Wikileaks: The polls are rigged

[Bud Plug]

Don't they have a right to the same [edit] openness from both?

Short answer, no. The public has no legal right to demand that a private citizen open his private business affairs up to public scrutiny. It has every legal right, through Congress, to review the dealings of any citizen in the course of performing in public service.

There are no gooses and ganders here. There are public employees and private citizens.

Voters are entitled to draw whatever conclusions they like from the information that a candidate chooses to disclose, or not to disclose (in the same way that they can decide what to make of the Clinton campaign's decision not to deny the authenticity of the WikiLeaks emails), and to decide how to weigh that consideration against all of the other differences between the candidates.

 

[SuperCharge]

There's nothing illegal in Clinton's emails. Nothing. It's just political realism, you would find the same stuff in Sanders emails or Trump's.

Obviously it's damaging because the emails are candid, discuss strategy to deal with rivals, give unvarnished opinions about others, reveal political calculations. But all politicians do that.
It's disturbing that you want to downplay foreign espionage against a US election though. You are pretty dismissive of the threat that represents.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?sns=tw&v=TtrG7aFw0n0
Really, so why do they have an investigation on her right now, into her Clinton foundation along with a few others like "perjury" no biggie, just sitting at the DOJ's office waiting.

Remember when the Clinton's liked Russia enough to sell them Uranium?

 

[oldjones]

Short answer, no. The public has no legal right to demand that a private citizen open his private business affairs up to public scrutiny. It has every legal right, through Congress, to review the dealings of any citizen in the course of performing in public service.

There are no gooses and ganders here. There are public employees and private citizens.

Voters are entitled to draw whatever conclusions they like from the information that a candidate chooses to disclose, or not to disclose (in the same way that they can decide what to make of the Clinton campaign's decision not to deny the authenticity of the WikiLeaks emails), and to decide how to weigh that consideration against all of the other differences between the candidates.

Apparently you skipped over my opening sentence: "Nowhere did I say we had a right to compel Trump' to disclose." That speaks to an individual's right to safety from arbitrary search, seizure and such. But we as citizens have a rightful expectation that candidates for office will compete fairly and openly and according to the best precedents and principle of the past. Trump hasn't and isn't. It's one of the many reasons his candidacy is so regrettable.

That's precisely the point the various complainers about Democratic-favoring media and pollsters are making. Perhaps you're confusing their calls for lynching with what I said. Sadly, they happily excuse The Don's furtiveness while demanding even more disclosure from Clinton, who has so far met every public servant's duty she's been asked to, year's after that service ended. And every duty to the citizens as well.

You may not like the basic barnyard truism, but there are only two private citizens running for office, and only one has met any sort of standard for openness and honest disclosure. If anyone imagine it's Trump, or that voters have no right to better, they're the goose, already cooked and sauced. And you can be sure next time round, his miserable self-serving standards will apply to every candidate.
----------
PS: Gresham's Law applies to more than coinage.

 

[Bud Plug]

Apparently you skipped over my opening sentence: "Nowhere did I say we had a right to compel Trump' to disclose." That speaks to an individual's right to safety from arbitrary search, seizure and such. But we as citizens have a rightful expectation that candidates for office will compete fairly and openly and according to the best precedents and principle of the past. Trump hasn't and isn't. It's one of the many reasons his candidacy is so regrettable.

That's precisely the point the various complainers about Democratic-favoring media and pollsters are making. Perhaps you're confusing their calls for lynching with what I said. Sadly, they happily excuse The Don's furtiveness while demanding even more disclosure from Clinton, who has so far met every public servant's duty she's been asked to, year's after that service ended. And every duty to the citizens as well.

You may not like the basic barnyard truism, but there are only two private citizens running for office, and only one has met any sort of standard for openness and honest disclosure. If anyone imagine it's Trump, or that voters have no right to better, they're the goose, already cooked and sauced. And you can be sure next time round, his miserable self-serving standards will apply to every candidate.
----------
PS: Gresham's Law applies to more than coinage.

Then why are you contradicting yourself, if you already agree that the public has no right to disclosure of Trump's business dealings?

I don't understand your argument. Are you arguing that once a private citizen decides to run for office, then they surrender their right to privacy with respect to their personal and business affairs prior to running? No such law or custom. If that were true, the FBI could have been sent into Obama's home to search for his birth certificate (although, in retrospect, that would have saved the country a lot of angst).

The disclosure that is demanded from Hillary was owed to the American people, regardless of whether she chose to run for office or not. Those obligations arose from the public office she held, not from her decision to run.

I've never read anything so absurd as someone claiming that Clinton has been open and honest. According to WikiLeaks, even her closest confidants don't believe that. The public wouldn't even know about her private server if it weren't for her being dragged before the Benghazi committee. I wouldn't trust her to tell me the time of day.

