Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Let's take a step back for a moment. The US has knowingly elected a person who hasn't released his tax returns for 20 years and who is proud of that fact. What message does that send to the US public?

As for the message to the public, it's somewhat more understandable being a Businessman in that situation abusing the system, than being Secretary of state and funneling money through and from places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, or shoveling off 20% of US Uranium to Russia in exchange for $$$.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh, I think they do. They love it. See all they twitter accounts giving him a big Booyah for telling CNN to go screw themselves at a press conference.

And that's the damage that's being done. He's tearing up protocol but they don't realise that the protocols are there for very good reason.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Somewhat more understandable being a Businessman in that situation abusing the system, than being Secretary of state and funneling money through and from places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Yeah. The election is over, let's focus on the person who has been elected. A person who boasts of not having released his tax returns for 20 years. What message does that send from the incoming POTUS to the US public?

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah. The election is over, let's focus on the person who has been elected. A person who boasts of not having released his tax returns for 20 years. What message does that send from the incoming POTUS to the US public?

Sure it's not good. I've already said he should release them, he won't though it's too far gone. He should have done it long before the primary.

My point is, it could have been a hell of a lot worse.

david75

As has already been said at this point he could piss on the constitution and wipe his ass with the flag and his supporters will cheer him on.

It's the mindless getting the president they finally deserve and they'll pay for it first and worst of all.

Jelle1880

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

As for the message to the public, it's somewhat more understandable being a Businessman in that situation abusing the system, than being Secretary of state and funneling money through and from places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, or shoveling off 20% of US Uranium to Russia in exchange for $$$.

Every. Single. Time.

And you complain about fake news ?

Hank Scorpio

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Since David called all Trump supporters deluded and didn't respond to my question I'll carry on! Below is a partial list of examples of colluding with the DNC during the election. It's not a list of friendly banter back and fourth, it's a list of people who were conspiring with the DNC to mould publications into a favorable manner to benefit one campaign. That is not independent or fair journalism. This thought that Trump's own words solely created this backlash is unfounded and slanderous. People read the emails and seen what was going on, hence the backlash on the term "fake news". On top of that emails show the media heads of NBC/CNN/NYT and so on would regularly have private dinners throughout the campaign with the Clinton campaign to strategize on how to get her elected.

Trump questions for CNN Wolf Blitzer https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/22673
CNN looking for questions on Ted Cruz https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554
Clinton Staff hosts private “off-the-record cocktail party” with 38 “influential” reporters, journalists, editors, and anchors (from 16 different mainstream media outlets including CNN, NBC, CBS, NYT, MSNBC, & more) with the stated goal of “framing the race”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5953 (see attachment)
John Podesta hosts a dinner with reporters: I’m “Cooking for 30 of your reporter friends”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4543#efmAAGABu Full list of media guests: https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12063
Donna Brazile (CNN contributor at the time, and current DNC Chairman now) leaked a CNN town hall question to Hillary’s staff: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205#efmAD-AMa
Fox News leaked Town Hall question to Clinton campaign: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/21526#efmAJiAOE
Hillary Clinton reads directly from script during Phone Interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4274#efmAEcAWc Video: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786158412119707648
Clinton campaign and the New York Times coordinating attack strategy against Trump: https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4664
New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich gives Hillary veto power: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDV1DWd
Glen Thrush, POLITICO's chief political correspondent and senior staff writer for POLITICO Magazine, sends John Podesta an article for his approval. Writes: "Please don't share or tell anyone I did this. Tell me if I ****ed up anything": https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681#efmAByAEV
Boston Globe colludes with Clinton campaign to give Hillary a “big presence”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4180#efmAJhALE
John Podesta receiving drafts of New York Times articles before they’re published: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844
Ad for Hillary Clinton secretly pitched by ‘right-leaning’ Heat Street ‘journalist’ Louise Mensch: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5740#efmAMvAUe
More media collusion: NYT and AP “helpful” to Clinton campaign: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5502
Brent Budowsky (writer for The Hill and Huffington Post) warns John Podesta about possible Hillary attacks and that not talking to the press is killing her support: “I’m not going to raise this publicly, but..”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6453#efmARBAUVAVJAXBAfNAhWAkaAl4
Huffington Post contributor Frank Islam writes to John Podesta in email titled “My blogs in the Huffington Post”, says “I am committed to make sure she is elected the next president.” “Please let me know if I can be of any service to you”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5988#efmADmAE6AF-AG1
Clinton staff “Placing a story” with Politico / New York Times: “place a story with a friendly journalist” “we have a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico” “we should shape likely leaks in the best light for HRC”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524#efmA14A2IA3AA36A9fA-kA-6BAICwpCx4
Clinton staff “placing a story with a friendly at the AP (Matt Lee or Bradley Klapper)”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272#efmBKsBMU
MSNBC's Meet The Press host and Political Director for NBC News, Chuck Todd, hosted a dinner party in 2015 for Clinton Campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/13686
Leading pro-Hillary personalities Jessica Valenti, Jamil Smith, and Sady Doyle "worked with" the campaign: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18566
Clinton staff appearing to control the release times of Associated Press articles: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8460
Clinton staff colluding with New York Times and Wall Street Journal to paint Hillary’s economic policies in a “progressive” light: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9007#efmAcTAdS
CNBC panelist colluding with John Podesta on what to ask Trump when he calls in for an interview: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7710#efmAakAd6AjgAlR
CAMPAIGN STRATEGY / CONCERNS

