Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details
What’s in them? Former Justice Department official Michael Bromwich said the report will upset “a lot of people” because of how damaging it will be to Hillary and her pals.
“Michael [Horowitz] is a very solid guy with exactly the right background for the job. It’s a job that doesn’t make you many friends,” Bromwich said . “And I don’t think a lot of people will be happy when it’s over. But I think he is going to call it as he sees it.”
Already, this quiet, behind-the-scenes investigation has proven fruitful for President Donald Trump and his political allies.
Horowitz was behind the revealing text message scandal that has rocked special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and led to two biased FBI insiders, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, being dumped from the team.
“For months, Horowitz’s investigation — which has amassed interviews with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey and other key officials — had been grinding on in near anonymity,” USA Today reported. “That is, until earlier this month when the inspector general acknowledged that Mueller was alerted to a cache of text messages exchanged between two FBI officials on his staff that disparaged Trump.”
The results of the inspector general’s investigation into Hillary’s misdeeds and the alleged cover-up by former President Barack Obama could be a “landmine” for Mueller and the rest of the Democrats, USA Today concludes.
If they show there was an illegal cover-up to help Hillary win the 2016 presidential election, conservative critics of the Clintons could also — at long last –get the justice they’ve asked for.
Dear John: You recently criticized the FBI for its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.
I am a retired FBI agent and extremely proud of my career and service. I feel compelled to write. Former FBI Director James Comey’s statements, testimony and behavior are truly abhorrent.
Comey admitted under oath before Congress that the bureau did not utilize a federal grand jury in the Hillary e-mail investigation.
Furthermore, he testified that in his experience, when dealing with attorneys, you can obtain information easier and faster than via a federal grand jury.
Never, I repeat never, in my 25-year career have I or any FBI agent known to me investigated a criminal case without the use of a federal grand jury, federal grand jury subpoenas, search warrants, etc.
Search warrants and/or subpoenas should have been executed at Clinton’s residences in Chappaqua and Washington and at Platte River Networks.
ADVERTISING
In fact, Comey frequently cites his vast experience. Well, I am certain that in every case with which he was involved (except this one, conveniently) he employed the use of a federal grand jury and all of the authority that encompasses.
Comey’s parsing of words to justify his cowardly decision was awkward and juvenile. These circumstances are indicia of Hillary’s intent (which, as we both are aware, is not a necessary element to satisfy the federal espionage statute) on which Comey placed so much emphasis.
Comey’s cowardice and lack of integrity is further exemplified in his surreptitious disclosure of confidential information through an intermediary to the New York Times.
Comey has created a disgraceful legacy. P.B.
Dear P.B.: I changed your initials and some other details because I’d like to speak with you and don’t want anyone to guess your identity.
My sources say Comey and three others made the decision on Hillary. The rest of the investigating agents weren’t consulted, and many were shocked by the decision not to pursue charges.
was fully aware Obama’s administration was rigging the presidential election in favor of failed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
The report reveals Comey reopened the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email
server solely to uphold the credibility of the F.B.I., out of fear that Obama’s administration
was not supporting an independent, thorough investigation and he would be criticized for
the unethical bias.
He anticipated Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch would intentionally close the
investigation into Clinton’s email server before any true crimes were able to be revealed,
based on an email obtained by Russian hackers and then intercepted by the F.B.I..
“The document, which has been described as both a memo
and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who
expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former
officials familiar with the document,” The Times reported.
Based on the assumption that Clinton would win the election and Russian hackers
would release the email, Comey reopened the investigation to cover their tracks.
But there was another investigation in the works that Comey did not reveal to the public.
The F.B.I. was also investigating then presidential nominee Donald Trump, but followed
typical protocol of secrecy — likely due to the lack of political motivation hindering his
investigation.
The investigation into Trump didn’t posses the potential public backlash that was plaguing
Clinton’s investigation.
Throughout the campaign, AG Lynch was anything but subtle in her cohorts with the
Clintons.
She was caught privately meeting with Bill Clinton during the election, leading to
raised suspicions that she was too familiar with the Clinton clan, and would not
support an independent, unbiased investigation.
Bill Clinton swore all he did was discuss grandkids as he met privately with then
AG Loretta Lynch on a small plane on a Phoenix tarmac prior to the election, while
Hillary was still under ‘investigation’ by the FBI prior to the election…yeah…right!
New evidence proves Loretta Lynch colluded with the Clintons to keep the Justice
Department from investigating Hillary ‘too closely’!
