Connecting the dots on Hillary Clinton

[russ1945]

[h=2]WATCH: Hillary Clinton Says Two Different Things About Her Emails, Both of Which Can’t Be True[/h]BY: Andrew Stiles
September 28, 2015 1:22 pm

SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

¯_(ツ)_/¯​

More than 60 percent of voters don’t think Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy. Even Donald Trump has a better reputation on that front, which is just embarrassing. No wonder so many Democrats are biding for Biden.
Hillary and her campaign seem to think this is simply the result of biased media coverage, unfair partisan attacks and right-wing “conspiracy theories.” They insist it’s “time to move on.”
They should at least consider the possibility that voters have good reason not to trust Hillary. Because is she really has nothing to hide with respect to her private email server, why do explanations keep changing so often?
For example, during her interview on Meet The Press over the weekend, Hillary said she “did not participate” in the process through which her State Department emails were reviewed and classified as either “work-related” or “personal.” Her attorneys did it, she said.
Host Chuck Todd raised the issue because the Associated Press reported on Friday that the State Department found new work-related emails, including an exchange with former CIA director David Petraeus, that Clinton failed to turn over to investigators. The report also revealed that Clinton started using her private server months earlier than she originally claimed.
Regarding the email review process, Clinton offered a different account of her involvement during a contentious press conference on August 18. Here’s what she told reporters then: “Under the law, that decision is made by the official. I was the official. I made those decisions.”
Chuck Todd did not follow up by asking her to explain the discrepancy.

 

[russ1945]

Biden Would Enter 2016 Race As Most Popular Candidate: Poll

by CARRIE DANN

• t

Joe Biden hasn't yet announced his plans for a 2016 White House bid, but a new poll shows that he would enter the race as the most popular presidential candidate if he chose to toss his hat into the ring.
According to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 40 percent of Americans have a positive impression of Biden, while 28 percent have a negative impression (+12).
That's compared to fellow Democrats Bernie Sanders (+10) and Hillary Clinton (-8), and to top-tier GOP candidates Ben Carson (+8), Carly Fiorina (+7) and Donald Trump (-33).
Biden would also out-perform Clinton in hypothetical head-to-head general election matchups against top Republican presidential hopefuls.
If the 2016 election was held today, voters overall say they'd back Clinton over Trump by 10 points (49 percent to 39 percent), but the former secretary of state would be statistically tied with Fiorina (45 percent for Fiorina, compared to 44 percent for Clinton), Carson (46 percent for Carson, compared to 45 percent for Clinton), and former Florida governor Jeb Bush (44 percent for Bush, compared to 45 percent for Clinton).
But Biden would fare better, besting Bush by eight points (48 percent to 40 percent), Fiorina by six points (47 percent to 41 percent), Carson by eight points (49 percent to 41 percent), and Trump by 19 points (56 percent to 35 percent).
In a hypothetical matchup with Donald Trump, Sanders would also handily defeat the real estate mogul, getting 52 percent of the general election vote compared to Trump's 36 percent.
Part of Biden's current popularity is almost certainly attributable to the fact that he's not officially in the 2016 race. Most of the media coverage of the vice president's potential run has centered around his decision-making about a campaign and the outpouring of sympathy for his family after the tragic death of his son, Beau. None of his potential rivals have aggressively attacked his record, including past gaffes and previously held policy positions that might now be anathema to the Democratic Party's progressives.
"History has shown that the public has a much harsher filter when people become candidates," says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the poll along with Democratic pollster Peter Hart.
And Biden still trails in the Democratic primary, capturing the support of 17 percent of Democratic primary voters, compared to 35 percent for Sanders and 42 percent for Clinton.
If Biden chooses not to pursue a run for president, Clinton's lead with Democrats would jump. Fifty-three percent of Democratic primary voters say they'd support Clinton without Biden in the race, compared to 38 percent who would back Sanders.
Clinton's overall favorability rating now stands at 39 percent positive, 47 percent negative. When Clinton announced her presidential candidacy in April of this year, that rating was 42 percent positive, 42 percent negative.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Sept. 20-24 of 1,000 adults (including nearly 400 reached by cell phone), and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Clinton Fundraises With Oil Magnates Despite Opposition to Keystone XL[/h]Host heavily invested in oil-field services company
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

