Clinton Foundation Witnesses Coming Forward In Pay-For-Play Investigation

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Aug 19, 2016 6:58 PM GMT
    Clinton Foundation Witnesses Coming Forward In Pay-For-Play Investigation
    "at least one Clinton Foundation insider is prepared to testify in a court of law against Hillary"

    http://miniplanet.us/clinton-foundation-witnesses-coming-forward-in-pay-for-play-investigation/
  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Aug 19, 2016 7:06 PM GMT
    Let's hope the witness does not get killed.
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4433

    Aug 19, 2016 7:24 PM GMT
    A couple of things... Every individual and every corporation who gives money to a campaign or in this case the Foundation expects that donation will enable them to be heard when they call. It would be another thing if the public good is violated as a result of that "hearing" so to repetitively whine about Pay-for-Play is both misleading as it suggests corruption that doesn't exist or an intentional smear.

    Secondly, the statement “This investigation, I would say, is hotter than ever,” Klein commented. Klein added that FBI Director James Comey may be seeking to “redeem himself” with a public corruption charge against Hillary after he failed to recommend indictment for her mishandling of classified information" sounds more like political grandstanding than something any serious public defender would say, especially in light of the FBI investigation that said only three THREE 3 EMAILS CONTAINED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. If you followed the investigation, the FBI also had to admit those three THREE 3 emails were improperly not marked at the header and close with the classified information insignia when they arrived at Hillary's desk before she dispatched them elsewhere. And the three THREE 3 emails actually only contained appointment dates to discuss a classified matter, which makes them classified.

    So this all sounds like a politician trying to bolster his own career with a high profile "investigation" rather than looking out for the good of his constituency.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2016 8:08 PM GMT
    metta saidClinton Foundation Witnesses Coming Forward In Pay-For-Play Investigation
    "at least one Clinton Foundation insider is prepared to testify in a court of law against Hillary"

    http://miniplanet.us/clinton-foundation-witnesses-coming-forward-in-pay-for-play-investigation/



    yup
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2016 9:06 PM GMT
    BigJess said
    Destinharbor saidA couple of things... Every individual and every corporation who gives money to a campaign or in this case the Foundation expects that donation will enable them to be heard when they call. It would be another thing if the public good is violated as a result of that "hearing" so to repetitively whine about Pay-for-Play is both misleading as it suggests corruption that doesn't exist or an intentional smear.

    Secondly, the statement “This investigation, I would say, is hotter than ever,” Klein commented. Klein added that FBI Director James Comey may be seeking to “redeem himself” with a public corruption charge against Hillary after he failed to recommend indictment for her mishandling of classified information" sounds more like political grandstanding than something any serious public defender would say, especially in light of the FBI investigation that said only three THREE 3 EMAILS CONTAINED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. If you followed the investigation, the FBI also had to admit those three THREE 3 emails were improperly not marked at the header and close with the classified information insignia when they arrived at Hillary's desk before she dispatched them elsewhere. And the three THREE 3 emails actually only contained appointment dates to discuss a classified matter, which makes them classified.

    So this all sounds like a politician trying to bolster his own career with a high profile "investigation" rather than looking out for the good of his constituency.


    You are either as big a liar as Hillary or you are hopelessly stupid. You write: "... only three THREE 3 EMAILS CONTAINED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION."

    That is not true.

    So what is it. Are you a liar or a dope. Or both.


    In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/06/hillary-clinton/fbi-findings-tear-holes-hillary-clintons-email-def/


    If you're going to call someone a liar or a dope or both, perhaps you ought not have left off the very next sentence from that very same paragraph you just quoted...

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/06/hillary-clinton/fbi-findings-tear-holes-hillary-clintons-email-def/In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2016 10:02 PM GMT
    It's always fascinating to compare a Democrat's post vis-à-vis a Republican's post. The former is usually thoughtful and grounded in fact and/or law (i.e., grounded in reality); the latter is usually hysterical/unmoored and illogical (i.e., grounded in illusion). Exhibits above. What is it that they say about followers and their" role models"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2016 10:44 PM GMT
    See Exhibit Z, supra.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2016 10:44 PM GMT
    DOMINUS saidIt's always fascinating to compare a Democrat's post vis-à-vis a Republican's post. The former is usually thoughtful and grounded in fact and/or law (i.e., grounded in reality); the latter is usually hysterical/unmoored and illogical (i.e., grounded in illusion). Exhibits above. What is it that they say about followers and their" role models"?


    As I'd quoted in this past, fun little thread http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4184549?forumpage=0
    http://psp.sagepub.com/content/41/2/250.shortIn five studies with more than 5,000 participants, we found that liberals think more analytically...than moderates and conservatives. Study 3 replicates this finding in the very different political culture of China, although it held only for people in more modernized urban centers. These results suggest that liberals and conservatives in the same country think as if they were from different cultures. Studies 4 to 5 show that briefly training people to think analytically causes them to form more liberal opinions...


    BigJess saidYou - whoever you are since you are a hiding coward - are as deceitful as the other moron. I did not mention "marked as classified" at all. The other moron stated there were only "three THREE 3" classified emails found. Not true.


    Do you actually buy your own bullshit or did you expect that we might?

    Let's look at what was deceitful here, shall we?

    Dustin threw out a number about which I don't know the source and did not comment upon. But you then deceivingly tried to counter that number with an over exaggerated number by purposely leaving off part of the paragraph you quoted which clarified the part you used to counter Dustin.

    He said 3. You showed 110 but you purposely hid that among those 110 your own source stated "Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status."

    The next paragraph if I remember right does say that the FBI thought Clinton should have known their nature even if not so marked. But the fact is, which you have herein attempted to be deceptive about, the fact is that they were not marked. I don't know if that would whittle down the 110 to 3 which might have been marked and don't give enough fuck to google. But the fact remains that even if Dustin was incorrect about the 3--which, again, I don't know, you, I do know, were being deceptive about the 110. And you are doubling down on being deceptive by calling me deceptive when I'd done no such thing but to show facts as they are.

    Your complaint that you didn't say "marked" is moot because that would be a factor in determining the severity of any breach.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2016 11:06 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    Do you actually buy your own bullshit or did you expect that we might?


    I'm taking bets on when he'll start bitching about Art_Deco.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    Aug 19, 2016 11:40 PM GMT
    BigJess said
    DOMINUS saidIt's always fascinating to compare a Democrat's post vis-à-vis a Republican's post. The former is usually thoughtful and grounded in fact and/or law (i.e., grounded in reality); the latter is usually hysterical/unmoored and illogical (i.e., grounded in illusion). Exhibits above. What is it that they say about followers and their" role models"?


    Are you kidding?

    Democrat Destinharbor said: "... only three THREE 3 EMAILS CONTAINED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION"

    Republican BIgJess said: "...In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information."

    Democrat theantijock said: "If you're going to call someone a liar or a dope or both, perhaps you ought not have left off the very next sentence from that very same paragraph you just quoted... Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.

    Republican BigJess said: "I did not mention "marked as classified" at all. The other moron stated there were only "three THREE 3" classified emails found. Not true."

    And the DEMOCRAT posts on here are "thoughtful and grounded in fact and/or law?" You've got a few wires crossed up there somewhere.

    Wrong bunk! The democrat posts on here are based on leftist propaganda from the corporate mainstream media. You donkey dorks haven't stated any facts, just your ultra leftist opinions. You cannot stand the absolute truth that the democrats are totally incompetent and extremely corrupt. You cannot stand the absolute truth that the democrats are only interested in expanding government bureaucracy and jacking up taxes along with infringement on our Constitutional rights. You cannot stand the absolute truth that the Democratic Party has become a toxic cancer on American political life. You cannot stand the absolute truth that it was the democrats who destroyed most of our older northern US cities with their longtime monolithic rule and their horrendously failed policies. All you donkey dork democrats need to be barred from the voting booth this November for the sake of this great country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2016 2:45 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    theantijock said
    Do you actually buy your own bullshit or did you expect that we might?


    I'm taking bets on when he'll start bitching about Art_Deco.


    funny. yeah, though I'd rather take my chance risking a dollar on the lottery. I thought I caught a whiff of that too or one of its protégés but not yet certain.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2016 3:24 PM GMT
    The Clinton Foundation, the $200,000 per engagement speeches, and the foreign contributions all point to a candidate and a campaign that's "for sale" to the highest bidder.

    Exactly what can an aging ex-Secretary of State say in a one hour speech that's worth $200,000 to a Wall Street corporation? What's the intrinsic value of the speech? Or is it the Quid Pro Quo that occurs after the speech that's important? What payoffs, favors, influence does that $200,000 buy after the speech?

    And what will the payoff be once she's elected president?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2016 5:59 PM GMT
    Hillary was Secretary of State. Many documents had no classification markings at all. However by virtue of the fact she was Secretary of State the material is sensitive and in many cases would be considered classified. That is why post classification was occurring when the emails were being made public.

    Just because it was not marked means nothing. The Secretary of State is supposed to know this. She knew this.

    Anyone else who's last name is not Clinton would now be serving 10 years in prison.