Trump Voters.... why?

[Free_at_50]

USA today article related to Wikileak memo from Doug Band on Bill's conflicts of interest related to the Clinton Foundation.   

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/27/memo-shows-bill-clintons-wealth-tied-clinton-foundation/92842822/

[Free_at_50]

I stand corrected!  A CNN article on a Wikileaks email from someone on Clinton's own transition team saying she covered up the server to try to get a way with it. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/neera-tanden-john-podesta-clinton-email-server-wikileaks/index.html

[Free_at_50]

Wikileaks email from supposed reporter Brent Budowsky of The Hill to John Podesta conspiring on how he can cash in his chips with Bernie supporters to get them to fall in line with Hillary as well as how to leverage a PAC.

From: *Brent Budowsky* <brentbbi@webtv.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','brentbbi@webtv.net');>>
> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016
> Subject: John and Roy
> To: "john.podesta@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','john.podesta@gmail.com');>" <
> john.podesta@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','john.podesta@gmail.com');>>, "
> roy.spence@gsdm.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','roy.spence@gsdm.com');>"
> <roy.spence@gsdm.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','roy.spence@gsdm.com');>
> >
>
>
> Please think about this and feel free to share it. My column in The Hill
> today was about how Bernie and Hillary need to unite to defeat Trump was
> highlighted in bold at the center of the front page of the paper today.
>
> It is no secret that I support Hillary without profound enthusiasm and
> have spent months praising Bernie with huge enthusiasm. I have a ton of
> credibility with Bernie, his senior staff and above all his grassroots and
> small donor base, who consider me the mainstream columnist who has given
> Bernie the most fair shake in the media.
>
> Now, I am beginning to cash in the chips by setting the stage carefully
> and tactfully for Bernie's people to gravitate to Hillary by convention
> time. Most but not all of them will support Hillary, some will stay home,
> I worry about the younger people especially who do not view politics as we
> do.
>
> The next thing I am doing to suggest is an idea I slipped into the column
> today to get Bernie people thinking---for him to create a People's PAC to
> amass small donors to support liberal Democrats for the House and Senate in
> November.
>
> Bernie's small donor base has revolutionary potential. $42 million in
> February alone. Their natural tendency after the primaries will be to
> largely disperse. Some, but not a huge number, will give to Hillary.
>
> The next thing I intend to propose is that Bernie, Elizabeth Warren and
> Bill de Blasio announce before the convention the People's PAC, raise a
> huge amount of money from small donors using the convention as a launching
> pad, to support liberal Dems in the House and Senate (and Hillary).
>
> The convention itself would be an ideal launching pad combining old and
> new media, television and social media, for fundraising and organizing. A
> reasonable goal would be to raise from small donors $100 million to $200
> million which could help elect some very key liberals to the House and
> Senate. That's a lot of dough to influence 8 key Senate races and 35 swing
> House races and would make a material difference in who controls Congress.
> The project would help fuse together the Clinton and Sanders people, and
> Democrats in the presidential and Congressional campaigns using the
> convention as an organizing and motivating vehicle.
>
> One of the reasons I made it a point to praise Podesta in my column today
> as a genuine progressive is not only that I believe it is true, but that I
> wanted to put my credibility as a progressive behind John's credibility.
> The Sanders insiders know this already, and I assume some of these
> conversations are privately going on now, but the Sanders grassroots know
> me well by now, since I was writing about Bernie long before others in the
> media would give Bernie the time of day.
>
> What I want to do is keep the Sanders grassroots and small donor movements
> in place and behind liberals running for Congress, rather than fading
> away. Simply being the party that is not Trump alone is not nearly
> enough--we need to create a sense as conservatives have done that this is a
> movement for change which the People's PAC would help motivate and quantify
> with real money that can help us win Congress, without which a Democratic
> presidency will be a formula for frustration.
>
> If Republicans nominate Trump, we have a strong chance of regaining the
> Senate and winning enough House seats to be within reach of a working
> majority and long shot chance of control.
>
>
> http://thehill.com/opinion/brent-budowsky/273308-budowsky-hillary-bernie-must-unite-to-beat-trump

[dividendman]

I stand corrected!  A CNN article on a Wikileaks email from someone on Clinton's own transition team saying she covered up the server to try to get a way with it. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/neera-tanden-john-podesta-clinton-email-server-wikileaks/index.html

Is there any evidence of actual harm coming from the whole private email server fiasco?

Trump has sexually assaulted women, been fined by the Justice department for racial discrimination in housing, cheats his contractors, has a fraudulent "university", incites people to violence, etc.

If anyone thinks Hillary started at the State department and said "Hey IT folks, set me up a private email server so I can send confidential email to our enemies" they are just being delusional.

Another thing is Hillary Clinton is definitely the most investigated and transparent candidate ever (the transparency may not be what she likes, but we have access to all of her private campaign and state department emails now), and there is little evidence of anything besides someone who is a huge policy nerd and heavy into political calculation, not the worst traits IMO.

[Free_at_50]

Project Veritas videos as shown by CNN showing DNC collusion with Hillary campaign to incite violence, break campaign finance laws

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/10/18/undercover-video-has-dem-operative-fired-another-resigns-griffin-lead.cnn

[Free_at_50]

Here's a Wikileak email from Hillary herself to Podesta.  While not illegal it is pretty disturbing that her "charity" is willing to take tens of millions of dollars from Qatar and Saudi Arabia while she acknowledges in item 4 that they are supporting ISIL.  She must also be very conflicted with how these countries treat various segments of their population but apparently not enough to say no to the donations.

