HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » FourScore » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 64 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Thu Mar 16, 2006, 03:07 PM
Number of posts: 9,697

Journal Archives

FORBES - The Mystery Of Hillary's Missing Millions (written 6 months ago - more interesting now)

Sep 29, 2015 @ 08:30 AM 423,850 views
The Mystery Of Hillary's Missing Millions
Dan Alexander
Forbes Staff

This story appears in the October 19, 2015 issue of Forbes. Subscribe

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, they have earned more than $230 million. But in federal filings the Clintons claim they are worth somewhere between $11 million and $53 million. After layering years of disclosures on top of annual tax returns, Forbes estimates their combined net worth at $45 million. Where did all of the money go? No one seems to know, and the Clintons aren’t offering any answers.

From 2001 to 2014 the power couple spent $95 million on taxes. Hillary’s 2008 presidential run cost her $13 million. Their two homes cost a combined $5 million, and the Clintons have given away $22 million to charity. All of this is according to FEC filings, property records and years of tax returns. Add it up and you get $135 million. If the Clintons made $230 million, spent $135 million and have just $45 million left over, what happened to the other $50 million?

“That’s kind of strange,” says Joe Biden’s accountant, Walter Deyhle. “You have to report all of your assets. You have to report assets that are owned by your spouse.”

It seems unlikely that the Clintons could have spent all of it. Over 14 years $50 million averages out to $3.6 million in extra expenses per year, or $9,800 per day.

WHERE COULD THAT much money have disappeared? The Clintons have been speaking around the world for years, and they count millions in travel expenses under their businesses. It is unclear whether they have paid for additional travel expenses out of their own pockets. It seems unlikely, but they could have given it away overseas: Donations to foreign charities are not deductible and would not be listed on tax returns. Billionaires like Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, Lakshmi Mittal of India and Joseph Safra of Brazil have donated to their foundation. Maybe the Clintons are returning the favor?...


Is the Podesta Group tied to a Russian bank in the Panama Papers?

Tweets are popping up this hour. I have no time to source this. Do your thing DU.

Compare: Bernie's Speech on Panama Deal vs Hillary's Released Statement

When Clinton pushed Obama to sign the Panama deal, the critics warned that Panama is a tax haven and this deal would open the flood gates for stashing off-shore money. Below are the statements from each candidate at the time.


This is Bernie's speech against it:

Finally, Mr. President, let's talk about the Panama Free Trade Agreement.

Panama's entire annual economic output is only $26.7 billion a year, or about two-tenths of one percent of the U.S. economy. No-one can legitimately make the claim that approving this free trade agreement will significantly increase American jobs.

Then, why would we be considering a stand-alone free trade agreement with this country?

Well, it turns out that Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade U.S. taxes by stashing their cash in off-shore tax havens. And, the Panama Free Trade Agreement would make this bad situation much worse.

Each and every year, the wealthy and large corporations evade $100 billion in U.S. taxes through abusive and illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and other countries.

According to Citizens for Tax Justice, "A tax haven . . . has one of three characteristics: It has no income tax or a very low-rate income tax; it has bank secrecy laws; and it has a history of non-cooperation with other countries on exchanging information about tax matters. Panama has all three of those. ... They're probably the worst."

Mr. President, the trade agreement with Panama would effectively bar the U.S. from cracking down on illegal and abusive offshore tax havens in Panama. In fact, combating tax haven abuse in Panama would be a violation of this free trade agreement, exposing the U.S. to fines from international authorities.

In 2008, the Government Accountability Office said that 17 of the 100 largest American companies were operating a total of 42 subsidiaries in Panama. This free trade agreement would make it easier for the wealthy and large corporations to avoid paying U.S. taxes and it must be defeated. At a time when we have a record-breaking $14.7 trillion national debt and an unsustainable federal deficit, the last thing that we should be doing is making it easier for the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations in this country to avoid paying their fair share in taxes by setting-up offshore tax havens in Panama.

Adding insult to injury, Mr. President, the Panama FTA would require the United States to waive Buy America requirements for procurement bids from thousands of foreign firms, including many Chinese firms, incorporated in this major tax haven. That may make sense to China, it does not make sense to me.

Finally, Panama is also listed by the State Department as a major venue for Mexican and Colombian drug cartel money laundering. Should we be rewarding this country with a free trade agreement? I think the answer should be a resounding no.


There is much more in Bernie's speech about how these trade deals end up costing American jobs and hurting the American people.

Hillary's released statement for it:

Don't Expect to See Hillary Anywhere in the Panama Papers Leaks - and Here's Why

Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak
3 Apr, 2016 in Uncategorized by craig

Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.

Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results. In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent.

But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.

The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that “much of the leaked material will remain private.”

What do you expect? The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists”, which is funded and organised entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include

Ford Foundation
Carnegie Endowment
Rockefeller Family Fund
W K Kellogg Foundation
Open Society Foundation (Soros)

among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.

Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny “balancing” western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia.

The corporate media – the Guardian and BBC in the UK – have exclusive access to the database which you and I cannot see. They are protecting themselves from even seeing western corporations’ sensitive information by only looking at those documents which are brought up by specific searches such as UN sanctions busters. Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the instruction of MI6.

What if they did Mossack Fonseca database searches on the owners of all the corporate media and their companies, and all the editors and senior corporate media journalists? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on all the most senior people at the BBC? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every donor to the Center for Public Integrity and their companies?

What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every listed company in the western stock exchanges, and on every western millionaire they could trace?

That would be much more interesting. I know Russia and China are corrupt, you don’t have to tell me that. What if you look at things that we might, here in the west, be able to rise up and do something about?

And what if you corporate lapdogs let the people see the actual data?


Hundreds of thousands of people have read this post in the 11 hours since it was published – despite it being overnight here in the UK. There are 235,918 “impressions” on twitter (as twitter calls them) and over 3,700 people have “shared” so far on Facebook, bringing scores of new readers each.

I would remind you that this blog is produced free for the public good and you are welcome to republish or re-use this article or any other material freely anywhere without requesting further permission.


Am I the only Bernie supporter who is NOT thrilled about what happened in NV?

Bernie has said over and over that he never wants to win an election through voter suppression. I could be wrong, but it looks to me as though shenanigans happened.

Right now there are allegations flying all around. Apparently, this got sent out to the delegates (not clear by whom):

Then, only Bernie supporters were contacted and told they did indeed need to be there (probably by a Bernie organizer). The caucus chair of Clark County has been fired - not sure why...but I think it's about forwarding an internal email with sensitive Clinton info.

It's dirty. It's icky. Bernie had nothing to do with it; just like Hillary had nothing to do with the AZ disaster.

And how many more delegates did it really get us? Is it worth it? Honestly, is it?

It just ain't right.

A vote is sacred. Always.

FELLOW BERNIE SUPPORTERS - This is OUR revolution. He has said over and over, it's not about him, it's about US. Is this who we are? Really? Because it's not who I am. Are we going to complain about what happened in Massachusetts and Arizona, but be gleeful about this in NV? We shouldn't get to pick and choose our moral outrage.

I know I'm going to get beat up like all hell for this, but bring it on, because I know I'm on the right side this time.

In THIS case, I'm not on Bernie's side; I'm not on Hillary's side; I'm on the side of VOTER INTEGRITY!!

Shit! Bring it on!

EDIT: My preference at this point would be to delete this thread. However, there is so much discussion, that I will leave it for a bit longer. Clearly, the issue here is mostly that I do not understand the caucus process. But I believe I will delete it soon as I do not want my post in any way to reflect badly on the Bernie supporters who worked so hard for this win. Additionally, the email sent out (posted in this OP) appears to reflect the actual rules (see post #60 from RichVRichV). I will say, however, I am not a big fan of the caucus process.

Bloomberg: How to HACK an Election (FASCINATING ARTICLE - A TRUE STORY)

We all know our elections are being tampered with - Ohio and the .gov server, Diebold, ES&S, and most recently, the purging and changing of voter registrations in AZ. Here is the fascinating story of a man who rigged elections in Latin America for a living. It would be naive to believe it could never happen here.

How to Hack an Election
Andrés Sepúlveda rigged elections throughout Latin America for almost a decade. He tells his story for the first time.
By Jordan Robertson, Michael Riley, and Andrew Willis | March 31, 2016
Photographs by Juan Arredondo
From Bloomberg Businessweek

It was just before midnight when Enrique Peña Nieto declared victory as the newly elected president of Mexico. Peña Nieto was a lawyer and a millionaire, from a family of mayors and governors. His wife was a telenovela star. He beamed as he was showered with red, green, and white confetti at the Mexico City headquarters of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, which had ruled for more than 70 years before being forced out in 2000. Returning the party to power on that night in July 2012, Peña Nieto vowed to tame drug violence, fight corruption, and open a more transparent era in Mexican politics.

