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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212363)	8/25/2018 7:34:31 AM
From: tonto	3 Recommendations Recommended By rayrohn Sedohr Nod TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224858

You ignore the point of an investigation...if we were to spend $20,000,000 again on 18 months of investigating the Russian money paid to democrats... Chicago Tribune: President Donald Trump's critics are arguing that GOP calls for the Justice Department to investigate Hillary Clinton and Democrats' ties to Russia are an effort to distract from the real Russia investigation, into potential Trump-Russia collusion. No, they are not. Ever since Watergate, the mantra of all major corruption investigations has been to "follow the money." Well, Americans of all political stripes should be outraged by the fact that both Democrats and Republicans in Washington are up to their eyeballs in Kremlin cash. Russian money found its way into the pockets of not only Trump advisers like Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — who were recently indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller—but also Democratic power lobbyist Tony Podesta, Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. This should suggest to objective observers that Russia was using its money to influence both sides in order to advance the Kremlin's interests. And it means that any full and impartial investigation of Russia's efforts to influence our political process needs to follow the Russian money flowing into the coffers of the Clintons, their foundation and their top associates. The New York Times reported in 2015 that "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock." In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum. Think that was just a coincidence? As former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy points out, the Uranium One deal is not a national security scandal, it is a corruption scandal involving "Clinton family self-dealing." Ask yourself: How many half-a-million-dollar speeches has Bill Clinton given to Kremlin-linked banks since Hillary Clinton was defeated? How much Russian money is flowing into the Clinton Foundation's coffers today? If Donald Trump had given a $500,000 speech paid for by a Kremlin bank, and his private foundation had accepted $145 million from Vladimir Putin-linked oligarchs and their Western business partners, do you think that his critics would be insisting there was nothing to see here? A look at Hillary Clinton's time as first lady, U.S. senator, secretary of state and a Democratic candidate for president. Then there is Tony Podesta. It is now front-page news that Podesta has been forced to step down from his soon-to-be-defunct lobbying firm, the Podesta Group, after being ensnared in the same scandal that led to the indictment of Trump campaign aides Manafort and Gates. The Podesta Group failed to register as a foreign agent for Russian interests while lobbying on behalf of the European Center for a Modern Ukraine — a front group that Mueller's indictment says was "under the ultimate direction" of Ukraine's Putin-backed president and his political party. We should all be deeply concerned by how much Russian cash was sloshing around Washington, and how much of it found its way into the bank accounts of the Clintons and those around them. And we should all, Democrats and Republicans alike, want to get to the bottom of it. As Americans, it goes against our sensibilities to encourage the Justice Department of one party to investigate the vanquished candidate of the other party. But does the fact that Clinton lost mean Americans don't deserve to know the full extent of Russia's efforts to influence our political process?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212363)	8/26/2018 12:44:59 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By locogringo TideGlider Respond to of 224858

Brian Stelter ignores CNN’s bungled Trump Tower story dailycaller.com 12:29 PM 08/26/2018 Chuck Ross \| Reporter CNN has refused to acknowledge a massive error in its July 27 report that Michael Cohen has information implicating President Donald Trump in a cover-up over the Trump Tower meeting. Cohen’s lawyer debunked the report earlier this week. CNN’s Brian Stelter interviewed Carl Bernstein, one of the authors of the false report, on Sunday but did not bring up the fake news. The host of CNN’s media criticism show “Reliable Sources” on Sunday interviewed Carl Bernstein, one of the reporters who wrote a since-debunked story asserting that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen claimed President Donald Trump approved the infamous Trump Tower meeting. But Bernstein’s faulty reporting was not one of the topics of discussion on the CNN show, which is hosted by Brian Stelter. Instead, Stelter led a panel discussion in which Trump was called a “liar” several times. Bernstein and CNN reporters Jim Sciutto and Marshall Cohen reported July 27 that Cohen is willing to tell special counsel Robert Mueller that he took part in a meeting in which Donald Trump Jr. told his father about an offer to meet with a group of Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. According to CNN’s anonymous sources, Cohen said Trump approved of the meeting. The story caused waves, with CNN hosts discussing the story for days. Democrats and Trump critics argued the report was the strongest evidence yet that Trump colluded with Russia. They also noted that Trump and Trump Jr. publicly denied that Trump knew about the meeting until it was reported in the press in July 2017. (RELATED: Lanny Davis Debunks CNN’s Report On Michael Cohen’s Trump Tower Claims) But the report was debunked Wednesday after Cohen lawyer Lanny Davis disputed the “mixed up” reporting on the topic. “So Michael Cohen does not have information that President Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians beforehand or even after?” CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Davis in an interview. “No, he does not,” replied Davis, a close ally of the Clintons. “Well, I think the reporting of the story got mixed up in the course of a criminal investigation. We were not the source of the story. And the question of a criminal investigation, the advice we were given, those of us dealing with the media is that we could not do anything other than stay silent,” Davis continued. The New York Post reported Friday that after CNN published its initial report, Davis anonymously confirmed to the newspaper that it was accurate. Davis apologized to The Post for providing inaccurate information. “I should have been more clear. I could not independently confirm the information in the CNN story,” he said. “I’m sorry that I left that impression. I wasn’t at the meeting. The only person who could confirm that information is my client.” CNN has avoided addressing its massive error. The network has not corrected or retracted the July 27 story. CNN reporters have not discussed the error on social media, and none of the network’s hosts have discussed the story. The only mention of the Trump Tower allegation came during Cooper’s interview of Davis. CNN’s press shop has not responded to several requests for comment. Stelter also did not immediately respond to a request for comment on why he ignored the story on his show on Sunday. During the show, Stelter opened a discussion of Trump’s “daily stream of misinformation.” “Carl, I’m kind of at my wit’s end. Help me out here. What are the strategies that are effective when we are bombarded by this daily stream of misinformation?” Stelter asked. “I think that progressives have done a fine job of pointing out that we have a President of the United States who habitually lies,” said Bernstein. Bernstein, who is famous for his reporting on Watergate, touted the media and said that reporters’ job is to make “fact-based debate possible.” “It’s up to us in the press particularly by doing our reporting, our deeper reporting, to make that fact-based debate possible in terms of presenting what the facts are in context and with that, yes, pointing out the president’s lies.” The Trump Tower story is not the only report about Donald Trump Jr. that CNN has bungled. The network reported Dec. 8, 2017, that Donald Trump Jr. received an email on Sept. 4, 2016, that contained a link and encryption key to a trove of stolen Democratic emails that were to be provided to Wikileaks. The allegation was significant because Wikileaks did not release that particular trove of documents until Sept. 13, 2016. (RELATED: CNN Botches Major ‘Bombshell’ Alleging Contacts Between Don Jr. And Wikileaks) But the story fell apart after Trump Jr.’s legal team released the email, which showed that it was sent to Trump Jr. by a random person on Sept. 14, 2016, a day after the documents had been released by Wikileaks. CNN has still not explained how it messed up the story.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212363)	8/26/2018 2:41:20 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By Thehammer TideGlider Respond to of 224858

