Hillary Threatened IRS Audit when $O$.

the son of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheik Hasina, who has lived in the United States for 17 years, alleged that Hillary Clinton threatened an IRS audit if he failed to influence his mother to halt the investigation. The prime minister’s office told Circa “that Mrs. Clinton called her office in March 2011 to demand that Dr. Muhammed Yunus, a 2006 Nobel Peace prize winner, be restored to his role as chairman of the country’s most famous microcredit bank... His foundations donated at least $100,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative and at least $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation. In turn, the Clintons provided Dr. Yunus with 18 grants, contracts and loans to two of his foundations, helped lobby for his 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, and another controversial Clinton Foundation donor, Rajiv Shah, donated $24 million to Dr. Yunus’ foundations.

Bangladesh Investigation Proves Democrats Need Distance from Clintons | Observer

Click to expand...

Losing elections has consequences... but oddly not for the Clinton Crime Family.

Perhaps one day it'll all come tumbling down as it has in Brazil.

I'm just glad someone is investigating this. We can be sure the Mainstream Media won't give it much print space or airplay.

"Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

zimmer said:

Losing elections has consequences... but oddly not for the Clinton Crime Family.

Perhaps one day it'll all come tumbling down as it has in Brazil.

Click to expand...

From elsewhere on that site...

Exclusive: NSA Chief Admits Donald Trump Colluded With Russia

The West Is Pushing Back on Kremlin Lies—Without America
Putin’s Fake News offensive has generated resistance... but not in Washington

Trump Campaign Secretly Paid Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller $150k for Email Blasts

Grand Mal said:

From elsewhere on that site...

Exclusive: NSA Chief Admits Donald Trump Colluded With Russia

The West Is Pushing Back on Kremlin Lies—Without America
Putin’s Fake News offensive has generated resistance... but not in Washington

Trump Campaign Secretly Paid Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller $150k for Email Blasts

Click to expand...

So you're saying it's legit. Good to know. :mrgreen:

While I don't believe Hillary would be above such a thing, I find it highly improbable that she would make such a threat herself. And I certainly don't think she would do it on the phone where the other person, or 3rd parties, could be recording the conversation. And based off the other stories on that site I think it is safe to discount this out of hand.

Skeptic Bob said:

While I don't believe Hillary would be above such a thing, I find it highly improbable that she would make such a threat herself. And I certainly don't think she would do it on the phone where the other person, or 3rd parties, could be recording the conversation. And based off the other stories on that site I think it is safe to discount this out of hand.

Click to expand...

Typical Conservative bull**** deflection in advance of Comey's likely damaging testimony.

Grand Mal said:

From elsewhere on that site...

Exclusive: NSA Chief Admits Donald Trump Colluded With Russia

The West Is Pushing Back on Kremlin Lies—Without America
Putin’s Fake News offensive has generated resistance... but not in Washington

Trump Campaign Secretly Paid Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller $150k for Email Blasts

Click to expand...

That's why you need to NOT believe everything you read. It's best if you apply some intelligence and reason.

For example, that "NSA Cheif...blah, blah, blah" story said this: "According to multiple reports...", giving links to...you guessed it...WaPo and CNN articles that cite unnamed sources and "Trump is reported to have..." with no links given for the source of this "report". All in all, this story...actually, an opinion piece...is useless.

However, the first sentence of the Clinton story is this: "On June 1, Sen. Chuck Grassley wrote a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson initiating a Senate investigation into recent news claims from Bangladesh government officials that Hillary Clinton, while serving as secretary of state, pressured the Bangladesh prime minister to end an investigation into Clinton Foundation donor Dr. Muhammad Yunus." This gives names...cites facts. While also an opinion piece, it is worlds different from the NSA story.

So...I suggest people think about what they read and don't blindly accept anything...especially if it involves the Mainstream Media.

azgreg said:

So you're saying it's legit. Good to know. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Am I? Show me how.

zimmer said:

Losing elections has consequences... but oddly not for the Clinton Crime Family.

Perhaps one day it'll all come tumbling down as it has in Brazil.

Click to expand...

This is just how business is done in Washington, nothing more.

Mycroft said:

That's why you need to NOT believe everything you read. It's best if you apply some intelligence and reason.

For example, that "NSA Cheif...blah, blah, blah" story said this: "According to multiple reports...", giving links to...you guessed it...WaPo and CNN articles that cite unnamed sources and "Trump is reported to have..." with no links given for the source of this "report". All in all, this story...actually, an opinion piece...is useless.

