http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politi...rump-business/

If you don't think that could be, you may want to stay tuned.

I confess o haven't read the article but Haven't the Clintons always had corporate ties?

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 06:49:18 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

I confess o haven't read the article but Haven't the Clintons always had corporate ties?

She was on the Board of Walmart ... when they stopped being "America's
store" and became the China outlet mall.
She also worked for the law firm that represented Tyson Foods and
Walmart, among other companies in the south.
If she was a republican, there may have been conflict of interest
problem since she was representing companies doing business in
Arkansas, while Bill was the governor. The rules seem to be different
for democrats.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 04:44:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politi...rump-business/

If you don't think that could be, you may want to stay tuned.

The Clintons have always been corporate whores.
How do you think they went from zero to over $150 million in 15 years?

On 7/5/16 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 04:44:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politi...rump-business/

If you don't think that could be, you may want to stay tuned.

The Clintons have always been corporate whores.
How do you think they went from zero to over $150 million in 15 years?


D'uh. Obviously, the answer is to disqualify from seeking office anyone
who has ever had any corporate ties or even contributions from
corporations.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:35:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/5/16 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 04:44:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politi...rump-business/

If you don't think that could be, you may want to stay tuned.

The Clintons have always been corporate whores.
How do you think they went from zero to over $150 million in 15 years?


D'uh. Obviously, the answer is to disqualify from seeking office anyone
who has ever had any corporate ties or even contributions from
corporations.

You certainly should be questioning $750,000 honorariums for a man
who's wife is the SoS and the corporation is doing international
business that State is signing off on. The Saudis have funneled
millions into super pacs that endorse here. It is "hold your nose"
legal but certainly should raise red flags.
If anyone but Trump was running against her, she would be deader than
disco.
Comey just came out today and said "Scty Clinton was "extremely
careless in handling highly classified information", "Information was
properly classified as 'top secret, special access only' at the time
it discussed on E-mail". He pointed out that her server was not even
as secure as G-mail.
"It is possible that hostile actors gained evidence to her E-mail
account"
He went on to say they found a ****load of undisclosed "work related"
E-mails that were not turned over and that they made an intentional
effort to wipe as many devices clean as they could. Unlike commercial
"private" E-mail servers, nothing was archived. If they deleted an
Email and it was not still spinning in the slack space of the drive,
it was gone forever.
Conclusion "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes"
He went on to say criminal prosecutions for these things is not likely
BUT that there are generally "administrative sanctions".
She may not be prosecuted at this time but the FBI calls her
"extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly
classified information"

That doesn't sound very presidential to me.

I think they should put all the dice back in the cup at BOTH
conventions and find 2 new candidates,

On 7/5/16 12:20 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:35:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/5/16 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 04:44:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politi...rump-business/

If you don't think that could be, you may want to stay tuned.

The Clintons have always been corporate whores.
How do you think they went from zero to over $150 million in 15 years?


D'uh. Obviously, the answer is to disqualify from seeking office anyone
who has ever had any corporate ties or even contributions from
corporations.

You certainly should be questioning $750,000 honorariums for a man
who's wife is the SoS and the corporation is doing international
business that State is signing off on. The Saudis have funneled
millions into super pacs that endorse here. It is "hold your nose"
legal but certainly should raise red flags.
If anyone but Trump was running against her, she would be deader than
disco.
Comey just came out today and said "Scty Clinton was "extremely
careless in handling highly classified information", "Information was
properly classified as 'top secret, special access only' at the time
it discussed on E-mail". He pointed out that her server was not even
as secure as G-mail.
"It is possible that hostile actors gained evidence to her E-mail
account"
He went on to say they found a ****load of undisclosed "work related"
E-mails that were not turned over and that they made an intentional
effort to wipe as many devices clean as they could. Unlike commercial
"private" E-mail servers, nothing was archived. If they deleted an
Email and it was not still spinning in the slack space of the drive,
it was gone forever.
Conclusion "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes"
He went on to say criminal prosecutions for these things is not likely
BUT that there are generally "administrative sanctions".
She may not be prosecuted at this time but the FBI calls her
"extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly
classified information"

That doesn't sound very presidential to me.

