Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (971930)	10/12/2016 6:30:34 PM
From: Broken_Clock	1 Recommendation Recommended By Investor Clouseau Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572497

What bs. You "know" nothing of the sort. What we do know is that the Hillary/Obama regime is as corrupt or even more so that NBush, Clinton, Bush or Reagan. Perhaps that matters to you? or perhaps not….But the reality is that Clinton and Obama have been indirectly supporting ISIS and directly supporting AQ(al Nusra) at the same time. I don't see how you can justify such treasonous actions in any way shape of form…but you no doubt will in your own demented mind. ======= thecanary.co New Clinton email reveals direct support for ISIS from two powerful Western alliesOCTOBER 11TH, 2016 BRAD HOFF GLOBAL Share Using Facebook Twitter GLOBAL A new Hillary Clinton email published by WikiLeaks as part of the ongoing release of hacked campaign filesconfirms that Daesh (Isis/Isil) has state backing. And from powerful Western allies, no less. Anti-terrorism analysts have long seen Daesh as a non-state-affiliated actor which grew out of an al-Qaeda insurgency in Iraq (and later Syria). But the email sent by Clinton herself (dated 27 September 2014) shows there’s much more to the story. Secret support for Daesh The lengthy email contains a summary assessment of proposed US policy plans in Iraq and Syria. This is based on what the email internally describes as Western and US intelligence sources. Most of the document lays out strategies for pushing Daesh back in the Middle East. But one section bluntly describes Western allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar as direct supporters of Daesh (“ ISIL” in this email): "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region… The Qataris and Saudis will be put in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure. [emphasis added]" Intelligence authorshipClinton herself sent the 2014 email directly from her personal account to campaign chairman John Podesta. But the intelligence content has the look and style of Sidney Blumenthal’s authorship. Blumenthal is a long-time top Clinton advisor who has provided many such sensitive intelligence briefings to Clinton, even when she was Secretary of State. It appears that Clinton either copied or forwarded the intelligence briefing which was the basis for the short exchange with Podesta. Both the arsonists and firefighters The New York Times recently described Saudi Arabia as both “ the arsonists and firefighters” in the Middle East. This is because the controversial kingdom clamps down on terrorism at home, while promoting its version of Wahhabi ultra-conservatism abroad. Saudi Arabia’s relationship with Britain and the US goes back decades, as the oil-rich nation entered into an ‘ oil for security‘ pact with the West which can be traced to the US Carter administration, and even to Franklin D. Roosevelt. As such, it has spanned both Republican and Democratic administrations in the USA. And it has meant that the West has routinely looked the other way as the Saudi regime exports extremism, funding a large number of radical mosques and organisations around the world. Beginning in 1979, the West actively sponsored the rise of a mujahideen army in central Asia in partnership with the Saudis to fight against Soviet troops. Historians view the current US/UK-Saudi covert intervention in Syria as a parallel situation to that of Afghanistan in the 1980s. More recently, the Gulf kingdom has negotiated record-breaking weapons deals with the UK. Clinton email confirms claims by other intelligence sources In Syria, the West and Saudi Arabia have supported a jihadist insurgency which seeks to topple the Assad government. Leaked documents provided to The Washington Post by Edward Snowden confirmed a CIA covert Syria programme which costs $1bn per year. The secret programme, given the name Timber Sycamore, has involved close coordination with the Saudis and other Gulf regimes like Qatar. Moreover, a 2012 Pentagon intelligence report (declassified in 2015) predicted that “ an Islamic state” would arise out of the Western/Gulf covert program which sought to overthrow the Syrian government. The White House allegedly knew about the secret report. And it was widely circulated within the intelligence community. It specifically names “the West” and “Gulf Countries” as the prime movers backing the jihadist insurgency in Syria. In short, analysts have long acknowledged indirect Saudi support of Daesh. But Clinton’s email is the first known intelligence memo which spells out direct Saudi support of the Wahhabi terror group. This leaked email alone should cause the media and Western governments to demand a radical reevaluation of the West’s priorities in the Middle East.

To: combjelly who wrote (971930)	10/12/2016 6:58:22 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572497

