http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html

Welpee wrote:

martin wrote:I think the scrutiny of Trump is about to avalanche.

Last night his spokeswoman was asked on CNN about the IRS investigation into his taxes, the IRS audit. She was asked if Trump would provide the documentation that he indeed is being audited. The IRS always provides a statement of confirmation that you are being audited, I hope the media forces him to produce this documentation (the IRS cannot otherwise confirm/deny an audit, they only send out the paperwork). This will be another tip of the iceberg.

I saw that. Her response to being asked about the audit letter was "excuse me?" Then she tried to pivot and asked the reporter if she was accusing Trump of being a liar.

Interesting, right? Her expression was classic. I think the **** is about to hit the fan

martin wrote:

Welpee wrote:

martin wrote:I think the scrutiny of Trump is about to avalanche.

Last night his spokeswoman was asked on CNN about the IRS investigation into his taxes, the IRS audit. She was asked if Trump would provide the documentation that he indeed is being audited. The IRS always provides a statement of confirmation that you are being audited, I hope the media forces him to produce this documentation (the IRS cannot otherwise confirm/deny an audit, they only send out the paperwork). This will be another tip of the iceberg.

I saw that. Her response to being asked about the audit letter was "excuse me?" Then she tried to pivot and asked the reporter if she was accusing Trump of being a liar.

Interesting, right? Her expression was classic. I think the **** is about to hit the fan

I hope he has paid everything according to the law. But seriously, why is this such a big deal when Clinton has clearly broken the law?

I mean clinton cost the lives of thousands in Libya, against the advice of higher military commanders, the whole Bengazzi thing, etc.
This is like comparing apples to bombs.

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

Welpee wrote:

martin wrote:I think the scrutiny of Trump is about to avalanche.

Last night his spokeswoman was asked on CNN about the IRS investigation into his taxes, the IRS audit. She was asked if Trump would provide the documentation that he indeed is being audited. The IRS always provides a statement of confirmation that you are being audited, I hope the media forces him to produce this documentation (the IRS cannot otherwise confirm/deny an audit, they only send out the paperwork). This will be another tip of the iceberg.

I saw that. Her response to being asked about the audit letter was "excuse me?" Then she tried to pivot and asked the reporter if she was accusing Trump of being a liar.

Interesting, right? Her expression was classic. I think the **** is about to hit the fan

I hope he has paid everything according to the law. But seriously, why is this such a big deal when Clinton has clearly broken the law?

I mean clinton cost the lives of thousands in Libya, against the advice of higher military commanders, the whole Bengazzi thing, etc.
This is like comparing apples to bombs.

Because that isn't the cause, it's your bad assumption based on bad information.

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:so Newsweek is stepping up. Haven't read the articles but they should be interesting.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html

Both articles are troubling. Missing emails that were requested for an investigation should be turned over. IF not, there should be prosecution.

Trump's interests are also deep and involved. If you are concerned about them as you should be, is there an equal concern about the Clinton Foundation and the possible ramifications that could have on HRC winning?

I will say it again. We, the People have allowed this to occur. We nominate and elect these crooks. Politician should not be a career choice. IT was never meant to be.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There is absolutely concern. There have been investigations looking into those concerns and yet nothing has really popped.

There should be concerns with SuperPACs THAT INVOLVE EVERY SINGLE HIGH LEVEL politician. SuperPACs, as far as I can tell, are exactly the same type of vehicle as a charity except for the exact purpose a charity described above should NOT be doing.... funneling money to a government official for bought influence. Those are vehicles for companies AND foreign nationals via companies to buy influence.

We have companies that donate to politicians, politicians turn around and ASK those donors to literally write laws/legislation for them. We understand this, right? The oil companies donate directly to Senate and Congress members or via SuperPACs and then literally write legislation for those Senate and Congressional members. We have this base line understanding right? That is direct pay for play that happens all the time, commonly accepted pay for play. No outrage. Climate deniers, NRA members. Those are paid for.

BUT, Clinton is associated with a charity that we have found no wrongdoing and.... and what?

Not sure about that, but we will see.

I can't argue with the rest that you have written. Only it is both sides of every argument out there that is dirtying the waters. Nothing is sacred. How we get the genie back in the bottle, I don't know but until it happens, this is why we get HRC vs DJT

I would think so. Of course, they can be associated with charities but then the organization must actually be one and not a front for something else. In today's world of information and politics being so partisan, there is nothing that anyone can do that someone can't twist and bend in order to paint the person in a bad light. It's a cynical but it is the world we live in now.

I think all politicians are dirty unless proven otherwise. Especially if they have been doing it for more than 1 term of office.

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:so Newsweek is stepping up. Haven't read the articles but they should be interesting.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html

Both articles are troubling. Missing emails that were requested for an investigation should be turned over. IF not, there should be prosecution.

Trump's interests are also deep and involved. If you are concerned about them as you should be, is there an equal concern about the Clinton Foundation and the possible ramifications that could have on HRC winning?

I will say it again. We, the People have allowed this to occur. We nominate and elect these crooks. Politician should not be a career choice. IT was never meant to be.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There is absolutely concern. There have been investigations looking into those concerns and yet nothing has really popped.

There should be concerns with SuperPACs THAT INVOLVE EVERY SINGLE HIGH LEVEL politician. SuperPACs, as far as I can tell, are exactly the same type of vehicle as a charity except for the exact purpose a charity described above should NOT be doing.... funneling money to a government official for bought influence. Those are vehicles for companies AND foreign nationals via companies to buy influence.

We have companies that donate to politicians, politicians turn around and ASK those donors to literally write laws/legislation for them. We understand this, right? The oil companies donate directly to Senate and Congress members or via SuperPACs and then literally write legislation for those Senate and Congressional members. We have this base line understanding right? That is direct pay for play that happens all the time, commonly accepted pay for play. No outrage. Climate deniers, NRA members. Those are paid for.

BUT, Clinton is associated with a charity that we have found no wrongdoing and.... and what?

Not sure about that, but we will see.

I can't argue with the rest that you have written. Only it is both sides of every argument out there that is dirtying the waters. Nothing is sacred. How we get the genie back in the bottle, I don't know but until it happens, this is why we get HRC vs DJT

GoNyGoNyGo, this is VERY easy. If you are not sure the Clinton Foundation has done no wrongdoing, then produce something that justifies your concern. CF has been around for a very long time and has been investigated and looked at. Show us something that meets YOUR level of concern.

"2 weeks ago, emails were leaked e-mails began dribbling out showing foundation officials contacting State Department counterparts to ask favors for foundation “friends.” Say, a meeting with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon for one particularly generous Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire. Big deal, said the Clinton defenders. Low-level stuff. No involvement of the secretary herself. Until — drip, drip — the next batch revealed foundation requests for face time with the secretary herself. Such as one from the crown prince of Bahrain. To be sure, Bahrain, home of the Fifth Fleet, is an important Persian Gulf ally. Its crown prince shouldn’t have to go through a foundation — to which his government donated at least $50,000 — to get to the secretary. The fact that he did is telling. A further drip: The Associated Press found that over half the private interests who were granted phone or personal contact with Secretary Clinton — 85 of 154 — were donors to the foundation. Total contributions? As much as $156 million. Current Clinton response? There was no quid pro quo."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439376/hillary-clinton-corruption-clinton-foundation-email-scandals-are-connected
another source...i know you wont like them but they are the first ones that came up...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/273930-documents-show-coordination-between-state-clinton

nixluva wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:QUESTION: should we hold all politicians to the same'ish standard? None of them can be associated with charities because of the implied association and possible ramifications? Every politician should be investigated if he/she is part of a charity foundation?

I would think so. Of course, they can be associated with charities but then the organization must actually be one and not a front for something else. In today's world of information and politics being so partisan, there is nothing that anyone can do that someone can't twist and bend in order to paint the person in a bad light. It's a cynical but it is the world we live in now.

I think all politicians are dirty unless proven otherwise. Especially if they have been doing it for more than 1 term of office.

The Clinton Foundation has been proven to do a ton of great work and the Clinton's may be career politicians but the good the foundation does should not be ignored. You can't get involved in high level politics and be completely squeaky clean. IMO it's just the nature of the beast. Power and Money will always lead to some kind of shady goings on, no matter who we're talking about.

Of course they have done some good. I agree. Most Presidents have done good work after their terms have finished. I think Bill has been more active than most recent ones as he was a bit younger leaving office.

martin wrote:so Newsweek is stepping up. Haven't read the articles but they should be interesting.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html

This section was interesting:

Trump’s business conflicts with America’s national security interests cannot be resolved so long as he or any member of his family maintains a financial interest in the Trump Organization during a Trump administration, or even if they leave open the possibility of returning to the company later.

The Trump Organization cannot be placed into a blind trust, an arrangement used by many politicians to prevent them from knowing their financial interests; the Trump family is already aware of who their overseas partners are and could easily learn about any new ones.