/ AP​

BY: Joe Schoffstall
September 28, 2015 3:50 pm

Despite Hillary Clinton’s coming out against the Keystone XL pipeline, the Democratic presidential candidate appeared at a fundraiser Friday with major Democratic donors who are heavily invested in the oil and gas industry.
The event for Hillary was held at the $8.2 million home of hedge fund manager Cliff Robbins in Greenwich, Connecticut. Robbins is the founder and CEO of the Blue Harbour Group, a company that has invested a significant amount of money in the oil and gas sectors. Robbins and his wife Debbie have contributed nearly $200,000 to Democratic candidates over the past decade.
Between April 2013 and September 2013, Robbins’ Blue Harbour Group bought six million shares in an oil-field services company called Nabors Industries. The purchase resulted in a 2 percent stake in the company and a gain of about $80 million for the group.
After BHG purchased the shares, the group was said to play a significant behind-the-scenes role in a shift at Nabors Industries that resulted in a “transformation from a broad ranging oil-service company to a pure-play driller, which owns and leases out the world’s largest fleet of rigs.” The CEO of Naborssaid that “Cliff personally participated in the strategic evaluation” of their options and plans.
The evaluation and change of direction involved Nabors agreeing to merge its fracking unit with C&J Energy Services, a move that resulted in a $940 million profit for Nabors and a 53 percent share in the newly combined company. Nabors reported revenues and earnings from unconsolidated affiliates totaling $1.78 billion in the fourth quarter of 2013 alone.
Appearing at a fundraiser hosted by a hedge fund manager involved in the oil and gas sectors appears at odds with Clinton’s current stances on the campaign trail.
Clinton has called for the “deep decarbonization” of our economy by 2050, an energy plan that would “urge households and businesses to switch away from heating oil and other petroleum products.”
Clinton also opposes issuing permits for drilling in the Arctic Ocean and lifting the oil export ban on top of her opposition for the Keystone XL pipeline—stances that differ from some of her actions during her tenure as secretary of state.
In 2010, while serving as secretary of state, Clinton launched the Global Shale Gas Initiative, which promoted fracking in foreign countries to the benefit of ExxonMobil and Chevron. Both ExxonMobil and Chevron have given generously to the Clintons.
Since 2007, ExxonMobil has donated more than $16 million to Vital Voices, a nonprofit Clinton established in 1997. Exxon has also contributed as least $1 million to the Clinton Foundation while Chevron has given at least $500,000.

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]GOWDY: ‘I’M GOING TO BE INTERVIEWING’ HILLARY ‘WITHOUT ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT I’M ENTITLED TO’[/h]

43​

3​

70​

by IAN HANCHETT28 Sep 201579

Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Representative
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)

