ill.:$225,000

9/19/2013, American Society of Travel Agents Inc., Miami, Fla.:$225,000

10/4/2013, Long Island Association, Long Island, NY: $225,000

10/15/2013, National Association of Convenience Stores, Atlanta, Ga.:$265,000

10/23/2013, SAP Global Marketing Inc., New York, NY: $225,000

10/24/2013, Accenture, New York, NY: $225,000

10/24/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group, New York, NY: $225,000

10/27/2013, Beth El Synagogue, Minneapolis, Minn.: $225,000

10/28/2013, Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, Chicago, Ill.:$400,000

10/29/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group, Tuscon, Ariz.: $225,000

11/4/2013, Mase Productions Inc., Orlando, Fla.: $225,000

11/4/2013, London Drugs Ltd., Mississauga, Canada: $225,000

11/6/2013, Beaumont Health System, Troy, Mich.: $305,000

11/7/2013, Golden Tree Asset Management, New York, NY: $275,000

11/9/2013, National Association of Realtors, San Francisco, Calif.: $225,000

11/13/2013, Mediacorp Canada Inc., Toronto, Canada: $225,000

11/13/2013, Bank of America, Bluffton, SC: $225,000

11/14/2013, CB Richard Ellis Inc., New York, NY: $250,000

11/18/2013, CIIE Group, Naples, Fla.: $225,000

11/18/2013, Press Ganey, Orlando, Fla.: $225,000

11/21/2013, U.S. Green Building Council, Philadelphia, Pa.: $225,000

01/06/2014, GE, Boca Raton, Fla.: $225,500

01/27/2014, National Automobile Dealers Association, New Orleans, La.:$325,500

01/27/2014, Premier Health Alliance, Miami, Fla.: $225,500

02/06/2014, Salesforce.com, Las Vegas, Nev.: $225,500

02/17/2014, Novo Nordisk A/S, Mexico City, Mexico: $125,000

02/26/2014, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, Orlando, Fla.:$225,500

02/27/2014, A&E Television Networks, New York, NY: $280,000

03/04/2014, Association of Corporate Counsel – Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif.:$225,500

03/05/2014, The Vancouver Board of Trade, Vancouver, Canada:$275,500

03/06/2014, tinePublic Inc., Calgary, Canada: $225,500

03/13/2014, Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Orlando, Fla.:$225,500

03/13/2014, Drug Chemical and Associated Technologies, New York, NY:$250,000

03/18/2014, Xerox Corporation, New York, NY: $225,000

03/18/2014, Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, Montreal, Canada:$275,000

03/24/2014, Academic Partnerships, Dallas, Texas: $225,500

04/08/2014, Market° Inc., San Francisco, Calif.: $225,500

04/08/2014, World Affairs Council, Portland, Ore.: $250,500

04/10/2014, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Inc., Las Vegas, Nev.:$225,500

04/10/2014, Lees Talk Entertainment, San Jose, Calif.: $265,000

04/11/2014, California Medical Association (via satellite), San Diego, Calif.: $100,000

05/06/2014, National Council for Behavioral Healthcare, Washington, DC:$225,500

06/02/2014, International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, Denver, Colo.:$225,500

06/02/2014, Lees Talk Entertainment, Denver, Colo.: $265,000

06/10/2014, United Fresh Produce Association, Chicago, Ill.: $225,000

06/16/2014, tinePublic Inc., Toronto, Canada: $150,000

06/18/2014, tinePublic Inc., Edmonton, Canada: $100,000

06/20/2014, Innovation Arts and Entertainment, Austin, Texas: $150,000

06/25/2014, Biotechnology Industry Organization, San Diego, Calif.:$335,000

06/25/2014, Innovation Arts and Entertainment, San Francisco, Calif.:$150,000

06/26/2014, GTCR, Chicago, Ill.: $280,000

07/22/2014, Knewton Inc., San Francisco, Calif.: $225,500

07/26/2014, Ameriprise, Boston, Mass.: $225,500

07/29/2014, Coming Inc., Coming, NY: $225,500

08/28/2014, Nexenta Systems Inc., San Francisco, Calif.: $300,000

08/28/2014, Cisco, Las Vegas, Nev.: $325,000

09/04/2014, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, Calif.:$225,500