I think they should put all the dice back in the cup at BOTH
conventions and find 2 new candidates,


There will be no indictment, but you can still hope for one charging
Hillary with planning and directing the multiple shooters on the grassy
knoll back in Dallas in 1963.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 12:26:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

You certainly should be questioning $750,000 honorariums for a man
who's wife is the SoS and the corporation is doing international
business that State is signing off on. The Saudis have funneled
millions into super pacs that endorse here. It is "hold your nose"
legal but certainly should raise red flags.
If anyone but Trump was running against her, she would be deader than
disco.
Comey just came out today and said "Scty Clinton was "extremely
careless in handling highly classified information", "Information was
properly classified as 'top secret, special access only' at the time
it discussed on E-mail". He pointed out that her server was not even
as secure as G-mail.
"It is possible that hostile actors gained evidence to her E-mail
account"
He went on to say they found a ****load of undisclosed "work related"
E-mails that were not turned over and that they made an intentional
effort to wipe as many devices clean as they could. Unlike commercial
"private" E-mail servers, nothing was archived. If they deleted an
Email and it was not still spinning in the slack space of the drive,
it was gone forever.
Conclusion "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes"
He went on to say criminal prosecutions for these things is not likely
BUT that there are generally "administrative sanctions".
She may not be prosecuted at this time but the FBI calls her
"extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly
classified information"

That doesn't sound very presidential to me.

I think they should put all the dice back in the cup at BOTH
conventions and find 2 new candidates,


There will be no indictment, but you can still hope for one charging
Hillary with planning and directing the multiple shooters on the grassy
knoll back in Dallas in 1963.

If you have been paying attention, you noticed I never thought much
would come out of this "classified E-mail" thing. The report was worse
than I expected tho. She did send top secret (at the time) information
on an unsecured platform and it is likely that foreign operators may
have intercepted her communication.
Al that Comey would commit to is that she was "sloppy" and "careless",
not exactly what you want to see on a bumper sticker.
What may come out and what was not in the scope of this investigation
is whether there were any inappropriate transfers of money or favors
between CBI and foreign governments that State had influence over.
All of those recovered E-mails are now government records and you can
bet your ass the FOIA requests are already in the mail.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 11:26:32 AM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/5/16 12:20 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:35:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/5/16 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 04:44:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politi...rump-business/

If you don't think that could be, you may want to stay tuned.

The Clintons have always been corporate whores.
How do you think they went from zero to over $150 million in 15 years?


D'uh. Obviously, the answer is to disqualify from seeking office anyone
who has ever had any corporate ties or even contributions from
corporations.

You certainly should be questioning $750,000 honorariums for a man
who's wife is the SoS and the corporation is doing international
business that State is signing off on. The Saudis have funneled
millions into super pacs that endorse here. It is "hold your nose"
legal but certainly should raise red flags.
If anyone but Trump was running against her, she would be deader than
disco.
Comey just came out today and said "Scty Clinton was "extremely
careless in handling highly classified information", "Information was
properly classified as 'top secret, special access only' at the time
it discussed on E-mail". He pointed out that her server was not even
as secure as G-mail.
"It is possible that hostile actors gained evidence to her E-mail
account"
He went on to say they found a ****load of undisclosed "work related"
E-mails that were not turned over and that they made an intentional
effort to wipe as many devices clean as they could. Unlike commercial
"private" E-mail servers, nothing was archived. If they deleted an
Email and it was not still spinning in the slack space of the drive,
it was gone forever.
Conclusion "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes"
He went on to say criminal prosecutions for these things is not likely
BUT that there are generally "administrative sanctions".
She may not be prosecuted at this time but the FBI calls her
"extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly
classified information"

That doesn't sound very presidential to me.

I think they should put all the dice back in the cup at BOTH
conventions and find 2 new candidates,


There will be no indictment, but you can still hope for one charging
Hillary with planning and directing the multiple shooters on the grassy
knoll back in Dallas in 1963.

Of course there was no indictment, Krause. However there was probably a load of damage slated in Trumps favour.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politi...ebar_expansion

Wrote in message:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 04:44:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politi...rump-business/

If you don't think that could be, you may want to stay tuned.

The Clintons have always been corporate whores.
How do you think they went from zero to over $150 million in 15 years?


Speaking engagements and of course the Clinton Foundation. Nothing
sinister there, right?
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/