 

[SuperCharge]

Excellent video. For as long as we still have the internet, its incredible for making people accountable. In seconds you can dig up a video of Obama saying all that is wrong with Hillary back in 2008, or in the same year, acknowledging polls do get tampered with by both sides. Fast forward to the present, and opinions are fully changed.

I can't imagine the loss of the internet, and having nothing but local papers and CNN to use as a 'creditable' source for info. With all we have seen, and learned, you'd be better off leaving the TV off and reading a book. Truth as we know it, would be truly lost.

I think the key to the Clinton emails is one thing - unsecured. The position of power she is in, to send emails (regardless of content) unsecured, is the real concern and breach of security.
Even CNN was choked up when the "Fact Checker" Hillary destroying phones and it was verified.

Agree with everything you said Kathleen. The internet and the independent journalists are having to do the job of the MSM.

Have you ever heard of Aaron Swartz? (November 8, 1986 – January 11, 2013) was an American prodigy computer programmer, entrepreneur, writer, political organizer, and Internet hacktivist. He was involved in the development of the web feed format RSS and the Markdown publishing format, the organization Creative Commons, the website framework web.py,and the social news site Reddit, in which he became a partner after its merger with his company, Infogami. I think you would really appreciate this documentary, because it sorta ties in with the power the government can have on you, and how they can make your life a living hell. "The Internet's Own Boy"

 

[oldjones]

Then why are you contradicting yourself, if you already agree that the public has no right to disclosure of Trump's business dealings?

I don't understand your argument. Are you arguing that once a private citizen decides to run for office, then they surrender their right to privacy with respect to their personal and business affairs prior to running? No such law or custom. If that were true, the FBI could have been sent into Obama's home to search for his birth certificate (although, in retrospect, that would have saved the country a lot of angst).

The disclosure that is demanded from Hillary was owed to the American people, regardless of whether she chose to run for office or not. Those obligations arose from the public office she held, not from her decision to run.

I've never read anything so absurd as someone claiming that Clinton has been open and honest. According to WikiLeaks, even her closest confidants don't believe that. The public wouldn't even know about her private server if it weren't for her being dragged before the Benghazi committee. I wouldn't trust her to tell me the time of day.

If you'd drop the limited notion that 'rights' are only a way you can use the law to compel others, understanding might come easier. That sort of enforced minimalism is a johnny-come-lately to the game of human rights. They existed long before we codified Charters and tasked Commisssions. Look up the story of St Paul asserting his right as a Roman citizen. In the USA, the custom has been for forty some years that Presidential candidates publish their tax returns. Not a law. just a recognition that the people they're asking to trust them, have right to that sort of honest candor. Hillary has provided that. Donald continues to duck and conceal. As a charter member of the I-only-behave-=when-compelled subspecies, we'll see if the voters' message there's a bigger world gets through to him.

What Clinton did years ago as a public servant, has already been investigated, and dealt with, just as you say. If you want to discuss it in the campaign context, the only way you can parallel it to Trump would be to look at his self-serving and personally beneficial bankruptcies. When he reveals his tax returns, maybe we'll be able to do that. But as you say, he has every right to keep us from doing so. Have at the one who's already been investigated, reported on and who has disclosed. That's your right.

On election day each voter can decide which candidate respected their right to an honest and open campaign. And which one did their best to keep them in the dark.

BTW. This exchange began with my offhand quip about the possibility Trump's personal servers might also have been wiped. If he's indeed under a tax audit, even personal emails on those servers could be material to the matter, and any wiping sanctionable. The practical distinction between her duty to the nation and its laws compared with his is not quite as open and shut as a simple private person vs. public servant comparison suggests.

 

[AK-47]

If you'd drop the limited notion that 'rights' are only a way you can use the law to compel others, understanding might come easier. That sort of enforced minimalism is a johnny-come-lately to the game of human rights. They existed long before we codified Charters and tasked Commisssions. Look up the story of St Paul asserting his right as a Roman citizen. In the USA,
the custom has been for forty some years that Presidential candidates publish their tax returns. Not a law. just a recognition that the people they're asking to trust them, have right to that sort of honest candor. Hillary has provided that. Donald continues to duck and conceal. As a charter member of the I-only-behave-=when-compelled subspecies, we'll see if the voters' message there's a bigger world gets through to him.

What Clinton did years ago as a public servant, has already been investigated, and dealt with, just as you say. If you want to discuss it in the campaign context, the only way you can parallel it to Trump would be to look at his self-serving and personally beneficial bankruptcies. When he reveals his tax returns, maybe we'll be able to do that. But as you say, he has every right to keep us from doing so. Have at the one who's already been investigated, reported on and who has disclosed. That's your right.