However, the first sentence of the Clinton story is this: "On June 1, Sen. Chuck Grassley wrote a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson initiating a Senate investigation into recent news claims from Bangladesh government officials that Hillary Clinton, while serving as secretary of state, pressured the Bangladesh prime minister to end an investigation into Clinton Foundation donor Dr. Muhammad Yunus." This gives names...cites facts. While also an opinion piece, it is worlds different from the NSA story.

So...I suggest people think about what they read and don't blindly accept anything...especially if it involves the Mainstream Media.

Click to expand...

Cherry-picking. The site is reliable if it tells you what you want to hear but not to be believed if it strays from the party line. What a blinkered approach to news filtering. The measure is getting to be, are they SOT? Sound On Trump? They're only to believed while they're SOT, and to be dismissed when they let the side down.

Grand Mal said:

Cherry-picking. The site is reliable if it tells you what you want to hear but not to be believed if it strays from the party line. What a blinkered approach to news filtering. The measure is getting to be, are they SOT? Sound On Trump? They're only to believed while they're SOT, and to be dismissed when they let the side down.

Click to expand...

Bull****.

Didn't you read a word I posted? I cited the difference between stories that are based on UNNAMED SOURCES and stories that are based on NAMED SOURCES.

Look, you are welcome to be led around by the Mainstream Media's unnamed sources if you want. Your choice. I'll stick to the facts and quotes from named sources. THEN, I'll apply my own reason and intellect and assess the credibility of the story. When there are NO named sources, the story isn't worth my time. I consider it fake news.

Mycroft said:

Didn't you read a word I posted? I cited the difference between stories that are based on UNNAMED SOURCES and stories that are based on NAMED SOURCES.

Look, you are welcome to be led around by the Mainstream Media's unnamed sources if you want. Your choice. I'll stick to the facts and quotes from named sources. THEN, I'll apply my own reason and intellect and assess the credibility of the story. When there are NO named sources, the story isn't worth my time. I consider it fake news.

Click to expand...

But there were named sources--Mike Rogers, in particular. The reporter, who is himself an intelligence analyst, spoke with multiple NSA employees at the town hall meeting, and they each independently confirmed what Rogers said.

More to the point, though, unnamed sources have been part of journalism since the invention of journalism as a profession. Putting your name to information paints a target on your back, and few people want to be targets. There's no reason that a story based on unnamed sources should be considered fake news.

News outlets have their various journalistic standards. If the standard was good enough to ensure the story about the Clinton's is true, it's good enough to ensure the one about Trump is also true. Your post is so transparently partisan it's unreal.

Now, all of that said--I can totally believe this of Clinton. She and her husband are very nice, down-to-earth folks, who think nothing of using illegal means to crush people they don't like.

ashurbanipal said:

But there were named sources--Mike Rogers, in particular. The reporter, who is himself an intelligence analyst, spoke with multiple NSA employees at the town hall meeting, and they each independently confirmed what Rogers said.

More to the point, though, unnamed sources have been part of journalism since the invention of journalism as a profession. Putting your name to information paints a target on your back, and few people want to be targets. There's no reason that a story based on unnamed sources should be considered fake news.

News outlets have their various journalistic standards. If the standard was good enough to ensure the story about the Clinton's is true, it's good enough to ensure the one about Trump is also true. Your post is so transparently partisan it's unreal.

Now, all of that said--I can totally believe this of Clinton. She and her husband are very nice, down-to-earth folks, who think nothing of using illegal means to crush people they don't like.

Click to expand...

Did you even READ that article? There wasn't a quote from Rogers..."Admiral Rogers anecdotally flatly denied Trump’s request..." That means somebody said that Rogers said...blah, blah, blah. Unnamed sources saying something happened and someone said something...and there isn't a shred of any credibility in the whole thing.

I don't give a rat's ass if unnamed sources have been used since the cave man days. When unnamed sources is ALL that's being used now...and so much of it has been either proven untrue or has absolutely no verification...except, of course, from OTHER unnamed sources...then all of it is utterly worthless.

Yes...news outlets have their standards and now, it seems, they have totally dismissed their standards. And no...the story about Clinton named names...quoted named people. The story about Trump is unidentified hearsay. The story about Clinton can...and presumably will...be investigated. There is nothing to investigate in the Trump story. I mean...who are you going to ask? An unnamed source? LOL!!