Many foreign governments retain close ties to and even control of companies in their country, including several that already are partnered with the Trump Organization. Any government wanting to seek future influence with President Trump could do so by arranging for a partnership with the Trump Organization, feeding money directly to the family or simply stashing it away inside the company for their use once Trump is out of the White House. This is why, without a permanent departure of the entire Trump family from their company, the prospect of legal bribery by overseas powers seeking to influence American foreign policy, either through existing or future partnerships, will remain a reality throughout a Trump presidency.

Moreover, the identity of every partner cannot be discovered if Trump reverses course and decided to release his taxes. The partnerships are struck with some of the more than 500 entities disclosed in Trump’s financial disclosure forms; each of those entities has its own records that would have to be revealed for a full accounting of all of Trump’s foreign entanglements to be made public.

The problem of overseas conflicts emerges from the nature of Trump’s business in recent years. Much of the public believes Trump is a hugely successful developer, a television personality and a failed casino operator. But his primary business deals for almost a decade have been a quite different endeavor. The GOP nominee is essentially a licensor who leverages his celebrity into streams of cash from partners from all over the world. The business model for Trump’s company started to change around 2007, after he became the star of NBC’s The Apprentice, which boosted his national and international fame. Rather than constructing Trump’s own hotels, office towers and other buildings, much of his business involved striking deals with overseas developers who pay his company for the right to slap his name on their buildings. (The last building constructed by Trump with his name on it is the Trump-SoHo hotel and condominium project, completed in 2007.)

In public statements, Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. have celebrated their company’s international branding business and announced their intentions to expand it. “The opportunities for growth are endless, and I look forward to building upon the tremendous success we have enjoyed,” Donald Trump Jr. said in 2013. Trump Jr. has cited prospects in Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, Thailand, Argentina and other countries.

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

Welpee wrote:

martin wrote:I think the scrutiny of Trump is about to avalanche.

Last night his spokeswoman was asked on CNN about the IRS investigation into his taxes, the IRS audit. She was asked if Trump would provide the documentation that he indeed is being audited. The IRS always provides a statement of confirmation that you are being audited, I hope the media forces him to produce this documentation (the IRS cannot otherwise confirm/deny an audit, they only send out the paperwork). This will be another tip of the iceberg.

I saw that. Her response to being asked about the audit letter was "excuse me?" Then she tried to pivot and asked the reporter if she was accusing Trump of being a liar.

Interesting, right? Her expression was classic. I think the **** is about to hit the fan

I hope he has paid everything according to the law. But seriously, why is this such a big deal when Clinton has clearly broken the law?

I mean clinton cost the lives of thousands in Libya, against the advice of higher military commanders, the whole Bengazzi thing, etc.
This is like comparing apples to bombs.

Because that isn't the cause, it's your bad assumption based on bad information.

I don't understand what you mean. What isn't the cause?
What bad assumption did I make? That Hillary broke the law? That much is clear, why she is not being prosecuted is a mystery.

My point is we are talking about Donald Trumps taxes like that is some huge crime. Let's see the returns, what is the big? Wait and see.
Clinton is responsible for the deaths of thousands. Really, she clearly went against the expertise of SENIOR military people and we are doing nothing about that.
There should be a discussion on the news and for the most part it is just jumped over.

We can't talk about Trump and Hillary in the same vain. I don't deny he might have shady Business dealings, but do we really want the President of the United States
to be a person who goes against military advice? Who has already cost lives and who has really helped the middle east to be a worse place?

And we are talking about Trumps taxes? This is just mind boggling.
Hillary looks like she might fall over for good any day soon. The pneumonia story is probably a load of B.S. She has been coughing for months. She has looked
repeatedly like she has some form of neurological disease and those who support her won't talk about it. This should be just as important to supporters.
Something is wrong with her health and it is not just a pneumonia.

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

Welpee wrote:

martin wrote:I think the scrutiny of Trump is about to avalanche.

Last night his spokeswoman was asked on CNN about the IRS investigation into his taxes, the IRS audit. She was asked if Trump would provide the documentation that he indeed is being audited. The IRS always provides a statement of confirmation that you are being audited, I hope the media forces him to produce this documentation (the IRS cannot otherwise confirm/deny an audit, they only send out the paperwork). This will be another tip of the iceberg.

I saw that. Her response to being asked about the audit letter was "excuse me?" Then she tried to pivot and asked the reporter if she was accusing Trump of being a liar.

Interesting, right? Her expression was classic. I think the **** is about to hit the fan

I hope he has paid everything according to the law. But seriously, why is this such a big deal when Clinton has clearly broken the law?

I mean clinton cost the lives of thousands in Libya, against the advice of higher military commanders, the whole Bengazzi thing, etc.
This is like comparing apples to bombs.

Now back to Trump. If he's under audit what prevents him from producing the IRS letter?