You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

AreWeSure ago

You talk about crimes, but I see no evidence for the claims. The sale of Uranium One involved no crimes and multiple federal agencies confirmed it posed no threat to US security. You are using this for your claim of treason?

Joule is an American company. It is not controlled by Moscow or by Russian investors. And not a single word of that email concerns bribes.

You seem to alleging lobbying crimes, but it's not clear at all the specifics. The Panama Papers didn't reveal any crimes on behalf of the Podesta Group. Sberbank only became their client this year and they are publically registered as a lobbyist for Sberbank. See here

https://archive.is/ANo1b*

The issue they were hired to lobby on is US sanctions against the bank.

*Also there's a bonus there!

webofslime ago

Doug Band explicitly stated that Chelsea used 3 million in CF money to pay for her wedding.

The financials from the Clinton Foundation make it clear what is going on. Money laundering through a web of NGO's.

They are personally enriching themselves and their friends with blood money.

AreWeSure ago

I will sacrifice a chicken to the God of your choice if you can show me where Doug Band "explicitly" says this.

thewebofslime ago

https://www.gop.com/leaked-band-email-chelsea-used-clinton-foundation-resources-for-her-wedding/

In 2012, Amid A Spat With Chelsea Clinton, Doug Band Threatened That If Chelsea Wanted To Audit The Foundation That She Runs The Risk Of Exposing That She Used “Foundation Resources For Her Wedding And Life For A Decade…”

Here is a copy of the email...

https://i.sli.mg/tqQxLG.png

21yearsofdigging ago

At the end of the email he mentions 'Bari". Is this short for Barry?

AreWeSure ago

I read the email previously which is why I knew what Doug Band said .

Forget your fight with me and read the email again. See what he explicitly says.

webofslime ago

You are asserting that the Clintons don't profit, personally, from donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Your assertion is wrong.

AreWeSure ago

Do explain how.

webofslime ago

Are you saying that the Clinton Foundation covering Chelsea's personal expenses do not fall into that category?

The Clinton Foundation donations are donations to themselves... at least 85%. They give to their own charities.

Charity Navigator does not consider the Clinton Foundation to be a charity, at all.

Charles Ortel, the investigator who uncovered the financial discrepancies at General Motors before its stock crashed, says the Clinton Foundation is “the largest unprosecuted charity fraud ever.”

$10 billion in aid funds were taken in the Haiti earthquake and at the Clinton's discretion to give out. Can you tell me were that money went? Haitian reporters called Clinton disaster fund-raising “predatory humanitarianism.”

AreWeSure ago

Charity Navigator actually gives The Clinton Foundation very high marks.

Score (out of 100) Overall Score & Rating 94.74 Financial 97.50 Accountability & Transparency 93.00

For comparison the American Red Cross has an overall score of 83.33.

They previously didn't rate them, because the Clinton Foundation spun off a subsidiary that made year to year comparisons impossible.

Why hasn’t Charity Navigator published a rating of the Clinton Foundation for the last few years?................. For each charity, our rating system evaluates numerous financial and accounting metrics, including a comparison of how these metrics change from one year to the next. In 2013, the Clinton Foundation merged with one of its affiliates, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). This merger made it difficult to compare financial information of the combined entities with financial information from the Clinton Foundation before the merger. In situations like this with any charity, we will reevaluate if the charity provides consolidated financial data that will allow us to perform an accurate year-over-year comparison.

AreWeSure ago

CharityWatch has them as a top rated charity and gives them an A.

The Clinton Foundation never controlled 10 Billion dollars. False. That's adding up all reconstruction money from all parties. And that is what was pledged. It's unknown how many pledges were unfulfilled.

If you want to read the best of account of the failure of Haiti reconstruction which affects not just the Clinton Foundation, but also the Red Cross and UN and others read the book The Big Truck That Went By. Here's a long form article by that author on what happened, what the Clinton did well and where the they failed.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-haiti-117368

One aid worker claimed that Haiti was a mess at every level and corruption exists at every level.

Vindicator ago

Aaand scene. The commitment to citing sources is why I love this sub. :-)

AreWeSure ago

It's a mis-cite of the source or he doesn't know explicitly means.

Verite1 ago

Bullshit. And to top it off Chelsea herself was suspect of the dealings of CF.

Vindicator ago

Yeah...I think that was window-dressing. I think she did that 'auditing' stuff and conflict with Doug Band or whatever his name is, so that she and her parents can later claim their underlings were doing the nefarious deals behind their backs and they tried to stop it.

Verite1 ago

This could be true. I'm just wondering though with everything we know from George Webb about Eric Braverman perhaps not knowing and being shielded from the actual activities and the chain of command and maybe that's why he has now disappeared or went underground, or whatever because he figured it out? Could Chelsea have also been kept in the dark in some way?

Vindicator ago

Absolutely. These people are experts at 'plausible deniability' and isolated sleeper-cell tactics. Chelsea has probably been preserved spotless in case she has to run for the presidency to pardon both her parents. Hope those 4chan anons that have gone underground have hacked 'em all and gathered a mountain of incriminating stuff.

Boud8814 ago

hows is it going over at Correct the Record? A lot of this "sacrificing" I suppose

Cbradio ago

Its a Russian subsidiary, ..why you minimizing such?

What's the extra bonus on there?

Etsy endorsed by pee pee? Etsy where ones can buy Hunan body parts and animals, in every form, as is to lamps?

AreWeSure ago

Are you confusing Sberbank, the Russian Company with Joule the American company where Podesta got stock? It looks like you are

Cbradio ago

Are you confusing aliens with podesta?

AreWeSure ago

Joule is not a Russian subsidiary. That is false.

Cbradio ago

Oh good..now u got more false news you can tell Mr fdlse news podesta and his alien conspiracy...heehee

Cbradio ago

Yah, why another country did an indictment.

Yah, uranium and nuclear stocks competition is no big deal, and khaddafi to north Korea nuclear stockpiles were never a concern.

Yah, they incite Russia to war that now has more nuclear weapons.

Yah, stocks don't fall by any market manipulation

Yah, uranium is an unlimited resource like oil, coal, gold, diamonds, cobalt. Yah yah yah!

AreWeSure ago

Another country did an indictment? So?.

Do you know the process by which the uranium one sale was approved by the government?

Cbradio ago

Bye bye..I'm working not here to prove jack to you...have a nice day, Mr alinsky. Flush.

witch_doctor1 ago

Using your position as SOS to enrich yourself is absolutely 100% illegal. And if the Clinton Foundation wasn't about buying influence, why has the funding dried up now that HRC is at the back of the bus?

AreWeSure ago

There zero evidence of her enriching herself by using her position.

They were buying prestige, not influence. It was an ago thing.

Verite1 ago

Yeah right. So for every business transaction they lined up for their buddies. Our govt "civil servants," in exchange for those millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars got them no finders fee? Is that what you would have us believe?

witch_doctor1 ago

That's crazy talk. If you can't see that the Clinton's got rich by using their status, then you aren't really looking, because that is crystal clear and irrefutable.

"They were buying prestige, not influence. It was an ago thing." This is cognitive dissonance.

AreWeSure ago

You are making a vastly different claim from she used her office to enrich herself. You don't even seem to understand it.

There still hasn't been a single quid pro quo shown even after more emails revealed than any other figure in public life.

Don-Keyhote ago

The fact that the Clinton's have publicly stated that their standard of proof is "you can't prove that a decision was made based exclusively on a contribution" (real quote essentially) says enough. Nervous at ctr yet?

AreWeSure ago

Essentially or real quote? Forgive me, if I suspect you dropped some nuances.

Not nervous. Not ”at ctr." That sounds like you wanting an excuse not to engage the debate. Ad hominem and all that.

Do you know the process by which the US government approved the sale of Uranium One? And what Hillary Clinton's involvement was?

Don-Keyhote ago

The quotes message is clear and I'll answer this with another by Maureen dowd writing about a Clinton scandal: "the thing about it was: with the Clintons the charge was plausible."

AreWeSure ago

Maureen Dowd hates the Clintons.

So you can't find the quote you paraphrased? Because I would like to see that.

witch_doctor1 ago

I understand it perfectly...not one quid pro quo? I'll give you a bunch...Clinton Foundation donors get private meetings with Secretary of State if their donations are big enough. End of discussion on my part...not gonna feed the shills.

Cbradio ago

Hey, @witch_ doctor1 ( are we sure) is clearly a shill. Anytime, good leads, roaches come out of cracks to deny, minimize, mislead.

Even calls a corp, not Russian affiliated, links a archive and it states RUSSIAN SUBSIDIARY. And Podesta's jumping on the military privatizatiin of housing.

Monopolizing and privatizing resourcescand industries and hogging up govt staff, as poverty, jobs, all over USA are a huge escalating issues, and many other issues affecting quality of life and life duration.

ACTS like uranium grows on trees, and is as safe as apples.

Cognitive dissonance propaganda. This shill better train under Saul Alinsky more, very lousy at His agenda..hubba hubba forest gump jump jump!!

AreWeSure ago

nope!

DarkMath ago

AreWeSure, please look up RICO violations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

When the ongoing FBI investigation wraps up they'll be using RICO to charge Hillary. And that's bad news because in a RICO case you don't have to show Quid Pro Quo explicitly. All the FBI needs is to show two violations, most likely financial harm to someone(Haitian earthquake victims) and criminal intent (deleting emails, destroying phones etc would show criminal intent. Deleting massive amounts of emails means Hillary knew what she did was a crime).

She'll also be charged with Money Laundering through IHRC. Please watch Clinton Cash to get a better idea of how badly Hillary screwed over the Haitian people. It's unconscionable.

Hillary will also be charged for using the Clinton Foundation to set up a private army to invade Libya. Private citizens can't set up armies and invade other countries. Sorry. I don't make the rules. And actually now that you mention it, there's very strong evidence that Hillary sent Qaddafi's stock of Sarin gas to Syria via Qatar and Turkey. I'm sure you'll be interested in reading the following since by your own admission you want to be sure:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/14/doubts-syria-chemical-weapons-attacks

Finally to wrap it up, George Webb does a great job laying out what the FBI case will look like. Here he is with the email of Hillary asking Sidney Blumenthal to set up a private army via gmail: https://youtu.be/x9VyrKB88DM?t=217

The party is over AreWeSure.

May Godspeed The Plow.

;-)

AreWeSure ago

I'm quite aware of RICO law. I have no idea why you say

And that's bad news because in a RICO case you don't have to show Quid Pro Quo explicitly. You of course still need to prove a crime.

Your example of RICO predicate crimes are extremely vague. Financial Harm? What crime is financial harm? Deleting emails is not evidence of criminal intent. Good Lord, people delete emails all the time. It can be evidence of intent, but it's not automatically so and in the case of her turning over her emails to the state department, the State Department has confirmed she was well within her rights to delete personal emails. So deleting massive amounts of emails is zero evidence, I'm afraid.

She created a private army to invade Libya? I've read Seymour Hersh's article and I've read all the reasons it falls apart. Such as the UN report that shows the chemical munitions being launched from Government controlled areas. We disagree on this strong evidence.

DarkMath ago

"Deleting emails is not evidence of criminal intent."......You don't use bleach bit to remove emails about yoga and your daughters wedding: https://www.bleachbit.org/

"She created a private army to invade Libya?".......Hillary HIRED a private army via Sid Blumenthal.

"launched from Government controlled areas"......The Porton Down testing showed the Sarin gas didn't come from Assad.

"I've read all the reasons it falls apart"........Did you? You'd heard of the Porton Down testing? Why did the Porton Down evidence "fall apart"?

What's up AreWeSure? You aren't conceding on anything. I conceded your point about warm traffic. I can be rational and objective. Can you?

;-)

AreWeSure ago

Trying to determine truth is not a one for me and one for you kind of thing. I'll have to look at the warm traffic thread again. I didn't see that.

The Sarin gas at Ghouta contained hexamine. Only Syria is known to use hexamine in their sarin recipe. When they gave up their chemical weapons, they declared 80 tons of this stuff as a chemical precursor specifically for Sarin. It makes sarin more stable and allows for more concentrated/more potent sarin. Syria had very strong control over it's chemical weapons stocks. That and the fact that the trajectories of the rockets trace back to government controlled areas leaves very little doubt, Assad's forces launched this Sarin attack. Speaking of criminal intent, Syria continuing shelling the area for days before letting the chemical weapons inspectors in to inspect the area.

She hired a private army through Sidney Blumenthal. That's a good one. I thought you were serious for second. You got me.

DarkMath ago

Ok AreWeSure that's just about 24 hours and you didn't respond. You didn't address the Porton Down testing. That means you have no interest in objectivity here. That's not good.

All you have is spin. Remember this gem: "Deleting emails is not evidence of criminal intent".

Remember my response? No? Here it is again: "You don't use bleach bit to remove emails about yoga and your daughters wedding: https://www.bleachbit.org/"

BleachBit is clear evidence of criminal intent. Full Stop. End of story. It's not debatable. You know it isn't even close so instead of admitting you were wrong you go to your Safe Space. That's pathetic.

Actually arrogant would be a better word. And arrogance is why you Leftists lost the election. We're talking about killing 1300 innocent men, women and children in cold blood. You don't sweep that shit under the rug. You don't pretend there's no evidence. You don't run to your Safe Space. There's strong evidence innocent PEOPLE DIED A FUCKING HORRIBLE DEATH. You should be ashamed of yourself AreWeSure.

AreWeSure ago

Blah, blah, blah.

DarkMath ago

Lol! Were your fingers in your ears and did you end it with "I can't hear you!". Of course you did. You're a spineless chump.

http://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Related-Conditions/Anosognosia

;-)

DarkMath ago

"hexamine".....A chemical weapons lab in England tested the Sarin but you don't even mention it. An objective person would address their opponents argument. You ignored the argument and hoped I wouldn't notice. Sorry but you can't do that. You need to explain why the Porton Down testing was invalid.

Hillary used gmail to instruct Sid Blumenthal to consider hiring a private army to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya. Instead of addressing that well documented fact you suggest I'm joking. You then end your rhetorical coup de grace with "You got me.".

Uummmm yeah. I'm still getting the impression you're not being objective and dispassionate about all of this. You've closed off your mind to new evidence. That's not good. Let's review:

Good: Observation -> Conclusion

Bad: Conclusion -> Observation

;-)