[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Where the heck is Hillary Clinton?
Author Thread
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
10/28/2016  5:55 AM    LAST EDITED: 10/28/2016  6:13 AM
DrAlphaeus wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:Look there is no fukkin way I'm voting for that radioactive orangeblobman

that said

I fukkin hate Hillary too. This **** is ridiculous:

Donations to Foundation Vexed Hillary Clinton’s Aides, Emails Show
By STEVE EDER and AMY CHOZICKOCT. 26, 2016

In the years before Hillary Clinton announced she would run again for president, her top aides expressed profound concerns in internal emails about how foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton’s own moneymaking ventures would affect Mrs. Clinton’s political future.

The emails, obtained by hackers and being gradually released by WikiLeaks this month, also are revealing how efforts to minimize potential conflicts at the foundation led to power struggles and infighting among aides and Mrs. Clinton’s family.

One top aide to Mr. Clinton, Douglas J. Band, noted in an email that the former president had received personal income from some foundation donors and “gets many expensive gifts from them.”

Chelsea Clinton accused her father’s aides of taking “significant sums of money from my parents personally,” of “hustling” during foundation events to win clients for their own business, and of even installing spyware on her chief of staff’s computer.

Hillary Clinton, another email showed, had promised to attend a Clinton Foundation gathering in Morocco at the behest of its king, who had pledged $12 million to the charity. Her advisers worried that would look unseemly just as she was beginning her presidential campaign in earnest.

“She created this mess and she knows it,” a close aide, Huma Abedin, wrote of Mrs. Clinton in a January 2015 email.

For months, the Clintons have defended their foundation, making public proclamations that it went above and beyond what the law required in terms of transparency while Mrs. Clinton was at the State Department.

The emails, which came from the account of John D. Podesta, who had a leadership role at the foundation and is now Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, have not contained evidence to support Republican contentions that Mrs. Clinton performed any favors for foundation donors.

But they do show pronounced worries among the Clintons’ closest advisers about the millions of dollars coming into the foundation, and to Mr. Clinton personally, and how they could inoculate Mrs. Clinton from criticism over it.

“Do they plan to do big events next year?” her campaign manager, Robby Mook, asked about the foundation last year, shortly after Mrs. Clinton kicked off her presidential campaign. “Possible for those to be smaller and lower key in 16?”

Founded in 1997, when Mr. Clinton was still president, the foundation has raised roughly $2 billion to fund projects around the world, helping African farmers improve their yields, Haitians recover from a devastating 2010 earthquake and millions of people gain access to cheaper H.I.V./AIDS medication, among other accomplishments.

Some of the former president’s staff members followed him from the White House to the foundation, and the emails provide an extraordinary look at the soap opera that unfolded years later as people close to the couple felt their power threatened.

“This is the 3rd time this week where she has gone to daddy to change a decision or interject herself,” Mr. Band, the longtime aide to Mr. Clinton, wrote about Chelsea Clinton in 2011.

At the time, she was beginning to exert influence at the foundation, expressing concerns that Mr. Band and others were trying to use the charity to make money for themselves, and accusing another aide in her father’s personal office of installing spyware.

Emails released on Tuesday contained a memo from Mr. Band essentially defending his work for the foundation, and for Mr. Clinton personally, even as Mr. Band was building up his corporate consulting firm, Teneo. The memo noted that some foundation donors had indeed been clients of Teneo, but also that Mr. Band and Teneo had helped raise tens of millions of dollars for the foundation from individual, foreign and corporate donors, without taking a commission.

Mr. Band also noted how some of those donors he had cultivated were paying Mr. Clinton privately to make speeches or to do other work. One such donor, Laureate International Universities, a for-profit education company based in Baltimore, was paying Mr. Clinton $3.5 million annually “to provide advice” and serve as its honorary chairman, Mr. Band wrote.


In another email, Mr. Band wrote that Mr. Clinton had even received gifts from some donors.

The tensions came to a head when Chelsea Clinton helped enlist an outside law firm to audit the Clinton Foundation’s practices. Some interviewees told the audit team that the donors “may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gift.” The audit suggested the foundation “ensure that all donors are properly vetted and that no inappropriate quid pro quos are offered to donors in return for contributions.”