09/15/2014, Caridovascular Research Foundation, Washington, DC:$275,000

10/02/2014, Commercial Real Estate Women Network, Miami Beach, Fla.:$225,500

10/06/2014, Canada 2020, Ottawa, Canada: $215,500

10/07/2014, Deutsche Bank AG, New York, NY: $280,000

10/08/2014, Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), Chicago, Ill.: $265,000

10/13/2014, Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, Colorado Springs, Colo.: $225,500

10/14/2014, Salesforce.com, San Francisco, Calif.: $225,500

10/14/2014, Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, Calif.: $335,000

12/04/2014, Massachusetts Conference for Women, Boston, Mass.:$205,500

01/21/2015, tinePublic Inc., Winnipeg, Canada: $262,000

01/21/2015, tinePublic Inc., Saskatoon, Canada: $262,500

01/22/2015, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Whistler, Canada:$150,000

02/24/2015, Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women, Santa Clara, Calif.: $225,500

03/11/2015, eBay Inc., San Jose, Calif.: $315,000

03/19/2015, American Camping Association, Atlantic City, NJ: $260,000

Total: $21,667,000
.
.

Ha! Got away with it too, didn’t I?

Hillary has been Wall Street’s puppet agent for many years: Remember way back in 1978, when Hillary claimed she was simply “lucky” to have such great Wall Street advisers, whenshe used insider information Hillary Clinton parlayed $1,000 into nearly $100,000 through highly speculative commodities trading–in just a few days. Hillary, overnight, was:Ms.“best cattle futures trader in the world” (more). Absolutely no quid pro quo involved. Right?
If you vote for Hillary, you are voting for someone who has been paid off to the tune of $153 million by powerful vested interests who have no concern whatsoever for your interests.(Source

peacenik · Aug 23, 2016

^ {repeat} ^

Are the forum right wingers going to object like they've done when convenient?

No??

Thought so.

JosephsDreams · Aug 23, 2016

[FONT=&quot][h=1]From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer[/h][FONT=&quot]More than half of the people outside the government with whom Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met were also donors to the Clinton Foundation.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Esam Al-Fetori / Brian Snyder / Gary Cameron / Jim Young / Reuters / Brennan Linsley / Susan Walsh / AP / razihusin / Shutterstock[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Zak Bickel / The Atlantic[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][h=2][/h][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=2][/h]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=2][/h]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]TEXT SIZE[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Subscribe to The Atlantic’s Politics & Policy Daily, a roundup of ideas and events in American politics.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here’s the case against the Clinton Foundation, in a nutshell: If Bill and Chelsea Clinton are leading a powerful private philanthropy while Hillary Clinton holds a high-ranking government post, it is guaranteed to create at least the appearance of donations to the foundation in return for access to the government.
Conscious of this danger, the Obama administration extracted an agreementfrom the foundation to disclose its donors, as a prerequisite for Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. That disclosure does not seem to have prevented potential conflicts of interest—but it does undergird two important stories Tuesday.
The Washington Post, using emails revealed as part of a lawsuit by the conservative accountability group Judicial Watch, traces the paths from foundation donors to State Department supplicants. Often, the requests seem to have come through Doug Band, a foundation official and close aide to Bill Clinton, and arrived with Huma Abedin, a close aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department. (At the end of her time at the State Department, Abedin received a special classification allowing her to also work for Teneo, Band’s consultancy.)
The requests highlighted by the Post run the gamut. Bono, a frequent Clinton Foundation presence, wanted help streaming U2 concerts to the International Space Station. (Neither Abedin nor Band any ideas.) A Los Angeles sports executive who gave $5 to $10 million to the foundation sought help getting a visa for a British soccer player with a criminal record. (“Makes me nervous to get involved but I’ll ask,” Abedin wrote to Band. “then dont,” he replied.) An activist who gave between $100,00 and $250,000 wanted to set up a meeting between Clinton and an executive at Peabody Coal. “Huma, I need your help now to intervene please,” she wrote. “We need this meeting with Secretary Clinton, who has been there now for nearly six months. This is, by the way, my first request.”
Others of those involved seem unusual. The crown prince of Bahrain, an American ally in the gulf, got a meeting, though he requested it both through official channels and through the Clinton Foundation side channel. Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace laureate whose Grameen Bank gave six figures, met with Clinton to discuss his persecution by the Bangladeshi government.
In total, the Associated Press calculates:

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money—either personally or through companies or groups—to the Clinton Foundation…. At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press.

As questions about the Clinton Foundation mount, the organization announced last week that it would not accept foreign or corporate donations if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. (On Monday, Donald Trump called for a special prosecutor to look into the foundation.) But these stories show why that measure probably should have been taken before Clinton became secretary of state, and why it’s insufficient if she’s president.

Even if every one of the meetings that Secretary Clinton had with foundation donors was a meeting she would have had anyway, the impression that one can pay to play means that there’s no tidy way to wall the two off. If the Clinton Foundation hadn’t existed and been taking these donations, no one would look askance at Secretary Clinton meeting with many of the principals. Barring corporate and foreign donors, while important, seems incomplete if Clinton is president, in charge of not only foreign but domestic policy. Does anyone believe wealthy executives can’t figure out how to give a personal donation and then try to leverage that for corporate aid? This is why there’s an increasing drumbeat for the Clintons to shut down the foundation entirely, or perhaps to mothball it. Any future findings that suggest pay-for-access will only magnify those calls—and hurt Clinton politically.
And not nearly all of Clinton’s State Department emails have been made public. On Monday, the Post reported that during the course of its recent investigation, the FBI found nearly 15,000 new and unreleased documents that Clinton did not turn over to the State Department. It’s not yet clear what’s in those emails, like how many are personal and how any are work-related and must be made public. In a court hearing on Monday, a federal judge deemed the State Department’s timeline for sorting them and determining that too slow, and demanded a faster plan.
There’s been a fresh development in the controversies covered here almost daily for the last week. On Friday, a federal judge ruled that Clinton would have to testify in writing about her email system (though in a victory for her she will not be deposed in person). Also last week, the FBI handed over documents from its investigation of the email system to Congress, as Republican members tried to cajole the Justice Department into charging Clinton with perjury. The week before that, another set of emails revealed by Judicial Watch showed Band and Abedin communicating about business that crossed the Clinton Foundation-State barrier.
[/FONT]

peacenik · Aug 24, 2016

It comes as no surprise that the continued attacks on Hillary stem from the fact that the Trump campaign is one devoid of any logic, any meaning, and any principle. Trump's candidacy is one of political and moral sterility which offers nothing in the way of constructivism. It is so utterly sterile, so meaningless, so futile, that many conservatives have abandoned the Republican party and have indicated they will sit out this election. In my many years of observing American politics, this is the first time I have ever witnessed anything like this.

The Trump campaign has caused dissension and instability among the normally entrenched solidity of the Republicans. If the angry, hate filled, and futile Trump campaign can so easily cause this type of breakdown among conservatives, just imagine how easily he will cause a similar dissolution among the entirety of the US socio-political system. You have only to read the continuously hate filled diatribes of his supporters in this forum to see for yourself what a menace Trump and his supporters are to this society.

Trump Is Out Of Line, Again

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Mitspa

Guest

Voldemort

Guest

KimPetras

Guest

Mitspa

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member