As far as the Clinton thing...let's have an investigation.

ashurbanipal said:

But there were named sources--Mike Rogers, in particular. The reporter, who is himself an intelligence analyst, spoke with multiple NSA employees at the town hall meeting, and they each independently confirmed what Rogers said.

More to the point, though, unnamed sources have been part of journalism since the invention of journalism as a profession. Putting your name to information paints a target on your back, and few people want to be targets. There's no reason that a story based on unnamed sources should be considered fake news.

News outlets have their various journalistic standards. If the standard was good enough to ensure the story about the Clinton's is true, it's good enough to ensure the one about Trump is also true. Your post is so transparently partisan it's unreal.

Now, all of that said--I can totally believe this of Clinton. She and her husband are very nice, down-to-earth folks, who think nothing of using illegal means to crush people they don't like.

Click to expand...

Wel, that's the story. Let's look at Media Bias/Fact Checker

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-observer/

It's facts are 'mixed' (I.e. they are not always factual. Plus.. do you know who owns it?? Jared Kushner, who just so happens to be married to Ivanka Trump. Amazing. huh?

Mycroft said:

Did you even READ that article?

Click to expand...

Yes, I read it.

Mycroft said:

There wasn't a quote from Rogers..."Admiral Rogers anecdotally flatly denied Trump’s request..." That means somebody said that Rogers said...blah, blah, blah.

Click to expand...

The letter from Grassley was quoted, but the quote starts with "if," so it's not asserting anything happened. Other than that, there wasn't a quote from anyone named in the Clinton piece, either. The Observer is saying that the Daily Caller reported the story. Someone in the Prime Minister's office told another news agency (Circa) about a call Hillary made. That unnamed someone probably got it from the Prime Minister (or maybe through some other unnamed intermediary, and the Prime Minister got it from his son, presumably. So it goes from son, to Prime Minister, through one or more unnamed sources, to another news agency, to the Observer.

Mycroft said:

Unnamed sources saying something happened and someone said something...and there isn't a shred of any credibility in the whole thing.

Click to expand...

How is that different from the Clinton piece?

Mycroft said:

I don't give a rat's ass if unnamed sources have been used since the cave man days. When unnamed sources is ALL that's being used now...and so much of it has been either proven untrue or has absolutely no verification...except, of course, from OTHER unnamed sources...then all of it is utterly worthless.

Click to expand...

I have no idea why that has anything to do with reality.

Mycroft said:

Yes...news outlets have their standards and now, it seems, they have totally dismissed their standards. And no...the story about Clinton named names...quoted named people.

Click to expand...

Yes, it quoted Grassley, who, from the content of the quote, has to admit he doesn't really know if the accusations against Hillary are true. Other than that, it doesn't quote anyone directly. All the other information is third-hand.

Mycroft said:

The story about Trump is unidentified hearsay.

Click to expand...

Seems less unidentified to me than the Clinton story. Compare: someone in the Prime Minster's office said that the son of the prime minister said to the Prime Minister, who said...to several NSA operatives at the town hall meeting all said that the NSA director said. The only difference between the two stories, in terms of sources, is that the Clinton information travelled through more hands to get to the Observer.

Mycroft said:

The story about Clinton can...and presumably will...be investigated. There is nothing to investigate in the Trump story. I mean...who are you going to ask? An unnamed source? LOL!!

As far as the Clinton thing...let's have an investigation.

Click to expand...

I agree that this should be investigated, provided there's actually any evidence to back up the accusation. You seem to have an odd view of how investigations work. The reporters who are getting the information about Trump are, apparently, getting the information from the investigation. Those sources aren't unnamed to the people investigating.

ashurbanipal said:

Yes, I read it.



The letter from Grassley was quoted, but the quote starts with "if," so it's not asserting anything happened. Other than that, there wasn't a quote from anyone named in the Clinton piece, either. The Observer is saying that the Daily Caller reported the story. Someone in the Prime Minister's office told another news agency (Circa) about a call Hillary made. That unnamed someone probably got it from the Prime Minister (or maybe through some other unnamed intermediary, and the Prime Minister got it from his son, presumably. So it goes from son, to Prime Minister, through one or more unnamed sources, to another news agency, to the Observer.



How is that different from the Clinton piece?



I have no idea why that has anything to do with reality.