85%​

stated that “there are definitely Benghazi emails” that haven’t been turned over to his committee and “I’m going to be interviewing” Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “on October 22nd without all the documents that I’m entitled to” on Monday’s “On the Record” on the Fox News Channel.When asked, “do you have those emails [between Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus] that apparently the Defense Department found?” Gowdy said, “I don’t think we have them yet, Greta, because they would not be within our jurisdiction. I noticed in your intro, you cited the most recent example that the public record is not complete, that she didn’t turn everything over. Of course, don’t forget, there were 15 emails to and from Sidney Blumenthal that she also never turned over to the State Department. So, this is just the latest piece of evidence that the record is not complete.”
He also stated, “the State Department is going through kind of non-Benghazi related requests, FOIA requests, media requests, and that’s at the end of every month. They gave us, on Friday, over 1,000 pages of her emails that they had never before given us. In fact, it was a larger amount of emails that they gave us Friday, than what they gave us earlier in the year when they claimed to give us everything. So, less than a month before Secretary Clinton comes before the committee, and three years after Benghazi, the State Department is still producing emails.”
When asked if he believes that he has all of Clinton’s emails, he responded, “No ma’am, we still don’t have them all. They gave a Vaughn Index as part of the litigation, there are definitely Benghazi emails that they have not turned over, and they’re not going to turn them over. They cite attorney-client privilege, because Cheryl Mills was an attorney. So, we would have to go to court for two years to be able to access that. … Well, you and I, if we were ever in the administration, we would just make sure and hire a chief of staff who happened to be an attorney, so we never had to turn anything over. But I would have to go to court to get a judge to kind of pierce that invocation of privilege, but no, we don’t have all the emails, and yes, I’m going to be interviewing her on October 22nd without all the documents that I’m entitled to, and you and I wouldn’t go to court like that, but this isn’t court.”
When asked how he would describe Clinton’s cooperation with the committee, Gowdy answered, “I like the word recalcitrant. It has — it’s a moving target, Greta. Every time she gives us an explanation for why she’s done what she’s done, or what she hasn’t done, that information winds up being demonstrably false, so, at some point, under the theory that even a broken clock is right twice a day. At some point, she’s going to stumble upon something that happens to be accurate, but so far she has not.”

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]ROGER STONE: ‘PETS KILLED, TIRES SLASHED, LATE NIGHT PHONE CALLS’ TO SILENCE BILL CLINTON’S SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS[/h]

6761​

0​

726​

AFP/Getty

by ROBERT WILDE27 Sep 20151,358

[h=2]Long time political operative and strategist Roger Stone appeared on Breitbart News Sunday, broadcast on SiriusXM patriot radio channel 125, with Breitbart’s senior investigative political reporter Matt Boyle.[/h]Stone who cut his political teeth working for Richard Nixon’s infamous Committee to Re-elect the President, later campaigned for Ronald Reagan, and until recently worked for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, shared a few nuggets from his new book The Clintons’ War on Women,which he co-wrote with Robert Morrow.
Stone told Boyle that Hillary Clinton promoting herself as an advocate for women and children is hypocrisy. The author reminded Breitbart News Sunday listeners that as recently as last week Hillary spoke about the rape issue and that raped victims should be believed.
“Unfortunately, this doesn’t match her own history,” Stone pointed out. “She has been an enabler of rape. She has been the person to enable the serial rape and sexual assaults by her husband Bill Clinton. Some of which are known publicly: Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey.”
Stone stated that there were “many, many others who were not known publicly.” He charges that the main stream media is protective of the Clintons and supressed the other incidents to the public.
In The Clintons’ War on Women, Stone told Boyle that “We have laid out Hillary’s real record on women.”
Stone accused Bill Clinton of violating the women physically and that Hillary came to his rescue and hired detectives, to gather information on the women. She then used the information to “run a terror campaign to intimidate Bill’s victims into silence.”
According to Stone, Hillary’s motivation is clear. She does not want anything to get in the way of growing their power and wealth.
Stone added that the book includes not only the serial rapes committed by Bill Clinton and Hillary’s cover up, but the “horiffic things” that were done to his victims. “Pets Killed. Tires slashed. Windshields Smashed in and bullets left in the front seat of cars. Late night phone calls: We know where you’re children go to school,” all of these threats were part of the Clintons intimidation tactics.
“This is very sick stuff. It is the psychological abuse of women and Hillary is responsible for it. Women voters need to know her real record,” the political firebrand asserted.
Ironically, Stone observes, that Hillary advocates for equal pay, but that “in no job where she was the boss did women make as much as the men.”
“Hillary is really not a friend to women,” he insists. “That is really what this book is about

 

[Acebb]

[h=2]Biden Is Democrats’ Best Hope For President, Poll Says[/h]
[h=2]The VP would be the most popular candidate for President if he gets the nomination[/h]

 

[Acebb]

[h=1]Clinton endorsement divides teachers union[/h]
Top brass of the 3 million-strong National Education Association, the country's largest union, are recommending an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, according to an email obtained by POLITICO -- a move that has many state leaders and rank-and-file members planning to protest the early endorsement.
...
But the reaction is following a pattern that has played out in many major unions that have gone through the endorsement process this year -- anger and opposition from rank-and-file members who support Sanders and want their unions to hold off on any endorsement in the primary. Many teachers protested vigorously after the American Federation of Teachers endorsed Clinton in July.

