It does not surprise me that there is more emails. It does not surprise me that there are connections between top aides and foreign governments.

The thing that does surprise me is that the left is protecting Mrs. Clinton so much. Call a scandal what it is. Investigate leads. Find answers.

The reporters are acting like scared sheep that do not wish to know the truth.

bbauska wrote:It does not surprise me that there is more emails. It does not surprise me that there are connections between top aides and foreign governments.

The thing that does surprise me is that the left is protecting Mrs. Clinton so much. Call a scandal what it is. Investigate leads. Find answers.

The reporters are acting like scared sheep that do not wish to know the truth.

I think there is great fear of "being on the wrong side of history." They want a woman President and they DON'T want Trump to be POTUS.

I still maintain a run-of-the-mill Democrat would crush Trump. Of course, I also believe a run-of-the-mill Republican would crush Clinton.

These are the worst two candidates ever to run.

Indeed.

There is no defending her.

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.

Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton’s help with a visa problem and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm’s corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.

The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton.

The AP notes that its review did not include 16 foreign government leaders who had donated $170 million to the Foundation because she would arguably have met with those leaders anyway.

This may not have been illegal but the fact that 55% of Clinton’s meetings and calls with private interests were with major Clinton Foundation donors does more than fuel “perceptions.” The numbers the Associated Press has assembled represent proof of Clinton’s favoritism toward donors on the macro scale. Meanwhile, recently published emails have shown the same favoritism on the micro scale, i.e. Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band interceding for Foundation donors with the State Department to arrange meetings or other favors.

An email chain published Monday by Judicial Watch showed Band requesting a meeting with Clinton on behalf of the Crown Prince of Bahrain, a major donor to Foundation projects. Band’s email to Clinton aide Huma Abedin described the prince as a, “Good friend of ours.” Abedin replied that Clinton had already said no to the request for a meeting through officials channels but two days later Clinton changed her mind and agreed to the meeting.

Another set of emails published earlier this month by Judicial Watch showed Band asking Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin to “take care of” an unnamed associate. Abedin responded to that request saying, “Personnel has been sending him options.”

Ethicists contacted by Politico earlier this month said Clinton had violated the spirit of her ethics pledge by allowing her top aides to coordinate with the Clinton Foundation, even if she had not violated the letter of the pledge by doing so herself.

She has no ethics.

I would love to hear the defense from the left now.

bbauska wrote:I would love to hear the defense from the left now.

I'm not on the left, and I'm not going to defend her. For me, the crux of the election is a choice between a sane dishonest person and an insane (or maybe just bizarre) dishonest person. I prefer some of Trump's policies, particularly as it relates to corporate taxation and regulation. But he seems to me to be a roll of the dice. I keep picturing voting for Trump in the context of the game of Risk where you are on the attack, and it is foolish, but you have to go for it, and it requires rolling several sixes to succeed. Maybe get tough with NATO will succeed ... but what can go wrong?

I see the two candidates differently. I agree with your premise, however. I know what Hilary will do, and I don't like it. I don't know what Donald will do, but I have more faith in Congress stopping any egregious plans that could be hatched from his mind than hers.

Both scare me, but one is pulling back toward the center and one is pushing more left.

I don't like either candidate.

bbauska wrote:I would love to hear the defense from the left now.

I think I am with RJ. I personally don't think Hillary is as bad as her detractors make out, and a lot of the "evidence" is circumstantial or by omission.

But she is pretty much a known quantity (and not that left wing really).

If she wins, the Republicans could still retain one chamber of Congress, and stall her - if not then the 2018 midterms are the back up.

If Trump does pull it out of the bag, then chances are the GOP would have both parts of Congress and I am not so sure that they will hold him back.

If I were an American voter, chances are I would be in a state that is pretty locked down and I would put a write-in for Mimi Soltysik. Otherwise it is a case of holding one's nose.

Heard Gary Johnson in an extended radio interview a week or two ago, and I thought he sounded great.

https://www.johnsonweld.com/

There are other choices, and if you don't like the two major candidates, you should look to find one you like better.

geojanes wrote:Heard Gary Johnson in an extended radio interview a week or two ago, and I thought he sounded great.

https://www.johnsonweld.com/

There are other choices, and if you don't like the two major candidates, you should look to find one you like better.

Oh, I am. I am PROUDLY never-Trumper. I just don't understand the people who are saying that they are voting for Mrs. Clinton regardless of what she does.

Ok, let's get away from the rhetoric and examine the qualifications of the candidates and I'll try to be as fair as possible:

Trump: successful business I guess. Inherited 200 million dollars from his father His businesses have 650 million dollars in debt. He has been sued about 500 times. Allegations of fraud with regard to Trump University and a real estate venture in Mexico. Says outrageous things all of the time. No indication he is deeply knowledgeable about foreign policy or domestic policy issues. Campaign organization has been poor; constant shake-ups there. Has been reluctant to distance himself from white supremacist support. With his statements about Muslims, Mexicans and emphasis of concern over supporting cops without any concern about blacks being shot by cops at such alarming numbers, his election would be certain to exacerbate racial strife (he is polling at 1 to 2 percent among blacks). No political experience or background other than business to prepare him for being president. No indication he has the kind of analytical, political or organizational skills to prepare him to dealing with the complexities of being president.

Hillary: Went to Yale, so she's pretty smart. Has significant political experience as being a senator from New York and a Secretary of State. Knowledgeable about foreign policy and domestic issues. Benefits from the political alliances of her husband and her own relationships. Was able to see the issues up close that confront a president since she was First Lady for 8 years. Already has relationships with foreign leaders. Other countries are comfortable with her because of the continuity with Bill. Her political experience should give her some insight as to the realities of how to get things done in Washington. From a liberal perspective, she seems to be wiling to govern a little left of center. Did not really do anything of huge significance as Secretary of State or Senator. Allegations of misjudgment (or even criminality with email scandal) and at least the appearance of impropriety with the Clinton Foundation.

So I can vote for Hillary...or I can vote for a disaster. First of all, in general people don't just vote for the person but the policies they represent. More importantly, with regard to Trump, he has been willing to throw gasoline on racial relations in the United States. One of the reasons people like him is because he says what that they think but have to keep quiet about for fear of being alleged to be racist, misogynist, or whatever. And in a civil society it's probably a good thing for people to keep quiet about such beliefs. Secondly, he is not qualified to be present. Really not qualified. It's not just about political experience. Abraham Lincoln did not have much political experience. But he had handled thousands of legal cases, developing acute analytical powers and how to persuade and manage people. And of course he had written and made important speeches. Lincoln was naturally intelligent but he had also handled 8,000 cases I think, learned and applied legal principles to the facts in those 8,000 cases in a largely successful way. Dealing with such a huge number of complex factual situations tends to prepare you how to analyze the complexities associated with handling a war; dealing with many, many juries and lawyers and judges tends to educate you as to what makes people tick. You might say Obama was inexperienced. But you are talking about someone of mixed race from a middle-class background who made it to the Ivy League, who was successful there, and then who ascended through Chicago politics. That's a long way to go and that long path weeds out the mediocre. You cannot survive that long path to the presidency without being a very good politician. And of course Obama is a very good orator.

Trump is basically seeking to seek to cut in line and not go through the weeding out process in politics. And his father was very rich so the credit someone gets from starting from the bottom and using their talents to become rich is not there, either. And certainly Hillary to a large extent did not have to succeed on her own merits. But she has the background, experience, and knowledge to do an adequate job. And she will certainly have a lot of very smart people around her. Trump has not displayed anything but simple-minded rhetoric. As for the e-mail scandal Republicans have not been able to prove that it caused any damage to our natural security or made a convincing case that she should be charged criminally. And with regard to the Clinton Foundation there is no proof that she made policy changes in response to donations. As usual with regard to the Clintons, the Republicans just cannot find the metaphorical smoking gun.

When it comes to the Clinton Foundation, as far as I can see it's better than most US charities when it comes to proportion of spend on overhead. Charity Watch gives it an "A".

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-an ... dation/478

danivon wrote:When it comes to the Clinton Foundation, as far as I can see it's better than most US charities when it comes to proportion of spend on overhead. Charity Watch gives it an "A".

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-an ... dation/478

one of the metrics is % of funds raised spent on fundraising. For the CF it may be low because the fundraising is handled via influence with the former secretary of state vs. direct mail or telemarketing.

freeman3 wrote:Hillary: Went to Yale, so she's pretty smart.

Oh please. So did GWB.

freeman3 wrote:So I can vote for Hillary...or I can vote for a disaster.

I don't think Gary Johnson would be a disaster, and he will be on the ballot in California, so you do have other choices.

Hillary going to Yale and GW going to Yale are not comparable, George.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5814680