The advice proved prescient as Mrs. Clinton faced intense scrutiny about whether donors to the Clinton Foundation had received special access to her State Department or other rewards. In August, the foundation said it would no longer accept foreign donations should Mrs. Clinton win the White House.

Mrs. Clinton has dismissed criticism of the charity as politically motivated. A spokesman for the Clinton campaign, Glen Caplin, declined to verify the authenticity of the emails, but said the hack was part of the Russian government’s efforts to use cyberattacks to influence the election in favor of the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Band’s firm released a statement saying: “Teneo worked to encourage clients, where appropriate, to support the Clinton Foundation because of the good work that it does around the world. It also clearly shows that Teneo never received any financial benefit or benefit of any kind from doing so.”

Behind the scenes, Mrs. Clinton’s aides grappled with how to sever her from the problematic optics of some of the philanthropy’s fund-raising practices.

In an October 2014 email, Mr. Mook asked whether Mrs. Clinton’s name would be used in connection with the foundation, which is formally known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. “It will invite press scrutiny and she’ll be held accountable for what happens there,” he wrote.

The next year, when Mrs. Clinton was on the verge of declaring her candidacy, Cheryl D. Mills, a lawyer and top aide, said she discussed with Mrs. Clinton various “steps” to take to adjust her relationship with the foundation, including her resignation from the foundation’s board.

By fall 2015, Mrs. Clinton’s aides had fine-tuned her response to questions about foreign donors. “As President, I won’t permit any conflicts between my work for the American people and the Foundation’s good work,” aides advised Mrs. Clinton to say in a coming debate.

The emails give insight into the periodic fires that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers thought they had to put out. Mrs. Clinton ultimately did not attend the foundation event in Morocco that Ms. Abedin had complained about; her husband and daughter did go. It is unclear if the king had given the $12 million he was said to have pledged; he is not listed among the foundation’s donors.

In March 2015, Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian steel magnate who had given more than $10 million to the foundation, was “relentlessly” requesting a meeting with Mr. Clinton, according to an aide, Amitabh Desai. If the former president declined, the relationship would be damaged, Mr. Desai wrote in an email.

“No is better. Is that viable?” wrote Mr. Podesta, who by then was the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. It is unclear if the meeting took place.

That same year, during a discussion over a potential meeting between Mr. Clinton and the Saudi king, Mr. Podesta replied, using the former president’s initials, “Not something that would be on our top 10 list of WJC requests.”

Mr. Podesta took a leadership role at the charity when Bruce R. Lindsey, a former White House counsel and longtime friend of Mr. Clinton who had been chief executive of the foundation, had a stroke in 2011.

His role at the foundation, coupled with his later capacity as the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, put Mr. Podesta in the middle of internal workings of both operations and, by default, the delicate battles unfolding between Chelsea Clinton and her father’s top aides.

The day Mrs. Clinton’s mother, Dorothy Rodham, died in 2011, Chelsea Clinton emailed Mr. Podesta. “Doug called and yelled and screamed at my Dad about how could he do this,” she said, a reference to the internal scrutiny going on at the foundation. “My mother is exhausted, we are all heartbroken but we need a strategy and my father needs advice/counsel.”

Mr. Band has said the exchange described in the email never happened.

Mr. Band, who helped Mr. Clinton build the foundation, clearly felt irritated by Chelsea Clinton’s stream of implications that he had padded his own pockets from his work for her father.


1123
COMMENTS
When Chelsea Clinton, using a pseudonym “Diane Reynolds,” that she also sometimes used to check into hotels, sent Mr. Band a complimentary email in January 2012, he forwarded it to Mr. Podesta and Ms. Mills.

“As they say, the apple doesn’t fall far,” he wrote. “A kiss on the cheek while she is sticking the knife in the back, and front.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/politics/bill-hillary-clinton-foundation-wikileaks.html?_r=0

Thank God for Bipileaks

The Clintons have been exposed for their corruption as well in this election cycle. Or maybe corruption is not the right word, their actions maybe within the law. I don't know the nuances of accepting millions in fees and donations at the same time. The only thing I will say in Hillary's defense is that if she had faced a regular republican instead of Trump the mudslinging would not have descended to this level. The media has created a false equivalency to appear impartial, which means they have to dig up all this dirt on her to try to make her look bad. Trump is an absolute lowlife piece of **** and Hillary has to be dragged down to his level to make this look like a fair fight.