 

[vitterd]

Biden Is Democrats’ Best Hope For President, Poll Says


The VP would be the most popular candidate for President if he gets the nomination

Youre too dumb to understand this. Those numbers completely change after he announces and starts a presidential campaign.

How owe stupid are you fringe right wingers?

 

[Acebb]

How owe stupid are you fringe right wingers?

It is like watching a monkey fuck a football.

 

[vitterd]

It is like watching a monkey fuck a football.

Thats all you got? An iPhone function?

Lmao.....please more worthless polls that mean nothing.....they are gold.

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]The Mystery Of Hillary's Missing Millions[/h]








Dan Alexander ,
FORBES STAFF

I write about the most successful people in the world.

• 
  [*=left]FOLLOW ON FORBES (158)
  
  
  [*=left]
  [*=left]
  [*=left]
  [*=left]
  [*=left]
  [*=left]

[h=4]
[/h]

This story appears in the October 19, 2015 issue of Forbes.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, they have earned more than $230 million. But in federal filings the Clintons claim they are worth somewhere between $11 million and $53 million. After layering years of disclosures on top of annual tax returns, Forbes estimates their combined net worth at $45 million. Where did all of the money go? No one seems to know, and the Clintons aren’t offering any answers.
From 2001 to 2014 the power couple spent $95 million on taxes. Hillary’s 2008 presidential run cost her $13 million. Their two homes cost a combined $5 million, and the Clintons have given away $22 million to charity. All of this is according to FEC filings, property records and years of tax returns. Add it up and you get $135 million. If the Clintons made $230 million, spent $135 million and have just $45 million left over, what happened to the other $50 million?
“That’s kind of strange,” says Joe Biden’s accountant, Walter Deyhle. “You have to report all of your assets. You have to report assets that are owned by your spouse.”

​

ADVERTISING












​

It seems unlikely that the Clintons could have spent all of it. Over 14 years $50 million averages out to $3.6 million in extra expenses per year, or $9,800 per day.
WHERE COULD THAT much money have disappeared? The Clintons have been speaking around the world for years, and they count millions in travel expenses under their businesses. It is unclear whether they have paid for additional travel expenses out of their own pockets. It seems unlikely, but they could have given it away overseas: Donations to foreign charities are not deductible and would not be listed on tax returns. Billionaires like Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, Lakshmi Mittal of India and Joseph Safra of Brazil have donated to their foundation. Maybe the Clintons are returning the favor?
Or maybe they have given millions to their daughter, Chelsea, although she has plenty of her own money, after working for years and marrying hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky in 2010. The problem with all of these ideas is they are merely guesses. The Clintons did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Others were just as perplexed as we were.

Recommended by Forbes

MOST POPULAR​

[h=5]Photos: The 10 Best And Worst States To Make A Living In 2015[/h]​

+167,462 VIEWS​

[h=5]The Mystery Of Hillary's Missing Millions[/h]​

Northwestern MutualVoice: Let's Get Engaged: Encouraging Kids To Embrace STEM Studies

​

​

“I don’t see how that would be possible,” said Jeff Mussatt, a certified financial planner who helped put together the financial disclosures for Republican presidential candidate Jim Gilmore. “That’s quite a quite a mystery you have on your hands.”
What we do know is that when Bill Clinton ended his presidency, he and Hillary owed millions in legal fees and were essentially broke. On a financial disclosure document Hillary filed after entering the U.S. Senate in 2001, the Clintons declared assets of less than $1.8 million and liabilities of more than $2 million.