Hey David before you go on bashing Trump, remember you said all Trump supporters were deluded, and then you went on to say there was no media collusion and the fightback against the media was solely down to Trumps words.

What do you think of the stuff in the stuff I quoted, you didn't get a chance to answer before. Is it more self delusion?

What do you think of HRC team putting together her policies without any input from her, and her reading it off a script?

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786158412119707648

david75

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Hey David before you on bashing Trump, remember you said all Trump supporters were deluded, and then you went on to say there was no media collusion and the fightback against the media was solely down to Trumps words.

What do you think of the stuff in the stuff I quoted, you didn't get a chance to answer between. Is it more self delusion?

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786158412119707648

Breitbart is not a legitimate source for information. Use your delusion elsewhere.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

And you know that how?

The fact is you don't and you're creating a narrative. You have no idea how Obama would respond if he was colluded against all campaign by a certain network( in trumps case almost all of them), then for his first major pre inauguration press conference, the same network post a story with sensationalist headline containing inaccurate statements to slander him, which in turn leads to some garbage sites believing the report was worth releasing.

Would Obama have just said Okie Doke to the reporter and got on with it? Sorry can't take your word for that.

Obama dealt with Fox very well. He also got insulted frequently and kept his cool. He also dealt with the birther campaign brilliantly. He did not cut out a network from official questions. He just said his defense and made a few jokes (at both his own and fox/Trump's expense at the correspondence dinner). However it is how I would deal with it if it makes you feel better but there was ample evidence from their characters that Trump would not deal with the event well and that Obama could have (see cartoon predicting Trump's actions).

Trump had hours to figure out how he would deal with cnn and didn't manage it. At what point is he going to try unifying the country? He drove a wedge here and is still driving it further and further in.

I like how you keep driving the collusion as the reason for Trump's actions when he has yet to mention it. It seems you are also building a narrative. His inability to deal respectfully with those who disagree with him seems like a more likely reason to me.

Grayson

This is the into to last nights daily show.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Sure it's not good. I've already said he should release them, he won't though it's too far gone. He should have done it long before the primary.

My point is, it could have been a hell of a lot worse.

Perhaps it could have been worse. Who knows? But we are where we are, as someone once said.

By not releasing tax returns for 20 years and boasting about it, Trump has done huge damage. It sets a very toxic (ahem) precedent. Here is the message he is sending; in future, when any US politician is questioned about their tax affairs, they will simply point at Trump and say "If it's good enough for POTUS, it's good enough for me" .

Also, If POTUS thinks it's ok to avoid tax and hide tax returns, and in fact condones such behaviour, can you imagine how much more difficult the IRS's job will be now? "POTUS says it's ok for me to avoid tax and hide returns so you can go and f*** yourself Mr Taxman".

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

As for the message to the public, it's somewhat more understandable being a Businessman in that situation abusing the system, than being Secretary of state and funneling money through and from places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, or shoveling off 20% of US Uranium to Russia in exchange for $$$.

Really? My god that is terrible.

Uranium mining in the United States produced 3,303,977 pounds (1,498,659 kg) of U3O8 (1271 tonnes of uranium) in 2015 (according to Wiki)

20% of that is 660,795 pounds

at a rate of €23 per pound thats $15,198,294 in one year.

