gunsnewing wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia(on Friday)..

And what about all the other Parkinsons like behavior? Was that the Pneumonia coming on for a few months?
They will cover this up until they can no longer do so.(Business as usual)

They are very adept at covering up for her. They've sure had a lot of practice covering for her over all these these years.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/johncardillo/status/775011989672255490

Damn!!!

Candidates do not have to divulge the natures of their conditions because the important factor is one's capacity to work rather than one's condition. (Note: Federal disability law bars most employers from asking about applicants' ailments. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a company may refuse to hire a prospect whose medical condition might be worsened by a particular job.)

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/SHOOTA_TRADES/status/775335586387283969

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

blkexec wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Assange: Next Release Of 100,000 Clinton Docs Will Finish Hillary
http://yournewswire.com/assange-next-release-of-100000-clinton-docs-will-finish-hillary/

small quote:

We have tens of thousands, possibly as many as a hundred thousand, pages of documents of different types, related to the operations that Hillary Clinton is associated with, the WikiLeaks founder said in a radio interview with Sean Hannity.

There are some, several … in response to the DNC publications, a lot of people have been inspired by the impact, and so they have stepped forward with additional material.

Good to hear that more people are coming forward.

So for the Trump supporters.....Are Clinton supporters suppose to believe that Trump doesn't have a similar crooked email traffic? We are talking about a guy who refuses to release his taxes. Just think for a second, if Trump released his taxes...and the Govt released his deleted emails, will Trump supporters still follow? Yes.....Because it's deepers than Hillary's emails.

Emails that jeopardize our national security?

Which of Hillary's emails actually jeopardized U.S. Security? So far nothing that has been reported has been shown to do that. In Theory it could've happened but there's been nothing brought forth to this point.

That's a great question. Everyone always says the other political party is compromising national security. There has to be some burden of proof to show that this actually happened.

When emails are classified as secret or top secret, by definition they can compromise (national) security. We are talking the Secretary of State. Not a small town Mayor.
She CLEARLY put lives at risk and what this all amounts to as far as overall US security going forward is a bit scary. (The following is months old and the email leaks have gotten worse in that time and more are on the way.)
(Read these in order)
http://observer.com/2015/10/hillarys-email-troubles-are-far-from-over/
http://observer.com/2016/02/breaking-hillary-clinton-put-spies-lives-at-risk/

First of all, the emails found on her server were of the lowest classification, no header on those documents stating classification...3 of 30k were marked with a small (c)..I think the actual number is 36k..But that's .0001% of the emails on her server...

What old and new leaks are you taking about??..The FBI release more emails after the initial batch..I think the FBI director is trying ti screw Hillary but that's just me..The more to come you are referring to, is the hacked emails by Russia of the DNC, which were forwarded to Wikileaks, who claims to have more goods on Hillary...Obama and Hillary were trying to extradite Julian Assange to bring him up on charges...This is payback for Assange with Russia's help..

She broke the law. The FBI's job or the DOJ, is not to show intention, it is just to enforce the law. She broke it.
Regarding more leaks, see here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/assange-says-wikileaks-release-significant-clinton-campaign-data-023226471.html

The FBI has already said that there is no link found between Russia and the leaks. It was Hillary who went down that route. (Tough thing to prove anyway.)

What law did she break???..It is not illegal to have a personal server...It cannot be proved she forwarded the three emails that had the (c) in the body of the email. So what law did she break??..Look it up...

The FBI cannot prove Russia passed the hacked emails to Wikileads...The US government knows that Russia hacked the DNC..And what does Hillary have to do with the DNC being hacked???

It is illegal for government officials to have official emails on a private server.
No, it isn't illegal to have private email on a private server, but that is not the case.

You guys all know about the Freedom of Information Act? Well, Hillary just removed years of emails from those records. Think about that.

So you decided "NOT" to look it up...Well there happens to be precedence..

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

What's more, the Supreme Court held that the Kissinger documents did not have to be turned over under FOIA — even though they were notes taken while Kissinger was at State — because State did not have possession of them.

Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in 1980:

"We hold today that, even if a document requested under the FOIA is wrongfully in the possession of a party not an 'agency,' the agency which received the request does not 'improperly withhold' those materials by its refusal to institute a retrieval action. When an agency has demonstrated that it has not 'withheld'requested records in violation of the standards established by Congress, the federal courts have no authority to order the production of such records under the FOIA."