we "know" that the DOS was illegally colluding with the Clintons === "We Just Got A Tip" - Email Leak Reveals More Collusion Between State Department And Hillary Campaign by Tyler Durden Oct 12, 2016 1:05 PM 0 SHARES A new Podesta email released by WikiLeaks today reveals further direct coordination between the State Department and the Clinton campaign during what should have been a confidential investigation. The following email chain starts with a note from Clinton Deputy Communications Director, Kristina Schake, on April 9th, 2015 informing Mook, Palmieri, Mills, Podesta and Samuelson that "Someone here just got a tip that the State Department may be planning to release her Benghazi emails tomorrow or Monday." The emails further reveal a continued coordination between the State Department and the Clinton campaign with Heather Samuelson providing frequent status updates over the course of the following week. As legal experts pointed out previously, ultimately another month passed before the State Department finally released the first Clinton emails on May 22, 2015. It is unclear what accounted for the delay. It is also extremely unclear why Samuelson would have received frequent updates from the State Department on the status of ongoing FOIA requests as she was no longer employed by the State Department in 2015. It's also unclear, and curious, why all of the controversial conversations, like this one, always seem to be conducted through gmail rather than official campaign email addresses. * * * This latest discovery comes after we first reported on Monday another potential instance of the State Department seemingly "tipping off" the Clinton campaign on the timing of FOIA releases (see " Leaked Email Reveals Potential Collusion Between State Department And Clinton Campaign"), and also potentially explaining why Heather Samuelson got DOJ immunity, something which the House Judiciary Committee announced late on Tuesday it demands an Inspector General probe into. In the following email dated March 17, 2015 disclosed today by Wikileaks, we find troubling details of the internal State Department process, which somehow made its way to Samlueson with details so nuanced it may only have come as a result of direct communication between the State Department (or DOS as Samuelson calls it) as Hillary's young confidant, and which in turn she promptly conveyed to her team, regarding the FOIA request, in what appears to be a material breach of confidentiality. This is what she said : DOS is soon releasing another round of documents and email traffic (not hers) in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request on DOS's process for reviewing WJC’s speaking engagements. It’s 116 pages with approx. 50 sponsor/subsponsor requests. No objections by DOS in this batch, but some lengthy internal discussions among DOS officials that I highlighted below. There is one request where speaking fee would have been paid by Turkish govt -- WJC's office declined this. And one speaking engagement with fee from Canadian government, which he did do. Let me know if you have any questions. We have one question, Heather: is this legal, and are emailed exchanges such as this one why you received DOJ immunity in exchange for "turning over your laptop"? From the original email, bolding ours. * * * From: Heather Samuelson [mailto:hsamuelson@cdmillsGroup.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:53 AM To: Maura Pally; Craig Minassian; Philippe Reines; Nick Merrill; Jennifer Palmier I Cc: Cheryl Mills; Tina Flournoy Subject: JW FOIA \| WJC Speeches All -- DOS is soon releasing another round of documents and email traffic (not hers) in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request on DOS's process for reviewing WJC’s speaking engagements. It’s 116 pages with approx. 50 sponsor/subsponsor requests. No objections by DOS in this batch, but some lengthy internal discussions among DOS officials that I highlighted below. There is one request where speaking fee would have been paid by Turkish govt -- WJC's office declined this. And one speaking engagement with fee from Canadian government, which he did do. Let me know if you have any questions. In light of the ongoing speculation that there may have been collusion between the DOJ and Bill Clinton (and thus Hillary), following the infamous "tarmac encounter", where Bill and Loretta Lynch spoke for 40 minutes about "Bill's golf game and grandchildren", the discovery that there was collusion between the State Department and Hillary Clinton, who formerly headed it, seems like a potential conflict of interest to us

To: combjelly who wrote (971930)	10/12/2016 7:11:22 PM
From: Broken_Clock	1 Recommendation Recommended By Investor Clouseau Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572497

Define "know". We do know for a fact that people associated with Russian intelligence agencies have been the source of some of the Wikileaks. We know you're misingotmed or outright lying. Which is it? ========= FBI (re)issues statement on Podesta hack By Josh Gerstein 10/12/16 01:18 PM EDT politico.com The FBI is reacting to the hacking of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's emails by re-issuing a broadly-worded statement about cyber threats to those active in American politics. "The FBI is aware of media reporting on cyber intrusions involving multiple political entities, and is working to determine the accuracy, nature and scope of these matters," an FBI spokesperson said. "The cyber threat environment continues to evolve as cyber actors target all sectors and their data. The FBI takes seriously any allegations of intrusions, and we will continue to hold accountable those who pose a threat in cyberspace." The FBI statement came after Podesta told reporters that he talked with the FBI Sunday, which told him an investigation is underway. Messages hacked from Podesta's Gmail account began appearing on the WikiLeaks website Friday, with more emails dumped out this week.

To: combjelly who wrote (971930)	10/12/2016 7:25:13 PM
From: Investor Clouseau	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB locogringo Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572497

you say that you 'know' that it is the russians behind the hack of the DNC. would you then agree that hillary's personal email server was hacked by the russians? something that hillary denies even though her server had less security than a g-mail account. IC

To: combjelly who wrote (971930)	10/12/2016 11:21:30 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By jlallen Respond to of 1572497

>> Now I realize you don't think too deeply about such things, but ever wonder why? What kind of state secrets would the DNC have? What is there of interest? Are you nuts? Why do you think it is so stupid and incompetent and unforgivable for HRC to use this server in her closet that was not secured with a fraction of the defensive capability of State's servers? It is not a business for amateurs. And we don't need amateurs running the IT security for our country at a time when organized cyber attacks pose the kinds of threats we face? It is F*cking ignorant. And I don't think you're stupid enough to not realize it.