 

[russ1945]

The Tards continue to troll but to see where I am coming from and why I started this thread I strongly urge you to go back my earlier posts. That would include Post #1, #7, and #12. There are way too many dots to find much less to connect when it comes to Hillary. I started this thread back in April in anticipation of what might come and it has surpassed my expectations. And there is much more to come.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]This Weird Fact About the Clinton Family Fortune Will Blow Your Mind[/h]BY: Andrew Stiles
September 29, 2015 5:19 pm

SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

AP​

Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill Clinton are very rich, raking in some $25 million in 2014. They own multiple mansions. They vacation in style. They make 4-5 times the median annual income for giving one speech to a room full of Wall Street executives and/or brutal dictators. Since they left the White House “dead broke” in 2001, they’ve pocketed more than $200 million. But at least some of that massive haul is unaccounted for in their annual financial disclosure, raising some interesting questions, such as, “Where is it?”
Dan Alexander explains in Forbes:

Since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, they have earned more than $230 million. But in federal filings the Clintons claim they are worth somewhere between $11 million and $53 million. After layering years of disclosures on top of annual tax returns, Forbes estimates their combined net worth at $45 million. Where did all of the money go? No one seems to know, and the Clintons aren’t offering any answers.
From 2001 to 2014 the power couple spent $95 million on taxes. Hillary’s 2008 presidential run cost her $13 million. Their two homes cost a combined $5 million, and the Clintons have given away $22 million to charity. All of this is according to FEC filings, property records and years of tax returns. Add it up and you get $135 million. If the Clintons made $230 million, spent $135 million and have just $45 million left over, what happened to the other $50 million?
“That’s kind of strange,” says Joe Biden’s accountant, Walter Deyhle. “You have to report all of your assets. You have to report assets that are owned by your spouse.”
​

Where’s the missing $50 million? Who knows? One assumes that Bill wasn’t getting a gentleman’s discount on his trips aboard “The Lolita Express” and “Air F**k One,” as well as his stays on “Orgy Island” with billionaire donor and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Alexander offers one possible, if “unlikely” explanation:

It seems unlikely, but they could have given it away overseas: Donations to foreign charities are not deductible and would not be listed on tax returns. Billionaires like Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, Lakshmi Mittal of India and Joseph Safra of Brazil have donated to their foundation. Maybe the Clintons are returning the favor?
​

$50 million seems like a lot to pay off Clinton aides like Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, who may soon be thrown under Hillary’s email bus. Could money convince Joe Biden not to run? Maybe they gave some of it to their daughter Chelsea? She’s already rich, but her husband is really bad at managing hedge funds.
Show us the money.

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAIL STORAGE WAS NOT SECURE ENOUGH FOR CLASSIFIED INFORMATION[/h]

5197​

1​

34​

Richard Ellis/Getty Images

by PATRICK HOWLEY28 Sep 2015838

Hillary Clinton stored her emails in a way that was not approved for top-secret classified information.
The State Department physically put a safe in Clinton lawyer David Kendall’s office in July to store some of the information that he had in his possession. Kendall was the lawyer who turned over the thumb drives containing Clinton’s selected work-related emails to investigators. The State Department, at least on paper, wanted to make sure that the information was being protected before it was all turned over to the FBI and the Department of Justice.
But the safe in Kendall’s office was actually not very safe.
The State Department told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the information should have been stored in a sensitive information facility, not just in a safe in a lawyer’s office,the Associated Press reported. The safe was not up to snuff to store Top Secret (“TS/SCI”) documents.
“[W]hile the safe was suitable for up to (top secret) information, it was not approved for TS/SCI material,” Assistant Secretary of State Julia Frifield told Judiciary Committee chairman
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA)

72%​

in a letter.Frifield said “there was no indication that the emails might contain TS or TS/SCI material” when the State Department gave Kendall the safe.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Leaked Audio: Hillary Clinton Calls at Private Fundraiser for Infrastructure Bank to Resemble Clinton Global Initiative[/h]Exclusive: Union-backed project would be modeled on work of controversial nonprofit
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