Laws were update in 2014 and sign by Obama, after Hillary left the State Department...

That is besides the point. My mentioning of the FOIA is on top of the real problem - breaking the law.
Anyway, it wrong for a government official to essentially remove from records something that will in time belong to the public - law or no law.

ps - I would really not use the War Mongerer Kissinger in any points you would like to prove.

Are you now claiming that you know these records were removed by her and not sent to her??..Are you also claiming the origin of these "classified" emails were from State Department or another governmental database with classified restrictions and not drawn up by another person on another private server??

I'm saying she is one of the most corrupt people in a field full of corruption.
I'm saying she is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people because of Libya.

Basically, I'm saying I fear for my family and the rest of the world if she ever gets in the White House. She wants war with Iran and probably then Russia.

Watch those two short clips of the video and tell me she is not sick.

Welpee wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

Welpee wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Welpee wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia(on Friday)..

pneumonia is very often caused by serious illnesses

Like Alzheimer's doctor??

like PD or cancer or many things that can fuk with the lungs ... eh ... nah ... I'm sure she's fine

I'm going to guess that out of all the pneumonia cases each, a very, very small percentage of them relate to cancer or Parkinson's!

of course but when there is so much speculation that someone is suffering from a debilitating disease and then this person gets pneumonia ... now if this person was denying that they were ill because lets say ... they did not want to lose their job, what would you think then?

Do you think that Hillary has a serious illness that she is hiding?

The only people who are "speculating" aren't exactly objective and certainly have an ulterior motive and a track record of fueling conspiracy theories.

You could say anybody is possibly hiding a serious illness. You could easily make the case a certain republican candidate has the early stages of a mental disorder based on the volume of false statements he makes and his apparent detachment from reality. It's a very dangerous game people play when they start playing doctor and attempting to diagnosis people over the television.

Personally I agree with Ben Carson, both should have a complete physical examination that's made public. I think there should be a standard, comprehensive medical form all candidates need to have completed. No more of these meaningless "doctor's statements."

of course anyone can be ill but as an objective better would with no skin in the game and a trump hater, I say she is hiding and we will soon find out.

I like your/Carson's suggestion but perhaps the president should have the same HIPAA protection that anyone has and not have to divulge if they believe that it won't affect their performance? Nothing wrong with a president with Parkinson's or dementia.

Even if you can't force a candidate to reveal or submit to a physical examination, I think public/media pressure can certainly compel them to do it. If you don't want to reveal your medical info or tax returns fine, you won't get our votes. I know it's pipe dream, but if the majority of voters took this stance with either party, politicians wouldn't be able to get away with things like this.

The standard procedure should be that some neutral physical at Walter Reed Hospital put the final two candidates through a battery of examinations and review the files from their personal doctors (though I suspect a crack pot like that Trump doctor can't be trusted). I think the public has a right to know the physical condition of the person about to run the country.

Does the public have that right constitutionally though? Interesting point upthread about their health patient privacy rights fit into the mix. The tax thing is voluntary it seems, a post-Watergate concession. I'd be surprised if Trump releases them any sooner than the last minute if at all. But I do agree I'd love to see a lack of transparency rewarded with a lack of votes.

I think the tax return reveal started before Watergate by Mitt Romney's dad when he ran against Nixon during his first run at the white house against Kennedy (I think I'm right).

I stand corrected! Thanks.

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

blkexec wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Assange: Next Release Of 100,000 Clinton Docs Will Finish Hillary
http://yournewswire.com/assange-next-release-of-100000-clinton-docs-will-finish-hillary/

small quote:

We have tens of thousands, possibly as many as a hundred thousand, pages of documents of different types, related to the operations that Hillary Clinton is associated with, the WikiLeaks founder said in a radio interview with Sean Hannity.

There are some, several … in response to the DNC publications, a lot of people have been inspired by the impact, and so they have stepped forward with additional material.

Good to hear that more people are coming forward.

So for the Trump supporters.....Are Clinton supporters suppose to believe that Trump doesn't have a similar crooked email traffic? We are talking about a guy who refuses to release his taxes. Just think for a second, if Trump released his taxes...and the Govt released his deleted emails, will Trump supporters still follow? Yes.....Because it's deepers than Hillary's emails.

Emails that jeopardize our national security?

Which of Hillary's emails actually jeopardized U.S. Security? So far nothing that has been reported has been shown to do that. In Theory it could've happened but there's been nothing brought forth to this point.

That's a great question. Everyone always says the other political party is compromising national security. There has to be some burden of proof to show that this actually happened.

When emails are classified as secret or top secret, by definition they can compromise (national) security. We are talking the Secretary of State. Not a small town Mayor.
She CLEARLY put lives at risk and what this all amounts to as far as overall US security going forward is a bit scary. (The following is months old and the email leaks have gotten worse in that time and more are on the way.)
(Read these in order)
http://observer.com/2015/10/hillarys-email-troubles-are-far-from-over/
http://observer.com/2016/02/breaking-hillary-clinton-put-spies-lives-at-risk/

First of all, the emails found on her server were of the lowest classification, no header on those documents stating classification...3 of 30k were marked with a small (c)..I think the actual number is 36k..But that's .0001% of the emails on her server...

What old and new leaks are you taking about??..The FBI release more emails after the initial batch..I think the FBI director is trying ti screw Hillary but that's just me..The more to come you are referring to, is the hacked emails by Russia of the DNC, which were forwarded to Wikileaks, who claims to have more goods on Hillary...Obama and Hillary were trying to extradite Julian Assange to bring him up on charges...This is payback for Assange with Russia's help..

She broke the law. The FBI's job or the DOJ, is not to show intention, it is just to enforce the law. She broke it.
Regarding more leaks, see here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/assange-says-wikileaks-release-significant-clinton-campaign-data-023226471.html

The FBI has already said that there is no link found between Russia and the leaks. It was Hillary who went down that route. (Tough thing to prove anyway.)

What law did she break???..It is not illegal to have a personal server...It cannot be proved she forwarded the three emails that had the (c) in the body of the email. So what law did she break??..Look it up...

The FBI cannot prove Russia passed the hacked emails to Wikileads...The US government knows that Russia hacked the DNC..And what does Hillary have to do with the DNC being hacked???

It is illegal for government officials to have official emails on a private server.
No, it isn't illegal to have private email on a private server, but that is not the case.

You guys all know about the Freedom of Information Act? Well, Hillary just removed years of emails from those records. Think about that.

So you decided "NOT" to look it up...Well there happens to be precedence..

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

What's more, the Supreme Court held that the Kissinger documents did not have to be turned over under FOIA — even though they were notes taken while Kissinger was at State — because State did not have possession of them.

Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in 1980:

"We hold today that, even if a document requested under the FOIA is wrongfully in the possession of a party not an 'agency,' the agency which received the request does not 'improperly withhold' those materials by its refusal to institute a retrieval action. When an agency has demonstrated that it has not 'withheld'requested records in violation of the standards established by Congress, the federal courts have no authority to order the production of such records under the FOIA."

Laws were update in 2014 and sign by Obama, after Hillary left the State Department...

That is besides the point. My mentioning of the FOIA is on top of the real problem - breaking the law.
Anyway, it wrong for a government official to essentially remove from records something that will in time belong to the public - law or no law.

ps - I would really not use the War Mongerer Kissinger in any points you would like to prove.

Are you now claiming that you know these records were removed by her and not sent to her??..Are you also claiming the origin of these "classified" emails were from State Department or another governmental database with classified restrictions and not drawn up by another person on another private server??

It is very clear she wanted that private server. They gave the man responsible immunity.

I'm saying she is one of the most corrupt people in a field full of corruption.
I'm saying she is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people because of Libya.

Basically, I'm saying I fear for my family and the rest of the world if she ever gets in the White House. She wants war with Iran and probably then Russia.

Watch those two short clips of the video and tell me she is not sick.

mreinman wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia(on Friday)..

And what about all the other Parkinsons like behavior? Was that the Pneumonia coming on for a few months?
They will cover this up until they can no longer do so.(Business as usual)

I have seen doctors physically examine a patient and make the wrong diagnosis, much less some guy making an assessment on the internet...

You don't need a doctor for this, use your own eyes. Tell me what you think.
Real simple guys - forward and watch at 7:42 and 9:57. The lady clearly has either Parkinsons or some form of epilepsy.

unfortunately, I know a lot about parkinsons and the 7:28 mark with the hand position makes me queasy.

Just curious what your experience is with Parkinson's and why you might believe the media hysterics about this. I experienced it up close for over 30 years with my father (who was diagnosed with the disease in his 40s) as well as separately over another 25 year period with my a Great Uncle. I've also performed extensive research into Neuro-Muscular diseases (I'm a biochemist by education and work in Pre-Clinical research in the Pharmaceutical industry). In my completely non-professional opinion and observance of the limited youtube videos Hillary is not exhibiting symptoms of Parkinson's disease.

- Parkinson's disease symptoms are (very) generally stiffness, low/mumbling voice, facial stiffness (think of someone who has problems smiling) and constant tremors (usually shaking) which at first on-set hit the outer extremities (fingers/hands). The tremors are generally constant and not of the Epileptic type shown in the Hillary videos....in my opinion the videos showing Hillary shaking her head during an interview are an over-reaction on her part and not epilepsy nor Parkinson's. For comparison, Muhammad Ali is a public figure who exhibited typical Parkinson's symptoms.

- To the point made on Hillary's hand positions as shown on the youtube speech. Her hand positioning suggested a mild atrophy which might not be consistent with early stage Parkinson's (her hands might be slightly shaking in that case)....as it might for other diseases such as ALS or MS. However pointing to one video as an example of early on-set Neuro-Muscular disease seems extremely curious when there is an infinite number of air time / videos for an extremely visible politician which might suggest otherwise.

- Pneumonia - could suggest a number of things. Pneumonia is an infection of the lungs generally caused by Bacterial Infection or Virus, Fungus or Parasite.

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

reub wrote:We might have secretly given Iran $33 BILLION in cash and gold. Who approved that? And you're worried about Trump's taxes?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/09/iran_may_have_received_as_much_as_33_billion_in_cash_and_gold.html

33 billion dollars..Right..Becuase that kind of thing for that sum of money usually goes unnoticed..When I want my news I check American thinker blog first...

Yeah, the same story is on another site. There the author refers to the President as "Hussein Obama"! He doesn't put President or Barack in front of it. It's just Hussein Obama! It gives you an idea of the people writing these stories.

yea well thats the problem. There are real idiots on both sides. And then there are idiots who follow idiots and idiots who take what other idiots say as the beliefs of the people of the opposing party.

I'm guessing this is where the Hussein Obama business came from in this thread. I really don't even know why you brought it up again guns.

But you still need to defend your claim that it represents anything other than the name his father gave him. It doesn't represent his putting other countries ahead of the US or as you put it, Obama "bends over backwards to defend everyone around the globe but our fellow Americans". Damning rhetoric I won't just go by unaddressed.

It's OK to just say "yea I don't know what I was trying to say there, my bad".

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia(on Friday)..

And what about all the other Parkinsons like behavior? Was that the Pneumonia coming on for a few months?
They will cover this up until they can no longer do so.(Business as usual)

I have seen doctors physically examine a patient and make the wrong diagnosis, much less some guy making an assessment on the internet...

You don't need a doctor for this, use your own eyes. Tell me what you think.
Real simple guys - forward and watch at 7:42 and 9:57. The lady clearly has either Parkinsons or some form of epilepsy.

And that guy who produced that video is laughing his behind off at how gullible folks are. She may indeed be hiding some type of illness, but this video reveals nothing. I guarantee if I recorded hundreds of hours video of you over a 12 month period I could put together a video package to post on youtube to make you appear to have whatever medical narrative I decided on pin on you.

I watched a YouTube video that showed Obama's face in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and connected the shape of Trump Tower to freemasonry.

There are a lot of theories out there. Unfortunately this theory just capitalized on the lack of trust people have for Hillary. But the video is no slam dunk. When someone primes you to see something in the next shot, we tend to see it. It's how cinema editing works on a psychological level. Look up the "Kuleshov effect".

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-02/nixon-s-failed-effort-to-withhold-his-tax-returns

Nixon's Failed Effort to Withhold His Tax Returns

Donald Trump, in an interview over the weekend, reiterated his refusal to release his tax returns until the Internal Revenue Service has completed an audit. By way of explanation, the Republican presidential nominee claimed that Mitt Romney had lost the 2012 election because he had bowed to pressure from the Obama campaign and disclosed his filings.

Perhaps. But for the past 40 years, almost every presidential candidate has released his (or her) tax returns in advance of the general election. Even though there’s no law that mandates this transparency, disclosure has become an accepted part of presidential politics, and Trump's demurral has sparked widespread condemnation, including from the billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

How the U.S. Elects Its Presidents

Candidates don’t enjoy this ritual, and more than a few have initially resisted demands to expose their financial data. But no president was more averse to releasing this information during his political career than Richard Nixon was.

In 1952, when he ran as Dwight D. Eisenhower’s vice-presidential candidate. Nixon, then a congressman, got into trouble for a secret campaign fund and divulged detailed information about his family’s finances in response.

In his famous "Checkers speech," in which he painted himself as an American everyman struggling to make ends meet, Nixon called on the Democratic candidates for president and vice president -- Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman -- to “come before the American people, as I have, and make a complete financial statement as to their financial history." He added: "And if they don’t, it will be an admission that they have something to hide."

Stevenson and Sparkman matched Nixon’s disclosures, but upped the ante. They released 10 years of returns, far more information than Nixon provided, and demanded that the Republican candidates do the same. In response, Eisenhower grudgingly released a summary of his tax returns, but refused to release the actual forms. Nixon, however, refused to release anything related to his taxes, renewing suspicions.

After his loss to John Kennedy in 1960, Nixon retreated from the public eye, moving to New York to work as a lawyer. In 1967, he sought the presidency again, facing off against Michigan Governor George Romney (father of Mitt).

In the primary season, Romney set a new standard for transparency. He released a dozen years of his returns to Look magazine. They revealed that he had made plenty of money, but had also given much of it to charity. The disclosures cemented Romney’s reputation for outsized business acumen and remarkable generosity.

Look then went to Nixon, who proved distinctly less forthcoming. He permitted a writer to inspect photocopies of his returns, but only three years’ worth. A subsequent investigation by the Los Angeles Times raised questions about some of Nixon’s tax claims, but nothing came of it.

Nixon went on to defeat Romney for the nomination, and he faced no further pressure during the general election, thanks to Hubert Humphrey’s refusal to release his own tax returns.

But then things unraveled. The best account of Nixon’s tax travails comes from the historian Joseph Thorndike. Thanks to a deposition in a civil suit connected to the Watergate burglary in 1973, reporters learned that Nixon had taken a rather unusual tax break in 1969.

How unusual? The Washington Post determined that he had deeded his vice-presidential papers to the National Archives and taken a charitable deduction of around $500,000. Amazingly, such practices had been legal until 1969: Presidents and vice presidents donated their public papers and took a write-off. But that year, Congress closed the loophole.

Nonetheless, Nixon was eager to take every deduction imaginable. In a memo written that year, the presidential aide John Ehrlichman wrote his deputy, Edward Morgan, telling him that Nixon believed “a public man does very little of a personal nature. Virtually all of his entertainment and activity is related to his ‘business.’” That meant that virtually any expense -- “wedding gifts to congressmen’s daughters, flowers at funerals, etc.” -- could be written off.

This attitude apparently carried over to charitable contributions, too. In 1970, Nixon proceeded to donate his papers, but ordered Morgan to backdate the deed of gift to March 27, 1969, before the law made it illegal for him to take the deduction.

But this wasn’t known at the time. In 1973, however, as the Watergate scandal put a spotlight on the secretive president, tax experts called for the IRS to audit Nixon. The agency refused. Then in early October, an employee at an IRS service center in West Virginia leaked information about Nixon’s tax returns showing that the president had only paid $792.81 in federal income taxes in 1970 and $878.03 in 1971, but reported income in excess of $200,000. The explanation, of course, was the fishy charitable donation.

In a press conference on Nov. 17, 1973, Nixon faced questions about the leak and his tax returns. He defended the donation of his papers, and belatedly welcomed a thorough investigation of the issue, adding: “People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook.”

Facing overwhelming pressure, Nixon agreed to turn over his tax returns to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation. As the panel's members interviewed Nixon’s aides, suspicion of the president grew.

The Democratic chairman, Representative Wilbur Mills, raised the possibility that Nixon’s tax avoidance could lead to his ouster from office. The revelation that Nixon’s aide had backdated the deed of gift was hardly the only damning detail the committee provided. In the end, Nixon was hit with a tax bill of $471,431 plus interest.

By this time, revelations of far greater wrongdoing connected to Watergate had surfaced, and he would resign four months later. But the tax issue wounded him, seriously eroding his credibility.

After the disaster of Nixon scandals, presidents and presidential candidates were under far more pressure to be open about their public conduct and private finances.

Those who complied with these demands sometimes opened themselves to close scrutiny and criticism. But in the long run they saved themselves and perhaps the country a lot of grief.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Stephen Mihm at smihm1@bloomberg.net