Hilarious TRUMP Lovers

[Dafinch]

Only 31 lies?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...ary-is-flawed&email_subject=hillary-is-flawed

Wonderful Stinging NY Times article: "A Week of Whoppers From Donald Trump"

By yingyang
Saturday Sep 24, 2016 · 12:27 PM PDT




This is the article I think many Democrats have been waiting for. Finally.
nyti.ms/…
MAGGIE HABERMAN and ALEXANDER BURNS drew up a list of 31 lies Trump repeats and decisively refute every one of them. No equivocations. No qualifiers.

All politicians bend the truth to fit their purposes, including Hillary Clinton. But Donald J. Trump has unleashed a blizzard of falsehoods, exaggerations and outright lies in the general election, peppering his speeches, interviews and Twitter posts with untruths so frequent that they can seem flighty or random — even compulsive.
However, a closer examination, over the course of a week, revealed an unmistakable pattern: Virtually all of Mr. Trump’s falsehoods directly bolstered a powerful and self-aggrandizing narrative depicting him as a heroic savior for a nation menaced from every direction. Mike Murphy, a Republican strategist, described the practice as creating “an unreality bubble that he surrounds himself with.”
​

Note — my emphasis.
Now that’s what I call a great opening.

“I was against going into the war in Iraq.” SPEECH IN FLORIDA, SEPT. 19.
This is not getting any truer with repetition. He never publicly expressed opposition to the war before it began, and he made supportive remarks to Howard Stern.
​

That’s just number two on the list.
In my opinion this is the kind of work that needs to be praised and shared. Shared on twitter, through email — every way possible. We’ve been waiting for this kind or reporting in the corporate press for a long time. When it arrives I hope it is rewarded by those of us that have been waiting.
OK — one last example from the article:

The presidential debate moderators “are all Democrats.” “It’s a very unfair system.” FOX NEWS INTERVIEW, SEPT. 19.
Only one, Chris Wallace of Fox News, is a registered Democrat.
​

Please share the NY Times article.
nyti.ms/...

 

[Dafinch]

Now, 19 pages of lies sounds more like it...

Attention, Lester Holt: Hillary campaign releases 19-page list of FACT-CHECKED Trump Lies! (Updated)

By Oliver Tiger
Saturday Sep 24, 2016 · 12:44 PM PDT

FoxSpews Senior Talking Head Chris Wallace has made it clear he will not be fact-checking anyone at the last Presidential debate… and Donald Trump approves that message:

LARRY KING (HOST): Chris Wallace of Fox News is going to moderate the final debate. He says he doesn't believe it's his job to be the truth squad, that it's up to the candidates to catch each other. Do you think the moderator should have facts at hands and correct the guest?
DONALD TRUMP: Well, I don't know. I can tell you, Chris Wallace is a professional. He's very, very good at what he does. And you know, I can understand him saying that but yeah, I think -- I think that the candidates should police themselves.
​

And as we all know, The Donald is an absolute EXPERT at policing himself. He’s certainly an expert at policing Hillary Clinton, calling her a liar, a bigot, one of the founders of ISIS, and many other things too numerous to list…
...or are they?

The Hillary Clinton campaign held a special press call to call on the debate moderator, media, and voters to fact check Donald Trump. In order to help the press, debate moderators, and voters fact check Trump, the Clinton campaign has released 19 pages of Trump lies. HFA Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri said, “Donald Trump has shown a clear pattern of repeating provably false lies hoping that nobody will correct him. As we head into this debate, we want voters and viewers to be on alert that they should keep track. Any candidate that tells this many lies, clearly can’t win the debate on the merits.”​

The full list can be read here. Here’s a quick taste, though:
The Clinton campaign is specifically focused on Trump’s 7 Deadly Lies: FALSE: Trump opposed the Iraq War. Washington Post: Trump: “I was totally against the war in Iraq.” // Four Pinocchios. FALSE: Trump opposed intervention in Libya. Factcheck.org: Donald Trump on Libya, May 20 interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”: I would have stayed out of Libya.” // False. FALSE: Clinton supports open borders. PolitiFact: Trump says Clinton wants to create ‘totally open borders.’ // False FALSE: Clinton wants to get rid of the Second Amendment. ABC News: “Claim: Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment” // False. “When Trump made this same claim earlier in the cycle, Politifact rated the claim false after finding no evidence of Clinton ever advocating for the abolishment of the Second Amendment… Bottom line: there’s no evidence to support Trump’s claim. FALSE: President Obama and Clinton founded ISIS. Washington Post: “Is Obama the founder of ISIS?” // Absolutely not. “Absolutely not. It’s like saying that Ronald Reagan is the founder of al-Qaeda because the arms he sent to the mujahideen in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion led to the creation of al-Qaeda. It’s a ludicrous claim.”
FALSE: Clinton would allow 620,000 refugees into the U.S. with no vetting. Washington Post: Trump: “This includes her plan to bring in 620,000 new refugees from Syria and that region over a short period of time.” // This is an “invented figure.” FALSE: Trump will make Mexico pay for the wall. NPR Fact Check: Trump: “And Mexico will pay for the wall. 100 percent.” // Mexican President “would not pay” for the wall. And this is just the first page — the first of NINETEEN PAGES of whoppers that House tRump has tossed around since Hair Furor rode down on his escalator to make our lives perfect — or gold-plated, anyway.
None of this stuff is any surprise to those of us who’ve been paying attention. And none of this will change the minds of the White (Male) Walkers who make up the bulk of The Donald’s “movement.” It may not even affect Holt, Anderson Cooper, or any of the other moderators who have been completely mute about fact-checking since Wallace took his “anti-Candy Crowley stance”:

STEVE DOOCY (HOST): We were talking to Donald Trump yesterday about whether or not he would prefer a moderator or a fact-checker? He said a moderator. You don't want a fact-checker like 2012 and Candy Crowley. Watch this.

