Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hillary Shielded Sex Offender From Charges
January 26, 2018
Elder Patriot – Wow. The more you know about Hillary Clinton the more “deplorable” she becomes.
The New York Times reported that four sources have corroborated that Burns Strider had been accused of repeated sexual harassment of a staffer.
Strider was Hillary’s faith advisor.
When the young staffer came forward to complain, Clinton’s campaign advisor wanted to fire Strider. Instead Hillary – that stalwart of women everywhere – had the young woman reassigned and forced her to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
But wait, there’s more. Rather than fire Strider, who clearly had serious shortcomings as a spiritual advisor, Hillary docks him a few weeks pay and added counseling to his “busy” schedule.
Seriously, Strider wasn’t some genius political strategist that couldn’t be spared so what was Hillary thinking?
Maybe Hillary had found it damned near impossible filling that position in the first place. After all, finding someone to minister to a protector of pedophiles, defender of infanticide, and who herself is a serial abuser of women, can’t be easy.
http://resistcollectivism.com/breaking-hillary-shielded-sex-offender-charges-offender-hillary-beyond-sickening/
Clinton: given second chance, I would fire aide accused of sexual harassment
Ex-presidential candidate issues long statement about why she did not fire Burns Strider in 2008, saying she doesn’t always ‘get it right’
Hillary Clinton has said that given a second chance she would have fired a senior adviser accused of sexually harassing a staff member during the 2008 campaign.
Last week the New York Times reported that Clinton chose not to fire Burns Strider after the allegations were made, despite the recommendation of her campaign manager.
Instead, the NY Times reported that Strider, who was Clinton’s faith adviser, was docked several weeks’ pay and ordered to undergo counselling, which he declined to attend. The Times said he was fired from a subsequent job for “workplace issues, including allegations that he harassed a young female aide”.
Following the New York Times report, by the sexual harassment accusations and that the situation had been “taken seriously and addressed” when he worked for her.
However, on Tuesday, the former presidential candidate issued a long statement saying that “the most important work of my life has been to support and empower women” and that not firing Strider had been a mistake.
“If I had to do it again, I wouldn’t,” she wrote on Facebook in a post that was shared more than 1,000 times in the first hour.
Clinton said she did not fire Strider at the time because she did not think it was the best solution and that she believed in second chances.
“He needed to be punished, change his behavior, and understand why his actions were wrong. The young woman needed to be able to thrive and feel safe. I thought both could happen without him losing his job. I believed the punishment was severe and the message to him unambiguous.”
However, when she learned that he had gone on to be accused of sexual harassment again, she said she was greatly troubled.
“Would he have done better – been better – if I had fired him? Would he have gotten that next job? There is no way I can go back 10 years and know the answers. But you can bet I’m asking myself these questions right now,” she wrote.
Clinton said female employers had an “extra responsibility” for looking out for women who work for them and that “even those of us who have spent much of our life thinking about gender issues and who have firsthand experiences of navigating a male-dominated industry or career may not always get it right”.
She said it had taken her so long to respond at length because “I’ve been grappling with this and thinking about how best to share my thoughts.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/30/hillary-clinton-sexual-harassment-allegation-burns-strider
Congress Pursues Clinton for Hiding Fusion GPS Payments
The Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission last year alleging that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee violated campaign finance laws by not revealing their payments to Fusion GPS.
In an October 25, 2017 filing with the FEC, the watchdog group accused the Hillary for America campaign and DNC of failing to “accurately disclose the purpose and recipient of payments for the dossier…effectively hiding these payments from public scrutiny.”
The complaint was filed one day after the Washington Post confirmed that both entities paid Perkins Coie – a politically-connected law firm – to retain Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump, which resulted in the infamous dossier.
According to the Center, the Clinton campaign and DNC paid Perkins Coie more than $12 million during the 2016 election cycle; all payments were recorded as “legal services.”
No payments to Fusion GPS were itemized on disclosure reports by either group.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC did not comply with their legal obligation to disclose their payments to Fusion for opposition research.
Instead, they concealed the fact that any payments were made to Fusion at all.” Goldstone said the complaint is still pending at the FEC.
But the FEC could not confirm whether an investigation is being conducted:
“A provision of federal campaign finance law requires that any Commission action on an enforcement matter be kept strictly confidential until the case is resolved,” (The commission’s complaint process is explained here.) If any action had been taken, the findings would be posted on the commission’s website; no investigation related to the Center’s complaint is currently listed.
Now Congress is stepping in. (YEAH!)
