Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[hrugner]

I think there needs to be some sort of agreement on what a reasonable medical disclosure is for a candidate -- like we have with tax returns and have it be that.

This is starting to become a fishing expedition which honestly I think at some point shouldn't be honored. We all know that, at least when it comes to Clinton's health, they won't be satisfied until something major is discovered. People have even admitted on these forums they won't believe anything released unless it's disqualifying.

It's like Obama's birth certificate. When it's crackpot conspiracy theory it should be ignored. (Note, I'm not calling Clinton's health crackpot conspiracy theory at least in terms of her coughing and pnemonia, but rather the hunt for a Parkinson's diagnosis).

Agreed. I'd like to know what's going on with the two of them, but I also don't see the general public changing their mind much on the topic at this point. Anything either candidate releases will be suspect by people not in their camp already.

And honestly, a Parkinson's diagnosis shouldn't be disqualifying. It's disappointing that it probably would hurt her poll numbers.

I would like to see them both lose some weight though, the US gets a bad enough rap about obesity as it is, we don't want our figure head looking like a wreck too. Though with Hillary it could just be the power mumu not being very flattering.

[Wells]

He is making fun of Trump for using campaign funds to buy $55,000 worth of his own book. Instead of just giving them away since he can just do that with his own book. So basically he is using campaign funds to make $55,000 for him and his publisher. If he was a billionaire like he claims, which is growing more and more evident that he isn't, he could do without the measily $55,000.

Its common for campaigns to buy their own book to give away, but they almost always do so from the producer, not the retailer, to avoid inflating sales. Trump declined to do so.

[PACOX]

Agreed. I'd like to know what's going on with the two of them, but I also don't see the general public changing their mind much on the topic at this point. Anything either candidate releases will be suspect by people not in their camp already.

And honestly, a Parkinson's diagnosis shouldn't be disqualifying. It's disappointing that it probably would hurt her poll numbers.

I would like to see them both lose some weight though, the US gets a bad enough rap about obesity as it is, we don't want our figure head looking like a wreck too. Though with Hillary it could just be the power mumu not being very flattering.

Clinton has a documented thyroid issue, she has an excuse. Trump just eats like shit, he can't even blame it on alcohol because he doesn't drink.

In all honesty, both look fine for their age.

[Venant]

So many people are going to be watching Clinton closely for any signs of illness in the coming weeks, and unfortunately for her she gives terrible speeches in which she uses tons of fluffy words, tells people to go read her website and spends the other 75% of the time bashing Trump. I imagine that the people who watched her speech today closely got nothing out of it, since she never actually mentioned policy, besides saying that people should go read her documents online. Most people aren't going to go read policy papers, most people want a candidate to make a convincing argument for policy.

Its like suddenly the optics have reversed, and Clinton really has nothing of substance to say, and as long as Trump doesn't act like a maniac he looks like the more reasonable of the two. It doesn't seem like Hillary Clinton has the charisma necessary to fight back from being so thoroughly defined as 'crooked', a liar and now 'sickly.'

[Orbitus]

So many people are going to be watching Clinton closely for any signs of illness in the coming weeks, and unfortunately for her she gives terrible speeches in which she uses tons of fluffy words, tells people to go read her website and spends the other 75% of the time bashing Trump. I imagine that the people who watched her speech today closely got nothing out of it, since she never actually mentioned policy, besides saying that people should go read her documents online. Most people aren't going to go read policy papers, most people want a candidate to make a convincing argument for policy.

Its like suddenly the optics have reversed, and Clinton really has nothing of substance to say, and as long as Trump doesn't act like a maniac he looks like the more reasonable of the two. It doesn't seem like Hillary Clinton has the charisma necessary to fight back from being so thoroughly defined as 'crooked', a liar and now 'sickly.'

I think you got that part confused with Trump. Especially since Trump tried to go on a rant about Clinton at that church in Flint. Trump, though does the whole, he's going to find people, the best people, to get a plan for him. Even though he promised a plan 6 months ago, OR he knew more than the "generals" on things, or he consults with himself first then everyone else, because he is claiming he is smarter than everyone else.

Trump NEVER does a policy interview where he details anything. After he says it, then his website is updated with it after someone else makes the policy, but he can't answer it on the spot. But Clinton can.

And Clinton doesn't bash Trump 75% of the time, that would be Trump and that would be more with the whole "crooked" bullshit. Which is why I call him Cheeto Jesus. He deserves to be ridiculed.

But I don't expect you to see any of this with your confirmation bias in full fucking swing.

[Breccia]

she gives terrible speeches in which she uses tons of fluffy words, tells people to go read her website and spends the other 75% of the time bashing Trump.

That's not always the case. This is the full transcript of the speech she gave last week. There's a fair amount of specific policy points in there. The one from today, yeah, less substantive, but I don't think she was going to come back on the trail and begin by rattling off numbers.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump, though does the whole, he's going to find people, the best people, to get a plan for him. Even though he promised a plan 6 months ago,

You're forgetting where he says something is XXX, very XXX. Or when he says someone should be disqualified because reasons. Like when he said this about Anderson Cooper

“He’ll be very biased, very biased. I don’t think he should be a moderator. I’ll participate, but I don’t think he should be a moderator. CNN is the Clinton News Network and Anderson Cooper, I don’t think he can be fair.”

Trump clearly forgot the interview he gave to Cooper two weeks ago in which Cooper displayed the patience of a saint.

[Orbitus]

That's not always the case. This is the full transcript of the speech she gave last week. There's a fair amount of specific policy points in there. The one from today, yeah, less substantive, but I don't think she was going to come back on the trail and begin by rattling off numbers.

- - - Updated - - -



You're forgetting where he says something is XXX, very XXX. Or when he says someone should be disqualified because reasons. Like when he said this about Anderson Cooper

“He’ll be very biased, very biased. I don’t think he should be a moderator. I’ll participate, but I don’t think he should be a moderator. CNN is the Clinton News Network and Anderson Cooper, I don’t think he can be fair.”

Trump clearly forgot the interview he gave to Cooper two weeks ago in which Cooper displayed the patience of a saint.

Exactly. On both cases. Especially on the Commander in Chief forum that was held a few days ago. Matt Lauer T-ed up pitches for Trump to hit out of the ballpark, while trying to ram everything down Clinton's throat. I hope the moderators for these debates just ream him royally for lies, ask him specific policy questions, and calls him out when hes starting to rant or stump. And they should do the same for Clinton, but she doesn't do it nearly as often and the cheeto flavored bastard.

[ezgeze]

http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusiv...oorest-donors/

Exclusive: Hillary Clinton Campaign Systematically Overcharging Poorest Donors

Wells Fargo fraud department inundated with calls from low-income Clinton supporters reporting repeated unauthorized charges

By Liz Crokin • 09/15/16 2:35pm

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.

The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

“We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department told the Observer. The source claims that the Clinton campaign has been pulling this stunt since Spring of this year. The Hillary for America campaign will overcharge small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. However, the Clinton campaign strategically doesn’t overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud.

“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we don’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they’ll stop the charges just below $100. We’ll see her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.” The source, who has worked for Wells Fargo for over 10 years, said that the total amount they refund customers on a daily basis who have been overcharged by Clinton’s campaign “varies” but the bank usually issues refunds that total between $700 and $1200 per day.

The fraud specialist said that Clinton donors who call in will attempt to resolve the issue with the campaign first but they never get anywhere. “They will call the Clinton campaign to get their refund and the issue never gets resolved. So they call us and we just issue the refund. The Clinton campaign knows these charges are small potatoes and that we’ll just refund the money back.”

The source said that pornography companies often deploy a similar arrangement pull. “We see this same scheme with a lot of seedy porn companies,” the source said. The source also notes that the dozens of phone calls his department receives daily are from people who notice the fraudulent charges on their statements. “The people who call us are just the ones who catch the fraudulent charges. I can’t imagine how many more people are getting overcharged by Hillary’s campaign and they have no idea.”

The source said he’s apolitical but noted that the bank’s fraud department is yet to receive one call from a Donald Trump supporter claiming to have been overcharged by Trump’s campaign. “I’m only talking to you because what Hillary’s doing is so messed up, she’s stealing from her poorest supporters.”

Uh oh. Honestly I cant say I am surprised. I cant say I am entirely apathetic but you donate to a life long crook and liar, expect to get scammed.

[Wells]

http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusiv...oorest-donors/


Uh oh. Honestly I cant say I am surprised. I cant say I am entirely apathetic but you donate to a life long crook and liar, expect to get scammed.

So the entire story is sourced down to an old woman and her son? Seems legit.

[ezgeze]

So the entire story is sourced down to an old woman and her son? Seems legit.

Right, keep telling yourself that.



http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusiv...oorest-donors/

Carol Mahre, an 81-year-old grandmother of seven from Minnesota, is one of the victims of Clinton’s campaign donor fraud scandal. In March, Mahre said she made a one-time $25 donation via Clinton’s official campaign website. However, when she received her US Bank card statement, she noticed multiple $25 charges were made. Mahre, who said in an interview she only contributed $25 because she’s “not rich” and that’s all she could afford, contacted her son, Roger Mahre, to help her dispute the unauthorized charges.

Roger, who is an attorney, told the Observer that he called the Clinton campaign dozens of times in April and early May in an attempt to resolve the issue. “It took me at least 40 to 50 phone calls to the campaign office before I finally got ahold of someone,” Roger said. “After I got a campaign worker on the phone, she said they would stop making the charges.”

Incredibly, the very next day, Carol’s card was charged yet again and the campaign had never reversed the initial fraudulent charges. “I was told they would stop charging my mother’s card but they never stopped.” He added that he knows his mother did not sign up for recurring payments. “She’s very good with the Internet so I know she only made a one-time payment.” Roger also pointed out that even if his mother mistakenly signed up for recurring monthly payments then she should’ve been charged for the same amount of money each month, not multiple charges for varying amounts on the same day or in the same month. Furthermore, Roger said that after the campaign was made aware of this situation, the charges should’ve stopped but they never did.

The Clinton campaign overcharged Carol $25 three times and then overcharged her one time for $19, a grand total of $94 in fraudulent charges. The campaign’s overcharges to Carol were just a few dollars short of $100. This is in line with what the Wells Fargo bank source revealed to the Observer.

Since the campaign failed to amend the problem for Carol, Roger contacted her bank, US Bank. However, he ran into problems when he asked US Bank to refund his mother’s money. Roger told the Observer that the bank would not reverse the charges and that a bank spokesperson told him that they had no control over companies that make unauthorized charges. At that point, Roger decided to contact his local news and filed a fraud complaint with Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson’s office on behalf of his mother. After local TV news Kare 11 ran a story, someone from US Bank contacted Roger the next day and said that they had reversed and stopped the charges to his mother’s card.

A representative from Minnesota’s Democratic attorney general’s office told Roger that this problem wasn’t in their jurisdiction and that they had forwarded the case to the FEC. However, FEC spokesperson Julia Queen told the Observer they have no record of the case. “We don’t have it,” Queen said. The Observer contacted Swanson’s office and did not hear back.

Roger did eventually get a letter from a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign. In the letter, the lawyer wrote that his mother would be removed from their donor list; however, the campaign did not take any responsibility for the fraudulent charges.

“They basically said that they weren’t accepting responsibility for this but they’d remove my mom from the donor list,” he said. Roger is less than happy with the way the Clinton campaign has handled this nightmare for him and his mother. “This is a load of crap!” Mahre said. “The self-righteousness of politicians drives me insane. If you and I did this, we’d be thrown in jail. This is theft, fraud or wire fraud – it’s a federal crime!”

Since Carol’s story became public, Roger said he’s heard from other people who have been ripped off by the Clinton campaign. “I’ve heard this is happening to other small donors,” Roger said. “People will donate $25 but then when they receive their credit card statement they are charged $25 multiple times.”

The incident hasn’t just left a bad taste in Roger’s mouth. Carol decided she’s not going to vote for Hillary even though she’s voted for the Democratic presidential nominee every election since President Dwight Eisenhower won reelection in 1956. “My mother is a lifelong Democrat and she’s voted every election in her life for a Democrat but she’s not going to vote for Hillary,” Roger said.

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Clinton’s first presidential campaign had to refund and subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars from its first-quarter total often because donors’ credit cards were charged twice. Additionally, it was reported that Clinton had to refund a stunning $2.8 million in donations, three times more than the $900K President Barack Obama’s campaign refunded.

Another bank source told the Observer that Clinton’s motivation in purposefully overcharging donors is not only to rake in more money for her campaign but also to inflate her small donor numbers reported to the FEC. “This gives a false impression about how much money Clinton has raised,” the source said. “The money that the bank has refunded would not be reflected in the FEC filings till after the election. This gives off the illusion to the public that her support and the amount she’s raised is much greater than what it is in reality.”

A Clinton campaign worker named Kathy Callahan, who worked on Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008, claimed in a blog post that Clinton fraudulently overcharged her by several thousand dollars. She wrote that she voluntarily left the campaign’s finance committee after she discovered $3,000 in unauthorized charges made by Clinton’s campaign to her Visa card. Callahan said the unauthorized charges caused $400 in overdraft and bank charges and put Callahan over the legal donor limit. Callahan said that after a month of “begging and pleading,” she wasn’t able to get her money back until she threatened to go to authorities. However, when she was finally refunded her money the Clinton campaign refused to compensate her for the $400 in overdraft and bank charges.

Callahan also wrote that Matt McQueeney, who worked in the compliance and accounting department at Clinton’s campaign headquarters at the time, told her: “What happened to you with credit card errors is happening to others.” McQueeney reportedly parted ways with the Clinton campaign shortly after this incident occurred. Backing up what McQueeney claimed, there were several incidents similar to Callahan’s reported in 2008. Callahan and McQueeney could not be reached for comment.

In 2001, the Clintons were accused of attempting to steal items donated to the White House during Bill’s presidency as he exited office. There was $190,000 worth of gifts in question that the Clintons shipped to their then new estate in Chappaqua, New York. Multiple donors said that they had understood that the items they had donated during Clinton’s presidency were to stay in the White House as part of the 1993 White House redecoration project. Initially, the Clintons claimed that the items in question were given to them prior to President Clinton taking office; however, government records proved otherwise. Facing strong criticism, the Clintons decided to return several items including $28,500 in furnishings and they paid $86,000 for other gifts.

Murmurs of theft are nothing new to the Clintons. In 2001, the Clintons were accused of attempting to steal items donated to the White House during Bill’s presidency as he exited office, including $190,000 worth of gifts in question that the Clintons shipped to their new estate in Chappaqua, New York. But Bill begs to differ.

He recently compared himself to Robin Hood and said that through their foundation he asks people with money to give to people who don’t have money. In reality, the Clintons steal from people who have little money and they’re robbing some of Hillary’s most impoverished supporters—including a poor elderly grandma—to fund her campaign.

[Merkava]

Right, keep telling yourself that.

What's that supposed to prove exactly?

[ezgeze]

What's that supposed to prove exactly?

Read the paragraphs and don't just focus on the pretty pictures.

She and others have been illegally been tapped for multiple donations under the $100 limit when she donated a single time.

[Merkava]

Read the paragraphs and don't just focus on the pretty pictures.

She and others have been illegally been tapped for multiple donations under the $100 limit when she donated a single time.

I read the paragraphs. But the picture doesn't prove anything.

[ezgeze]

I read the paragraphs. But the picture doesn't prove anything.

The picture alone isn't intended to prove anything, you have to read the paragraph as well.
As a Hillary supporter I doubt anything short of a full blown in person confession wouldn't convince you of anything though so I will pass you off as a lost cause.

[BrerBear]

Grandma clicked the donate button twice.
It's easy to do on these political sites. I almost did it myself.

[Merkava]

The picture alone isn't intended to prove anything, you have to read the paragraph as well.
As a Hillary supporter I doubt anything short of a full blown in person confession wouldn't convince you of anything though so I will pass you off as a lost cause.

So we have a picture that doesn't prove anything, and a story that's been picked up by, who, exactly? GatewayPundit and Weaselzippers? Get back to me when someone who's not typing from their mom's basement reports on it.

[Hooked]

Trump knows whoever loses this election is going to prison. Hillary apparently hasn't got that email.

[Merkava]

Trump knows whoever loses this election is going to prison. Hillary apparently hasn't got that email.

If Hillary loses, she gets pardoned by BO before he leaves office.

[Hooked]

If Hillary loses, she gets pardoned by BO before he leaves office.

You need to be convicted of a crime before you can be pardoned. Hillary aint dun nuthin wrowng, remember?.

[Merkava]

You need to be convicted of a crime before you can be pardoned. Hillary aint dun nuthin wrowng, remember?.

A President can pardon people who haven't been charged. The pardon can cover crimes that may have been committed over a range of dates, or related to a place or an issue.