[BEGIN VIDEO]
MITT ROMNEY: It took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror
BARACK OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CANDY CROWLEY: He did, in fact, sir, so let me -- call it an act of terror.
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror.
[END VIDEO]
DOOCY: She was wrong, and it cost Romney because he just sat there.
JAY TOWNSEND: You cannot let something like that stand. She corrected him. She was wrong. He was right. He stood there and took it like an admonished school boy, and you can't allow that to happen in front of a national audience. That's not presidential. It was not strong.
​

STEVE DOOCY (HOST): We were talking to Donald Trump yesterday about whether or not he would prefer a moderator or a fact-checker? He said a moderator. You don't want a fact-checker like 2012 and Candy Crowley. Watch this.

[BEGIN VIDEO]
MITT ROMNEY: It took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror
BARACK OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CANDY CROWLEY: He did, in fact, sir, so let me -- call it an act of terror.
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror.
[END VIDEO]
DOOCY: She was wrong, and it cost Romney because he just sat there.
JAY TOWNSEND: You cannot let something like that stand. She corrected him. She was wrong. He was right. He stood there and took it like an admonished school boy, and you can't allow that to happen in front of a national audience. That's not presidential. It was not strong.
​

Welllllllllll, she WASN’T wrong, but in the words of the late Edward Albee, “That’s all blood under the bridge.”
My point is this: Even if this list doesn’t give the voters pause, or the moderators pause, it should give the press some serious pause — if not to be embarrassed by the wholly unprofessional job they’ve done about holding tRump to some kind of account, but their fervent desire to prove that covering Benghazigate and Emailgate to death is their way of providing “even-handed coverage.”
And anyway, you now have the perfect response for anyone who says, “Clinton lies just as much as Trump”: 19 pages, right upside the head.
Happy reading.
UPDATE:
REC LIST! WHOO HOO! Thankyuh! Thankyuhverrehmuch! Y’all can leave them steak tips right where I can get ‘em! Thankyuh! Ah love ya…

 

[superbeets]

[h=6]- SEPTEMBER 24, 2016 -[/h][h=1]HILLARY CLINTON CANNOT STOP TELLING LIES[/h]Download PDF
[h=4]Hillary Clinton Even Lies About Lying[/h][h=4][/h][h=4]To view the full backgrounder on Hillary Clinton's lies, click here


LIE #1: CLINTON PUBLICLY BLAMED A YOUTUBE VIDEO FOR THE BENGHAZI TERRORIST ATTACK, WHILE PRIVATELY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT “HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FILM”

LIE #2: CLINTON HAS PUBLICLY TOUTED THE RUSSIAN “RESET” WHILE PRIVATELY ADMITTING IT WAS A FAILURE

LIE #3: CLINTON HAS TRIED TO REWRITE THE HISTORY OF HER POLICY TOWARDS SYRIA

LIE #4: CLINTON IS “UNCREDIBLE” WHEN IT COMES TO BASHAR AL-ASSAD

LIE #5: CLINTON FALSELY CLAIMED THAT EMAILS FROM SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL WERE “UNSOLICITED,” WHEN IN FACT, CLINTON TREATED HIM AS A SECRET, OFF-THE-BOOKS ADVISER

LIE #6: CLINTON TRIED TO DOWNPLAY AND MISLEAD ABOUT HER VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THE WAR IN IRAQ

LIE #7: CLINTON ADMITTED SHE VOTED AGAINST THE IRAQ SURGE PURELY FOR POLITICAL REASONS

LIE #8: CLINTON’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS OUTSOURCING DEPENDS ON WHO IS LISTENING

LIE #9: BEYOND JUST HER CONFLICTING RHETORIC, CLINTON CONTRIBUTED TO THE OUTSOURCING OF AMERICAN JOBS HERSELF

LIE #10: CLINTON HAS SHARPLY CRITICIZED SUPREME COURT CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULINGS BUT IS ACTIVELY USING THEM TO RAISE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

LIE #11: CLINTON’S SUPER PAC HYPOCRISY

LIE #12: CLINTON’S PAST RHETORIC ON PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING REFORM NEVER RECONCILED WITH HER RECORD IN THE SENATE

LIE #13: CLINTON HAS BEEN CALLED OUT FOR CREATING AN “ABSURD” CLAIM ABOUT HER OPPOSITION TO MIDDLE-CLASS TAXES

LIE #14: CLINTON HAS INTRODUCED A NEW PLAN FOR THE ESTATE TAX WHICH CLOSES “LOOPHOLES,” BUT DOESN’T ADDRESS THE ONE HER FAMILY IS EXPLOITING

LIE #15: CLINTON BROKE BILL’S PLEDGE ABOUT NOT USING A “BROAD-BASED” TAX HIKE TO PAY FOR “HILLARYCARE”

LIE #16: CLINTON WAS FOR FRACKING BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST IT

LIE #17: CLINTON HAS IGNORED HER PAST SUPPORT OF OFFSHORE DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC TO BOLSTER HER ENVIRONMENTAL CREDENTIALS

LIE #18: AS A CANDIDATE, CLINTON SAYS OPPOSES NEW DRILLING OFF AMERICA’S SHORES, BUT AS SECRETARY OF STATE HER ACTIONS SUPPORTED NEW DRILLING

LIE #19: CLINTON TAKES DIFFERENT POSITIONS ON QUESTIONING JUDICIAL NOMINEES

LIE #20: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE MATTER OF NUMBER OF DEVICES SHE USED

LIE #21: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON TURNING OVER ALL OF HER WORK RELATED EMAIL

LIE #22: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON TRANSMITTING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF SENDING OR RECEIVING

LIE #23: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE MATTER OF WHETHER THERE WAS MARKED CLASSIFIED MATERIAL ON HER SERVER

LIE #24: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE MATTER OF HER SECRET SERVER BEING VULNERABLE TO HACKERS

LIE #25: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE MATTER OF SHE AND HER AIDES DELETING AND WIPING DEVICES

LIE #26: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SET UP HER OWN SERVER

LIE #27: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER SHE EMAILED PEOPLE WITHOUT A PROPER SECURITY CLEARANCE

LIE #28: LAST YEAR, CLINTON “DUSTED OFF” A CLAIM THAT SHE TRIED TO JOIN THE MARINES IN 1975, BUT WAS REJECTED

LIE #29: NOT EVEN A WEEK INTO HER CAMPAIGN KICKOFF, CLINTON WAS CAUGHT TELLING A FALSEHOOD ABOUT HER FAMILY HISTORY IN IOWA

LIE #30: PANDERING TO VOTERS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, CLINTON CLAIMED THE FIRST TIME SHE EVER CAMPAIGNED FOR ANYONE WAS IN THAT STATE IN 1991

LIE #31: ON THE 2008 CAMPAIGN TRAIL, CLINTON CLAIMED SHE CAME UNDER SNIPER FIRE IN BOSNIA

LIE #32: ON THE 2008 CAMPAIGN TRAIL, CLINTON EMBELLISHED HER ROLE DURING NORTHERN IRELAND’S PEACE NEGOTIATIONS

LIE #33: ON THE 2008 CAMPAIGN TRAIL, CLINTON TOOK LIBERTIES WHEN DESCRIBING A TRIP TO MACEDONIA SHE MADE AS FIRST LADY

LIE #34: ON THE 2008 CAMPAIGN TRAIL, CLINTON OVERSTATED HER TRAVEL SCHEDULE AS FIRST LADY, IMPLYING SHE TRAVELED TO DANGEROUS AREAS

LIE #35: CLINTON HAS EVEN EMBELLISHED HER STORY OF THE BIN LADEN RAID

LIE #36: AS FIRST LADY, CLINTON CLAIMED SHE WAS NAMED AFTER EDMUND HILLARY, THE FIRST PERSON TO CLIMB MOUNT EVEREST[/h]

 

[superbeets]

[h=6]- SEPTEMBER 25, 2016 -[/h][h=1]​CROOKED HILLARY QUESTION OF THE DAY[/h]

If Clinton Did Nothing Wrong On Her Private Email Server, Then Why Did Her Personal Attorney Need FBI Immunity?​

QUESTION OF THE DAY: “Secretary Clinton, if you did nothing wrong, why did your personal lawyer during the FBI investigation into your private email server take an immunity deal?” – Jason Miller, Senior Communications Advisor

---

WHY IT MATTERS

Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s Personal Attorney, Received Immunity During The FBI Investigation Into Clinton’s Private Email Server. “Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s State Department chief of staff and her personal attorney, received immunity from the Justice Department in order to cooperate with the FBI’s investigation into the former secretary of state’s email practices.” (Chuck Ross, “Report: Hillary Clinton’s Top Aide Received Justice Department Immunity In Email Probe,” The Daily Caller, 9/23/16)

 

[superbeets]

[h=6]- SEPTEMBER 25, 2016 -[/h][h=1]LIAR: CLINTON’S CHIEF STRATEGIST PEDDLES FALSEHOODS ON CLINTON FOUNDATION DISCLOSURES[/h]Today, The Clinton Campaign’s Chief Strategist, Joel Benenson, Asserted That The Clinton Foundation Discloses All Of Their Donors. FOX NEWS’ CHRIS WALLACE: “I’ve got about a minute left, and I want to ask you about one other thing, you heard Mike Pence go on about the differences between the Trump Foundation and the Clinton Foundation and he said the Clinton Foundation was pay-to-play. You gave money to the foundation, you got special access to the State Department. Your response to that? The calendar does show that more than half of nongovernmental people she met with were donors to the foundation.” CHIEF STRATEGIST JOEL BENENSON: “No, No. 85 people out of over 2,000 people.” WALLACE: “No, 85 out of 150.” BENENSON: “No Chris, as you know, two weeks after the initial headlines said half the people -- nongovernmental people she met with, the AP took down their headline, their statement, acknowledging it was wrong and sloppy because they only looked at a small sliver of the nongovernmental people she met with. But, the important point on the Clinton Foundation, and maybe Governor Pence's proximity to Donald Trump is going to rank him on the record breakers of people who have been fact checked for lying and dissembling. The fact is the Clinton donation discloses all their donors. Governor Pence should know that.” (Fox News Sunday, 9/25/16)

FACT CHECK: CURRENTLY THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DOES NOT DISCLOSE ALL OF THEIR DONORSThere Are 1,000 Unknown Donors To The Clinton Guistra Enterprise Partnership, A Foreign Arm Of The Clinton Foundation​

Clinton Guistra Enterprise Partnership Is A Canadian Charity, Which Moves “Significant Sums Of Money Into The Clinton Foundation’s Flagship In New York.”“Canadian charity called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership—which is run by one of Bill Clinton’s close friends, Frank Giustra—has been moving significant sums of money into the Clinton Foundation’s flagship in New York.” (Ken Silverstein, “Shaky Foundations,” Harper’s Magazine, 11/18/15)
There Is No Way To Know Exactly How Much Money CGEP Has Taken In, Because Canadian Non-Profit Law Says Charities Do Not Need To Report Donors. “There’s no way for the public to know precisely how much total money the CGEP has taken in over the years—or how much it has forwarded on to the Clinton Foundation—because, unlike in the United States, under Canadian non-profit law charities don’t need to report donors to tax authorities.” (Ken Silverstein, “Shaky Foundations,”Harper’s Magazine, 11/18/15)

• In 2015, Under Pressure From The Press, CGEP Released The Names Of 24 Donors, But More Than 1,000 Are Still Unknown. “Earlier this year, after being severely criticized by the Canadian press, the CGEP released the names of twenty-four of its donors, but more than 1,000 are still unknown. (CGEP wrote in an email that ‘going forward [it] will publicly disclose all future donors.’)”(Ken Silverstein, “Shaky Foundations,” Harper’s Magazine, 11/18/15)

Known Donations Surrounding The Controversial Uranium One Deal Remain Undisclosed On The Clinton Foundation Website​

In 2009, The Fernwood Foundation Donated $1 Million, The Same Year Uranium One “Appealed To The American Embassy To Help Keep Its Mines In Kazakhstan, $250,000 In 2010, The Year The Russians Sought Majority Control; As Well As $600,000 In 2011 And $500,000 In 2012.” “His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)

• The Fernwood Foundation Donations Remain Undisclosed On The Clinton Foundation Website. (Clinton Foundation, Accessed 5/1/16)

Ian Telfer Has A Family Charity Called The Fernwood Foundation, Which Donated Millions “During And After The Critical Time When The Foreign Investment Committee Was Reviewing His Deal With The Russians.” “But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
Ian Telfer Was The Chairman Of Uranium One. “The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
By 2009, Uranium One’s Stock Was In “Free-Fall, Down 40 Percent.” “By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
Rosatom Was Eyeing A Stake In Uranium One. “At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)

• Rosatom Is The Russian Atomic Energy Agency. “The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)

In The 2010 Deal, The Russians Offered Shareholders Like Telfer A “Special Dividend” Meaning He Stood To Profit From The Deal. “With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)The Clinton Foundation’s Website Currently Conceals A Lot Of Information About Foundation Donors And Is “Deliberately Misleading”​

The Donor List Posted On The Clinton Foundation’s Website Does Not Provide Nationality Or Occupation Of The Donors, The Dates They Contributed, Or Precise Amounts Of Contributions. “The list posted on the foundation's Web site --www.clintonfoundation.org -- did not provide the nationality or occupation of the donors, the dates they contributed or the precise amounts of their gifts, instead breaking down contributors by dollar ranges. Nor did the list include pledges for future donations. As a result, it is impossible to know from the list which donations were made while Mr. Clinton was still president or while Mrs. Clinton was running for president.” (Peter Baker and Charlie Savage, “In Clinton List, A Veil Is Lifted On Foundation,” The New York Times, 12/19/08)

• These Limits To Transparency Make It Difficult To Track Trends In Giving Over Time, And As A Result, It Is Impossible To Determine How Much Particular Donors Contributed In The Months Since Hillary Clinton Joined The Foundation. “And the foundation tallies the giving of each donor only cumulatively, making it difficult to track trends in giving over time. As a result, it is not possible to determine how much particular donors contributed in the months since Hillary Clinton joined the foundation in 2013.”(Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Steven Rich, “Clintons’ Foundation Has Raised Nearly $2 Billion — And Some Key Questions,” The Washington Post, 2/18/15)

Harper’s Ken Silverstein: It Is An Open Secret That The Clinton Foundation’s Financial Records Are Deliberately Misleading. “Democrats and Clinton apologists will write these accusations off as conspiracy mongering and right-wing propaganda, butit’s an open secret to anyone remotely familiar with accounting and regulatory requirements for charities that the financial records are deliberately misleading. And not coincidentally, those records were long filed by a Little Rock–based accounting firm called BKD, a regional auditor with little international experience.” (Ken Silverstein, “Shaky Foundations,” Harper’s Magazine, 11/18/15)

FACT CHECK: THE CLINTON FOUNDATION ALSO HAS A HISTORY OF DISCLOSURE FAILURESClinton Made Empty Promises About Disclosing Information On Her Foundation That She Didn’t Keep​