Scott Adams: If Donald Trump Goes Down, Hillary Clinton Goes to Prison \| Breitbart breitbart.com Joel Pollak / Breitbart News26 Aug 2018 422 Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert and popular political prognosticator, floated a theory of “mutually assured destruction” on Sunday morning: if prosecutors pursue President Donald Trump, he will make sure that Hillary Clinton and her allies go to jail. Adams said that his theory explained why Trump had retained Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, even while attacking him for failing to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton, as well as members of the “deep state” who had conspired to spy on the Trump campaign. The goal, he said, was to make sure prosecutors understood there was a “red line” they could not cross — because doing so would trigger Sessions’s replacement with a prosecutor who would take down Trump’s enemies: Let me ask you this — and I’ve not seen any reporting on this: what would happen if they actually got the president on something serious? Well, between the time the president knew he was going down — and this is hypothetical, let’s imagine that they found something in his business or something that was problematic — he would have a number of months of being in power before he was technically out of office. What would he do? Well, I think he would employ “mutually assured destruction” — not of the world, but of Hillary Clinton. It seems to me he’s setting up the situation to make it clear that if he goes down, he’s going to have plenty of time to take Hillary down. And here’s how he’d do it. Fire Jeff Sessions — and there’s tons of political blowback, but who cares? Because this would be the point where it doesn’t matter anymore. He has nothing to lose. He’s going to fire Jeff Sessions, he’s going to put somebody in — if he can get them approved — who will do nothing but take Hillary down. So it seems to me by threatening Jeff Sessions but not moving on it, he’s sending the clearest message possible that if the deep state takes him out, he’s going to take Hillary out. Adams later specified that the “red line” for Special Counsel Robert Mueller was any investigation into the broader finances of the Trump Organization, which had nothing to do with the 2016 presidential election or allegations of Russian “collusion.” He noted that even though Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg had been granted immunity in exchange for providing information to prosecutors, that information was limited to the investigation into Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen. If prosecutors pushed Weisselberg for more information, Adams speculated, that would trigger “mutually assured destruction” — and prosecutors knew it. If Trump could not find a nominee who could pass Senate confirmation, Adams said, he could keep firing underlings — including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — until he found someone who would target Hillary Clinton and her associates. He added that Trump’s gambit would work even if he was removed from office before he could imprison Hillary Clinton. His successor would do so — either immediately, or the next time a Republican was elected. The motive for revenge among Trump supporters would be too strong to ignore, Adams argued. Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212363)	8/26/2018 2:55:51 PM
From: FJB	4 Recommendations Recommended By locogringo rayrohn Thehammer TideGlider Respond to of 224858

STUNNING: Generic Ballot Is at Exact Same Place it Was the Day Before 2016 Election and Huge Trump and GOP Win (VIDEO) August 26, 2018, 10:48 am by Jim Hoft Kevin McCarthy: Two weeks ago the generic ballot was at the exact same place it was the day before the election in 2016… Remember what happened in 2016? We kept the majority and President Trump won. So the battle is going to go forward but the intensity level is in our side. If Republicans get out and vote we will keep the majority.