Two thousand miles away, in an apartment in Bogotá’s upscale Chicó Navarra neighborhood, Andrés Sepúlveda sat before six computer screens. Sepúlveda is Colombian, bricklike, with a shaved head, goatee, and a tattoo of a QR code containing an encryption key on the back of his head. On his nape are the words “</head>” and “<body>” stacked atop each other, dark riffs on coding. He was watching a live feed of Peña Nieto’s victory party, waiting for an official declaration of the results.

When Peña Nieto won, Sepúlveda began destroying evidence. He drilled holes in flash drives, hard drives, and cell phones, fried their circuits in a microwave, then broke them to shards with a hammer. He shredded documents and flushed them down the toilet and erased servers in Russia and Ukraine rented anonymously with Bitcoins. He was dismantling what he says was a secret history of one of the dirtiest Latin American campaigns in recent memory.

For eight years, Sepúlveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political campaigns. With a budget of $600,000, the Peña Nieto job was by far his most complex. He led a team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peña Nieto, a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory. On that July night, he cracked bottle after bottle of Colón Negra beer in celebration. As usual on election night, he was alone...


...Sepúlveda says he was offered several political jobs in Spain, which he says he turned down because he was too busy. On the question of whether the U.S. presidential campaign is being tampered with, he is unequivocal. “I’m 100 percent sure it is,” he says...


...In July 2015, Sepúlveda sat in the small courtyard of the Bunker, poured himself a cup of coffee from a thermos, and took out a pack of Marlboro cigarettes. He says he wants to tell his story because the public doesn’t grasp the power hackers exert over modern elections or the specialized skills needed to stop them. “I worked with presidents, public figures with great power, and did many things with absolutely no regrets because I did it with full conviction and under a clear objective, to end dictatorship and socialist governments in Latin America,” he says. “I have always said that there are two types of politics—what people see and what really makes things happen. I worked in politics that are not seen...”



If you really want to understand all sides of this, then I refer you to this link:


It's long. Very, very long. I suggest fixing some kind of drink, turn off the phone, and start reading.

I would love to know what you think.

(Please help keep it kicked for wider viewership. Very important reading!!)


I have noticed that there has been an increase in anti-Bernie posts lately, and wow! THEY ARE REALLY REACHING!! Everything from snubbing his wife, to Susan Sarandon, to Bernie's tone (I really had to laugh at that one - especially since no has been able to find a single Bernie commercial yet where Hillary is even mentioned), to FEC accusations from that honorable man, David Brock. You get the drift. They got nothin' so they are trying to hammer him with bullshit.

Here's my plea - don't respond to them.

The majority of Clinton supporters on this website behave well and truly believe they are supporting the better candidate. However, there are a handful of very vocal Hillary supporters who wanna fight. We all know who they are by now - it really is about 6-10 people with about 3-4 of them leading the charge. They love to demonize Sanders and those who support him, and they continue to spread this crap. Typically, they have multiple negative posts about Bernie in GD: P at all times. They goad us in the comment section, and I, personally, have found it best not to engage. If you do, you're just drawing more attention to their bullshit.

Please let it go. It's like feeding trolls. We don't feed trolls, and we shouldn't feed the nasty Bernie posts. Let 'em drop. If you want to write a rebuttal regarding their accusations, do so in your own post.

There. I'm done.

Thanks for listening to my rant and have a nice day.

White House Petition for an AZ Revote (sign it!!) and How I Know Revotes Can Happen

There is a White House petition for an AZ REVOTE. It currently has just over 60,000 signatures - please DU that thing! No matter if you are a democrat, republican, independent, Bernie supporter, Clinton supporter...too many people were shut out. It appears election fraud occurred, but even if it was all random bad luck, there needs to be a do-over. Here's the link:


The meme I have seen on certain websites is that re-elections never happen. I am here to tell you they can, they do and why.

In the mid 1960's, Jimmy Carter ran for the first time in his life for office - the GA state legislature in the district where my family was living. It appeared he would win easily, although he had an opponent - a man known to be a white supremacist. Surprisingly, the other fellow won by an enormous margin. Everyone assumed that ballot stuffing was involved, but such cases are difficult to prove. Carter turned to my father for legal council. They took it court, during which time an unopened ballot box was discovered. They popped it open in court and saw the ballots still rolled up together for the opponent. No one had even bothered to unroll them. The judge ruled for a re-vote, and Carter won with a landslide victory. Can you imagine how history may have been altered if that revote had never happened?


(This is all documented in Carter's book Turing Point, also on the "American Perspective" documentary on Carter, as well as other sources.)

Group claiming to be working with Bernie's approval - investigating AZ election

Found this on twitter. I don't know if it is credible, but worth looking into.


Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 64 Next »