^^Ah ok, that makes sense. I've only been to one campaign rally in my life, Kerry/Edwards in 2004.

8/9/2016 5:02:05 PM

not sure if this was ever part of the original FBI investigation, but Wikileaks released an email today showing that a staffer had access to Hillary's emails also.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/29372#efmAFYAGZAHlAIhAJrALn

8/9/2016 6:12:30 PM

^[old]
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_NovWeb/284/DOC_0C05793677/C05793677.pdf

8/9/2016 7:28:11 PM

what's the relevance of what you posted?

8/9/2016 8:08:33 PM

I posted the wrong link,

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_SeptemberWeb/O-2015-08630-138/DOC_0C05777802/C05777802.pdf

But the point is that wikileaks didn't release this and it's not new. It's actually further proof that wikileaks is basically a surrogate of the Trump campaign at this point given the timing of that post.

8/9/2016 8:16:44 PM

Or maybe Wikileaks is dribbling out important tidbits related to what they're going to unleash in October.

8/9/2016 11:09:22 PM

Quote :

"Or maybe Wikileaks is rehashing old news related to my wet dreams."

ftfy

8/9/2016 11:15:31 PM

One thing that I really do not like is how much she praises Kissinger:

https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-embrace-of-kissinger-is-inexcusable/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/08/hillary_clinton_should_welcome_republicans_turned_off_by_trump_but_not_henry.html

8/10/2016 8:05:41 AM

Quote :

"Julian Assange seems to suggests on Dutch television program Nieuwsuur that Seth Rich was the source for the Wikileaks-exposed DNC emails and was murdered."

wow, if Rich is the DNC email source

thats some "house of cards" shit

[Edited on August 10, 2016 at 8:47 AM. Reason : main story on drudge right now]

8/10/2016 8:46:55 AM

This is going to be worse than Obama, huh?

Whatever shred of sanity the right had left is going to float away?

[Edited on August 10, 2016 at 9:36 AM. Reason : Also this is like the third conspiracy already for this. Definition of throwing shit at wall.]

8/10/2016 9:32:11 AM

Yeah...because three "conspiracies" about DNC staffers being murdered right at/after DNC leaked emails breaks are completely not relevant.

I bet you still believe Bill Clinton had no sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, too, right?

And Paula Jones. And (fill in the blank).

Just conspiracies.

You, my good man, have your head in the sand.

8/10/2016 5:36:15 PM

Why would Assange not take advantage of this to both spread dirt about Clinton and to try to say it wasn't russians? Assange is playing this exactly like you should expect

8/10/2016 6:10:52 PM

I saw Assange on Bill Maher the other night.

Julian dismantled Bill's attempt to sound unbiased.

8/10/2016 6:58:20 PM

lol Bill Maher does not attempt to sound unbiased. What planet do you live on?

8/10/2016 7:02:12 PM

I love how with Trumplethinskin fans Hillary is a barely functional invalid with parkinsons, alzheimers, and severe epilepsy in one post.

Then 5 minutes later she's a House of Cards level mastermind who is taking out political opponents left and right.

Quote :

"I saw Assange on Bill Maher the other night."

The two most smug, self-important, and narcissistic assholes in the world together on one show? Thank God I didn't flip past that while channel surfing.

[Edited on August 10, 2016 at 7:06 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2016 7:02:46 PM

Wait, he isn't joking? He is unironically saying he believes the Clinton hit-list nut jobs? And that's the criticism he is going to use to argue against a demonstrably corrupt candidate?

Why did this place ever get rid of the .edu requirement to sign up?

8/10/2016 7:16:03 PM

AndyMac, how long have you been on this site?

actually, that question is pointless.

i'm sorry you assume just because a person won't support a candidate (hillary) they must support another (trump)

you should stop watching foxnews and msnbc

turn off the tv and think for yourself

8/10/2016 10:02:24 PM

Turn off the internet kdogg.

8/10/2016 11:57:58 PM

You know, if Clinton really was trying to circumvent FOIA via the use of a private email server, she has failed in spectacular fashion. It's almost like that was never the goal at all.........

8/11/2016 9:40:14 AM

she only failed because the FBI was able to recover tens of thousands of emails that she had deleted

it's astonishing that after the OIG report and FBI results that someone can still try to claim that what she did wasn't shady

[Edited on August 11, 2016 at 9:44 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2016 9:43:26 AM

She could have just asked her buddies in the Bush administration how they managed to delete 22 million emails from private servers that have never and will never see the light of day.

[Edited on August 11, 2016 at 10:05 AM. Reason : +1 millions]

8/11/2016 10:04:16 AM

Wow, you really switched from "nothing was wrong" to "bush did that thing that Clinton and the left criticized for being wrong so it's okay that Clinton did it too" really fast

Are you able to recognize how much of a party stooge you are?

8/11/2016 10:52:21 AM

lol is that really how you interpreted my post? Ok, maybe I'm being a bit too coy for simple minds so I'll spell it out: if Clinton really wanted to avoid FOIA, she could have. The truth is that only evidence pertaining to the why of the private email server has absolutely nothing to do with FOIA or secrecy. It had everything to do with convenience and a 68 year old abuela who'd become addicted to using a Blackberry.

8/11/2016 11:08:48 AM

we know that the blackberry has nothing to do with it, the emails made this clear

stop being such a moron

8/11/2016 11:22:57 AM

of course it was about the FOIA. when you have a foundation with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets from foreign sources plus another $153M in speaking fees from wall street and foreign sources you cant have commoners up in your business

[Edited on August 11, 2016 at 11:36 AM. Reason : g]

8/11/2016 11:34:08 AM

do we know that #153M in fees number is accurate. maybe she's like the donald and just inflates speaking fees by 150% because that's how much she thinks the engagement is worth

8/11/2016 11:43:06 AM

^CNN said it was $153M

Quote :

"(CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows."

on her health records:

she will be 69yrs old in Jan, is overweight and has history of blood clots in her head. so her health would be a reasonable question a voter would have

8/11/2016 2:57:17 PM

Quote :

" It had everything to do with convenience and a 68 year old abuela who'd become addicted to using a Blackberry."

Anyone ever tell you that you're awfully cute when you're this naive.

8/11/2016 3:21:10 PM

^^my post was a (poor) joke based on the WaPo story about Trump's testimony from a lawsuit where he claimed a $400K speaking fee was worth $1M in his mind.

8/11/2016 3:34:35 PM

Quote :

"she will be 69yrs old in Jan, is overweight and has history of blood clots in her head. so her health would be a reasonable question a voter would have"

Very few voters are doctors. Or nurses. Or in any way qualified to judge a health record.

In spite of that, Hillary already released much more detailed medical information than Donald Trump -- who, by the way, is 70 years old right fucking now.

8/11/2016 3:54:18 PM

^^figured but i wanted no ambiguity

[Edited on August 11, 2016 at 4:08 PM. Reason : that i was making up the $153M]

8/11/2016 4:07:48 PM

https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/Clinton_Email_September_Release/C05778285.pdf

#ImWithHerGeorgeSoros

8/11/2016 4:53:42 PM

^https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_SeptemberWeb/O-2015-08630-145/DOC_0C05778285/C05778285.pdf

8/11/2016 5:00:58 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-cgi-cheryl-mills/index.html

Clinton's COS at DOS interviewed candidates for jobs at the Clinton Foundation.

8/11/2016 5:08:42 PM

If your husband was a former President, would you even bother to try and cover up shady shit?

[Edited on August 11, 2016 at 7:25 PM. Reason : bother]

8/11/2016 7:00:08 PM

I can't speak in hypotheticals, but we know she tried to cover it up.

8/11/2016 7:43:18 PM

you accusing someone of being naive is pretty damn hilarious

8/11/2016 8:25:45 PM

Are you talking about me? I can't recall accusing anyone of being naive.

8/12/2016 9:33:29 AM

nah

just forgot to include the quote from rjrumfel

8/12/2016 11:44:03 AM

Quote :

"But the point is that wikileaks didn't release this and it's not new. It's actually further proof that wikileaks is basically a surrogate of the Trump campaign at this point given the timing of that post."

Surrogate of the Trump campaign? What the fuck are you smoking?

Quote :

"Wow, you really switched from "nothing was wrong" to "bush did that thing that Clinton and the left criticized for being wrong so it's okay that Clinton did it too" really fast Are you able to recognize how much of a party stooge you are?"

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. If TWW had a "like" button, that post would get it.

8/12/2016 7:33:00 PM

selling access to state dept. not good, not good

Quote :

"Clintons’ international network of friends and donors was able to get access to Hillary Clinton and her inner circle during her tenure running the State Department."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html

8/23/2016 11:35:52 AM

^tldr - The Clinton Foundation has many large donors. Some of the donors requested a meeting with Clinton at a later date, sometimes through official channels, sometimes not. Some donors asked for favors.

No favors were granted. Relatively few of the meeting requests were granted; when they were, they went through official channels though some were originally instigated outside these channels.

In other news, water is wet; the sky is blue (sometimes). REAAAAAAAALLY stretching this information.

8/23/2016 12:15:52 PM

It's beatsunc. What do you expect???

8/23/2016 1:41:43 PM

over half!

Quote :

"At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million."

bill said couple weeks back that if she wins in Nov they will stop taking money from foreign sources or corporations. ITS TOO LATE for that

8/23/2016 3:45:03 PM

The real crime is that we're basically telling anyone with political aspirations not to do any charitable work, and if you do, definitely don't take donations from anyone who might want to have a chat after you've taken office (ie. anyone with enough money to make a difference). Especially sad considering charity is the Republican answer to every problem for profit business can't solve.

8/23/2016 3:59:06 PM

^^ to get to OVER HALF !!!!!! every single person from US and foreign governments had to be excluded from the denominator. SIREN

Clinton's foundation helped save the lives of hundreds of thousands

Trump can't even produce a receipt of a singe charitable donation from his tax shelter




[Edited on August 23, 2016 at 4:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2016 4:51:58 PM

So according to Hillary's college payment plan, any family making under 125k combined can qualify.

BS

An dual income of 125k - does she not consider that middle class? I'm tired of hearing politicians talk about how much we need to help the middle class, when all they really do is open the mouths of the middle class and shit down their throats. So any family who makes more than 125k will now have the burden of sending their own children to college, as well as the added burden of sending every one else there as well. And don't tell me it won't impact these families. They can't just pull money out of thin air.

For a family of four or five, 125k doesn't go nearly as far as it sounds. If you're gonna come up with a decent college payment plan, make the cutoff really apply to the wealthy - 250k for a dual income family.

8/23/2016 5:05:45 PM

Quote :

"The real crime is that we're basically telling anyone with political aspirations not to do any charitable work"

come on man the Clinton foundation may be a charity but its also a slush fund they use to give their friends jobs and fly around in private jets. plus they were slime balls that didnt put the foreign income on the IRS forms until they got called out and had to refile for 5 years

8/23/2016 5:46:16 PM

^^ thank you.

I haven't seen that specific policy to speak to it but that is exactly what TSB needs more of. Less nutty conspiracy and gotch scandal stuff and more disagreeing with actual policy!

8/23/2016 5:50:34 PM

Quote :

"An dual income of 125k - does she not consider that middle class? I'm tired of hearing politicians talk about how much we need to help the middle class, when all they really do is open the mouths of the middle class and shit down their throats. So any family who makes more than 125k will now have the burden of sending their own children to college, as well as the added burden of sending every one else there as well. And don't tell me it won't impact these families. They can't just pull money out of thin air. For a family of four or five, 125k doesn't go nearly as far as it sounds. If you're gonna come up with a decent college payment plan, make the cutoff really apply to the wealthy - 250k for a dual income family. "

LOL, this reads like a joke.

I think you're right to observe a hard cut off at 125k doesn't make sense, but it's equally senseless to set the cut off at 250k, for the same reason and more. A combined income of 250k is into upper class, but that's besides the point...

The proper solution is not to make a hard cut off at 125, but to phase out the benefit gradually probably reaching 125k.

The median household income in the US is around $55k, not sure what the standard deviation is. But 125k seems like a reasonable number for the benefit to taper off.

Although i'd (perhaps naively) argue that anyone that can make the grade gets the same subsidy, with k-12 students from disadvantaged backgrounds getting funding for more social/educational support to keep them on a level playing field.

[Edited on August 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM. Reason : ]

8/23/2016 5:54:42 PM