According to the Times, another document, hacked by the Russians, reveals collusion
between the former Attorney General and the Democrats to ensure Hillary Clinton’s
victory in the general election.
AG Lynch encouraged FBI Director Comey to refer to Clinton’s investigation as a
“matter,” not an “investigation” and even revised a public statement from the
Justice Department about the investigation to remove the word, “criminal.”
Mr. Comey’s defenders regard this as one of the untold stories of the Clinton
investigation, one they say helps explain his decision-making.”
If a local news reporter in Phoenix had not reported that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton
had met on that tarmac, she might have succeeded in sheltering Hillary even more
effectively than she had.
The Times’ report further proves that Lynch and Obama’s administration were
tampering with the election to do everything in their power to ensure Clinton’s win,
and even Obama’s own F.B.I was onto them.
But even with all the clear tampering, Obama and Lynch still couldn’t beat Trump.
Many Americans of all political stripes were upset that President Barack Obama issued a commutation of the prison sentence of Army Pvt. Bradley/Chelsea Manning, who had been convicted of stealing and leaking hundreds of thousands of classified military documents.
Former Minnesota Congresswoman and ex-Intelligence Committee member Michele Bachmann appeared Wednesday on Rusty Humphries’ “Trending Today USA” radio program on the USA Radio Network to discuss the issue — but there was actually a different pardon from Obama that Bachmann was more concerned about.
“We had the worst intelligence failures ever in the history of the United States under Barack Obama by Bradley Manning, by Edward Snowden and by none other than our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who because of her selfishness in having an unsecured server set up in her home, had America’s most vital secrets likely intercepted by our enemies and then released to the world,” Bachmann said.
“Barack Obama should be ashamed. Bradley Manning should be in jail, and in my opinion Hillary Clinton should be there with him,” she continued.
Humphries sadly noted that there was nothing to be done about Obama’s pardons and commutations, a fact Bachmann confirmed.
“I would look for a pardon coming for Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton Foundation before noon on Friday,” Bachmann predicted.
In response to Humphries’ shocked reaction to her statement, Bachmann reminded him, “A person does not have to be charged or in jail to receive a pardon,” suggesting that Obama could issue a “pre-pardon” of Clinton.
“I would not be surprised to see Barack Obama issue a blank pardon for anything Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton or the Clinton Foundation has done,” she concluded.
You can listen to a portion of Bachmann’s interview here:
This is a disconcerting prediction from Bachmann, but not at all surprising, given what we have learned over the years about Obama and those with whom he has surrounded himself.
Should Obama proceed with issuing a blanket pardon of Bill or Hillary Clinton, he will be letting off the hook a man and woman who probably sold access to the United States government, played fast and loose with America’s national security and got people killed through their decisions and actions.
This is one time we hope Michele Bachmann is wrong, as the events she predicts would do untold damage to the integrity of our nation, the presidency, our justice system and our national security.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter so everyone can hear this dire prediction from Michele Bachmann about a potential last-minute pardon of the Clintons by Obama.
What do you think of Michele Bachmann's prediction?
HILLARY JUST RELEASED HER TAX RETURNS…THEY’RE SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE
Hillary Clinton has a tough job.
Why exactly?
Because she’s got to convince an entire country she understands what it’s like to be in their shoes. That is poor and strapped for cash.
Sure, she tries hard. Telling people when she gets elected she’s going to go to war with the “evil corporations” who are gutting the poor American worker and then trying to make it seem like she knows what it’s like to be one of the people.
Let’s not forget this is a woman who fresh out of the White House said she and Bill were broke.
Well how broke does making more than $100 million dollars in 6 years make you?
Hillary just released her income statements in an effort to be transparent.
Hopefully this bites her in the you know what.
Vox gives us the very personal look into this crazy woman’s financial life:
Hillary Clinton disclosed details of her vast personal riches Friday, including tax returns and an itemized list of millions of dollars in paid speeches she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, gave in 2013 alone.
It may blunt a key line of attack from Republican Jeb Bush, who has chided her for a lack of transparency in her personal finances and government emails since releasing 33 years of his tax returns earlier this year. The Bush and Clinton camps can quibble about whose information is better presented or more complete, but together they’ve now set a pretty high standard for personal financial disclosure and they are at relative parity in that department.
Her campaign hopes that disclosing details of her finances will allow her to focus more on contrasting her platform with those of her rivals for the presidency — a set of policies she says will give more Americans opportunities to climb the economic ladder.
The Clintons have earned $141 million since 2007
Friday’s disclosures make clear that Clinton has made a lot more money than Bush. She’s paid $57.5 million in taxes since 2007, well more than the $38 million Bushmadebetween 1981 and 2013. In 2013, the most lucrative year for which he has provided information, Bush made $7.36 million. That year, the Clintons pulled in $27.47 million.
They also earned $28.3 million in 2014, paying an effective tax rate that year of 45.8 percent in federal, state, and local taxes — partly due to the tax joys of living in New York.
Clinton tax returns via Hillary Clinton’s campaign Bill and Hillary Clinton’s income for the years 2007 to 2014.
Their biggest source of income in recent years has been paid speeches, a fact reinforced by Friday’s first-time disclosure of $22.3 million in earnings from lecture circuit stops in 2013. Clinton already had released the couple’s speaking fees for 2014 and the first several months of 2015.
Overall, they’ve made $141 million since 2007. Much of that money — more than $48 million — came from speeches given over a 29-month period beginning in January 2013. Many of the firms who paid the Clintons to speak have business before the federal government. Some of them had business before the State Department when she ran the agency from 2009 through early 2013.
Those sources of income will be a point of contention in political battles, but Clinton’s team clearly hopes the disclosure of her earnings and taxes will help her stay focused on policy debates rather than fending off charges that she has a lot to hide.
Clinton wants to boost taxes on investment income
Clinton hopes to make the case that the big difference between her and Bush isn’t who’s richer, who pays more in taxes, or who is more open about personal finances. Instead, it’s the fact that she wants people like herself and Bush to pay more in taxes.
“We hear very different principles from the Republican candidates running for president. They want to give me another tax cut I don’t need instead of putting middle class families first,” Clinton said in a statement accompanying her release. “Families like mine that reap rewards from our economy have a responsibility to pay our fair share.”
None of what Clinton wants to do with the tax code is particularly radical. But Republicans, most of whom have signed a pledge to never raise new taxes, have given her a lot of room to contrast with them.
Vox’s Matt Yglesias wrote a really great explainer on Clinton’s plan to tax capital gains from shorter-term investments at a higher rate. I won’t try to duplicate his work here, but the general idea is that she can raise more revenue from wealthy investors and encourage long-term investing. Like most Democrats, she also wants to close the so-called carried interest loophole, which allows investment managers to pay a lower rate on their earnings.
And she says she’ll push for implementation of the“Buffett rule,” which is designed to ensure that millionaires pay a minimum effective tax rate of 30 percent.
All of those ideas, not to mention corollaries such as fining executives when their companies break the rules, are popular with Democrats and fit neatly into what Clinton says is an economic agenda that seeks both greater fairness and economic growth.
Republicans, she argues, would skew the tax system to more greatly favor the wealthy. Bush hasn’t unveiled a tax plan and has been pretty careful to avoid the subject so far, so it’s hard to judge what he hasn’t said. But Marco Rubio’s tax proposal would give bigger tax cuts to multimillionaires, and Sen. Rand Paul has proposed suspending the capital gains tax altogether.
In 2013, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the vast majority of benefits from the preferential treatment of investment income goes to the very richest Americans.
For example, CBO estimates that more than 90 percent of the benefits of reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends will accrue to households in the highest income quintile in 2013, with almost 70 percent going to households in the top percentile.
Republicans say Clinton is still hiding important information
Republicans said the financial disclosures aren’t nearly as important to voters as her lack of transparency on another batch of files: her emails from her time as secretary of state.
Bush has released much of his communication from the time he was governor of Florida, and his spokesperson said Friday that the Clinton team’s disclosures were simply a way to distract from her failure to make public documents that she kept on a personal server at State and from her ties to businesses that made her family rich through paid speeches.
Her disclosures are “an attempt to distract from her lack of transparency and conflicts of interest,” Bush communications director Tim Miller said in an email.
Perhaps you should give Mrs. Clinton a congratulatory pat on the back.
Here she is disclosing how much she made.
Or perhaps you should do the right thing and ask “Why in the world is this woman fit to speak on anything…much less get paid for it?”
Maybe if we lived in an alternate dimension where being led by one of the most conniving and predatory first ladies of all time was a good thing then this would this be OK.
There’s nothing wrong with amassing wealth.
It’s what the free market was designed for.
But knowing how she and her husband compiled their vast riches (that is on the backs and bodies of their foes) should cause anyone to question why she’s fit for presidency (and not in jail!)
Are your surprised this is how much Clinton is worth?
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3925512/Screen%20Shot%202015-07-31%20at%206.14.58%20PM.png)
Clinton tax returns via Hillary Clinton’s campaign