On election day each voter can decide which candidate respected their right to an honest and open campaign. And which one did their best to keep them in the dark

Have you tried making your posts a little shorter and more concise??

 

[oldjones]

Have you tried making your posts a little shorter and more concise??

Very little of value in the world can be accomplished or expressed in a single sentence. I am sure you can cope if you try, but if you don't want to, feel free to skip along.

 

[Bud Plug]

Have at the one who's already been investigated

Let's be clear about some things that should not be in dispute.

1. James Comey announced that, based on the information the FBI had been able to review at that time, he recommended against the laying of charges in connection with Clinton's operation of a private server. That is not the same as a trial (you can't be tried twice for the same crime). Another FBI Director could recommend charges to the DOJ based on the very same evidence, if it were done reasonably proximately (i.e. shortly after the election).

2. New evidence has now emerged via WikiLeaks that President Obama exchanged e-mails with Clinton on her private server. These e-mails were not provided to the FBI. New evidence, such as this, could justify the reopening of this investigation by Comey (or any subsequent FBI Director). This information could cause the FBI to question Obama regarding the matter, as well as review his e-mail records.

3. The FBI did not investigate contempt of Congress as manifested by Clinton lying under oath to Congress in the Benghazi hearing, or as manifested by improper destruction and withholding of evidence subject to subpoena and a preservation order. That matter has now been referred to the FBI, and is a pending investigation. We only know this to be a pending investigation because we know Congress referred the matter.

4. The FBI will neither confirm or deny whether there is a pending investigation into the operation of the Clinton Foundation and its connection to Clinton's actions as Secretary of State. It is FBI policy to neither confirm or deny the existence of pending investigations. As a result, we do not know if they are still looking into this. Plenty of new evidence has emerged concerning this matter via WikiLeaks.

So, the real status of Clinton e-mail investigations is:

a. The investigation into her use of a private server is currently closed, but could be reopened based on fresh evidence, or simply based on a different opinion of a new FBI Director.

b. The investigation into her contempt of Congress in relation to the server is pending.

c. An investigation into the relationship between the Foundation, the server, and her role as SOS is unconfirmed, as it should be. A great deal of new evidence has emerged via WikiLeaks that would relate to such an investigation.

 

[oldjones]

Let's be clear about some things that should not be in dispute.

1. James Comey announced that, based on the information the FBI had been able to review at that time, he recommended against the laying of charges in connection with Clinton's operation of a private server. That is not the same as a trial (you can't be tried twice for the same crime). Another FBI Director could recommend charges to the DOJ based on the very same evidence, if it were done reasonably proximately (i.e. shortly after the election).

2. New evidence has now emerged via WikiLeaks that President Obama exchanged e-mails with Clinton on her private server. These e-mails were not provided to the FBI. New evidence, such as this, could justify the reopening of this investigation by Comey (or any subsequent FBI Director). This information could cause the FBI to question Obama regarding the matter, as well as review his e-mail records.

3. The FBI did not investigate contempt of Congress as manifested by Clinton lying under oath to Congress in the Benghazi hearing, or as manifested by improper destruction and withholding of evidence subject to subpoena and a preservation order. That matter has now been referred to the FBI, and is a pending investigation. We only know this to be a pending investigation because we know Congress referred the matter.

4. The FBI will neither confirm or deny whether there is a pending investigation into the operation of the Clinton Foundation and its connection to Clinton's actions as Secretary of State. It is FBI policy to neither confirm or deny the existence of pending investigations. As a result, we do not know if they are still looking into this. Plenty of new evidence has emerged concerning this matter via WikiLeaks.

So, the real status of Clinton e-mail investigations is:

a. The investigation into her use of a private server is currently closed, but could be reopened based on fresh evidence, or simply based on a different opinion of a new FBI Director.

b. The investigation into her contempt of Congress in relation to the server is pending.

c. An investigation into the relationship between the Foundation, the server, and her role as SOS is unconfirmed, as it should be. A great deal of new evidence has emerged via WikiLeaks that would relate to such an investigation.

Why would these past matters — which certainly demonstrate high degree of open disclosure to the public — be things that I might dispute? She's been investigated, a new Congress will decide what it wants to do about the possibility of contempt charges, or further investigation. And we can all read the direly dangerous disclosures on WikiLeaks that so imperilled the nation. Or file FOI requests for the copies on all the other servers. Not that any of this is any more related to the campaign than Trump's various bankruptcies, pending audits and tax dodges. But if it is so are they.

Like I said, if you want to, have at the one who's already been investigated. But you still know nothing about Trump and how he operates within or without the law, 'cause he's making damned sure you don't. If you don't think you have a right to a similar disclosure from him, you needn't think about it on your way to vote. I'm sure I've said all that more than once.

Nothing new?