In a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray yesterday, several House Republicans asked the DOJ to investigate Hillary Clinton for federal campaign law violations, including accepting donations from a foreign national.
“The Center believes that voters should have all financial information made available to them when casting a vote,” Goldstone told me. But that would have been problematic: If the Clinton campaign had listed Fusion on disclosure reports before Election Day, it would have raised plenty of questions about its ties to the dossier, which was already being circulated in the Washington media.
Just another way the public has been duped about the legitimacy of the Steele dossier.
https://amgreatness.com/2018/04/19/congress-pursues-clinton-for-hiding-fusion-gps-payments/
Spot on! If only!
Great pics, thanks. eom
Great one, love it.
The witch of mass destruction!
Book Worm by Stilton Jarlsberg
Disgraced former FBI director and serial-leaker James Comey is about to have his face plastered all over our nation's television screens as he kicks off a tour to pimp...uh, promote...his new tell-all book, "A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership."
The book will be filled with the insights of a man who couldn't find dirt on Hillary. Just let that sink in for a moment and be filled with a sense of awe regarding the sheer size of this man's ineptitude. Although we may be doing him a disservice - we don't actually doubt his ability to detect criminal activity, we just don't like it when he ignores such (in Hillary's case) or invents such (in Trump's case).
Comey has already recorded a lengthy interview with longtime Clinton shill George Stephanopoulos in which he allegedly compared the President to a "mob boss." Which either means that Comey's book will contain evidence of Trump's drug dealing, contract murders, and profligate distribution of severed horse heads, or that Comey is simply flinging whatever insults he thinks will sell books to the rubes in Progressive-land.
The mainstream media is looking to Comey's literary cash-grab to be approximately the 544th thing that will "finally bring down Donald Trump." We disagree. The greater likelihood is that while making the rounds of lectures, interviews, and book-signings Comey will get himself into serious trouble by making statements which conflict with his previous testimony about his own wrongdoings.
After which he can eventually release a new book: "A Higher Bunk: Memories of Prison Life."
FROM THE VAULT (6/9/17)
Comey's mind is like a steel trap; everything that goes in gets mangled.
http://stiltonsplace.blogspot.com/
Holy crap that's funny!!!
HAHAHAH!!! Thats perfect
The following article explains why the whole idea of the FBI raiding Trump's lawyer's home and office was completely wrong.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org
"Firewalls" and "Taint Teams" Do Not Protect Fourth and Sixth Amendment Rights
by Alan M. Dershowitz • April 11, 2018 at 5:00 am
The Fourth and Sixth Amendments prohibit government officials from in any way intruding on the privacy of lawyer/client confidential rights of citizens.
The very fact that this material is seen or read by a government official constitutes a core violation. It would be the same if the government surreptitiously recorded a confession of a penitent to a priest, or a description of symptoms by a patient to a doctor, or a discussion of their sex life between a husband and wife.
The recourses for intrusions on the Fourth and Sixth Amendments are multifold: the victim of the intrusion can sue for damages; he or she can exclude it from use by the government in criminal or civil cases; or the victim can demand the material back. But none of these remedies undo the harm to privacy and confidentiality done to the citizen by the government's intrusion into his private and confidential affairs.
Many TV pundits are telling viewers not to worry about the government's intrusion into possible lawyer/client privileged communications between President Trump and his lawyer, since prosecutors will not get to see or use any privileged material. This is because prosecutors and FBI agents create firewalls and taint teams to preclude privileged information from being used against the client in a criminal case. But that analysis completely misses the point and ignores the distinction between the Fifth Amendment on the one hand, and the Fourth and Sixth Amendments on the other.
The Fifth Amendment is an exclusionary rule. By its terms, it prevents material obtained in violation of the privilege of self-incrimination from being used to incriminate a defendant – that is to convict him of a crime. But the Fourth and Sixth Amendments provide far broader protections: they prohibit government officials from in any way intruding on the privacy of lawyer/client confidential rights of citizens. In other words, if the government improperly seizes private or privileged material, the violation has already occurred, even if the government never uses the material from the person from whom it was seized.
Not surprisingly, therefore, firewalls and taint teams were developed in the context of the Fifth Amendment, not the Fourth or Sixth Amendments. Remember who comprises the firewall and taint teams: other FBI agents, prosecutors and government officials who have no right under the Fourth and Sixth Amendments, even to see private or confidential materials, regardless of whether it is ever used against a defendant. The very fact that this material is seen or read by a government official constitutes a core violation. It would be the same if the government surreptitiously recorded a confession of a penitent to a priest, or a description of symptoms by a patient to a doctor, or a discussion of their sex life between a husband and wife. The government simply has no right to this material, whether it ever uses it against the penitent or the patient or the spouse in a criminal case.