On Aug 17, 2014 3:50 PM, "H" <hrod17@clintonemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources
>> in the region.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. With all of its tragic aspects, the advance of ISIL
>> through Iraq gives the U.S. Government an opportunity to change the way it
>> deals with the chaotic security situation in North Africa and the Middle
>> East. The most important factor in this matter is to make use of
>> intelligence resources and Special Operations troops in an aggressive
>> manner, while avoiding the old school solution, which calls for more
>> traditional military operations. In Iraq it is important that we engage
>> ISIL using the resources of the Peshmerga fighters of the Kurdish Regional
>> Government (KRG), and what, if any, reliable units exist in the Iraqi
>> Army. The Peshmerga commanders are aggressive hard fighting troops, who
>> have long standing relationships with CIA officers and Special Forces
>> operators. However, they will need the continued commitment of U.S.
>> personnel to work with them as advisors and strategic planners, the new
>> generation of Peshmerga commanders being largely untested in traditional
>> combat. That said, with this U.S. aid the Kurdish troops can inflict a
>> real defeat on ISIL.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. It is important that once we engage ISIL, as we have now
>> done in a limited manner, we and our allies should carry on until they are
>> driven back suffering a tangible defeat. Anything short of this will be
>> seen by other fighters in the region, Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, as
>> an American defeat. However, if we provide advisors and planners, as well
>> as increased close air support for the Peshmerga, these soldiers can defeat
>> ISIL. They will give the new Iraqi Government a chance to organize itself,
>> and restructure the Sunni resistance in Syria, moving the center of power
>> toward moderate forces like the Free Syrian Army (FSA). In addition to air
>> support, the Peshmerga also need artillery and armored vehicles to deal
>> with the tanks and other heavy equipment captured from the Iraqi army by
>> ISIL.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. In the past the USG, in an agreement with the Turkish General Staff,
>> did not provide such heavy weapons to the Peshmerga, out of a concern that
>> they would end up in the hands of Kurdish rebels inside of Turkey. The
>> current situation in Iraq, not to mention the political environment in
>> Turkey, makes this policy obsolete. Also this equipment can now be
>> airlifted directly into the KRG zone.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the
>> Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the
>> air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders
>> believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in
>> Iraq and inside of Syria. At the same time we should return to plans to
>> provide the FSA, or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will
>> allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against
>> the Syrian regime. This entire effort should be done with a low profile,
>> avoiding the massive traditional military operations that are at best
>> temporary solutions. While this military/para-military operation is moving
>> forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence
>> assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia,
>> which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and
>> other radical Sunni groups in the region. This effort will be enhanced by
>> the stepped up commitment in the KRG. The Qataris and Saudis will be put
>> in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to
>> dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure. By
>> the same token, the threat of similar, realistic U.S. operations will serve
>> to assist moderate forces in Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, where
>> insurgents are increasingly fascinated by the ISIL success in Iraq.
>>

[Free_at_50]

Here's a little excerpt from an article in the NY Times about how a very generous company called Uranium One was donating to the Clinton's charity while Hillary was SOS while it was being bought by the Russians, oh and that little speech Bill got $500k for around the same time..  I know nothing has been proved.  Move along please...

 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

[Telecaster]

USA today article related to Wikileak memo from Doug Band on Bill's conflicts of interest related to the Clinton Foundation.   

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/27/memo-shows-bill-clintons-wealth-tied-clinton-foundation/92842822/

That article raised more questions than answers.  Bill Clinton had business relationships with people who also donated to his charity.  The impropriety is...what exactly?   You can't ask people to donate to charity if you have a business relationship with them?  If that's the case, the United Way in every city would be shut down. 

[NoStacheOhio]

At least 5 of their mob have taken the 5th amendment and/or were given immunity so they couldn't be prosecuted.

Cherry picking here, but what the hell?

You do realize why we have the Fifth Amendment, right? Is this just a "fuck anybody who pleads the Fifth?" Because "Fuck Trump" then, because he's taken the Fifth under oath too.

[MandalayVA]

Again it is my opinion that the Clinton's are a criminal organization that has infiltrated all levels of our government

Wow.
... REALLY?

I called this like ten pages ago, and you thought I was kidding.  Some people genuinely believe Hillary Clinton is a criminal mastermind, because that's what alt-right media has been telling them for decades.  The complete lack of evidence doesn't disprove the assertion, as long as they repeat it often enough.

OMFG THIS.  The only sin Hillary Clinton has EVER committed is that of not being as charismatic as the guy she married.  I worked on Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign as a wee lass of 26 and met him and Hillary when they came into the office.  I can say that Hillary has immensely improved as a public speaker, but off the record she was so goddamn sharp.  I WANT smart, calm people running the show.  I'm fairly certain that if elected if something happens Hillary won't be like LET'S BOMB ALL THE THINGS.  Trump?  Not so much.

[sol]

Here's a little excerpt from an article in the NY Times about how a very generous company called Uranium One was donating to the Clinton's charity while Hillary was SOS while it was being bought by the Russians, oh and that little speech Bill got $500k for around the same time..  I know nothing has been proved.  Move along

I've never understood the outrage over the uranium deal.  A Canadian company bought mineral rights, and then sold them to a Russian company.  The US government had to approve the deal because uranium is a strategic asset, but I assure you that the State department doesn't have the first or the last say in that process.

This deal was reviewed and approved by approximately 20 different federal agencies, including the departments of energy and defense and the nuclear regulatory commission.  State is full of diplomats, not scientists or anyone who knows about uranium.  They only had to sign off that it wasn't in conflict with any ongoing diplomatic negotiations.  It's silly to presume that the head of any one agency could approve or deny a deal like that, it's just not how our government works. 

The whole story is a feeble attempt to disparage her reputation by suggesting impropriety where there is none.  There are legitimate criticisms of Hilary Clinton as a candidate and as a person, but this isn't one of them.

[Free_at_50]

yea they just donated to the Clinton Foundation during this exact same time and Bill got a cool $500k for a speech in Moscow but it had nothing to do with this.  Just a coincidence.  Move along everyone.

[sol]

While not illegal it is pretty disturbing that her "charity" is willing to take tens of millions of dollars from Qatar and Saudi Arabia while she acknowledges in item 4 that they are supporting ISIL.  She must also be very conflicted with how these countries treat various segments of their population but apparently not enough to say no to the donations.

Thanks for bringing this one up, Free_at_50.  It gives me a chance to highlight how ridiculous it is.  Qatar and Saudi Arabia are both US allies.  We have open diplomatic relations, we trade ambassadors, they are (on the face of it) our international friends.  Doing business in these countries isn't a problem.

But Saudia Arabia in particular is a thorny ally.  Osama bin Laden was a Saudi.  The 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi's.  The Saudi government is controlled by a royal family, not democratically elected.  And yes, there are certainly people in Saudi Arabia who support terrorism against the US.

At this point, it just sounds like you're making stuff up.  Next you're going to say "I heard that Hillary puts peanut butter AND jelly on the same sandwich!  Lock her up!  She's so obviously corrupt!"

Is that a conflict for you?  Do you support the George Bush era policy of being friendly with the Saudis in the interest of combating the spread of Communism and stabilizing world oil prices, or do you disagree with Bush (and every other US Presdient since WWII) and instead feel "very conflicted" about how they treat their citizens.

I fail to see why anyone who knows anything about US foreign policy in the middle east, from any perspective or even any radical ideology, would suddenly jump on Hillary for supporting the same policies as Obama, Bush, Clinton, the other Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc etc etc.  This is how international diplomacy works.  Why is it suddenly evidence of corruption when Hillary continues the same policies as all of her predecessors in the job?

[sol]

yea they just donated to the Clinton Foundation during this exact same time and Bill got a cool $500k for a speech in Moscow but it had nothing to do with this.  Just a coincidence.  Move along everyone.

Repeating baseless accusations doesn't make them true.  I thought we established that already.

If you have any evidence to suggest that Hillary Clinton's performance as Secretary of State was in any way modified by her husband's job, I'm all ears.  I suppose you thought John Kerry was corrupt because his wife made money from ketchup, too.

Bill Clinton was working, at his job.  His job entailed receiving a paycheck in exchange for performing a service.  What's your problem with that arrangement?  Is it somehow unethical?

You've also mentioned the Clinton Foundation as an apparent source of corruptiong, but neither Bill nor Hillary were paid any salary from their foundation, so I fail to see how that could possibly be improper.  They volunteered their time, and in return were able to stay in the public eye.  Trump may claim that his fame has a dollar value, but the Clintons don't.

So far, you've posted a lot of innuendo (that has already been fact-checked into oblivion) as if it were gospel truth.  Maybe you're reading different news sources than I am?  Does it ever occur to you to actually double check these sorts of things, before you go spreading them around the internet?

[Free_at_50]

Almost everything I posted was from news sources or directly from Podesta's emails not my opinion.  But you certainly don't have to believe any of it.  That is your right.  To me as bad as Trump may be he is not as bad as the Clinton's (and isn't under FBI investigation).  That, along with everything else I posted, is enough for me to decide to vote to keep the Clinton's out of the White House.  Well I think I have thoroughly answered the original posters question at this point so that'll be it for me in this regard.  Good luck to all in making your decision and lets hope whatever happens turns out for the best.

[NoStacheOhio]

Almost everything I posted was from news sources or directly from Podesta's emails not my opinion.  But you certainly don't have to believe any of it.  That is your right.  To me as bad as Trump may be he is not as bad as the Clinton's (and isn't under FBI investigation).  That, along with everything else I posted, is enough for me to decide to vote to keep the Clinton's out of the White House.  Well I think I have thoroughly answered the original posters question at this point so that'll be it for me in this regard.  Good luck to all in making your decision and lets hope whatever happens turns out for the best.

We don't know that for sure. Official DOJ policy is to not comment on ongoing investigations.

See? I can do it too.

[nereo]

Free_at_50: you seem to be holding the two to an extreme double standard.  EArlier in this thread you pointed out that the Trump U case was just a group of accusations, unproven in court, as are the groping and assault accusations.  But you also suggest Pdestas emails and the Clintons speeches and infer that "something's gon on" (to use a Trumpian phrase).  R peatedly you have charged the Clintons of running a criminal operation - none of which they have been even charged with in a court of law, yet along found guilty of.  Yet the Trump U case is being reviewed, and Trump has settled numerous discrimination lawsuits.
You are literally faulting the Clintons for earning money legally and disclosing it while not acknowledging that Trump neither discloses his income and wants to change the laws to save himself several billion dollars.

If you want to have a discussion based on proven facts, great.  If you want to discuss acccusations and what might be going on, that's fine too.  But saying we should only consider he facts against one person while entertaining every assumption of wrongdoing against the other doesn't lead us anywhere.  It's the very definition of partisan bias.

[Metric Mouse]

yea they just donated to the Clinton Foundation during this exact same time and Bill got a cool $500k for a speech in Moscow but it had nothing to do with this.  Just a coincidence.  Move along everyone.

Repeating baseless accusations doesn't make them true.  I thought we established that already.

If you have any evidence to suggest that Hillary Clinton's performance as Secretary of State was in any way modified by her husband's job, I'm all ears.  I suppose you thought John Kerry was corrupt because his wife made money from ketchup, too.

Bill Clinton was working, at his job.  His job entailed receiving a paycheck in exchange for performing a service.  What's your problem with that arrangement?  Is it somehow unethical?

That's not how conflict of interest works. One doesn't have to prove that X causes Y - just the fact that X occurred, and could have an effect upon Y, Z, A, B, or C, means that X is a bad idea.  Like an oil company doing an environmental study - you don't have to prove that they manipulated numbers to suspect that it would be a poor idea to use their study as the only source for a decision.  I don't know how your industry works, but in most of them even the appearance of favoritism, or the possibility of 'pay for play' is enough for serious concern, if not outright reprimand.

[ender]

That's not how conflict of interest works. One doesn't have to prove that X causes Y - just the fact that X occurred, and could have an effect upon Y, Z, A, B, or C, means that X is a bad idea.  Like an oil company doing an environmental study - you don't have to prove that they manipulated numbers to suspect that it would be a poor idea to use their study as the only source for a decision.  I don't know how your industry works, but in most of them even the appearance of favoritism, or the possibility of 'pay for play' is enough for serious concern, if not outright reprimand.

At a previous employer, even accepting a $10 gift from a company mine interacted with would have resulted in significant problems likely resulting in my termination. It was taken very seriously.

[former player]

Has the head of the FBI committed an offence in relation to HRC?

18 U.S. Code § 595 - Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments

[radram]

yea they just donated to the Clinton Foundation during this exact same time and Bill got a cool $500k for a speech in Moscow but it had nothing to do with this.  Just a coincidence.  Move along everyone.

Repeating baseless accusations doesn't make them true.  I thought we established that already.

If you have any evidence to suggest that Hillary Clinton's performance as Secretary of State was in any way modified by her husband's job, I'm all ears.  I suppose you thought John Kerry was corrupt because his wife made money from ketchup, too.

Bill Clinton was working, at his job.  His job entailed receiving a paycheck in exchange for performing a service.  What's your problem with that arrangement?  Is it somehow unethical?

That's not how conflict of interest works. One doesn't have to prove that X causes Y - just the fact that X occurred, and could have an effect upon Y, Z, A, B, or C, means that X is a bad idea.  Like an oil company doing an environmental study - you don't have to prove that they manipulated numbers to suspect that it would be a poor idea to use their study as the only source for a decision.  I don't know how your industry works, but in most of them even the appearance of favoritism, or the possibility of 'pay for play' is enough for serious concern, if not outright reprimand.

So if there is a vast body of knowledge on a subject, peer reviewed and largely agreed upon by the people who dedicated their lives to the subject, and a few contradictory conclusions are written that happen to be funded by an entity that has a financial stake in the opposite conclusion, we should be giving those contradictory opinions their rightful skepticism? Sounds like a very sound plan. Can this be applied to other areas as well?

[DoubleDown]

Wanted to add one other thing to the discussion about "Radical Islamic Terrorism" that has not been brought up yet, that Trump and his supporters ought to pay attention to if they really do care about defeating ISIL and other terrorist organizations:

An important, pragmatic reason President Obama and other government leaders choose not to use that phrase has nothing to do with political correctness. It is because they have been advised by intelligence professionals not to do so, because using it plays into the hands of Radical Islamic Terrorists and advances their cause. ISIL in particular want(ed) to create the narrative that Islam is right now in the final conflict with the West, and that their caliphate will dominate the world at the conclusion of this war/Armageddon. They want to create the appearance of a giant division between Islam and non-believers/Western culture.

Getting people to equate all of Islam with terrorism does exactly what ISIL wants; it creates a division and gives more credibility to their ridiculous claim that the world is at war with Islam and the final conflict is nigh. If any impressionable Muslims (especially youth) were predisposed to joining ISIL, they might be influenced to swing over to that side if they really do start to observe all Westerners equating them with terrorists and going at war with them. That is, they really do start to buy the ISIL message if we treat them all as enemies.

President Obama, his advisers, and other leaders know this, it is a primary reason they do not use the phrase (in addition to the "PC" reasons already cited).

[nereo]

Wanted to add one other thing to the discussion about "Radical Islamic Terrorism" that has not been brought up yet, that Trump and his supporters ought to pay attention to if they really do care about defeating ISIL and other terrorist organizations:

An important, pragmatic reason President Obama and other government leaders choose not to use that phrase has nothing to do with political correctness. It is because they have been advised by intelligence professionals not to do so, because using it plays into the hands of Radical Islamic Terrorists and advances their cause. ISIL in particular want(ed) to create the narrative that Islam is right now in the final conflict with the West, and that their caliphate will dominate the world at the conclusion of this war/Armageddon. They want to create the appearance of a giant division between Islam and non-believers/Western culture.

Getting people to equate all of Islam with terrorism does exactly what ISIL wants; it creates a division and gives more credibility to their ridiculous claim that the world is at war with Islam and the final conflict is nigh. If any impressionable Muslims (especially youth) were predisposed to joining ISIL, they might be influenced to swing over to that side if they really do start to observe all Westerners equating them with terrorists and going at war with them. That is, they really do start to buy the ISIL message if we treat them all as enemies.

President Obama, his advisers, and other leaders know this, it is a primary reason they do not use the phrase (in addition to the "PC" reasons already cited).

There's a long and facinating history of how we call our enemies and why.  During WWII we were fighting "Nazi-Germany" or "the Nazis." Not simply Germany. No doubt this was in part because so many in the US had German ancestry, and some historians argue it prevented us from thinking that we hadn't really "won" the first world war - this was a new threat, a new country.  We did not make such a distinction for the Japanese, and it helped justify locking up thousands of native-born US citizens of Japanese decent.

Back to our current time - it does seem sometimes like we're playing right into the propaganda machine of ISIL.  They tell people that we want a holy war, and then they get to air statements made by our own political candidates saying we ought to "ban all muslims" and "bomb the s*** out of them" and constantly saying the words "muslim" and "radical" in the same sentence.  Then they see our warplanes and drones conducting leathal strikes... and as always happens in conflict sometimes we screw up and hit the wrong target killing a bunch of innocents... voila!  If i were living there it wouldn't be hard for me to believe that the US is trying to conduct a holy war and wipe out even law-abiding, traditional muslims.

[Kris]

Wanted to add one other thing to the discussion about "Radical Islamic Terrorism" that has not been brought up yet, that Trump and his supporters ought to pay attention to if they really do care about defeating ISIL and other terrorist organizations:

An important, pragmatic reason President Obama and other government leaders choose not to use that phrase has nothing to do with political correctness. It is because they have been advised by intelligence professionals not to do so, because using it plays into the hands of Radical Islamic Terrorists and advances their cause. ISIL in particular want(ed) to create the narrative that Islam is right now in the final conflict with the West, and that their caliphate will dominate the world at the conclusion of this war/Armageddon. They want to create the appearance of a giant division between Islam and non-believers/Western culture.

Getting people to equate all of Islam with terrorism does exactly what ISIL wants; it creates a division and gives more credibility to their ridiculous claim that the world is at war with Islam and the final conflict is nigh. If any impressionable Muslims (especially youth) were predisposed to joining ISIL, they might be influenced to swing over to that side if they really do start to observe all Westerners equating them with terrorists and going at war with them. That is, they really do start to buy the ISIL message if we treat them all as enemies.

President Obama, his advisers, and other leaders know this, it is a primary reason they do not use the phrase (in addition to the "PC" reasons already cited).

Exactly. Which is why I'm convinced that Trump and his ilk don't actually care about solving the terrorist threat. They only care about power.

[Free_at_50]

Was going to drop this but thought interested parties might want to be aware of a CNN interview yesterday with the former deputy director of the FBI who is a CNN contributor.  Appears that not only is the FBI reviewing the new emails but they also have an extensive investigation going on into the Clinton Foundation. Also below that is a link to an article discussing the opinion of the former head of the New York FBI office.  I know, they haven't been convicted of anything.  I just thought it interesting given our recent discussions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGTlRPEEQ74

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-family-runs-vast-criminal-enterprise-ex-nyc-fbi-boss-article-1.2851259

[nereo]

Was going to drop this but thought interested parties might want to be aware of a CNN interview yesterday with the former deputy director of the FBI who is a CNN contributor.  Appears that not only is the FBI reviewing the new emails but they also have an extensive investigation going on into the Clinton Foundation. Also below that is a link to an article discussing the opinion of the former head of the New York FBI office.  I know, they haven't been convicted of anything.  I just thought it interesting given our recent discussions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGTlRPEEQ74

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-family-runs-vast-criminal-enterprise-ex-nyc-fbi-boss-article-1.2851259

Well you haven't addressed the questions above.  Why do you find investigations of the Clintons important, but not investigations and allegations against Trump?

[Metric Mouse]

Was going to drop this but thought interested parties might want to be aware of a CNN interview yesterday with the former deputy director of the FBI who is a CNN contributor.  Appears that not only is the FBI reviewing the new emails but they also have an extensive investigation going on into the Clinton Foundation. Also below that is a link to an article discussing the opinion of the former head of the New York FBI office.  I know, they haven't been convicted of anything.  I just thought it interesting given our recent discussions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGTlRPEEQ74

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-family-runs-vast-criminal-enterprise-ex-nyc-fbi-boss-article-1.2851259

Well you haven't addressed the questions above.  Why do you find investigations of the Clintons important, but not investigations and allegations against Trump?

I'm not sure everyone is dismissing Trump's investigations. The issue, his supporters may feel, is that if neither candidate has an upside, then it is perhaps best to vote for the candidate with the least downside. If the loss potential is greatest for Hillary, it would be pragmatic and mathematically optimal to vote for her opponent.

[sol]

If the loss potential is greatest for Hillary, it would be pragmatic and mathematically optimal to vote for her opponent.

Unless her opponent is a dangerously racist turnip. 

I would vote for Hillary even if I was absolutely positive she were going to jail on November 9th, because I'd rather have Tim Kaine be President than Donald Trump.  It would be bad for the democratic party, but better for the country as a whole.

[DavidAnnArbor]

Why isn't the FBI director investigating Donald Trump and his campaign with respect to the illegal hacking of Democratic party member email accounts? Donald Trump said he wants Russia to hack the Democratic Party emails, Donald Trump has business dealings in Russia and praises Putin, and the security apparatus of the federal government has determined that these email hacks come from Russia.

[Metric Mouse]

If the loss potential is greatest for Hillary, it would be pragmatic and mathematically optimal to vote for her opponent.

Unless her opponent is a dangerously racist turnip. 

I would vote for Hillary even if I was absolutely positive she were going to jail on November 9th, because I'd rather have Tim Kaine be President than Donald Trump.  It would be bad for the democratic party, but better for the country as a whole.

I think it's obvious vast numbers of voting Americans disagree.

[nereo]

Was going to drop this but thought interested parties might want to be aware of a CNN interview yesterday with the former deputy director of the FBI who is a CNN contributor.  Appears that not only is the FBI reviewing the new emails but they also have an extensive investigation going on into the Clinton Foundation. Also below that is a link to an article discussing the opinion of the former head of the New York FBI office.  I know, they haven't been convicted of anything.  I just thought it interesting given our recent discussions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGTlRPEEQ74

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-family-runs-vast-criminal-enterprise-ex-nyc-fbi-boss-article-1.2851259

Well you haven't addressed the questions above.  Why do you find investigations of the Clintons important, but not investigations and allegations against Trump?

I'm not sure everyone is dismissing Trump's investigations. The issue, his supporters may feel, is that if neither candidate has an upside, then it is perhaps best to vote for the candidate with the least downside. If the loss potential is greatest for Hillary, it would be pragmatic and mathematically optimal to vote for her opponent.

I was speaking directly to Free_at_50 above.  Earlier F@50 had correctly pointed out that Trump U had not had its day in court, and s/he seemed to indicate that until it was we shouldn't put much stock into it.  Quoted from earlier:

With all due respect what you indicate are beliefs, not facts.  ...  And yes the democratic attorney general of New York has filed a civil fraud charge against Trump University which has yet to be tried so those charges remain to be seen

It continues along this vein - unproven allegations against Trump shouldn't be given much weight, yet similar (and sometimes also serious) allegations about Clinton being a "criminal mastermind" somehow should. 
The re-opening of the email server is a good parallel to the Trump U case.  Both are being investigated, both have serious charges.  Why should we believe one but not the other?  My only take on Clinton's email so far is that no one in the actual investigation has shown malice. 

Back to your point - I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "loss potential".  It seems unlikely that either will actually wind up in jail unless something entirely new and far worse comes up.  As Sol said, I"d rather have Tim Kaine as president than Trump - he was my governor when I lived in Virginia and he was fairly popular in a state that's neither heavily democratic nor republican.

[sol]

I think it's obvious vast numbers of voting Americans disagree.

Only a few more days until we find out!

[ender]

Why isn't the FBI director investigating Donald Trump and his campaign with respect to the illegal hacking of Democratic party member email accounts? Donald Trump said he wants Russia to hack the Democratic Party emails, Donald Trump has business dealings in Russia and praises Putin, and the security apparatus of the federal government has determined that these email hacks come from Russia.

Why do you think.

[Free_at_50]

Ok nereo I'll play along because the football game is a bit boring.  For the record I have never said I am in love with Trump.  I said my goal is to stop the Clinton's from getting back into power which is by voting for Trump.  The main difference in every legal issue you have raised is that Trump's issues are civil not criminal.  If the Clinton's are being investigated by the FBI that is related to criminal charges (you know they go to jail if guilty).  If Trump loses he pays money which he could settle if he wanted before trial (not unlike Bill paying Paula Jones $850k to settle her sexual harassment case).  Look if you want me to say that Trump is a womanizing, crass person who uses the laws of our land to his advantage in a seemingly seedy way then I agree.  But I don't believe he has ties to our government that would allow him the same level of corruption day one that the Clinton's could manifest if allowed back into power.

Regarding Sol's comments I have no idea what he is talking about regarding the middle east.  I'm not sure he actually read my comments.  I said that the Clinton's have taken tens of millions of dollars into their "charity" from Saudi Arabia and Qatar while knowing that not only do they support terrorism (ISIL) they also treat women and gay people poorly.  I provided evidence of Hillary's knowledge of their support of terrorism via a Wikileaks email from her to Podesta.  Regarding John Kerry, I'm good with his wife making money from ketchup.  Not so much with his state department funneling millions to his daughter's charity. 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/John-Kerry-Aware-State-Department-Daughter/2016/09/23/id/749860/ 

I know, nothing going on. move along sheeple.  What I find so interesting is the several of you that are so adamant against my distrust of the Clinton's and their cronies based on what I have provided.  I've heard everything from their crimes are minimal, to I think they are corrupt too but I think Trump is worse.  Trump to my knowledge is not under investigation by the FBI like Hillary.  You would think that in of itself would at least make you understanding of my position.  I'd like to turn the discussion around for a bit if your interested.  I haven't heard who any of you are voting for.  If Hillary why?  And if Hillary are you looking at what is coming out of Wikileaks and if not why?  Thanks.

[nereo]

Ok nereo I'll play along because the football game is a bit boring.  For the record I have never said I am in love with Trump.  I said my goal is to stop the Clinton's from getting back into power which is by voting for Trump.  The main difference in every legal issue you have raised is that Trump's issues are civil not criminal.  If the Clinton's are being investigated by the FBI that is related to criminal charges (you know they go to jail if guilty).  If Trump loses he pays money which he could settle if he wanted before trial (not unlike Bill paying Paula Jones $850k to settle her sexual harassment case).  Look if you want me to say that Trump is a womanizing, crass person who uses the laws of our land to his advantage in a seemingly seedy way then I agree.  But I don't believe he has ties to our government that would allow him the same level of corruption day one that the Clinton's could manifest if allowed back into power.
...

I know, nothing going on. move along sheeple.  What I find so interesting is the several of you that are so adamant against my distrust of the Clinton's and their cronies based on what I have provided.  I've heard everything from their crimes are minimal, to I think they are corrupt too but I think Trump is worse.  Trump to my knowledge is not under investigation by the FBI like Hillary.  You would think that in of itself would at least make you understanding of my position.

Ah - so the issue for you seems to be that it's the FBI doing the investigation? Perhaps this is just a disconnect with how our judicial system works, but I would disagree that an FBI investigation inherently signals a deeper criminality than other investigations.  In reality it's about jurisdiction. The FBI is leading the investigation over HRC's email server because it was within the State Department. Trump is being investigated by NY State for Trump U because that's where Trump U was based out of. The Secret Service have jurisdiction over investigating allegations of hacking of the DNC.  This is all how it is supposed to be. 
As we have seen an FBI investigation doesn't necessarily lead to an indictment being filed, and an indictment doesn't necessarily include jail time. So you are incorrect that an investigation by the FBI "is related to criminal charges (you know they go to jail if guilty)".  Many FBI investigations conclude that there is insufficient proof of criminal wrongdoing, and/or result in penalties like censure and not incarceration.

My objection (still) is that you are throwing around terms like "criminal organization" and "Clinton is corrupt," yet your 'evidence' keeps pointing back to ongoing investigations or potential conflicts-of-interest which aren't illegal, yet those standards seem much higher when applied to Trump.  Why?

[music lover]

Why isn't the FBI director investigating Donald Trump and his campaign with respect to the illegal hacking of Democratic party member email accounts? Donald Trump said he wants Russia to hack the Democratic Party emails, Donald Trump has business dealings in Russia and praises Putin, and the security apparatus of the federal government has determined that these email hacks come from Russia.

Trump said that if Russia had the emails, then they should release them. That's not a crime. Please tell us what law was broken?

[Glenstache]

Why isn't the FBI director investigating Donald Trump and his campaign with respect to the illegal hacking of Democratic party member email accounts? Donald Trump said he wants Russia to hack the Democratic Party emails, Donald Trump has business dealings in Russia and praises Putin, and the security apparatus of the federal government has determined that these email hacks come from Russia.

Trump said that if Russia had the emails, then they should release them. That's not a crime. Please tell us what law was broken?

Transcript!

QUESTION: (inaudible) Putin (ph) say stay out? Why not say that?

TRUMP: Why do I have to (ph) get involved with Putin? I have nothing to do with Putin. I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about him other than he will respect me. He doesn't respect our president. And if it is Russia -- which it's probably not, nobody knows who it is -- but if it is Russia, it's really bad for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country, when they would hack into a major party and get everything. But it would be interesting to see -- I will tell you this -- Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That'll be next. Yes, sir...

Translation: Please, go look for them. Show us how much respect you have for me by influencing our election.

[nereo]

Why isn't the FBI director investigating Donald Trump and his campaign with respect to the illegal hacking of Democratic party member email accounts? Donald Trump said he wants Russia to hack the Democratic Party emails, Donald Trump has business dealings in Russia and praises Putin, and the security apparatus of the federal government has determined that these email hacks come from Russia.

Trump said that if Russia had the emails, then they should release them. That's not a crime. Please tell us what law was broken?

I agree with you that this is probably not something that can result in an indictment.  As I understand it, directly soliciting the help of someone else to commit a crime *is* a punishable act, and publication of classified emails is a crime. As is often the case with Trump, he leaves the door open to multiple interpretations.  What he originalyl said was:

Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.

Was Trump asking Russia to release classified emails?  He later went on to add "release them to the FBI!"

[sol]

Trump said that if Russia had the emails, then they should release them. That's not a crime. Please tell us what law was broken?

There is no crime, that's the whole point.  It totally LOOKS like Donald Trump, whose empire is financed by Russian banks, who praises Putin, who publicly called for Russians to hack into the DNC, is reponsible for the the Russians hacking into the DNC.  But there's no evidence, so there's no charges.

Similarly, it totally LOOKS bad that Hillary Clinton, who was Secretary of State, was married to a former President who volunteered his time with a charity that received charitable donations from citizens of foreign countries.  But there's also no evidence of a crime there, so there's no charges.

DAA, and others in this thread, are just highlighting that some Trump supporters are just positive that the appearance of impropriety on Clinton's behalf means something shady is going on, but they actively discount the appearance of impropriety on Trump's behalf.  It's a painful double standard.

[oldtoyota]

Was going to drop this but thought interested parties might want to be aware of a CNN interview yesterday with the former deputy director of the FBI who is a CNN contributor.  Appears that not only is the FBI reviewing the new emails but they also have an extensive investigation going on into the Clinton Foundation. Also below that is a link to an article discussing the opinion of the former head of the New York FBI office.  I know, they haven't been convicted of anything.  I just thought it interesting given our recent discussions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGTlRPEEQ74

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-family-runs-vast-criminal-enterprise-ex-nyc-fbi-boss-article-1.2851259

I think that the Trump Foundation is under investigation by the IRS. The Washington Post published a detailed article today about how Trump has been the main donor to the Trump Foundation and also the recipient of the "donations." For instance, he donated some money to fix a statue in Central Park yet the statue is visible from his Plaza property. And then he also bought an oil painting of himself and fixed a fountain on his own property with his foundation's money.

[Glenstache]

Was going to drop this but thought interested parties might want to be aware of a CNN interview yesterday with the former deputy director of the FBI who is a CNN contributor.  Appears that not only is the FBI reviewing the new emails but they also have an extensive investigation going on into the Clinton Foundation. Also below that is a link to an article discussing the opinion of the former head of the New York FBI office.  I know, they haven't been convicted of anything.  I just thought it interesting given our recent discussions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGTlRPEEQ74

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-family-runs-vast-criminal-enterprise-ex-nyc-fbi-boss-article-1.2851259

I think that the Trump Foundation is under investigation by the IRS. The Washington Post published a detailed article today about how Trump has been the main donor to the Trump Foundation and also the recipient of the "donations." For instance, he donated some money to fix a statue in Central Park yet the statue is visible from his Plaza property. And then he also bought an oil painting of himself and fixed a fountain on his own property with his foundation's money.

... and uses the Trump Foundation to settle legal disputes and (apparently) bribe Florida AG who was looking to investigate Trump U.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

http://fortune.com/2016/09/14/trump-foundation-investigation-pam-bondi/

[nereo]

Was going to drop this but thought interested parties might want to be aware of a CNN interview yesterday with the former deputy director of the FBI who is a CNN contributor.  Appears that not only is the FBI reviewing the new emails but they also have an extensive investigation going on into the Clinton Foundation. Also below that is a link to an article discussing the opinion of the former head of the New York FBI office.  I know, they haven't been convicted of anything.  I just thought it interesting given our recent discussions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGTlRPEEQ74

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-family-runs-vast-criminal-enterprise-ex-nyc-fbi-boss-article-1.2851259

I think that the Trump Foundation is under investigation by the IRS. The Washington Post published a detailed article today about how Trump has been the main donor to the Trump Foundation and also the recipient of the "donations." For instance, he donated some money to fix a statue in Central Park yet the statue is visible from his Plaza property. And then he also bought an oil painting of himself and fixed a fountain on his own property with his foundation's money.

Ah yes.  And since we're just talking about investigations and not actually being charged, remember that DJT has said multiple times that he is being audited by the IRS. Remember it wasn't the FBI that ultimately brought down Al Capone, it was the IRS.

To be clear I don't actually think Trump is in danger of going to jail over his IRS audit - but this just highlights how absurd it can be to assume that a federal investigation should automatically lead to prison.

[Free_at_50]

You may be correct and Trump may be guilty of these things and may be a total criminal too.  That doesn't change my position I stated earlier about the Clinton's current involvement in our government and my opinion they will only deepen the corruption.  Even if Trump is a total criminal he has to start over from scratch and four years from now we can vote him out.  You willing to share your opinions about the Clinton's and why you may be voting for them?  Look at any of the Wikileaks emails?

[nereo]

You may be correct and Trump may be guilty of these things and may be a total criminal too.  That doesn't change my position I stated earlier about the Clinton's current involvement in our government and my opinion they will only deepen the corruption...

Ok - even in this response you are alleging corruption and criminality on Clinton.  "Trump may be... a total criminal too."

In effect you are saying HRC is already a criminal even though she's yet to be charged, let alone convicted of anything  Trump might be, but we should wait and see whether he's convicted of anything or 'just' winds up in a bunch of civil suits.

Since you asked for my opinions, I tohught it would be interesting to point out that I'm not even a big Clinton fan, but these double-standard accusations have ironically put me defending her.

[former player]

You may be correct and Trump may be guilty of these things and may be a total criminal too.  That doesn't change my position I stated earlier about the Clinton's current involvement in our government and my opinion they will only deepen the corruption.  Even if Trump is a total criminal he has to start over from scratch and four years from now we can vote him out.  You willing to share your opinions about the Clinton's and why you may be voting for them?  Look at any of the Wikileaks emails?

It's actually arguable that being President, with its additional scrutiny and limitation on a private life, makes it likely that any existing corruption would have to cease and that no new corruption could take place.

Unfortunately being President appears to have no such limiting effect on bat-shit crazy.

[waltworks]

The credibility of the Clinton (and now Obama) outrage/impeach/hold more hearings crowd is at about zero with me at this point. For better or for worse, there are folks who will apparently believe *anything* about the Clintons and there is money to be made by pandering to them.

I think there are plenty of unethical and borderline illegal things that both major party candidates have done. So I'm voting for the person who I think will most likely use at least a modicum of evidence (ie "climate change is a real thing") to make policy decisions. Now, I might not like the policy decisions that result, but at least they're based on some sort of reasonable facts. Trump has disqualified himself over and over (starting with the birther/Obama is a Kenyan muslim nonsense) for me, so I'll vote for the candidate who at least seems like she reasonably understands the state of the world.

I won't even start on the will-he/won't he accept the results of the election idiocy. If the lack of a clear statement on that didn't stop you from voting for Trump, then you should just admit that what you want is basically anarchy. Tearing down democratic institutions because you don't like the the policies of your opponents? Scary stuff.

-W

[nereo]

You may be correct and Trump may be guilty of these things and may be a total criminal too.  That doesn't change my position I stated earlier about the Clinton's current involvement in our government and my opinion they will only deepen the corruption.  Even if Trump is a total criminal he has to start over from scratch and four years from now we can vote him out.  You willing to share your opinions about the Clinton's and why you may be voting for them?  Look at any of the Wikileaks emails?

It's actually arguable that being President, with its additional scrutiny and limitation on a private life, makes it likely that any existing corruption would have to cease and that no new corruption could take place.

Interesting and amusing hypothesis.  So, for those who say that Clinton is corrupt and must be stopped, the best solution is to vote her into office so she can no longer engage in corruption?  Lord knows being in prison doesn't stop criminal behavior (or so I'm led to believe on all those netflix shows)
;-P

[Free_at_50]

nereo let me challenge your theory a bit.  The IRS can initiate an audit of anyone for any reason.  But yes they can also convict as you mention if they find criminal tax violations.   I also doubt their audits are anything more than routine given Trump was awarded the GSA contract tied to the old post office hotel that just opened.  That being said, from the FBI website, they only appear to investigate when there is a possible violation of federal criminal law (see below as related to our topic).  And it is my understanding from what I have read that for an investigation to start there has to be some reasonable expectation that a crime has even been committed which is why it is such a big deal when they open an investigation to begin with.  They are supposed to turn over their investigation to the DOJ who is then supposed to pursue an indictment if they believe they have enough to convict.  So yes there is no automatic conviction but when the FBI initiates an investigation they are making a statement that there is enough to at least question whether a law has been broken.  You still haven't answered any of my questions.  Do you plan to?

"The official mission of the FBI is to uphold the law through the investigation of violations of federal criminal law; to protect the United States from foreign intelligence and terrorist activities; to provide leadership and law enforcement assistance to federal, state, local, and international agencies; and to perform these responsibilities in a manner that is responsive to the needs of the public and is faithful to the Constitution of the United States."

[sol]

So, for those who say that Clinton is corrupt and must be stopped, the best solution is to vote her into office so she can no longer engage in corruption?

I think there's a strong case to be made that Hillary Clinton is the most transparent candidate we've seen in generations.  We not only have all of her financial history (taxes paid, disclosed earnings, charitable donations made, assets owned, etc) but we also have all those thousands of personal emails.  Think about what dirt the world could find on you if there were thousands of people with access to your email history. 

We don't have anything like that from Trump, or even Obama for that matter.  Bill and Hillary Clinton have spent hundreds of hours testifying in front of their political opponents, who were unable to find anything actionable but who still wanted to use the testimony as political theater.  They've disclosed an enormous amount of information, all the way up to and including who sucked whose dick how many times.

I know the media narrative on Hillary is that she is too secretive, but think about the vast amount of information we have about her life, compared to what we know about Trump or any other politician.  That information was wrestled out of her, but it's all public now and that provides an unprecedented level of detail into every aspect of her life, both political and personal.

It would be WAY easier for Obama (or Trump, or Bush, etc) to be hiding a vast criminal enterprise than it would be for Hillary.  There's just too much information about her out there already.

[Free_at_50]

Well I think Podesta's emails that have been released over the last several weeks provide a lot clearer picture than anyone has ever had which is why I keep asking if anyone responding to me has actually read any of them.  I'm not sure if the authorities can actually use any of the information but if so it certainly won't help the Clinton's.  Also if the emails the FBI is now reviewing are part of what she claimed were her personal emails that were deleted and they contain classified material she will be toast especially if the FBI gets Huma and Weiner to roll over on her.  As you may have noticed I currently reside in Arkansas and I don't ever hear anything good about these people.  Maybe that explains in part why I have the opinion I have.  But the Podesta emails do confirm quite a few things and there are more coming.