Trump is scary because he believes in guilty until proven innocent. The antithesis of what a proper justice system looks like. He has a repeated history of doing things and saying things that supports it. His full page ad calling for the deaths of the central park 5 and how cicil liberties end when an attack on society begins (btw the central park 5 were innocent and wrongly convicted). His saying he talked to a Chicago cop who could clean it all up if he was just allowed to. His pushing for profiling the last 24 hours.
This is no longer funny. Well it hasn't been funny for a long time and now it's just getting scary.
Forget the Pulitzer, just let Farenthold be President instead. At least we'd get some investigations done at the highest level. He's just straight up humiliating other journalists at this point.
Quote:
Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal documents.
Those cases, which together used $258,000 from Trump’s charity, were among four newly documented expenditures in which Trump may have violated laws against “self-dealing” — which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves or their businesses.
In one case, from 2007, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club faced $120,000 in unpaid fines from the town of Palm Beach, Fla., resulting from a dispute over the size of a flagpole.
In a settlement, Palm Beach agreed to waive those fines — if Trump’s club made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans. Instead, Trump sent a check from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a charity funded almost entirely by other people’s money, according to tax records.
In another case, court papers say one of Trump’s golf courses in New York agreed to settle a lawsuit by making a donation to the plaintiff’s chosen charity. A $158,000 donation was made by the Trump Foundation, according to tax records.
The other expenditures involved smaller amounts. In 2013, Trump used $5,000 from the foundation to buy advertisements touting his chain of hotels in programs for three events organized by a D.C. preservation group. And in 2014, Trump spent $10,000 of the foundation’s money for a portrait of himself bought at a charity fundraiser.
Or, rather, another portrait of himself.
Several years earlier, Trump had used $20,000 from the Trump Foundation to buy a different, six foot-tall portrait.
If the Internal Revenue Service were to find that Trump violated self-dealing rules, the agency could require him to pay penalty taxes or to reimburse the foundation for all the money it spent on his behalf. Trump is also facing scrutiny from the office of the New York attorney general, which is examining whether the foundation broke state charity laws.
More broadly, these cases also provide new evidence that Trump ran his charity in a way that may have violated U.S. tax law and gone against the moral conventions of philanthropy.
“I represent 700 nonprofits a year, and I’ve never encountered anything so brazen,” said Jeffrey Tenenbaum, who advises charities at the Venable law firm in Washington. After The Post described the details of these Trump Foundation gifts, Tenenbaum described them as “really shocking.”
“If he’s using other people’s money — run through his foundation — to satisfy his personal obligations, then that’s about as blatant an example of self-dealing [as] I’ve seen in a while,” Tenenbaum said.
Here's a Denver Post article that reviews the facts; includes a 5min video explainer.
If someone could help me out & embed the video, I would appreciate it.
There is also evidence that the IT company (whom New Era described as connected to the Clintons, rather than a reputable firm) had their bills paid by the Clintons during the investigation. http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/...eimbursements/
Directly from your evidence.
Dec 5th, 2014, turned over emails to State Department. The Clinton office orders the destruction of all emails on the private server.
March 2nd, 2015 NYT publishes article about “secret” server.
March 3rd, 2015, preservation letter sent to Clinton’s office.
March 4th, 2015, documents were subpoenaed.
Clinton’s people reach out to service provider informing them of the preservation order.
Platt River Engineer has an oh-#### moment, and chooses to delete the information and then uses Bleach Bit to try and cover his tracks. Platt River engineer also deletes the backups.
March 25th, 2015, the Clinton lawyers circle the wagons. The Platt River Engineer claims privilege and refuses to divulge details of what he did.
March 27th, 2015, the Benghazi Hearing Chairman speaks to the Clinton Email Hearing Chairman about having a third party review the server to see if there was anything both committees could use.
As I said in a previous post, this is an engineer who knew he screwed the pooch and was taking actions to cover his tracks. The Clinton offices ordered the destruction of the emails after the transfer to the State Department. Platt River failed to comply. The Clinton offices forwarded the preservation order to Platt River and engineer panicked, knowing he would over produce in meeting the upcoming subpoena, so he started deleting files, a decision made by himself. This is all crashing down on Paul Combetta and Platt River. The guy didn't know how to secure a server, nor deal with a preservation order. This is not surprising unless you have had to work through the process before. It can be confusing and stressful as to what to do. So the engineer tried to do what he was supposed to have done months earlier and then cover his tracks, not understanding that EnCase would be able to find the fragments of what he had done.
The 2nd article is purely speculative. It is an invoice for services rendered during the investigation. If you look at he line items they clearly state they were research and compliance. This is Platt River trying to recoup the costs they were forced to incure during the investigation. Unless they got paid, this proves nothing. You can submit an invoice to anyone, that does not establish an ongoing relationship with that entity. If they pay the invoice, then you have some grounds to stand on, but the submission of an invoice means nothing.
Here's a Denver Post article that reviews the facts; includes a 5min video explainer.
If someone could help me out & embed the video, I would appreciate it.
It's pretty neat that I provide evidence for my claims, isn't it?
So folks can examine and verify their voracity.
It shows respect for the board and other posters.
You should try it, instead of bald assertions peppered with scornful insults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Directly from your evidence.
.
.
.
As I said in a previous post, this is an engineer who knew he screwed the pooch and was taking actions to cover his tracks. The Clinton offices ordered the destruction of the emails after the transfer to the State Department. Platt River failed to comply. The Clinton offices forwarded the preservation order to Platt River and engineer panicked, knowing he would over produce in meeting the upcoming subpoena, so he started deleting files, a decision made by himself. This is all crashing down on Paul Combetta and Platt River. The guy didn't know how to secure a server, nor deal with a preservation order. This is not surprising unless you have had to work through the process before. It can be confusing and stressful as to what to do. So the engineer tried to do what he was supposed to have done months earlier and then cover his tracks, not understanding that EnCase would be able to find the fragments of what he had done.
That may be so. The guy might have made all of these decisions on his own and against the wishes of all other parties. The instructions, from PRN & Clinton lawyers, that were withheld from the investigation may have been perfectly honest.
But you don't know that, and your entire theory relies on this speculation.
I'm inclined, if applying Occams Razor, to conclude that the IT guy running the server for the SoS did understand the preservation order. It's not confusing.
It takes fewer assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that he was instructed to destroy evidence.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gozer For This Useful Post:
Forget the Pulitzer, just let Farenthold be President instead. At least we'd get some investigations done at the highest level. He's just straight up humiliating other journalists at this point.
It's pretty neat that I provide evidence for my claims, isn't it?
So folks can examine and verify their voracity.
It shows respect for the board and other posters.
You should try it, instead of bald assertions peppered with scornful insults.
Ehh... Okay, you got me.
That said. You're not providing "evidence" of anything really, at least not of anything of any relevance, and you're desperately trying to twist things to fit your anti-Clinton views to the point where it honestly is quite funny.
I guess I'll just go back to not commenting again.
That said. You're not providing "evidence" of anything really, at least not of anything of any relevance, and you're desperately trying to twist things to fit your anti-Clinton views to the point where it honestly is quite funny.
I guess I'll just go back to not commenting again.
My snide comment was directed at New Era, not you.
Im happy I can entertain you though, Itse.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
Just... wow. I'm not even sure what the penalty is for this kind of thing, aside from the taxes which don't seem adequate ("oh I got caught, I guess I'll just have to pay the money I would've had to pay anyway, better luck to me next time"). Obviously the foundation should lose all charitable status. But it's a private foundation so there are no outside members to sue him for misappropriating funds or anything. I don't know how you come at that, if you're the IRS. Seems like it should absolutely result in some consequences for him.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
It's pretty neat that I provide evidence for my claims, isn't it?
So folks can examine and verify their voracity.
It shows respect for the board and other posters.
You should try it, instead of bald assertions peppered with scornful insults.
That may be so. The guy might have made all of these decisions on his own and against the wishes of all other parties. The instructions, from PRN & Clinton lawyers, that were withheld from the investigation may have been perfectly honest.
But you don't know that, and your entire theory relies on this speculation.
I'm inclined, if applying Occams Razor, to conclude that the IT guy running the server for the SoS did understand the preservation order. It's not confusing.
It takes fewer assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that he was instructed to destroy evidence.
Evidence is a very strong word. Maybe I should have done that in green text? I mean, you can't even follow the timeline laid out in that article from the Washington Examiner. The destruction order came in December of 2014, or three months before the preservation order came in. No supposition there. Those are the facts. The reporter even stated that Combetta knew he screwed up and made the decision to delete the files on his own, against the preservation order. Again, no speculation. That came from the docs released by the FBI according to the reporter. But you can't seem to accept these facts and need to see a massive conspiracy around each corner. And no speculation in that either, your posting history on this subject provides support of that claim. You cling to the conclusion that the IT guy was under orders to destroy information, when the counter was presented by the Washington Examiner, a conservative biased tabloid publication. Not even they could question the the chain of events, which the FBI used to come to their conclusion, which was no charges to be laid against anyone. I wish there was, but there is no story here.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I mean, you can't even follow the timeline laid out in that article from the Washington Examiner. The destruction order came in December of 2014, or three months before the preservation order came in. No supposition there.
That's true, and I understand it.
That's not the end of the story.
The emails were actually destroyed after a preservation order was issued. That matters too. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
'The suspect destroyed evidence after the investigation began'
'But he tried to destroy the evidence before there was an investigation'
'Ah, well then, nothing to see here'
/dramatization of two hypothetical detectives, not a description of the email scandal
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
That's not the end of the story.
The emails were actually destroyed after a preservation order was issued. That matters too. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
'The suspect destroyed evidence after the investigation began'
'But he tried to destroy the evidence before there was an investigation'
'Ah, well then, nothing to see here'
/dramatization of two hypothetical detectives, not a description of the email scandal
But is is that simple in identifying the responsible party. Anything ordered prior to the preservation notification is clear and free. What happens after the preservation order is where responsibility is assigned. The deletion that took place, after the order, was the action of Combetta. It was his decision and action to delete the files on the server along with the backups. It was also his decision to try and cover his tracks using Bleach Bit. The fact that there was a meeting three weeks later is indicative of legal counsel preparing to act on the preservation order and present information as outlined. The Timeframe presented by the Examiner reporter, supposedly from FBI docs, is what informed the decision to not lay charges. They could clearly see who did what when, and it was an IT guy trying to save his own butt. That clearly answers the question of the deletion, and Platt River was responsible of any wrong doing in that regard.
To me the issue that should be pushed is the data handling. They need to figure out the timeline for when documents were received, when they received a classification label, and how they were handled after that label was attached. That time is the one place where Clinton is likely open to charges. But based on the FBI investigation it appears there was no wrong doing in this regard as well. The documents that have labels need to be released along with their transmission details. Only then will we know if anything sketchy took place.
Anything ordered prior to the preservation notification is clear and free
Why?
How can you claim this with certainty?
It's certainly a different degree of suspicious, but I do not accept that it must be honest just because it wasn't specifically forbidden under a specific investigation.
I have previously contended that destruction of any documents is a violation their duty to preserve records. The discovery of this Reddit request seems to support the theory that they were actively hiding something.
The deletion that took place, after the order, was the action of Combetta. It was his decision and action to delete the files on the server along with the backups. It was also his decision to try and cover his tracks using Bleach Bit. The fact that there was a meeting three weeks later is indicative of legal counsel preparing to act on the preservation order and present information as outlined. The Timeframe presented by the Examiner reporter, supposedly from FBI docs, is what informed the decision to not lay charges. They could clearly see who did what when, and it was an IT guy trying to save his own butt. That clearly answers the question of the deletion, and Platt River was responsible of any wrong doing in that regard.
PRN, who you suggested were Clinton allies, appear to have stayed on the Clinton payroll* and stonewalled the investigation.
The IT guy appears to have accepted all the blame.
It could be the truth...it could be that the guy with immunity was the fall-guy. Hardly an exotic concept or fanciful notion.
The court of public opinion does not need to meet the standards of criminal court.
*that is disputable - see Connect Colorado link earlier in thread. Attempting to recover costs is proof of nothing, but it does suggest an arrangement
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
To me the issue that should be pushed is the data handling. They need to figure out the timeline for when documents were received, when they received a classification label, and how they were handled after that label was attached. That time is the one place where Clinton is likely open to charges. But based on the FBI investigation it appears there was no wrong doing in this regard as well. The documents that have labels need to be released along with their transmission details. Only then will we know if anything sketchy took place.
This was the scope of the FBI investigation: the handling and care of classified material.
It's actually the least interesting issue to me; it's this specific issue that I defer to the FBI on - and think nothing need be released.
Wow this election is horrible and both candidates are just terrible choices.
At the end of the day it just feels like from here that no matter who is elected the States is going to go through a drop both internationally and domestic.
Both Candidates are corrupt as ever, both seem to have the leadership qualities of a coffee table and both are frankly power hungry fools.
The fact that the polling especially in Florida is so close shows that the democratic party is taking a almost sure thing election and pissing it aways. And that the Republicans instead of reforming themselves at the end of the election because of a spanking are going to be convinced that they can continue to run lunatics and possibly squeek out an election.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
The fact that the polling especially in Florida is so close shows that the democratic party is taking a almost sure thing election and pissing it aways.
Obama barely won Florida over Romney (closest margin last election). So I wouldn't read too much into polling there other than Florida is a pretty ####ed up place.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