In November 2008, The Clinton Foundation Agreed To Publicly Disclose Clinton Foundation Donors As Part Of An Agreement With Obama’s Transition Team That Cleared That Way For Hillary Clinton To Become Secretary Of State. “Former President Bill Clinton has agreed to disclose publicly the names of more than 200,000 donors to his foundation as part of an accord with President-elect Barack Obama that clears the way for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to become secretary of state, Democrats close to both sides said on Saturday.” (Peter Baker, “Clinton To Name Donors As Part Of Obama Deal,” The New York Times, 11/30/08)
Additionally, Bill Clinton Agreed To “Submit His Future Personal Speeches And Business Activities For Review By State Department Ethics Officials, And If Necessary, By The White House Counsel’s Office.” “The disclosure of contributors is among nine conditions that Mr. Clinton signed off on during discussions with representatives of Mr. Obama; all go beyond the requirements of law. Among other issues, he agreed to incorporate his Clinton Global Initiative separately from his foundation so that he has less direct involvement. The initiative, which promotes efforts to fight disease, poverty and climate change, would no longer hold annual meetings outside of the United States or accept new contributions from foreign governments. Mr. Clinton also agreed to submit his future personal speeches and business activities for review by State Department ethics officials and, if necessary, by the White House counsel's office.” (Peter Baker, “Clinton To Name Donors As Part Of Obama Deal,” The New York Times, 11/30/08)

The Clinton Foundation Reported It Had Received “Zero” Contributions From Foreign Governments, Despite Taking In Millions In Undisclosed Donations​

“The Clinton Foundation Accepted Millions Of Dollars From Seven Foreign Governments During Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Tenure As Secretary Of State…” “The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.”(Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Foreign Governments Gave Millions To Foundation While Clinton Was At State Dept.,” The Washington Post, 2/25/15)

• “Some Of The Donations Came From Countries With Complicated Diplomatic, Military And Financial Relationships With The U.S. Government, Including Kuwait, Qatar And Oman.”(Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Foreign Governments Gave Millions To Foundation While Clinton Was At State Dept.,” The Washington Post, 2/25/15)

“For Three Years In A Row Beginning In 2010, The Clinton Foundation Reported To The IRS That It Received Zero In Funds From Foreign And U.S. Governments…” ‘For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.’ (Jonathan Allen, "Exclusive: Clinton Charities Will Refile Tax Returns, Audit For Other Errors," Reuters, 4/23/15)
"Those Entries Were Errors, According To The Foundation," As Several Foreign Governments Contributed Tens Of Millions To The Foundation During That Time Period. "Those entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars toward the foundation's work on climate change and economic development through this three-year period."(Jonathan Allen, "Exclusive: Clinton Charities Will Refile Tax Returns, Audit For Other Errors," Reuters, 4/23/15)

Clinton Foundation CEO Maura Pally Wrote: "Yes, We Made Mistakes, As Many Organizations Of Our Size Do, But We Are Acting Quickly To Remedy Them…" "In a blog post out Sunday, Foundation acting CEO Maura Pally reaffirmed its commitment to transparency, but nevertheless said some errors had occurred. 'Yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don't happen in the future,' Pally wrote." (Dan Merica and Theodore Schleifer, "Clinton Foundation: 'Yes, We Made Mistakes,'" CNN, 4/27/15)The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) Failed To Disclose Donors​

Reuters Headline: “Exclusive: Despite Hillary Clinton Promise, Charity Did Not Disclose Donors” (Jonathan Allen, “Exclusive: Despite Hillary Clinton Promise, Charity Did Not Disclose Donors,” Reuters, 3/19/15)
CHAI’s Failure To Disclose Donors Make It “A Prominent Symbol Of The Broken Political Promise And Subsequent Lack Of Accountability Underlying The Charity-Related Controversies That Are Dogging Clinton As She Embarks On Her Campaign For President.” “The failures make the Clinton Health Access Initiative, which is headquartered on Dorchester Avenue in South Boston, and goes by the acronym CHAI, a prominent symbol of the broken political promise and subsequent lack of accountability underlying the charity-related controversies that are dogging Clinton as she embarks on her campaign for president.” (Annie Linskey, “Clinton Charity Never Provided Foreign Donor Data,” The Boston Globe, 4/30/15)
CHAI Released Only A Partial Donor List For The First Time In 2015 And Called Its Failure To Disclose Its Donors In The Past “An Oversight.” “CHAI, which is best known for helping to reduce the cost of drugs for people with HIV in the developing world, published a partial donor list for the first time only this year. CHAI should have published the names during 2010-2013, when Clinton was in office, CHAI spokeswoman Maura Daley acknowledged this week. ‘Not doing so was an oversight which we made up for this year,’ she told Reuters in an email when asked why it had not published any donor lists until a few weeks ago.” (Jonathan Allen, “Exclusive: Despite Hillary Clinton Promise, Charity Did Not Disclose Donors,”Reuters, 3/19/15)
Clinton Guistra Enterprise Partnership Has Failed To Disclosure Donors
The Clinton Guistra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP) Is A Canadian Charity, Which Moves “Significant Sums Of Money Into The Clinton Foundation’s Flagship In New York.” “Canadian charity called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership—which is run by one of Bill Clinton’s close friends, Frank Giustra—has been moving significant sums of money into the Clinton Foundation’s flagship in New York.” (Ken Silverstein, “Shaky Foundations,” Harper’s Magazine, 11/18/15)
There Is No Way To Know Exactly How Much Money CGEP Has Taken In, Or Exactly From Who, Because Canadian Non-Profit Law Says Charities Do Not Need To Report Donors. “There’s no way for the public to know precisely how much total money the CGEP has taken in over the years—or how much it has forwarded on to the Clinton Foundation—because, unlike in the United States, under Canadian non-profit law charities don’t need to report donors to tax authorities.” (Ken Silverstein, “Shaky Foundations,” Harper’s Magazine, 11/18/15)
According To Investigative Reporting From Harper’s Ken Silverstein, Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership Has Received Money From Corrupt Officials In South Africa During The Former Regime Of Jacob Zuma And From Senior Officials In Equatorial Guinea. “One money-laundering expert and former intelligence officer based in the Middle East—who had access to the foundation’s confidential banking information—told me that members of the royal family in Middle Eastern countries, including Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, have donated money to the CGEP that has then been sluiced through to the Clinton Foundation. He told me that the CGEP has received money from corrupt officials in South Africa during the former regime of Jacob Zuma and from senior officials in Equatorial Guinea, one of the most brutal and crooked dictatorships in the world.” (Ken Silverstein, “Shaky Foundations,”Harper’s Magazine, 11/18/15)
The Clinton Foundation May Have Violated Treasury Department Money-Laundering Rules By Not Disclosing An Account Linked To The CGEP On It’s Past Eight Tax Returns. “There are other signs that the Clintons and their foundation may have violated federal, state, and international law. Under Treasury Department money-laundering rules, the Clinton Foundation is required to disclose every financial account it holds abroad. It has failed to disclose an account linked to the CGEP on its past eight tax returns.” (Ken Silverstein, “Shaky Foundations,” Harper’s Magazine, 11/18/15)
The Clinton Foundation Failed To Disclose $26.4 Million In Speaking Honoraria, Only Revealing The Money When Pressed On The Matter
In May 2015, The Clinton Foundation Reported That It Has Received As Much As $26 Million In Previously Undisclosed Speaking Fees. “The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups … The money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.” (Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,” The Washington Post, 5/21/15)
The Disclosure Came As The Clinton Foundation Faced Questions “Over Whether It Fully Complied With A 2008 Ethics Agreement To Reveal Its Donors And Whether Any Of Its Funding Sources Present Conflicts Of Interest. “The disclosure came as the foundation faced questions over whether it fully complied with a 2008 ethics agreement to reveal its donors and whether any of its funding sources present conflicts of interest for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she begins her presidential campaign.”(Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,” The Washington Post, 5/21/15)

 

[superbeets]

[h=6]- SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 -[/h][h=1]FORMER MEXICAN DIPLOMAT, ‘THERE ARE WAYS’ MEXICO COULD PAY FOR THE WALL[/h]New York Post

"A former top Mexican diplomat believes Donald Trump could get Mexico to pay for a border wall. Easily."​

---

"“If [Trump] really wants Mexico to pay for the wall, he has many ways of getting many Mexicans to pay for the wall,” Jorge Castañeda, Mexico’s former foreign affairs secretary, told the Hudson Institute this week, according to The Weekly Standard.
Trump could “increase the fee for visas, which is a decision made by the State Department, not by Congress” or “increase the toll on the bridges [between the two countries] . . . again, not done by Congress,” Castañeda said.
“There are ways of doing it … transaction fees, commissions, special fees etc.”
...
Castañeda’s comments suggest that if Trump were to win the presidential election, he in fact would be able to carry out his signature policy."
To read more, click on the link:
http://nypost.com/2016/09/23/former-mexican-diplomat-there-are-ways-mexico-could-pay-for-wall/

 

[superbeets]

[h=6]- SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 -[/h][h=1]FBI: CLINTON IT AIDES DESCRIBED ‘HILLARY COVER-UP OPERATION’[/h]Washington Examiner

"Employees at Platte River Network, the firm tapped to manage Hillary Clinton's emails in 2013, sent emails describing the 'Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation' after Clinton's staff asked them to begin wiping emails in Dec. 2014."
​

---

"The revelation came in 189 pages of FBI documents made public Friday evening amid controversy over the five immunity deals extended to aides involved in the case — including one that protected a key employee at Platte River from prosecution.
The unnamed employee told FBI agents that his reference to the "cover-up" was a joke.

His comment came in December 2014, just days after Clinton's staff handed 30,000 of her emails over to the State Department."
To read more, click on the link:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...ed-hillary-cover-up-operation/article/2602744

 

[superbeets]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 1h1 hour ago
Really sad news: The great Arnold Palmer, the "King," has died. There was no-one like him - a true champion! He will be truly missed.

7,608 retweets22,601 likes
Reply

Retweet
7.6K



Like
23K

More

 

[russ1945]

Trump endorsed by U.S. immigration officers...

 

[vidswaps]

:hahahahah:missingte

 

[superbeets]

 

[vidswaps]

 

[superbeets]

[h=6]- SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 -[/h][h=1]JOHN H. SUNUNU ENDORSES DONALD J. TRUMP[/h]

Former New Hampshire Governor, Chief of Staff To President George H.W. Bush Backs Trump-Pence Ticket
​

“Donald Trump is the only candidate in this race who can bring bold change to Washington D.C. I support the Trump-Pence ticket for their pro-growth agenda and commitment to protecting American interests. Republicans, Independents and smart Democrats need to come together to elect Donald Trump and Mike Pence.” –Governor John H. Sununu

 

[vitterd]

You got guts showing up today superbore. Your candidate took a beating last night.

 

[superbeets]

You got guts showing up today superbore. Your candidate took a beating last night.

So delusional.

 

[Dafinch]

http://theweek.com/speedreads/651363/hillary-clinton-crushed-donald-trump-debate-cnn-poll-finds

I've been saying for months that she would clean his clock,, so I can't say I was surprised. Even Breibart said he lost, lol.

Hillary Clinton crushed Donald Trump


in the debate, CNN poll finds

September 26, 2016






Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had a number of ups and downs throughout the presidential debate, not necessarily making it entirely clear who "won" and who "lost." But according to a CNN snap poll, there was no question about the matter, with Hillary Clinton "winning" 62 to 27. That number needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as CNN reports the crowd skewed 10 points more Democrat and two points less Republican than a truly representative electoral audience — but it's still a rather overwhelming agreement.
Still, even some Republicans were quick to concede the debate was all Clinton's. As John Kasich strategist John Weaver said:
Others disagree. "Everyone is saying I won the debate," Trump told Mark Halperin. Jeva Lange

 

[Dafinch]

Trump's debate performance was so bad it was ... really bad:aktion033:nohead::thumbsup2opcorn-eatinggif

By Mark Sumner
Monday Sep 26, 2016 · 10:43 PM PDT





The 3AM call came at 9PM. That’s when the largest audience ever to watch a presidential debate tuned in to see two candidates tested to determine which of them was best suited to hold high office. As it turned out, only one candidate was ready to accept that call.
Before the debate there was a great deal of discussion about “which Donald Trump would show up.” Would it be the blustering braggart who reassured the nation about the size of his … hands. Or would it be TelePrompTer Trump, delivering an equally viscious but more measured message featuring words of more than one syllable.
It turned out to be neither. Instead it was a Trump who was simply … awful. Awful by every measure.
From the very first question, the way the evening was going to unfold was clear. Hillary Clinton was prepared, relaxed, ready both for the questions and for her opponent. And Donald Trump simply thought he could wing it. It was Kellyanne Conway who called Trump 'the Babe Ruth of debating,’ but it was Donald Trump who clearly made the mistake of believing his own press.
He was Trump, by gum. The guy with the best brain. The best words. He crushed low energy Jeb! He murdered Little Marco. He sent Lyin’ Ted running. Trump was too fast, too good to fail. But he did.

Hillary Clinton responded to the first economic question with an an opening into her plans for energy, education, the minimum wage, child care … it was a smooth summary of her position delivered to fit the two-minute window without sounding wonky or confusing. When the ball was handed to Trump, he immediately lurched into a half-speed version of his usual nationalist rant, blaming Mexico, blaming China, but offering up nothing that looked like policy. Instead of filling his time with two minutes of information, Trump replayed the same few phrases over and over—which would happen on almost every exchange.
In fact, this slow-boil replay of Trump's rally speech would turn out to be his high point. On the very next question, Hillary Clinton mentioned the loan Trump received from his father. Donald Trump physically cringed. In his response he tried to pass over the charge quickly, saying he got a “small loan,” but his temperature was on the rise.
Hillary had him hooked at that point. For the rest of the night, no matter what bait Clinton tried, she never failed to get a bite from Trump.

But it was the tax return question when Hillary broke him. Broke him. Speculating about the reason Trump wouldn't release his taxes, Clinton rattled off every single sore spot on Trump's tender skin. Maybe he wasn't so rich. Maybe he wasn't so generous. Maybe he paid no taxes. In response, Trump openly bragged about paying no taxes. It was a response Clinton would use to bludgeon Trump again as someone who didn't contribute his fair share, and from that point on Trump became less self-possessed, less coherent, less able to restrain himself.
From there on, Trump could rarely string together something that came within a mile of a sentence. Even for those who had tried to decipher Trump's rally rhetoric or his answers at the CIC forum could only listen slack-jawed to the unrelated sets of words produced—at length—while both Hillary and moderator Lester Holt set back to allow Trump to … ramble is too kind.
In the middle of the debate, the answers around a series of race-related issues stood out not just for the groans and interruptions coming from Trump's side, but for Trump jumping on Holt to say that stop and frisk was not found unconstitutional — a moment where Trump came just short of recreating his “Mexican judge” attack. And Trump fell into not one, but two long defenses of his birtherism, including the statement that he had done the president a favor by “forcing” him to release his birth certificate. Then Trump repeatedly refused to apologize for any aspect of the fight even when reminded that the topic was healing wounds between the races.
Ironically, even as Trump was charging that Clinton lacked the stamina for the job, it was clear that his own knees were getting rubbery. He was increasingly unable to focus, or to respond with an answer that matched the question. Increasingly prone to wandering from every topic. His answers included the imaginary 400 lb hacker and the even more imaginary conversations with Sean Hannity that would prove Trump's opposition to the Iraq War.

By the end of the evening, Trump skated from “Rosie O’Donnell deserved it” to an answer on nuclear weapons that was denser than spent uranium—a response in which it was completely unclear if Donald Trump even knew what “first strike” actually meant.
Trump actually finished up with a statement that 1,800 immigrants who were slated to be deported were instead welcomed at citizens because someone “pressed the wrong button,” a story so bizarre that it almost certainly originated on his campaign CEO’s web site.
The level of performance from Trump should be disqualifying. Was disqualifying.
Even people who really would stand for Trump shooting someone in the street are going to have a hard time with this debate.

 

[Dafinch]

Like Hillary said, when you're complaining about the microphone, you're likely not having a good night, lol...

She. Just. Destroyed. Him.