You obviously have the evidence to back this up

Hank Scorpio

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Every. Single. Time.

And you complain about fake news ?

Read between the lines friendo.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Hank Scorpio

Also I notice nobody asking me to prove the Saudi and Qatar money, because it's easily provable. Did she sign off on the deal as secretary of state btw? Honestly curious.

A very selective bunch.

But Trump taxes, Waah Waah. Carry on.

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Also I notice nobody asking me to prove the Saudi and Qatar money, because it's easily provable. Did she sign off on the deal as secretary of state btw? Honestly curious.

A very selective bunch.

But Trump taxes, Waah Waah. Carry on.

No, but we have to start somewhere. So where is the evidence of this 20%?

Then we can move on the the rest.

And so what about Qatar and Saudi. Trump yesterday admitted he was on the verge of a 2Bn deal with Saudi. So if you're going start implying anything we need to seriously question how that came about and what the Saudis were asking in return

B0jangles

Leroy42 wrote: »

No, but we have to start somewhere. So where is the evidence of this 20%?

Then we can move on the the rest.

Don't get sucked into a rehash of alllll the Clinton 'scandals' that were definitely absolutely going put her in jail (any minute now...), all they do is distract from discussion of the very real, very current set of scandals that Trump and his cultists are facing right now.

Trump is roaring and blustering about the totally FAKE report that should never have been released because it's classified material.

Which is it Trump?

You do realise it can't simultaneously be fake and classified, don't you?

His latest tweet about it is another easily debunked lie:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819520238446411777

https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/819520828505202688

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

No, but we have to start somewhere. So where is the evidence of this 20%?

Then we can move on the the rest.

"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."

Conspiracy theories of course, but you get the idea.

DrumSteve

For what its worth, I am really enjoying Donald being on the receiving end of fake news... Let it continue; if it winds him up even better.

He still won't release his tax returns either the shifty bastard.

Also, why are people still talking about Clinton, the election is over.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Also I notice nobody asking me to prove the Saudi and Qatar money, because it's easily provable. Did she sign off on the deal as secretary of state btw? Honestly curious.

A very selective bunch.

But Trump taxes, Waah Waah. Carry on.

The cheek of some people. If they want to talk about Donald Trump they should start a donald trump thread.

Hank Scorpio

david75 wrote: »

Breitbart is not a legitimate source for information. Use your delusion elsewhere.

Lol.

You call all Trump supporters deluded, then you say there was no media collusion.

I post a tonne of links directly from Wikileaks showing clear proof of media collusion, then for some reason you mention Breitbart.

Here's a link showing Donna Brazile got fired from CNN for leaking debate questions.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/31/donna-brazile-fired-cnn-contributor/

Your stance is ignorant, plain and simple and I have no doubt you'll continue saying the same crap about why there's a backlash on the media without ever wanting to learn the truth. Keep reading Vox, it's news cancer for the brain.

Boards has sunk to the pits.

Grayson

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

"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."

Conspiracy theories of course, but you get the idea.

You should really start a Hillary Clinton thread. We'd all avoid it of course because the election's over now but work away and try to deflect from trump by screaming Hillary at the top of your voice.

WinnyThePoo

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Pretty telling you still won't accept the fact the MSM were working to get Hillary elected, it says alot about you.

If you're going to post some image to disguise that I'll return the favor.

Literally shaking.

Wait hold up. Aren't you a birth conspiracy nut?.

Your constant complaints about msm just can't stand up.

Hank Scorpio

Grayson wrote: »

You should really start a Hillary Clinton thread. We'd all avoid it of course because the election's over now but work away and try to deflect from trump by screaming Hillary at the top of your voice.

People were saying Trump is the sole reason for this fake news back lash and I tried to tell them the main cause of that is what happened with the media collusion during the election, even with proof they still flat out deny it existed. That's what gave it the foundation then Trump played on it.

I've said negative things about Trump over and over, the fact is there is a tonne of regular posters bashing Trump on this thread and they refuse to see any other side of the coin when it's staring them in the face is alarming. It's ignorance at best. And the worst part is even you make an effort to put things together they don't even acknowledge it.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Also I notice nobody asking me to prove the Saudi and Qatar money, because it's easily provable. Did she sign off on the deal as secretary of state btw? Honestly curious.

A very selective bunch.

But Trump taxes, Waah Waah. Carry on.

What's your opinion on these points?


