It looks like the Wall Street money is almost all on Hillary and one has to wonder what is she promising them in return? Speeches?
As for Trump? No one is buying possibly because he can't be bought.
Who should you vote for?
Using history (2008 crash) as a guide voters may want to take a close look at why and where all that Wall Street money is going to Hillary. The rest is easy to figure out.
A July 29 Wall Street Journal article crediting our data is headlined, “Hedge-Fund Money: $48.5 Million for Hillary Clinton, $19,000 for Donald Trump.” The startling disparity in numbers led other media outlets to cite the piece — as did Trump himself. The article was shared on Facebook over 27,000 times and generated more than 500 comments.
Only problem is, those numbers aren’t correct. Trump had taken in just $2,054 in hedge fund contributions as of June 30. Clinton, along with her supporting super PACs, has received $25.6 million from the hedge fund industry, just a bit more than half the WSJ’s figure.
While the article says the money came from “employees or owners” of hedge funds (later amended to include private equity), nearly all of it came from just four people. Four big donors associated with hedge funds gave $24.6 million of the total — most of which was given to the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action, which she does not control (at least not directly).
Clinton’s campaign itself, not counting super PACs, has so far received just $557,619 from individuals who work at hedge funds.
Further down, the WSJ article says that the $48.5 million figure is the sum of contributions to Clinton from seven unspecified “financial firms” that are either hedge funds or “similar private investment funds.” We emailed the reporters on the story to find out which firms they counted.
Setting it straight: Hedge funds to Clinton plus super PACs, $25.6 million; to Trump, $2,000 | OpenSecrets Blog
Saturday, August 6, 2016
Friday, August 5, 2016
HILLARY 'SHORT CIRCUITS' LIES ABOUT LYING
On Friday, Hillary Clinton took questions from the press for the first time in 260 days. A number of her answers revealed why she doesn’t hold press conferences more: Her answers to both difficult and easy questions were often evasive, excessively legalistic, and frustrating to watch.
Clinton spoke at a joint convention being held by the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. Her previous press conference was December of last year and she has faced heavy criticism from both the media and the Trump campaign for not being more accessible.
In Friday’s press questioning, the trouble began when she was asked her first question about her private email server and recent statements about that server which independent fact checkers have labeled as categorically untrue. Clinton’s responses here—and her previous responses to questions about the truthfulness of past statements—are so overly legalistic and convoluted that they are difficult to even explain. But here’s a shot.
Last month, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asserted to Clinton that FBI Director James Comey said her public statements about which documents on her private email server were classified and which were not were untrue. In actuality, Comey declined to address the truthfulness or lack of truthfulness of those statements in Congressional testimony on the matter.
Clinton spoke at a joint convention being held by the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. Her previous press conference was December of last year and she has faced heavy criticism from both the media and the Trump campaign for not being more accessible.
In Friday’s press questioning, the trouble began when she was asked her first question about her private email server and recent statements about that server which independent fact checkers have labeled as categorically untrue. Clinton’s responses here—and her previous responses to questions about the truthfulness of past statements—are so overly legalistic and convoluted that they are difficult to even explain. But here’s a shot.
Last month, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asserted to Clinton that FBI Director James Comey said her public statements about which documents on her private email server were classified and which were not were untrue. In actuality, Comey declined to address the truthfulness or lack of truthfulness of those statements in Congressional testimony on the matter.
But in announcing his investigation into her server—which cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing—Comey implied that she had either misled the American public about her poor handling of material she should have known was classified information, or been incompetent in doing so. “Even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it,” he said. Clinton had previously claimed: “I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time. I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.”
In response to Wallace’s question claiming that Comey had said she was not telling the truth, Clinton said this: “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
This is the claim that fact checkers have destroyed. Clinton’s defenders might claim that she was talking about two separate things in two separate clauses in this sentence: That Comey said her answers to the FBI were truthful and separately that her answers to the FBI were consistent with her public statements. This would have made the statement incredibly misleading, though, given that she was asked directly about what Comey's views.
In response to Wallace’s question claiming that Comey had said she was not telling the truth, Clinton said this: “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
This is the claim that fact checkers have destroyed. Clinton’s defenders might claim that she was talking about two separate things in two separate clauses in this sentence: That Comey said her answers to the FBI were truthful and separately that her answers to the FBI were consistent with her public statements. This would have made the statement incredibly misleading, though, given that she was asked directly about what Comey's views.
Also making that answer seem disingenuous at best, and a lie at worst, is that she repeated a similar version of it in an interview earlier this week, telling a local CBS affiliate: “It was all personal stuff [that was deleted on the email server], and we’ve said that consistently. And as the FBI said, everything that I’ve said publicly has been consistent and truthful with what I’ve told them.” It’s really hard to argue that this is two separate points, with the “and as the FBI said” part referring to the earlier point, but I guess a really eager Clinton apologist could make that claim.