By AmericanIdeal
Monday Sep 26, 2016 · 8:01 PM PDT





Period.
I have very little time to do much other than to state the bottom line.
That was definitive. Easy to spot. Decisive. Complete.
Hillary came off looking Presidential. Very. Yuuuuugely. Don’t believe me? I watched with 12 ardent Trump supporters and a few other Hillary supporters. I thought it was going to be a long night for me no matter what she said.
By the end, there was: “did he just suggest gun control?”


“She made him look small tonight. Great — that ^&*%$ is gonna win.”
“He really doesn’t sound like he was ready for this.”
And Frank Luntz — master spinner for the Dark Side — repeatedly Tweeting that Hillary is wiping the floor with the Don.
Sometimes, it doesn’t take a “gotcha moment”. Those are usually needed by candidates who are evenly matched, looking for a slight edge, and doing close battle.
This one was a complete and decisive romp. A “gotcha debate”, from one of the most thoroughly prepared and qualified (and vetted) candidates this country has ever seen. And if one line summed it up perfectly for me and for the room, it was this one that hit like a punch and stung like a bee:

“I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And yes I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be President, and I think that’s a good thing.”
​

Mic drop.
Now let’s spend the final six weeks working our asses off to get her back, GOTV and send this immensely talented, tough and inspiring woman to the White House where she obviously belongs.
PS: a sincere thanks for my FIRST time on the Rec List. I am honored, and thrilled this is the topic. I sincerely feel there has been some unnecessary hand-wringing on here lately, largely based on polls that carelessly reflect an electorate no longer in play (2000-2004), and probably due to wanting to keep this thing a horse race for ratings and clicks. But in the end, no matter the noise, Hillary continues to impress me more and more — classy, tough, resilient, prepared...and obviously qualified to occupy the White House. GOTV!!

 

[Dafinch]

Clinton vs. Trump: Round 1, initial thoughts

By Mark Sumner
Monday Sep 26, 2016 · 8:08 PM PDT

Before the debate began, word was leaking out of the Trump camp that Donald wasn’t prepared. That he hadn’t studied the issues. That he hadn’t spent enough time practicing. That he simply wasn’t ready.
It seemed like the perfect spin for a campaign that was trying to lower already low expectations.
It wasn’t spin. Within twenty minutes of the debate’s start, Donald Trump was already on his way to sputtering meltdown.
Donald Trump made Sarah Palin look like Einstein mixed with Gandhi. Everyone who worked to set the bar for Trump at some subterranean depth … didn’t work hard enough. There was no bar low enough for Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton was polished, prepared, and no one could say she needed to “smile more.” Donald Trump’s flailing, all over the board responses made Clinton’s only problem holding back her glee.
Trump was put into the position of defending his use of bankruptcy laws. Which he did. And when Clinton pushed him over the people he had stiffed, Trump went on to defend not paying workers.
He was forced to defend his birtherism. Which he did. And did. And did some more. Even when the question was about decreasing racial tensions. Plus he piled on stop and frisk, giving a muddled misstatement on why it wasn’t unconstitutional.
He flapped his arms in an attempt to defend giving a massive tax break to the wealthy, but lost the thread in the middle of the reply and ended up talking about… something. Not even Trump is sure what.
He was backed into defending his temperament … while screaming.
Trump couldn’t control himself. Not only was the split screen not a friend to Donald Trump’s eye-rolls and grimaces, he produced constant interruptions ranging from groans, snorts, and sniffs, to shouts and interruptions. A four-year-old throwing a fit in Macy’s would have been embarrassed.
And It was also clear that Mr. Stamina’s mainspring was windddinnnnggg down after about thirty minutes. Deprived of a raging audience ready to reaffirm his every word, Trump’s energy dropped into the red.
The result was that Hillary Clinton got to go through her economic plan. Got to spell out her plan on defense. Got to put forward proposals, while Trump replied with grunts and rambling. Trump’s level of incoherence reached such a level that you have to reach into Lovecraftian terms. Gibbering? Foetid? Maybe both,
At one point Hillary Clinton actually found herself talking past Donald Trump, to reassure America’s allies that the nation is still trustworthy, still sane, despite what could be seen on the other end of the stage.
By the time he coasted into a combination of talking about Iran and Rosie O’Donnell, even people that knew what Donald Trump was talking about couldn’t tell what he was saying. It was simply drivel.
It was the worst performance by a candidate. Not the worst performance by a presidential candidate. I’m throwing in Congress, state offices, and third grade hall monitor. It was that bad.
Bonus: Donald Trump’s new “proof” that he was against the war in Iraq was that he had secret conversations with Sean Hannity saying he was against the war. And that if someone will just call Sean, he will totally support Trump.
People thought the were going to see something historic tonight. They did. Because Donald Trump is history.

 

[Dafinch]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...ct=clinton-crushes-trump-in-post-debate-polls

This might be the funniest moment of all, fucking moron lies about something an hour after 100 million people saw him say it, lol...

Trump denies saying not paying taxes 'makes me smart' an hour after he said it

By Joan McCarter
Monday Sep 26, 2016 · 8:18 PM PDT





During the first presidential debate, during a discussion about Donald Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, Hillary Clinton noted that he's "paid nothing in federal taxes" in recent years. "That makes me smart," Trump bragged. Donald Trump an hour afterward:

Dana Bash (CNN): “My question for you is, first of all, it sounds like you admitted that you hadn't paid federal taxes and that that was smart. Is that what you meant to say?
Trump: “No, I didn't say that at all.”
​

Seriously. Watch it below.