By not releasing tax returns for 20 years and boasting about it, Trump has done huge damage. It sets a very toxic (ahem) precedent. Here is the message he is sending; in future, when any US politician is questioned about their tax affairs, they will simply point at Trump and say "If it's good enough for POTUS, it's good enough for me" .

Also, If POTUS thinks it's ok to avoid tax and hide tax returns, and in fact condones such behaviour, can you imagine how much more difficult the IRS's job will be now? "POTUS says it's ok for me to avoid tax and hide returns so you can go and f*** yourself Mr Taxman".

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

"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."

Conspiracy theories of course, but you get the idea.

So not actually news then, just some made up crap. And you have the gall to say the MSM are telling lies. You have just done it yourself.

Quote from the article you linked to:

"At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family."

So they had been giving money to Clintons for years before any Uranium deal, A private company sells part of itself and you think that implies Clintons were siffoning off 20% of US uranium.

Seriously. I went with this not because I care about HC, but it totally exposes you for the hypocrite that you are.

Fake news, give me a break

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What's your opinion on these points?


By not releasing tax returns for 20 years and boasting about it, Trump has done huge damage. It sets a very toxic (ahem) precedent. Here is the message he is sending; in future, when any US politician is questioned about their tax affairs, they will simply point at Trump and say "If it's good enough for POTUS, it's good enough for me" .

Also, If POTUS thinks it's ok to avoid tax and hide tax returns, and in fact condones such behaviour, can you imagine how much more difficult the IRS's job will be now? "POTUS says it's ok for me to avoid tax and hide returns so you can go and f*** yourself Mr Taxman".

I 100% agree.. I already said he should have released them but I don't think he will. He could have done it before the primaries and people would have probably used it as a sticking point but now it's turned into a huge deal and he'll be forever bomb-boarded with it.

It doesn't set a good precedent for the public. I can understand WHY he evaded taxes through loopholes as a businessman, but he should have gotten the blowback out of the way a long time ago.

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

So not actually news then, just some made up crap. And you have the gall to say the MSM are telling lies. You have just done it yourself.

Quote from the article you linked to:

"At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family."

So they had been giving money to Clintons for years before any Uranium deal, A private company sells part of itself and you think that implies Clintons were siffoning off 20% of US uranium.

Seriously. I went with this not because I care about HC, but it totally exposes you for the hypocrite that you are.

Fake news, give me a break

This guy is a legitimate journalist who writes for the huffington post and appears on CNN and what not, not some internet nut. He goes into detail referencing the deal, he's also anti Trump. Believe what you want, with all the weapons deals and money flowing from the middle east I don't give her the benefit of the doubt when they were receiving Russia payments around the time the deal was being made. As SoS she must have presided over it.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I 100% agree.. I already said he should have released them but I don't think he will. He could have done it before the primaries and people would have probably used it as a sticking point but now it's turned into a huge deal and he'll be forever bomb-boarded with it.

It doesn't set a good precedent for the public. I can understand WHY he evaded taxes through loopholes as a businessman, but he should have gotten the blowback out of the way a long time ago.

It does make me suspicious that there could be more damming stuff in there. I mean he revealed the lack of taxes in the first debate. What was the point after that? Especially if there is nothing in them it would have distracted the media from other issues.

I mean the why of avoiding taxes is obvious. Who does not like more money. I would have been giving out about others for not releasing their tax returns or paying too little tax at the time though.

Edit: as has been mentioned below there is a difference between tax avoidance and evasion which I made a mistake with (as does the post I quote). Perhaps we should be more careful as he has only admitted avoidance with evasion being a crime.

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

This guy is a legitimate journalist who writes for the huffington post and appears on CNN and what not, not some internet nut. He goes into detail referencing the deal, he's also anti Trump. Believe what you want, with all the weapons deals and money flowing from the middle east I don't give her the benefit of the doubt when they were receiving Russia payments around the time the deal was being made. As SoS she must have presided over it.

So you are prepared to take the word of this creditable guy. That seems reasonable.

But not the word of a creditable MI6 agent? Coz thats just not right and anybody who raises it should be ostracised?

You stated 20%, not 'a lot' or 'possible amounts'

Do you have clear evidence to back up this 20% claim or don't you?

A Little Pony

Trump is probably being put under some sort of pressure behind the scenes to gradually back away from Putin. First time I heard him say he might not get on well with Putin.