All of this leads us to the press conference, where Clinton was asked this:
Are you mischaracterizing Director Comey's testimony and is this not undercutting your efforts to rebuild trust with the American people?
Clinton’s answer, which you can watch here, is an awkward journey of disassembling and lawyerly quibbling:
SEE VIDEO; Hillary gave a rare press conference. It was terrible.
All of this leads us to the press conference, where Clinton was asked this:
Are you mischaracterizing Director Comey's testimony and is this not undercutting your efforts to rebuild trust with the American people?
Clinton’s answer, which you can watch here, is an awkward journey of disassembling and lawyerly quibbling:
SEE VIDEO; Hillary gave a rare press conference. It was terrible.
Thursday, August 4, 2016
MAIN STREET UNDER ATTACK BY MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES
These super rich, super spoiled Millionaires, Billionaires and the
legions of minions that pander to them are mad as hell and are not about
to let the American people take back America.
Bernie Sanders came after them but they were just too big to take down and inthe end brought him to "heel" as Hillary would say.
But there is still one guy they have not been able to buy who is out of their control and they are going berserk looking for ways to end him and the real possibility that Main Street American voters could turn the tables against them and dismantle the cozy plutocracy they have created
for themselves.
So far nothing has worked and it's not because of a lack of trying; using the mainstream media to bombard the 24/7 news cycle with everything they can conjure up, no matter how petty or silly.
There’s the belief that somehow the whole system in Washington is not on the level—that it’s tilted against the ordinary citizen. And the reason people have that view is because they’re right: it is tilted against the ordinary citizen and it does favor the rich.”
That is Tom Downey, a former U.S. Congressman from New York turned founder of the high-powered lobbying firm Downey McGrath Group, Inc., and one of many talking heads in Meet the Donors, a damning new documentary that just made its premiere on HBO.
The film comes courtesy of Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. There is a brief showdown between Pelosi Jr. and a right-wing lobbyist who took out vicious attack ads against her mother that showed the former House Speaker as a city-destroying Godzilla-like monster. Despite the family ties, this remains a fairly nonpartisan examination of the corrupting influence of money in politics, and how the American political system is no longer a democracy but rather a plutocracy. The American public’s mounting frustration with this corrupt system has, in part, led to the rise of populist candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
Late last year, The New York Times published a terrifying study on how just 158 wealthy families have provided nearly 50 percent of the funds raised for presidential candidates with their eye on the White House. They were mostly white, rich, older, and male, and hailed from the finance and energy sectors.
“Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found. Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago.”
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision changed the playing field, allowing both nonprofit and for-profit corporations to be treated as people, thereby prohibiting the government from regulating their political expenditures (coincidentally, this whole hullabaloo was over the right-wing nonprofit Citizens United’s desire to air a propaganda film, Hillary: The Movie, just prior to the 2008 general election). This led to the creation of super PACs, or political action committees—vessels that individuals, corporations, and other organizations can pour large sums of money into in order to influence elections, typically via attack ads. Conservative strategist Karl Rove notoriously oversaw super PACs that spent over $300 million on Republican candidates during the 2012 election year.
Meet the Billionaires Manipulating the U.S. Presidential Election
Meet the Billionaires Manipulating the U.S. Presidential Election
Bernie Sanders came after them but they were just too big to take down and inthe end brought him to "heel" as Hillary would say.
But there is still one guy they have not been able to buy who is out of their control and they are going berserk looking for ways to end him and the real possibility that Main Street American voters could turn the tables against them and dismantle the cozy plutocracy they have created
for themselves.
So far nothing has worked and it's not because of a lack of trying; using the mainstream media to bombard the 24/7 news cycle with everything they can conjure up, no matter how petty or silly.
The U.S. can’t let Trump win: His victory would embolden the most hateful Americans who fostered his rise
It’s worth asking again: Is Donald Trump trying to tank his campaign?
America is no longer a country “by the people, for the people,” but a plutocracy. The new doc ‘Meet the Donors’ exposes our broken political system and the uber-rich pulling the strings.There’s the belief that somehow the whole system in Washington is not on the level—that it’s tilted against the ordinary citizen. And the reason people have that view is because they’re right: it is tilted against the ordinary citizen and it does favor the rich.”
That is Tom Downey, a former U.S. Congressman from New York turned founder of the high-powered lobbying firm Downey McGrath Group, Inc., and one of many talking heads in Meet the Donors, a damning new documentary that just made its premiere on HBO.
The film comes courtesy of Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. There is a brief showdown between Pelosi Jr. and a right-wing lobbyist who took out vicious attack ads against her mother that showed the former House Speaker as a city-destroying Godzilla-like monster. Despite the family ties, this remains a fairly nonpartisan examination of the corrupting influence of money in politics, and how the American political system is no longer a democracy but rather a plutocracy. The American public’s mounting frustration with this corrupt system has, in part, led to the rise of populist candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
Late last year, The New York Times published a terrifying study on how just 158 wealthy families have provided nearly 50 percent of the funds raised for presidential candidates with their eye on the White House. They were mostly white, rich, older, and male, and hailed from the finance and energy sectors.
“Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found. Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago.”
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision changed the playing field, allowing both nonprofit and for-profit corporations to be treated as people, thereby prohibiting the government from regulating their political expenditures (coincidentally, this whole hullabaloo was over the right-wing nonprofit Citizens United’s desire to air a propaganda film, Hillary: The Movie, just prior to the 2008 general election). This led to the creation of super PACs, or political action committees—vessels that individuals, corporations, and other organizations can pour large sums of money into in order to influence elections, typically via attack ads. Conservative strategist Karl Rove notoriously oversaw super PACs that spent over $300 million on Republican candidates during the 2012 election year.
Meet the Billionaires Manipulating the U.S. Presidential Election
Meet the Billionaires Manipulating the U.S. Presidential Election
BREAKING NEWS! TRUMP BREAKS WIND!
Has the media gone berserk?
This is an example of the sh-t load of crazy-making rhetoric the media floods the 24/7 news cycle with.
It's gotten so bad that Trump can't even fart without someone sounding a "breaking news" alert.
In the last two weeks, Donald Trump has slandered the family of a dead soldier, committed treason by inviting Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s email account, admitted he lied about receiving a letter from the NFL, saw an Air Force mother get booed at one of his rallies, claimed Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine even though they already have, refused to endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan’s candidacy, falsely accused a fire marshal of limiting his crowd for political reasons, tossed a baby out of a rally, and called Hillary Clinton “the devil.”
It’s worth asking again: Is Donald Trump trying to tank his campaign? - Salon.com
In the last two weeks, Donald Trump has slandered the family of a dead soldier, committed treason by inviting Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s email account, admitted he lied about receiving a letter from the NFL, saw an Air Force mother get booed at one of his rallies, claimed Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine even though they already have, refused to endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan’s candidacy, falsely accused a fire marshal of limiting his crowd for political reasons, tossed a baby out of a rally, and called Hillary Clinton “the devil.”
It’s worth asking again: Is Donald Trump trying to tank his campaign? - Salon.com
Monday, August 1, 2016
THE REASON AMERICANS DON'T TRUST HILLARY
Hillary just can't help herself when confronted with reality that doesn't fit her version of it.
Hillary Clinton on Sunday insisted that FBI Director James Comey said that her answers to the American public regarding her handling of emails containing classified information were truthful, but this was disputed by host Chris Wallace.
“The emails… I want to ask you about just one aspect of them, and that’s what you told the American people,” Wallace said to the Democratic nominee on “Fox News Sunday.”
Fox then played three separate clips in which Clinton said she did not send or receive any classified material via email.
“After a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true,” Wallace said to the former secretary of state.
“Chris, that’s not what I heard Director Comey say, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to, in my view, clarify,” Clinton responded. “Director Comey said that my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
“I was communicating with over 300 people in my emailing. They certainly did not believe and had no reason to believe that what they were sending was classified,” she added. “Now in retrospect, different agencies come in and say, well, it should have been, but that’s not what was happening in real time.
“But in a congressionally hearing on July 7th, Director Comey directly contradicted what you had told the public,” Wallace said.
Fox then aired footage of the congressional hearing when Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey. “There was classified material emailed,” Comey said.
Hillary Clinton on Sunday insisted that FBI Director James Comey said that her answers to the American public regarding her handling of emails containing classified information were truthful, but this was disputed by host Chris Wallace.
“The emails… I want to ask you about just one aspect of them, and that’s what you told the American people,” Wallace said to the Democratic nominee on “Fox News Sunday.”
Fox then played three separate clips in which Clinton said she did not send or receive any classified material via email.
“After a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true,” Wallace said to the former secretary of state.
“Chris, that’s not what I heard Director Comey say, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to, in my view, clarify,” Clinton responded. “Director Comey said that my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
“I was communicating with over 300 people in my emailing. They certainly did not believe and had no reason to believe that what they were sending was classified,” she added. “Now in retrospect, different agencies come in and say, well, it should have been, but that’s not what was happening in real time.
“But in a congressionally hearing on July 7th, Director Comey directly contradicted what you had told the public,” Wallace said.
Fox then aired footage of the congressional hearing when Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey. “There was classified material emailed,” Comey said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)