Hillary Clinton / AP​

BY: Alana Goodman and Lachlan Markay
September 30, 2015 11:59 am

Hillary Clinton told donors at a private fundraiser in New York last Thursday that she plans as president to create a “national infrastructure bank” modeled on the Clinton Global Initiative, according to a recording of her remarks obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
This was the first time that Clinton, who has long supported the formation of a government-controlled bank to invest in national infrastructure projects, cited the Clinton Global Initiative—the flagship arm of her family’s controversial foundation—as an investment model for her proposed bank.
Clinton said CGI’s “public-private” partnership with labor unions has created tens of thousands of jobs, and argued that a federal infrastructure bank could take on this type of project.
“Think of what we can do on a national scale,” said Clinton.
Clinton’s plan for a national infrastructure bank dovetails with the financial interests of some of her most prominent supporters. Her comments could also give ammunition to critics who say that the Clintons’ philanthropic operations, including CGI, have been plagued with conflicts of interest and financial mismanagement.

“I want to see if we can create what is called an infrastructure bank,” said Clinton. “It’s like a revolving loan fund so we can take it out of to a great extent the annual fight over appropriations. If we can get it funded with a combination of public and private funds, we can do this.”
Clinton cited as an example a $15 billion project she said the Clinton Global Initiative is running with labor union pension funds to train people for “clean energy work.”
“The Clinton Global Initiative that my husband started has a project with a lot of labor union pension funds. They have put $15 billion into a fund to train workers to be able to do energy efficiency and other clean energy work,” said Clinton. “Think of what we can do on a national scale. … There is no doubt in my mind this is a win-win.”
The Clinton fundraiser was hosted at the Greenwich Village home of John Zaccaro, a convicted felon. Clinton did not take questions after her remarks, which is unusual for a prominent candidate at a closed-door fundraising event.
Clinton’s campaign website says the proposal would “leverage public and private capital to invest in critically important infrastructure projects, including energy infrastructure projects.”
Supporters of such a bank say it would help spur investment and job creation by letting the private sector invest in public projects. But the concept has also been criticized as a magnet for cronyism that could allow government officials to hand out loans to allies as political favors.
“The basic premise is if we throw enough public and private money into a bucket and then let private parties sort of draw on it to build better roads, the whole problem will sort itself out,” said Adam J. White, counsel at Boyden Gray & Associates, a law firm that focuses on federal regulation. “That strikes me at best a recipe for a failed transportation policy and at worst an opportunity for wasting billions of dollars.”
White said recent controversies over the green energy company Solyndra and the Export-Import bank also show the potential for “favoritism, waste, politicalization.”
Clinton’s plan could also be a windfall for some of her top financial supporters.
One likely beneficiary would be Robert Wolf, a Clinton donor and former bundler for the Obama campaign who previously chaired UBS Americas. Wolf runs the consulting firm 32 Advisors, which has contributed between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
The firm announced the formation of a new infrastructure practice in April to help clients obtain funding for infrastructure projects. It brought on Michael Likosky, an expert in infrastructure financing and government planning, to lead the practice. Likosky has also advised CGI on infrastructure projects, and billed himself in July as “an Expert to the Clinton Initiative.”
Another donor that could benefit from a national infrastructure bank is Mary Scott Nabers, head of the consulting firm Strategic Partnerships, Inc. The firm helps clients to procure government contracts for public-private infrastructure projects. Nabers has contributed between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Labor unions, which represent a major voting bloc and well of financial support for Clinton, would also benefit significantly from a national infrastructure bank.
Union officials said they hoped that their project with CGI—which was cited by Clinton at her recent fundraiser—would help “spur creation of a National Infrastructure Bank to spur subsidized bonds for public works projects,” the Chicago Tribune reported in 2011.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]Undercover video: Clinton campaign worker caught breaking election law by registering Nevada Hispanics to vote with 'meme' photo of Trump that reads: 'THIS IS MY RESTING B**CH FACE'[/h]

