I'm scared for real. Trump is a true psychotic. He will cause huge war by accident. Clinton will perpetuate low-intensity wars on purpose.
Here's the view of someone who knows something about cash and has experience reading financial reports: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Clinton Cash Author Peter Schweizer's Long History Of Errors, Retractions, And Questionable Sourcing <a href="https://t.co/h1cOI00Gno">https://t.co/h1cOI00Gno</a></p>— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) <a href="https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/758024577645703169">July 26, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">1) Lots of people concerned how much money the Clinton's have made. More interesting to me they have paid 43mm IN TAXES since 2007</p>— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) <a href="https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/758061106547916800">July 26, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2) I'd bet the 43mm in TAXES the Clinton's paid is not only more taxes than <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump">@realDonaldTrump</a> has paid. I'd bet they made more too</p>— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) <a href="https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/758061537873408000">July 26, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">3) it's not a tough argument looking at their taxes and fec filings that the Clinton's are much smarter business people and negotiators</p>— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) <a href="https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/758062012630900736">July 26, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">4) I get offers almost daily (at same $ as clintons) to give speeches Organizations want knowledge and insight. It's a great business</p>— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) <a href="https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/758062820831338500">July 26, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">5) maybe <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump">@realDonaldTrump</a> didn't release his taxes become <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton">@HillaryClinton</a> paid more in taxes than <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump">@realDonaldTrump</a> made in income ?</p>— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) <a href="https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/758063325099925505">July 26, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">6) here is a link for more details <a href="https://t.co/LEjkcKrp8A">https://t.co/LEjkcKrp8A</a></p>— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) <a href="https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/758063867968655360">July 26, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
those organizations aren't paying for knowledge and insight it's pay to play influence money laundered through a speaking fee
Aside from the tweet at the top, none of this has to do with the subject matter of Clinton's overwhelming corruption. If you want to hammer Trump, be my guest. He deserves it. But its off topic here. Meanwhile, using Media Matters as a source to attack the messenger (again)? One problem with that. The source isn't Peter Schweizer. The Source(s) are left leaning media sources like the NYT, WaPo, etc, etc.
Julian Assange: "Any DNC staffer could be the leaker... Like the one killed last week" -27-Year-Old DNC Staffer Seth Rich Shot Dead -Worked as voter expansion data director -"There had been a struggle. His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything" -Nothing stolen from him. http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/25/ju...en-the-leaker/ http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...386316391.html Honestly seems way too coincidental that a guy in charge of data with the DNC was murdered when you consider the leaks just coming out. I already had posted this in another thread but it relates to Clinton's corruption so I thought i'd post it here.
WTF is this bull****? So . . . either Assange knows who the leaker is, or he doesn't know. If he doesn't know, then he should STFU. If he does know, then he probably shouldn't be pulling this unfortunate murder victim into his rhetorical game. If he does know who the leaker is, he's just talking **** right now.
Not really a Trumper, but think about this for a minute. Not caring how bad your candidate actually is? That is a pretty scary thought, especially when one very valid option is not voting at all, and another is voting third party. I don't really see what Trump has said he would do that even comes close. Build a wall? Not even close. Implement stronger immigration procedures? That actually makes sense, doesn't it? Improve law and order? That's good, although he didn't really say anything about what he'd actually do. Take a hard look at our trade deals and renegotiate those not in our favor? That's...scary? How? I don't see anything in this that even begins to compare with lying under oath, lying about events of national security, as the official voice of the United States, and all these corruption instances. Not even close. I think if you wrote all these things down on paper, and wrote Trump's policies down on paper, which side to choose from that would be glaringly obvious. The reaction to Trump is more of a visceral one, to things he's said, not really so much about things he'd actually do or policies he has or would have. A much stronger case, as all these reports show, is that the national emergency is just as likely trying to avoid a Clinton presidency. One can postulate what bad things Trump might do. We already know what bad things Hillary has been doing, and will therefore continue to do. First part is fair enough, but have to ask...don't all these reports cause extreme concern precisely for any sane person? What exactly wouldn't Hillary do for power or money, given these reports? The answer seems to be...nothing. That should scare the heck out of any sane person.
this lady isn't buying her bull****. she needs a podium to speak this truth!!! <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/77LTh9QIhxw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
That lady and I probably woudn't see eye to eye on priorities except for one thing.... FIRST PRIORITY. Clean house on both parties.
Amen! Someone tried but then Clinton hired her straight away. You can't make this stuff up. Both sides, they're loyal to each other not us.