Yes, it quoted Grassley, who, from the content of the quote, has to admit he doesn't really know if the accusations against Hillary are true. Other than that, it doesn't quote anyone directly. All the other information is third-hand.



Seems less unidentified to me than the Clinton story. Compare: someone in the Prime Minster's office said that the son of the prime minister said to the Prime Minister, who said...to several NSA operatives at the town hall meeting all said that the NSA director said. The only difference between the two stories, in terms of sources, is that the Clinton information travelled through more hands to get to the Observer.



I agree that this should be investigated, provided there's actually any evidence to back up the accusation. You seem to have an odd view of how investigations work. The reporters who are getting the information about Trump are, apparently, getting the information from the investigation. Those sources aren't unnamed to the people investigating.

Click to expand...

Of course, Grassley is saying "if". It hasn't been investigated by the US yet.

But that "if" is based on solid evidence...evidence that is comprised as no less than statements from the Bangladeshi Prime Minister, her son and the former Foreign Minister. THAT is not something from "unnamed sources". The Daily Caller includes direct quotes from those three people. In fact, the Daily Caller even references an AP article that sources State Department calendar records. This Daily Caller article is the kind of investigative reporting we SHOULD be seeing from the Mainstream Media in all their stories...but don't.

So far, in all the stories...from all the mainstream media...about Trump, NOBODY has been quoted by name. Hell, you don't know if those sources even exist. And how do you KNOW those sources aren't unnamed to the people investigating? Has ANY investigator come out and said they know who those sources are? If so, you should probably give me a quote...I haven't seen it.

The reality is, this Clinton story has mountains of direct evidence. The Rogers story has NO evidence.

Mycroft said:

Of course, Grassley is saying "if". It hasn't been investigated by the US yet.

But that "if" is based on solid evidence...evidence that is comprised as no less than statements from the Bangladeshi Prime Minister, her son and the former Foreign Minister.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not what the article says. It says the Prime Minister's office said.... If the reporter had spoken with the Prime Minister, surely that would have been how the sentence read. Instead, there was some unnamed source who gave out this information. That source doesn't even say (according to the article) that the information came from the Prime Minister--that's a charitable assumption on my part.

Mycroft said:

THAT is not something from "unnamed sources". The Daily Caller includes direct quotes from those three people. In fact, the Daily Caller even references an AP article that sources State Department calendar records. This Daily Caller article is the kind of investigative reporting we SHOULD be seeing from the Mainstream Media in all their stories...but don't.

Click to expand...

First, why is that more credible than an unnamed source? Anyway, I thought we were examining some stories from the Observer, and the fact that you thought one of them was great, and another bad, when the one you like is actually on worse epistemic footing.

Mycroft said:

So far, in all the stories...from all the mainstream media...about Trump, NOBODY has been quoted by name.

Click to expand...

That's pretty obviously false. Here are a few stories that quote someone by name:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/world/europe/trump-campaign-russia.html?_r=0

Trump Supporter Jack Kingston Was Spotted In Russia : NPR

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4668716/sally-yates-warned-white-house-general-flynn-blackmailed

Former Trump adviser says he had no Russian meetings in the last year | PBS NewsHour

Carter Page: ?I don?t deny? meeting with Russian ambassador | MSNBC

(you have to read the last two together)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/comey-hearing-russia-wiretapping/index.html

http://www.latimes.com/politics/was...d-the-trail-of-dead-1490889366-htmlstory.html

I'm sure there are plenty more. I would agree a lot of stories quote unnamed "senior officials." I still don't know why that's a problem.

Mycroft said:

Hell, you don't know if those sources even exist. And how do you KNOW those sources aren't unnamed to the people investigating? Has ANY investigator come out and said they know who those sources are? If so, you should probably give me a quote...I haven't seen it.

Click to expand...

Of course I know those things, and so do you. I am not certain of them, but knowledge and certainty are separate issues. On the other hand, you cannot be certain that (for example) the Prime Minister of Bangladesh's son said the things he is quoted to have said-unless you talked to him personally or something. Established news organizations work hard to tell the truth, as far as they're able to establish it. If we get rid of the anonymous source, we basically get rid of any hope that we know much of anything about what government is really doing, in this day and age.

ashurbanipal said:

Actually, that's not what the article says. It says the Prime Minister's office said.... If the reporter had spoken with the Prime Minister, surely that would have been how the sentence read. Instead, there was some unnamed source who gave out this information. That source doesn't even say (according to the article) that the information came from the Prime Minister--that's a charitable assumption on my part.



First, why is that more credible than an unnamed source? Anyway, I thought we were examining some stories from the Observer, and the fact that you thought one of them was great, and another bad, when the one you like is actually on worse epistemic footing.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to read very well. Maybe you are confused by the fact that there are multiple articles...multiple links...cited here. Maybe you are too lazy to look at those links. I don't know.

However, one of the links referenced is this one... PM: US pressured Joy over Yunus issue | Dhaka Tribune ...that quotes the Prime Minister directly. Her statements...not a spokesman from her office. In any case, a statement from "her office" is not an unnamed source. It is an official source.

This is absolutely more credible than an unnamed source because anyone can go to "her office", or to her, and ask for more information. Nobody can do that with an unnamed source.

Mycroft said:

You don't seem to read very well. Maybe you are confused by the fact that there are multiple articles...multiple links...cited here. Maybe you are too lazy to look at those links. I don't know.

Click to expand...

Cited where? Do you mean in the quoted section of the first post in this thread? Why are those relevant to what we were discussing?

We were talking about some articles in the Observer. If you want to talk about other sources, fine. I've posted plenty of links with named sources about Trump, and there are surely many more.

Mycroft said:

However, one of the links referenced is this one... PM: US pressured Joy over Yunus issue | Dhaka Tribune ...that quotes the Prime Minister directly. Her statements...not a spokesman from her office. In any case, a statement from "her office" is not an unnamed source. It is an official source.

Click to expand...

So, why aren't NSA employees a named source?

Mycroft said:

This is absolutely more credible than an unnamed source because anyone can go to "her office", or to her, and ask for more information. Nobody can do that with an unnamed source.

Click to expand...

I decided to test your theory. After just a little digging, I called up the office of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh (it's surprisingly easy to get multiple phone numbers for the office from a google search). After being on hold for a while, I got someone who speaks English. The man with whom I spoke (didn't catch his name) chided me for wasting his time, and hung up.

Slander and Libel laws generally prevent journalists from just making stuff up. Occasionally they get something wrong, and when they do, most reputable (and even some not-so-reputable) news agencies print a retraction or correction. Journalists are given special access; most of us cannot attend, say, a white house press briefing, or get FBI agents to speak with us about ongoing investigations. That's the point of journalism.

zimmer said:

Losing elections has consequences... but oddly not for the Clinton Crime Family.

Perhaps one day it'll all come tumbling down as it has in Brazil.

Click to expand...

Still at it I see. That is how desperate the right has become I guess. Wanna bet that story was written by Russian trolls? I'll lay you 2 to 1.

Mycroft said:

Bull****.

Didn't you read a word I posted? I cited the difference between stories that are based on UNNAMED SOURCES and stories that are based on NAMED SOURCES.

Look, you are welcome to be led around by the Mainstream Media's unnamed sources if you want. Your choice. I'll stick to the facts and quotes from named sources. THEN, I'll apply my own reason and intellect and assess the credibility of the story. When there are NO named sources, the story isn't worth my time. I consider it fake news.

Click to expand...

The difference is that your unamed sources are Russian trolls. Desperation is setting in I see. Hillary is not in public office. Comrade Trump is.

iguanaman said:

The difference is that your unamed sources are Russian trolls. Desperation is setting in I see. Hillary is not in public office. Comrade Trump is.

Click to expand...

My unnamed sources? Russian trolls? What the hell are you blathering about?

In any case, Hillary might be out of public office (thank god), but she is still subject to criminal charges. That's why Congress wants the DOJ to investigate this issue.

You DO support investigating corrupt politicians (or ex-politicians), don't you?

Mycroft said:

My unnamed sources? Russian trolls? What the hell are you blathering about?

In any case, Hillary might be out of public office (thank god), but she is still subject to criminal charges. That's why Congress wants the DOJ to investigate this issue.

You DO support investigating corrupt politicians (or ex-politicians), don't you?

Click to expand...

The DOJ has their hands full with Trump and his cronies. One thing at a time. We will let "placeholder" Pence deal with that.

iguanaman said:

The DOJ has their hands full with Trump and his cronies. One thing at a time. We will let "placeholder" Pence deal with that.

Click to expand...

Well, after yesterday the DOJ isn't so busy anymore, I guess. So they should start paying attention to Grassley's request.