• Clinton voter registration canvasser Henry Engelstein was captured on tape using the meme photo to lure Nevada Hispanics in to register to vote
• He told them in Spanish that Trump is 'a giant clown' and that 'Hillary Clinton is very good'
• Nevada election law makes it a felony to advise anyone about how to vote when helping them register; penalties range from 1 to 4 years in prison
• Video footage is conservative guerilla filmmaker James O'Keefe's latest offering; his organization says it won't release all its footage of Engelstein
• Clinton campaign has no comment but O'Keefe's group has caught Nevada operation on camera before saying: 'Do whatever you can, whatever you can get away with, just do it'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mp-reads-RESTING-B-CH-FACE.html#ixzz3nFXVwh35
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Hillary Supporters Really Like The Sound Of Donald Trump’s Tax Plan[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL






BY: Daniel Bassali
September 30, 2015 12:19 pm

In the latest feature in the popular series Lie Witness News, Jimmy Kimmel poked fun at Hillary Clinton supporters by fooling them into supporting aspects of Donald Trump’s plan.
“We went out on the street and found people who claimed to support Hillary Clinton for president and asked those people about her tax plan,” Jimmy Kimmel said. “What they didn’t know is that the tax plan we presented them with was not Hillary Clinton’s. It was Donald Trump’s.”
Kimmel sent a reporter to interview Clinton supporters, many of whom cited her being a woman as the reason for their support.
“I’m a Hillary Clinton supporter,” one woman said. “Well, for one, it’s definitely time we get a woman in the White House.”
“I think a female president would be a great idea,” another man said.
One woman expressed her displeasure with Trump by saying “next” when asked her opinion about the bombastic GOP frontrunner. All of those interviewed said they would not be able to support anything Trump suggested.
However, when asked about details in Trump’s tax plan, disguised as Clinton’s tax plan, all of the respondents expressed their approval, sometimes after a pause. The facets supported by the Clinton fans include traditional elements of Republican tax policy, including lowering corporate taxes, eliminate the estate tax, eliminate taxes for those making less than $25,000 a year, and eliminate the alternative minimum tax.
When informed that they were deceived, those interviewed reacted very differently.
“I’d say he’s a pretty smart man,” one man said.
“I feel pretty stupid,” another man responded.
“I would say that that’s shocking, but I’m still not voting for him,” a woman said. “He’s a caricature.”
“Well, I support Donald Trump, then,” a more honest man admitted.
“Oh, God!” a woman said in embarrassed laughter. “I hate him!”
“The conclusion?” Kimmel said. “None of us deserve to vote.”

 

[SheriffJoe]

 

[The Guesser]

Dots FULLY Connected: Just like when idiot Mitch admitted their ONLY Goal in being Obstructionists was to make Obama a one term POTUS. Note, this is NOT a defense of Hillary(except on the Nonsense that was/is Benghazi), this is Crooks and liars showing themselves for what they are.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/09/kevin-mccarthy-admits-benghazi-all-about

[h=2]Kevin McCarthy Admits Benghazi Was All About Doing Political Harm To Hillary Clinton[/h]
http://bluenationreview.com/a-new-l...s-benghazi-investigation-is-purely-political/

 

[SheriffJoe]

Dots FULLY Connected: Just like when idiot Mitch admitted their ONLY Goal in being Obstructionists was to make Obama a one term POTUS. Note, this is NOT a defense of Hillary(except on the Nonsense that was/is Benghazi), this is Crooks and liars showing themselves for what they are.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/09/kevin-mccarthy-admits-benghazi-all-about

Kevin McCarthy Admits Benghazi Was All About Doing Political Harm To Hillary Clinton

http://bluenationreview.com/a-new-l...s-benghazi-investigation-is-purely-political/

Great video, Guesser. I didn't see it because I don't watch Faux News but Hannity really grilled him.

McCarthy's words don't really match the headline, but if it ruins his chances to become Speaker all good.

No more RINOs!