Try again weaksauce. Donald Trump inaccurately suggests Clinton got paid to approve Russia uranium deal http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/ By Linda Qiu on Thursday, June 30th, 2016 at 2:21 p.m. In a major speech last week, the presumptive Republican nominee recited a number of claims from Clinton Cash, a 2015 bestselling investigation into donations to the Clinton Foundation. Among them: "Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation — $145 million dollars." We wanted to vet this charge of Clinton engaging in pay-to-play politics. Trump’s claim is a reductive version of his source material’s findings and runs into several problems. First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal. Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it. Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state. The bottom line: While the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there’s simply no proof of any quid pro quo. Our ruling Trump said, "Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation." There’s a grain of truth in this claim. Clinton’s State Department was one of nine government agencies to approve Russia’s acquisition of a company with U.S. uranium assets. Nine people related the company at some point in time donated to the Clinton Foundation, but we only found evidence that one did so "while" the Russian deal was occurring. The bulk of the $145 million in donations came two years before the deal. Trump is certainly within his right to question the indisputable links between Clinton Foundation donors and their ties to Uranium One, but Trump’s charge exaggerates the links. More importantly, his suggestion of a quid pro quo is unsubstantiated, as Schweizer the author of Clinton Cash himself has admitted. On the most basic level, Trump’s timeline is off. Most of the donations occurred before Clinton was named secretary of state. We rate Trump’s claim Mostly False.
Right, the New York Times has a very conservative reputation. WEAKSUAZCES AGAIN1! So you disagree that NINE DIFFERENT agencies signed off on the deal. Do you have any evidence of that or is "Come on" sufficient proof? Listen to yourself dude. You've lost it. I'm just going to put you on ignore now. I've got better things to do.
I just read all the links except for the wapo paywall. First off, **** Breitbart for its parsing. At least my AdBlock removed their fake minted gold plated coins, boner ads and other old white man ailments. The Stepanoupolus interview is pretty interesting. Even though he was a hired gun for the Clintons, he did ask questions that Schweizer could not answer. The Russia deals is troubling in all aspects, but she was only one of nine votes to accept it. Plus it took the backing of the Canadian government to approve the sale. Realistically though, Canucks are more like Texans when it comes to raping their land. There's just too much of it. It's just that a Canadian becomes more "enlightened" when they live in a big city. Schweizer's point about the one veto deadlock is fair conjecture as well as dangling it as carrot for reStart talks. But that's certainly not reasonable cause for an investigation, especially after an independent panel looked into these conflict of interests and like Schweizer, couldn't find anything incriminating. Having Russia control 1/5 of our uranium supply is unsettling until you realize most of our nuclear power comes from retired weapons core from Russia. The long game is much hazier though. Leftover cores from Russian warhead stockpiles are beginning to run out and this could cause a supply gap in processed uranium. I personally would rather research into nuclear that either efficiently reprocesses existing material rather than digging more up or look into something like Thorium that doesn't hold the potential for weapons grade "waste byproducts". Overall, this is just too much grease to gloss over. Like Schweizer, those "MSM" outlets found a compelling chain of events, but no smoking gun other than cases of "he said, she saids". ****ing Bubba for whatever reasons has been wheeling and dealing to enhance his legacy when he has no reasonable justification in doing it. The Clinton Foundation, at it's most rosiest, is a political emulation of the Gates Foundation, except without the science or discipline of executing their goals. Besides if Gates wants to burn away a hundred million or two to break addictions to hot wings*, it's his ****ing money. Clintons OTOH, broke 2 different agreements with the Obama WH that were designed to remove or expose conflict of interests. Like all other fake...uhhh rich elite philanthropies, they burned up money faster than they could take in. They were hurting for that cash because in 08 the recession hit and Hillary was tapping in that same donor pool for her campaign. Also surprising was the idea that Bill was the deciding factor in Hillary taking up the SoS position. I guess if she hadn't, they'd both be double downing on the talk circuits racking up that $250 million dollar endowment for their baby. If Chelsea runs for office, I'm gonna ****ing puke on the first person I see with a shirt or button of her mug. *I don't know what cause Bubba really directed when his foundation picked up the fight against "childhood obesity"
Being one of several (and the top US diplomat) making a horribly bad decision doesn't mean Hillary gets to say its no big deal. And neither do you.
You do realize that the Clinton Foundation has nothing to do with the Clinton Campaign right? The funds cannot be transferred or used in any way - the foundation is a non-profit charity who's finances are completely separate. There's enough stuff to criticize Clinton without having to completely make up total nonsense - its stuff like this that makes the right look so absurd and ridiculous. If you don't know the very basics of non-profits or campaign finance, why on earth would anyone look at your criticisms seriously?