 

[Bud Plug]

Why would these past matters — which certainly demonstrate high degree of open disclosure to the public — be things that I might dispute? She's been investigated, a new Congress will decide what it wants to do about the possibility of contempt charges, or further investigation. And we can all read he direly dangerous disclosures on WikiLeaks that so imperilled the nation.

Like I said, if you want to, have at the one who's already been investigated. But you still know nothing about Trump and how he operates within or without the law, 'cause he's making sure you don't.

Nothing new?

You've missed the point. The investigating isn't over. Unfortunately, and unacceptably, it takes a criminal investigation to find out anything from Hillary, and she obstructs these investigations - all to get information she should be disclosing voluntarily. She is more secretive than even Nixon.

 

[AK-47]

You've missed the point

He always does.

And thats usually followed by some lengthy post thats completely off-topic and all over the place

 

[SuperCharge]

You've missed the point. The investigating isn't over. Unfortunately, and unacceptably, it takes a criminal investigation to find out anything from Hillary - things she should be disclosing voluntarily. She is more secretive than even Nixon

Worse, Nixon deleted 18 minutes of a recording and had to resign, Hillary deletes 30,000 emails and she's running for President. Go Figure!

 

[oldjones]

You've missed the point. The investigating isn't over. Unfortunately, and unacceptably, it takes a criminal investigation to find out anything from Hillary, and she obstructs these investigations - all to get information she should be disclosing voluntarily. She is more secretive than even Nixon.

No I didn't, you made it all perfectly clear, but apparently forgot: Neither is Trump's audit over, and nothing prevents him from being as open as anyone wants. And, just like The Don, nothing in what has transpired makes her ineligible to run. The difference being: her stuff is out there to be seen and judged by all. And it's back then: The campaign, and Trump's secretiveness, is now.

His stuff? Still known only to him. But as he says "… that makes him smart". You pick the one you want, but Clinton's done a lot more disclosing than Trump. Don't you think as voter you have some right to honest openness? That custom you conveniently forgot says you do.

And the carousel's gone round yet again. Really, the horse is long dead and your stick's broken.

How be we revisit when you know as much about Trump's doin's as you do about Clinton's and there's something real to discuss.

 

[fuji]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?sns=tw&v=TtrG7aFw0n0
Really, so why do they have an investigation on her right now, into her Clinton foundation along with a few others like "perjury" no biggie, just sitting at the DOJ's office waiting.

Remember when the Clinton's liked Russia enough to sell them Uranium?

Congressional republicans have been "investigating" Clinton since the 1990s and it's always just been partisan bullshit.

Those investigations will end when they lose their Senate majority.

It's all political.

The actual credible authorities like the FBI have exonerated her.

 

[SuperCharge]

Congressional republicans have been "investigating" Clinton since the 1990s and it's always just been partisan bullshit.

Those investigations will end when they lose their Senate majority.

It's all political.

The actual credible authorities like the FBI have exonerated her.

You call lying to Congress bullshit? There is a pending investigation with the IRS, Perjury, and the Clinton Foundation, that is enough to warrant a thorough and proper investigation! Will the DOJ do anything about it? If Lynch has any involvement, they won't. If Trump wins, yes, if Clinton wins, no. The jury will decide on Nov 8

 

[OnTheWayOut]

That's coy. Thing is he seems to have tried to time the release of what he does have to save Trump. He started releasing emails MINUTES after the video about Trump came out. Clearly he hoped to distract the media from the sex assaults stories (he failed).

And why isn't he getting things like that video?

And of course the KGB isn't giving him dirt on Trump.

You have it backwards ...... the video was released AFTER the emails to try to divert attention from Hilary's misdeeds.

 

[fuji]

You have it backwards ...... the video was released AFTER the emails to try to divert attention from Hilary's misdeeds.

Wrong. Assange began his leaks a few hours after the video.

 

[wigglee]

All WikiLeaks is doing is balancing the scales. Almost the entirety of the MSM is working full time to discredit Trump, if you haven't noticed. And you're worried that one organization is out there trying to discredit Clinton?

Besides, it's not WikiLeaks bailiwick to deal with private sector corruption issues. That's why they are focussing on Clinton. She's the one that's been in government for 30 years.

The media is focussing on Trump because he has so many faults, contradictions, lies and controversies . Not to mention racism, sexism or his insane motormouth. But apparently Assange can't find a single thing on him.... just Hillary. Putin is in the same boat....I bet if Hillary had hidden her tax returns, Putin and/or Assange would produce it for us pronto, but Donald must be a master anti-hacker! LOL

 

[SuperCharge]

Never heard of him. Thanks very much for the link. I've got about 10 pages bookmarked now, for things to read tomorrow...lol

No need to read gorgeous, it's a documentary, full HD and its amazing, given I believe 9/10 in ratings and it grabs you right from the minute you play it. The Internets Own Boy