So, let's not dismiss the potential violation of the rights of Michael Cohen and his client, if it were to turn out that included among the materials seized by the government in the raid were private or confidential information or documents.
The recourses for intrusions on the Fourth and Sixth Amendments are multifold: the victim of the intrusion can sue for damages; he or she can exclude it from use by the government in criminal or civil cases; or the victim can demand the material back. But none of these remedies undo the harm to privacy and confidentiality done to the citizen by the government's intrusion into his private and confidential affairs.
An equally important harm is to important relationships that are protected by the law: between lawyer and client, priest and penitent, doctor and patient, husband and wife, etc. If an ordinary citizen, seeing that even the president's confidential communications with his lawyer can be seized and perused, he or she will be far less willing to engage in such communications. As a society, we value such communications; that is why our laws protect them and that is why it should be extremely difficult for the government to intrude upon them, except as a last recourse in extremely important cases.
From what we know, this case does not meet those stringent standards. Much of the material sought by the warrant could probably be obtained through other sources, such as bank, tax and other records that are subject to subpoena. Moreover, the alleged crimes at issue – highly technical violations of banking and election laws – would not seem to warrant the extreme measure of a highly publicized search and seizure of records that may well include some that are subject to the lawyer/client privilege.
Someday soon, the government is going to have to justify its decision to conduct this raid. I challenge any reader who is not concerned about this raid to honestly answer the following question: If the raid had been conducted on Hillary Clinton's lawyer's office and home, would you be as unconcerned? The truth now!
What a bunch of pansies! They will never survive if the shit hits the fan!!
He sure was freaking wasn't he, LMAO I love that vid
Must be an inner city guy. It's a freakin' moose for piss sakes.
I just love that video, LOL
The first line was great....I'm behind a moose and HE is running! There you have it! LOL!
Or a moose. With my full apologies to the real moose!
Dude look like a lady !
yes, armed drones
why not put a building every 100 miles and patrol it with drones
Dammit. It is about time for this.
Hillary Clinton Speaking Fees Drop by 87%
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made $200,000 per speech in the past. Now, her speaking fees have plummeted by 87 percent.
Rutgers University is reportedly paying the former presidential nominee $25,000 to speak at the university Thursday, according to NJ Advance Media.
Clinton will be discussing politics, American democracy and how she has helped shape women’s political history.
The money she will be paid to speak at Rutgers, that will not be coming from tuition or state aid according to the university, is a far cry from what she use to be paid per speech.
According to a 2016 study by The Associated Press, out of the $22 million Clinton was paid to speak after her retirement as secretary of state, one-third of the groups that paid her speech fees were government contractors.
This study was based on federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence of the 82 corporations who paid Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015.
The results showed that most of those groups had lobbied federal agencies in recent years. In two years, Clinton had over 94 paid appearances, which gave way to criticism from her opponents.
During the presidential race, Sen. Bernie Sanders called on Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches, according to the AP.
“If somebody gets paid $225,000 for a speech, it must be an unbelievably extraordinary speech,” he said. “I kind of think if that $225,000 speech was so extraordinary, she should release the transcripts and share it with all of us.”
Lawrence M. Noble, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, added that her high paying speaking tour “puts her in the position of having to disavow that money is an influence on her while at the same time backing campaign reform based on the influence of money. It ends up creating the appearance of influence.”
Trade groups, who lobby for industry interests, paid Clinton over $7.1 million for her speeches. The financial services and investment industry contributed about $4.1 million to Clinton’s fees.
Lawrence M. Noble, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, added that her high paying speaking tour “puts her in the position of having to disavow that money is an influence on her while at the same time backing campaign reform based on the influence of money. It ends up creating the appearance of influence.”
Trade groups, who lobby for industry interests, paid Clinton over $7.1 million for her speeches. The financial services and investment industry contributed about $4.1 million to Clinton’s fees.
Good Hilderbeast 'toon here!
Not So April Foolish by Stilton Jarlsberg
We're keeping it short and sweet today because Daughter Jarlsberg is home for Easter and so today (Sunday) is all about family time.
Therefore, we're just serving up this trio of April Fool's Day headlines that we'd actually really like to see!
Also admits "too drunk to really remember campaign."
"Seriously, what the Hell was I thinking?" President adds.
Students expected to walk out to protest space exploration.
http://stiltonsplace.blogspot.com/
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |