I just heard that FBI Director Comey has informed the House Oversight Committee that more Clinton emails have been discovered which may be pertinent to the server investigation.

So, the FBI is investigating whether the newly discovered emails affect the outcome of the broader investigation. I think it's a blow to the Clinton campaign with 10 days left before the election, whether those emails turn out to be pertinent or not.

Anyway, I don't know if the new emails to which he's referring came to light from the Wikileaked illegal hack of Podesto's emails, but I imagine so.

Nah . . .

Just more drama . . . or an attempt to remove the cloud of taint from his reputation.

If Trump can't focus and stay on message enough to get some mileage out of this announcement, he's even weaker-minded than I thought.

I personally don't think Trump has the ability to change the likely outcome of the election, but hammering the possible implications (considering Clinton's trustworthy numbers aren't much higher than his own) is probably his best chance, in my opinion.

I really don't believe this will sway anyone toward the Trump camp.

IMO it's reached the saturation point.

This benefits the DOJ and the Obama administration.

The whole fair and impartial optic thing.

(10-28-2016, 01:25 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: an attempt to remove the cloud of taint from his reputation.

That's what I think too.

He had to do this as soon as it came to his attention. These things don't stay quiet and he needed to get it out there now, right now or it was going to reflect badly on him.

(10-28-2016, 01:40 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: I really don't believe this will sway anyone toward the Trump camp.

IMO it's reached the saturation point.

This benefits the DOJ and the Obama administration.

The whole fair and impartial optic thing.

I think if Trump and the Republicans play this new card extremely well, it might sway some undecided Independents -- though I don't think it will be enough to change the likely election outcome.

And, I agree with you and Duchess that it's the right and strategic move for the DOJ and the FBI.

Anyway.......Trump just told a rally crowd that "perhaps the system isn't as rigged as I thought." I imagine that's exactly what the DOJ and FBI wanna hear.

(10-28-2016, 01:56 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Anyway.......Trump just told a rally crowd that "perhaps the system isn't as rigged as I thought." I imagine that's exactly what the DOJ and FBI wanna hear.

If so, then he's an ass.

Hillary received over $35M from lawyers and lobbyists . . . compared to less than $1M to Trump.


Source Open Secrets

He is clearly a huge ass, in my eyes, regardless of the sources of legal campaign contributions in this election.

Money can't buy you love.

But it can buy influence.


The "Foundation" of politics.

Yep, she's even done better with the money/business aspect of campaigning than the man running based largely on his self-proclaimed business/financial acumen.

Trump's candidacy failed to secure large contributions from the typical big money conservative donors, which was the result of his own words and actions (and not for lack of trying).

(10-28-2016, 02:26 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Yep, she's even done better with the money/business aspect of campaigning than the man running based largely on his self-proclaimed business/financial acumen.

Trump's candidacy failed to secure large contributions from the typical big money conservative donors, which was the result of his own words and actions (and not for lack of trying).

You will get no argument from me that the Clinton's made their fortune primarily from the largesse of others.

Sucking from the rich tit masquerading as public service.

God bless the wealthy!

One of the journalists I follow just posted that this is in regards to something found during the investigation of Anthony Weiner sexting.

I'm fairly certain she didn't cause his erection.

If the claim is she did, then it's evidence of a rigged erection.

(10-28-2016, 03:17 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(10-28-2016, 02:26 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Yep, she's even done better with the money/business aspect of campaigning than the man running based largely on his self-proclaimed business/financial acumen.

Trump's candidacy failed to secure large contributions from the typical big money conservative donors, which was the result of his own words and actions (and not for lack of trying).

You will get no argument from me that the Clinton's made their fortune primarily from the largesse of others.

Sucking from the rich tit masquerading as public service.

God bless the wealthy!

I didn't make that claim for you to either argue or agree-with in the first place.

Anyway, I don't think people are bad, corrupt, or criminals simply because they're wealthy.

We were talking about campaign contributions, which haven't added to the personal wealth of either Clinton or Trump -- those contributions are regulated and strictly reported.

I would like to see money-influence diminished when it comes to elections, though, and I'm hopeful that Citizens United will be overturned at some point in the relatively near future. That would help.

Both Clinton and Trump have benefited from that ill-advised (in my opinion) Supreme Court decision during this election cycle. However, Clinton favors overturning Citizens United, whereas Trump supports the Supreme Court decision.

(10-28-2016, 03:43 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I didn't make that claim for you to either argue or agree-with in the first place.

Anyway, I don't think people are bad, corrupt, or criminals simply because they're wealthy.

Anyway, we were talking about campaign contributions, which haven't added to the personal wealth of either Clinton or Trump -- those contributions are regulated and strictly reported.

I knew it wasn't an invite to argue or agree, kiddo.

Just an observation that the same mechanics generating their personal wealth also generates big money campaign contributions.

Legal or illegal, it's the same game plan . . . IMO.

Unfortunately, when Hillary claims that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share in taxes (corporations, too), her words transmit the specter of criminality, by these persons.

As if somehow following the existing tax laws are criminal, immoral or unethical.

You know, this might have been Wiener's "Get out of Jail" card to keep him out of prison.

"Hey guys. I've got some very interesting emails you might wanna see if you keep my dick outta prison."

I've always wondered why Hillary never attacked Wiener for his anti-female perv behavior . . .

(10-28-2016, 03:59 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: I knew it wasn't an invite to argue or agree, kiddo.

Just an observation that the same mechanics generating their personal wealth also generates big money campaign contributions.

Legal or illegal, it's the same game plan . . . IMO.

Unfortunately, when Hillary claims that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share in taxes (corporations, too), her words transmit the specter of criminality, by these persons.

As if somehow following the existing tax laws are criminal, immoral or unethical.

I've never gotten the impression from Clinton (or Sanders) that they're suggesting taking advantage of tax codes/breaks is criminal, Tiki.

'Fair' and 'legal' are not synonymous.

So, calling for a change in tax codes which would require the very wealthiest in the country to pay a similar percentage of their incomes as the rest of us is not an implication that those who are taking advantage of current tax breaks are engaged in criminal activity.

Whether it's immoral or unethical to legally avoid paying taxes, on the other hand, is subjective. I think that since the Clintons elect to pay 33%, contribute considerably to charity, and have published 30 years of tax returns, Hillary Clinton has standing to criticize billionaire Trump's choice not to pay any personal income taxes and not to release his tax returns. She does seem to imply that it's unethical or immoral (and unfair) for him not to contribute to public works/society through income taxes. And, she has directly stated that failing to release his tax returns means he must have something big/bad to hide.

Personally, I don't think choosing not to pay personal income taxes has hurt Trump much, if at all. Most people pay as little taxes as possible themselves and don't seem to hold it against anyone, even the wealthiest 10%, for doing the same. I do suspect Trump's failure to release his tax returns, despite several broken promises to do so, has hurt him some with the general voter population though.

(10-28-2016, 04:14 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: You know, this might have been Wiener's "Get out of Jail" card to keep him out of prison.

"Hey guys. I've got some very interesting emails you might wanna see if you keep my dick outta prison."

I've always wondered why Hillary never attacked Wiener for his anti-female perv behavior . . .

Tiki, I will bet that the "Hillary Machine" is capable of striking deals to protect Anthony Weiner in a Quid pro quo deal. (that in turns protects Hillary)
According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, Patrick F. Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, is reported to have offered the FBI a deal (which could be construed as a bribe) to change the classification on sensitive documents found on Hillary Clinton's private email server during the Hillary investigation.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/17/ju...mail-probe

(10-28-2016, 04:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: 'Fair' and 'legal' are not synonymous.

So, calling for a change in tax codes which would require the very wealthiest in the country to pay a similar percentage of their incomes as the rest of us is not an implication that those who are taking advantage of current tax breaks are engaged in criminal activity.

I think that since the Clintons elect to pay 33%, contribute considerably to charity, and have published 30 years of tax returns, Hillary Clinton has standing to criticize billionaire Trump's choice not to pay any personal income taxes and not to release his tax returns. I do suspect Trump's failure to release his tax returns, despite several broken promises to do so, has hurt him some with the general voter population though.

Although "Fair" and "Legal" are not synonymous, historically one doesn't typically rally to change a "Fair" law.

I have heard no compelling argument to abolish the plethora of existing tax credits, tax deferrals or deductions . . . besides the chestnut that the rich have more money than they need.

"So, calling for a change in tax codes which would require the very wealthiest in the country to pay a similar percentage of their incomes as the rest of us . . . "

The average American pays an effective rate of 19.8% of their income in taxes (2015 return data). I don't believe that Hillary believes that the wealthiest should also enjoy this effective tax rate.

In fact, she wants to reduce the effective tax rate for the majority of Americans . . . that deficit needs to be made up somewhere. That somewhere is the "deep pockets" of the wealthy and corporations.

And how does anyone know what Trump has or has not paid in taxes, as his returns have not been released (which is not a legal requirement to run for President)?

I'm only curious if Trump used his donated underwear, as did the Clintons, as a charitable contribution and a tax deduction. Yes . . . that is true.

My point about Hillary's the wealthiest NOT paying their fair share statement makes it seem that "They" are getting away with something . . . like a criminal.

And that is her point . . . getting away with something . . . unfairly and unjustly . . . while the rest of the masses slave and starve.

Strictly from a CPA standpoint: If you're paying a 33% effective tax rate, no matter how wealthy you are, you clearly don't know the tax laws.

And that ain't a good thing when suggesting to change them.

Or from a strategic wealth management standpoint.