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: Don't ever mud wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty the pig loves it.

The other way to look at it is: if these leaks came out when her opponent wasn't already on the defensive himself, all of the suspicions of the ridiculed Bernie or Busters wouldn't look so ridiculous now. Instead, the fear of a Trump presidency (justified IMHO) has driven opposition from the left underground. If a Kasich, Rubio or Cruz (Jah Jah forbid) made it through, Hillary might be the one taking heavy fire from the media, down in all these polls and looking at a likely loss.


I think this is a media narrative that doesn't fit with the actual polling data. Hillary is NOT historically disliked or unpopular. We have a 50/50 nation and her approval rating is in the mid 40s. That's right where Mitt Romney was this time in 2012. I think she'd either be beating or tied with the other Republicans. FYI, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz have much worse approval ratings. So do most of the Republicans once they get national media attention and scrutiny.
AUTOADVERT
meloshouldgo
Posts: 26565
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/3/2014
Member: #5801

10/28/2016  6:37 AM
Approval ratings have a lot to do with who you are running against. Right now Trump is making her look like a rock star but if she was going against a more capable opponent like Kasich she may well have been stuck in the low 30s. Things like Approval are largely subjective and much more susceptible to biases. Predicting these based on past data is risky business. I guess we won't really know how she would have fared.
I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only try to make them think - Socrates
holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

10/28/2016  7:15 AM
There is a company making robots to clean your offices..So cleaning people and janitors are going to be the next...Trump will blame it on NAFTA and TPP...
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
10/28/2016  8:22 AM
meloshouldgo wrote:Approval ratings have a lot to do with who you are running against. Right now Trump is making her look like a rock star but if she was going against a more capable opponent like Kasich she may well have been stuck in the low 30s. Things like Approval are largely subjective and much more susceptible to biases. Predicting these based on past data is risky business. I guess we won't really know how she would have fared.

I've never heard that claim and I think it's unlikely it would have a large effect. The presidential race voting obviously reflects who you're up against but there's no obvious connection to the approval ratings. Hillary's approval ratings were higher before running president, which does not suggest she's getting a bounce from running against Trump. I think just running for president will usually lower your approval ratings (due to more scrutiny) regardless of who the opponent is.
Welpee
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

10/28/2016  9:17 AM
So Trump is complaining about the Access Hollywood video being released illegally, but he's fine with Wikileaks and the illegally hacked emails being made public. Typical Trump.
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
10/28/2016  11:59 AM    LAST EDITED: 10/28/2016  11:59 AM
The elections will be decided by how many people will go to vote.
Less voters more advantage to Trump.
His supporters are all coming to the pulls.
A lot of people who oppose him will not going to vote...
So he is still in a race.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/28/2016  12:02 PM
arkrud wrote:His supporters are all coming to the pulls.
A lot of people who oppose him will not going to vote...

Is this data you're citing, or some other basis of conclusion?

Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
10/28/2016  12:08 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
arkrud wrote:His supporters are all coming to the pulls.
A lot of people who oppose him will not going to vote...

Is this data you're citing, or some other basis of conclusion?


IDK, some of the data I've seen give higher enthusiasm among his supporters, but Hillary has a MUCH better on the ground effort from what I've been reading.
GoNyGoNyGo
Posts: 23559
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/29/2003
Member: #411
USA
10/28/2016  12:20 PM
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
arkrud wrote:His supporters are all coming to the pulls.
A lot of people who oppose him will not going to vote...

Is this data you're citing, or some other basis of conclusion?


IDK, some of the data I've seen give higher enthusiasm among his supporters, but Hillary has a MUCH better on the ground effort from what I've been reading.

That is correct, and we have learned what their on the ground effort is capable of. (Veritas videos)

Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/28/2016  12:23 PM
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
arkrud wrote:His supporters are all coming to the pulls.
A lot of people who oppose him will not going to vote...

Is this data you're citing, or some other basis of conclusion?


IDK, some of the data I've seen give higher enthusiasm among his supporters, but Hillary has a MUCH better on the ground effort from what I've been reading.

That is correct, and we have learned what their on the ground effort is capable of. (Veritas videos)

I assume of course you saw the BusinessWeek piece about Trump's voter suppression plans, yes?

earthmansurfer
Posts: 24005
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2005
Member: #858
Germany
10/28/2016  12:25 PM
Funny but true...

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. Albert Einstein
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/28/2016  12:28 PM
earthmansurfer wrote:Funny but true...

Goldman Sachs... in a heartbeat.

GoNyGoNyGo
Posts: 23559
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/29/2003
Member: #411
USA
10/28/2016  12:44 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
arkrud wrote:His supporters are all coming to the pulls.
A lot of people who oppose him will not going to vote...

Is this data you're citing, or some other basis of conclusion?


IDK, some of the data I've seen give higher enthusiasm among his supporters, but Hillary has a MUCH better on the ground effort from what I've been reading.

That is correct, and we have learned what their on the ground effort is capable of. (Veritas videos)

I assume of course you saw the BusinessWeek piece about Trump's voter suppression plans, yes?

Yes, did you? The article is about Trump's direct marketing plans and how they use it and it may be used for TV . What does it have to do with voter fraud like that was exposed in the Veritas videos? Those were out and out CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES they discussed.

Suppression by marketing ideas in particular locations is far from voter fraud. The words "fraud" or "illegal" are not mentioned once in the article.

In the video the perpetrators acknowledged that what they were doing was voter fraud.

Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/28/2016  12:59 PM
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
arkrud wrote:His supporters are all coming to the pulls.
A lot of people who oppose him will not going to vote...

Is this data you're citing, or some other basis of conclusion?


IDK, some of the data I've seen give higher enthusiasm among his supporters, but Hillary has a MUCH better on the ground effort from what I've been reading.

That is correct, and we have learned what their on the ground effort is capable of. (Veritas videos)

I assume of course you saw the BusinessWeek piece about Trump's voter suppression plans, yes?

Yes, did you? The article is about Trump's direct marketing plans and how they use it and it may be used for TV . What does it have to do with voter fraud like that was exposed in the Veritas videos? Those were out and out CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES they discussed.

Suppression by marketing ideas in particular locations is far from voter fraud. The words "fraud" or "illegal" are not mentioned once in the article.

In the video the perpetrators acknowledged that what they were doing was voter fraud.

By "perpetrators" you mean braggers?

Nothing was "exposed" in the Veritas videos. Again, stop filling in the blanks.

I suppose its similar to the candidate bragging about sexual misconduct and the candidates husband's trouble past with sexual misconduct.

But your mileage may vary.

Welpee
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

10/28/2016  1:12 PM
earthmansurfer wrote:Funny but true...

Trump University vs Goldman Sachs.
holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

10/28/2016  1:19 PM
earthmansurfer wrote:Funny but true...

Live from Russia...

holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

10/28/2016  1:22 PM
FBI probing new Hillary Clinton emails...
holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

10/28/2016  1:29 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/28/2016  1:30 PM
holfresh wrote:
reub wrote:The FBI dumped Hillary's email investigation documents today, on the Friday before Labor Day weekend, so we now know that they're in the tank for her. They did this to cause the least amount of damage to her. In that document dump it was revealed that she claimed she couldn't remember 26 times during her FBI investigation (she's done the same exact thing in the past). She also, the documents show, clicked on a phishing scam and answered it, exposing her emails, thousands of which were government related and many of which were classified, to hackers. It also came out that she had 13 devices that she used to access her emails, most or all of which have been "lost" or destroyed, conveniently shielding any further evidence about whether or not she was hacked and what exactly she was really up to.

What the republican head of the FBI is doing is unprecedented..If you listen to the news, you will hear the newscaster say and "In a surprise more email related releases from the FBI.." I expect this slow methodical email related release will continue until the election..I think the head of the FBI is done if Hillary gets in there and he knows it..

I'm just amazed at the traction it has gotten tho..Emails and Benghazi..You would think Hillary orchestrated the attacks on the Embassy..


From page 6 of this thread...
Nalod
Posts: 71148
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
10/28/2016  1:37 PM
White Trash vs. Goldman Sachs

Somebody had to say it.

DrAlphaeus
Posts: 23751
Alba Posts: 10
Joined: 12/19/2007
Member: #1781

10/28/2016  1:42 PM
holfresh wrote:FBI probing new Hillary Clinton emails...

And the markets tanking... related?

Baba Booey 2016 — "It's Silly Season"
Where the heck is Hillary Clinton?

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy