Having covered the numerous serious allegations against Clinton, of which the most compelling are illegally and intentionally wiping emails, being completely and utterly reckless with official secrets and generally being “up for sale” & “on the grab” through the Clinton Foundation, I thought I ought to check to see whether there are any compelling allegations against Trump. [I was going to compile a list as I did for Trump – but there just isn’t the same volume or breadth as Clinton]

1. His character is not to the liking of everyone. I put this first, because he’s not my kind of person [?]. Like all business people who can be ruthless. However, to be fair, I’ve not commented on Clinton’s character which is just a hypercritical “I’m for the poor” whilst pocketing 10s of millions.
2. There is an anonymous person (thus preventing any checking) who conveniently came out the woodwork to accuse Trump of rape. Even anti-Trump sites listing “sexual allegations” give this very little credence:
   “A Guardian investigation this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag.” Source vehemently anti-Trump Guardian
3. The star video on an anti-Trump site accuses Trump of saying a this damsel-in-distress looked good and [accidentally] brushing her right breast.

The other ones are of forcing kisses on them [which I was subjected to years from my aunts] and “groping” … But the reason I’m ending this list here, is that all the accusations against Trump I’m reading are so ridiculous and/or petty that I’m starting to question whether I’m reading a pro-Trump website. So, I’m going to go to reliably anti-Trump sites and see what they say:
Here is the Guardian: (which like the BBC is anti-Trump)

Of those, 12 have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, including groping and kissing them without permission

Of the accusations that appeared before Trump announced his candidacy there are:
Ivana Trump – ex-wife alleged in divorce proceedings  forced sex after an argument. How does anyone judge that?
Jill Harth – “Harth filed a lawsuit against Trump in 1997 alleging the harassment, which she later dropped. The pair then briefly dated in 1998.”
All the rest suddenly appeared after he announced his candidacy (and those I looked at were pretty flimsy). Am I at all qualified to say what is acceptable behaviour amongst playboy men and playboy women living in the bubble of publicity? No. Did the women give as good as they get? None appear to be shy retiring types. Could this behaviour be deemed “normal” and even expected at the time and Trump could have got crucified by the same egotistical women if he didn’t try to flirt with them? Probably.
Are people with clear political motives making mountains out of molehills – which almost all erupt after he stands as a Republican. Yes.
Even the anti-Trump media are not coming up with believable allegations. But unfortunately, as the media just love talking about all this “sexual misconduct”, I’m not seeing anything of a real importance or criminality. All I’m getting is idle gossip about sexual misconduct and it’s proving difficult to find any real allegations. So, I’ll do a few searchers:
“Tax Evasion”
Donald Trump says tax evasion is ‘smart’
The real problem with Donald Trump’s tax avoidance?
“Lying”
– Returning the above plus the “he lied about global warming” (what by saying there’s been no significant warming for 18 years)
“Murder”
– nothing obvious
“Corruption”
I found this article: Trump’s history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton supposedly the corrupt one?

Fahrenthold reported that Trump paid a penalty to the IRS after his foundation made an illegal contribution to Bondi’s PAC. While the Trump organization characterizes that as a bureaucratic oversight, the basic facts are that Bondi’s office had received multiple complaints from Floridians who said they were cheated by Trump University; while they were looking into it and considering whether to join a lawsuit over Trump University filed by the attorney general of New York State, Bondi called Trump and asked him for a $25,000 donation; shortly after getting the check, Bondi’s office dropped the inquiry.

I hate to compare corruptions between candidates, but even if true, this $25,000 hardly compares with the 10s of millions that have been going into the Clinton Foundation. We are literally talking a 1:1000 difference in scale here – and if it were substantial, this only real allegation would feature more prominently.
It goes on to list as “allegations”:

• Trump’s casino bankruptcies, which left investors holding the bag while he skedaddled with their money [So some businesses don’t work]
• Trump’s habit of refusing to pay contractors who had done work for him, many of whom are struggling small businesses [I refused to pay a builder because they cocked up – dos that make me a criminal?]
• Trump University, which includes not only the people who got scammed and the Florida investigation, but also a similar story from Texas where the investigation into Trump U was quashed. [It appears some attending the course thought they’d meet Trump – and perhaps they did learn a very important lesson: READ THE MARKETING BLURB CAREFULLY]
• The Trump Institute, another get-rich-quick scheme in which Trump allowed a couple of grifters to use his name to bilk people out of their money. [“National Grants Conferences claimed that it could offer customers hundreds of billions of dollars in “free” government grants and loans.” – and so does Enterprise Scotland – and it’s a bit rich for them to be complaining of marketing – on websites filled with highly dubious marketing]
• The Trump Network, a multi-level marketing venture (a.k.a. pyramid scheme) that involved customers mailing in a urine sample which would be analyzed to produce for them a specially formulated package of multivitamins

[I’m losing the will to look further – these allegations are just getting daft and desperate]

Summary (These allegations are PETTY and in many cases DAFT!!)

Usually, I love to resort to the “all politicians are dishonest” line. However, I am genuinely surprised how superficial all these allegations are. If I could have shown it here, I have included the video of the “crying” damsel (clearly putting on the tears) saying that Trump [brushed] her right breast (yep – and was she complaining it was too much or too little?).
One caveat I’d have about recommending Trump, is that maybe the lack of allegations is because Trump hasn’t had his life put under a microscope for as long as Clinton – although that hardly rings true as it would be incredible that a major celebrity has failed to attract attention from the press!
So, the most serious allegation I can level against Trump is that – he’s not (yet) had experience of the Corrupt US political system. Which also appear to be his major asset.
Will Trump become just as corrupt as the Clintons with time? I personally don’t believe politicians set out with an intention of being corrupt – but they just bend to the corrupt practises around them. But Trump doesn’t need the money.
On the one hand, I’m certain Clinton intentionally & illegally deleted emails and treated US secrets with utter contempt. On the other Trump has been and acted just as I expect all celebrities behave, and acted and behaved like business people like Micro$oft (Indeed I wonder if this is too harsh a comment – to be frank, I can’t judge Trumps business practices because all I’ve heard is through the vile vitriol of people like the BBC.
Can I find anything that legitimately excludes Trump from office – No.
Is Clinton fit for office, certainly not.

 Addendum

It has just occurred to me why the press are zealously pushing the pathetic sexual allegations – in contrast to the clear & compelling criminal charges against Clinton –  there’s nothing else except these petty sexual innuendo to fling at Trump.

Viewing this gathering scandal from Scotland, I assumed that whatever happens Clinton and Trump would go into the election. But then I saw this tweet:

Even if you brough out #BernieSanders right now to replace #HillaryClinton, he will still win in a landslide. #BringBackBernie #Nevertrump

— Krloz Ruben (@KrlozRuben) October 28, 2016

And it occurred to me there might be a possibility of Hillary Clinton withdrawing and Bernie Sanders taking her place.
This helps explain why the emails weren’t released earlier. Because if the democrats were given time to change Clinton for Sanders, then it is possible they could totally bypass this fix they have with Clinton.
Thus, if even one tweeter is considering the possibility of Sanders coming in, I assume that it’s still just too early to release anti clincher emails that would completely destroy Clinton as a candidate.
Based on the time it has taken for this latest batch to make their way from obscure tweets through to FBI notice – and I presume MSM, this suggests that there’s a window of perhaps a bit less than a week for any “clincher” emails to come out.
Popcorn time!

This was scheduled for tomorrow – but with news the FBI are opening the investigation into Clinton, the “mainstream” media are no longer going to be able to ignore the wikileaks and even they are going to realise she doesn’t stand a hope.
With around two weeks to the end of the US presidential election, the strategies of both parties look fairly clear. Trump is set on exposing all the corruption of the Clintons – and Clinton is set on trying to stay alive – no seriously, all the Democrats seem to have left in their closet is to try to play the racist, sexist, bigot or whatever card and pay a string of black, lesbian, disabled, Muslims to claim that Trump …
No doubt the Democrats still believe they have some card “up their sleave” (although the big question online seems to be whether there’s a pee-bag down Hilary’s trouser suit).
But – humour aside – the question that must be dawning on many establishment democrats as they see their lucrative government contracts coming under scrutiny by a non-establishment president elected to rid Washington of corruption, is “where did they go wrong”. They picked a women – the “wife” of slick Bill, who was adored by all the women (who weren’t raped by him) – what more did the US public want?
They had almost total control of the mainstream media – they had the government machinery, they had proven to all the little people that they loved blacks by having Obama – they could even drone Wikileaks if it came to it – what went wrong?
The simple answer is that Clinton was the wrong candidate. They must have known about all the allegations against her, some probably knew about her illness. They knew she was inept, had entirely the wrong character to be president – but she was a woman – and I bet their focus groups told them the US public wanted a women – one who was so corrupt, the establishment had control over her.

Any government knows that there a numerous people from governments to hackers, to criminals who will be attempting to gain information. Having set up an email service, I tend to work on the assumption that any government could access the information if they wanted. For a normal email server, it’s not a question of “if” they break in – it’s more a question of how quickly and how often.
That is why any security specialist in the US government would flip their lid knowing that Clinton had her own email server, as she may as well put the emails online (and apparently that is effectively what has happened with the wikileaks releases)
And as this video explains, people’s lives are at risk – indeed it is quite possible people have died as a result of her careless handling of secret information.
And the reason for punitive punishment – is to drive home to anyone entrusted with this top secret information – where lives are put at risk – that they have to act with the utmost responsibility. Not like some cheap pawn dealer.

This Wikileaks release, pins the blame for the illegal deletion of emails firmly on Hillary Clinton alone.
In a system that is not corrupt, it would now be very easy to say what would happen because Clinton would be or would be going to Jail. But in the US at the moment, not only is she not in jail, she’s running for president – and if the polls from the corrupt biased media were believed, she would be winning.
On that basic, I suppose she will be made a saint for this (although I hear the Catholics are none to pleased at how she described them)

Wow!
It’s seldom that I hear anything from a politician in which I cannot find some glaring lie. If Clinton weren’t a criminal, if I didn’t know that US policy (on climate) hadn’t been corrupted by powerful elites AGAINST the scientific evidence. If I hadn’t seen the numerous allegations against Clinton, the overwhelming support for Trump online and the almost lack of any ordinary person – not same paid stooge or party hack cutting and pasting clips – but someone who knows what they are talking about – genuinely speaking up to support Clinton.
… I might try and saying something bad about Trump. But as the BBC make it their raison d’etre to lie about Trump, I’m not going to try.

I saw a video the other day in which Trump tells a story of Clinton bumping into Trump and saying pardon me:

There’s an email somewhere where Clinton says something to the effect “we better beat Trump or all our heads are in the noose”. I think there is now very little doubt that if Clinton loses, there will be immediate investigations into her. At least one person has gone to jail for far lesser crimes regarding emails than she did. The Clinton foundation is one giant scheme to funnel public money for favours to the Clintons. Bill Clinton has four charges of rape his has to answer (but only obviously if the president is Trump … because Clinton can effectively control any investigation and veto any prosecution).
There are also allegations of executions by the Clintons or those closely associated with them. We’ve already seen the head of Clinton Foundation heading for Russia for asylum. Whether that is because he sees the writing on the wall for the Clinton administration and wants to avoid being prosecuted, or he knows his life will be terminated because he knows too much … or both, I can’t say.
The internet is now boiling with anti-Hillary anger and unless vast numbers of the US voters have no access to the internet, I cannot see Hillary winning.
Why then, if we listen to the likes of the BBC in the UK, do we get the impression of a normal campaign, with no allegations of criminality by Hillary and the impression she is going to win by a landslide? The answer is simple: the “Mainstream” US press are as corrupt as the Clintons. Yesterday I saw a video showing a press conference in which the Clinton minder handed out questions to the journalists – they asked them – then when someone asked an unscripted question the press conference ended.

Is this new?

(From my years monitoring climate coverage I’d say) US politics and mainstream media are about as corrupt as its possible to be. What intrigues me is the question of whether this is a new phenomenon – that has recently been exposed – or is it an old phenomenon that has been going on for decades, even centuries, which is only now being exposed through the internet. I strongly suspect, given the corruption of the press, that this is just the established practice and procedure of US politics and that those involved have always known the system is corrupt. But they’ve also known that if they ever exposed the corrupt system, they would be out of work or their paper would be closed down.
So, no doubt the few honest ones look with envy at the freedom of the internet. Indeed, what may be driving the internet stories are insiders fed up with the corrupt system in which they live, finally using the freedom of the internet to vent their frustration.

… they all fall down

But as we know, it is not just the Clintons and those immediately surrounding them that are corrupt. We know NASA and NOAA have been above the law, able to fabricate temperature data to support the corrupt policy of the Whitehouse (driven by outside funders?). No doubt, after dealing with the Clintons & perhaps those like the FBI that sheltered their criminality, the next level of investigations will encompass NOAA and NASA.
I know NOAA and NASA are corrupt, but that is because I’ve spent over a decade carefully monitoring the crap they produce and I know that only a corrupt organisation could produce what they do. But how many other organs of government are there? How many of these have been similarly “upjusting” the figures to Whitehouse policy. If I’m anticipating a number of arrests in NOAA and NASA – how many other departments have similar corruption that will result in similar arrests? What I know will only be the tip of the ice-berg, and if that ice-berg is fully exposed, I know that even knowing there will be far more than I imagine, I am still going to be surprised.

Republicans and Democrats … the all fall down

A system doesn’t get this corrupt without tacit acquiescence from politicians. The media don’t act like a Big Brother propaganda machine – if they know in a few years time their corruption will be exposed by the next party. It therefore seems highly likely to me that this corruption in the US political system goes across all parties. In other words, there will be key people in all parties with their hands in the government kitty – taking money from outsiders to change policy to suit them – and just generally abusing the system to enrich themselves.
Indeed, it is not impossible that the level of corruption is greater in the Republicans. In Hillary Clinton falls, then Bill Clinton goes. If they go, Heads will roll at the FBI and others charged with investigating them who did not investigate them properly. The Clinton Foundation already looks to be going … but presumably all those who gave bribes to the Clintons will similarly face investigation. Then we have all the lower level officials like NASA NOAA and surely eventually the investigation will turn its light on the politicians.
I’m not suggesting all politicians are corrupt – but as the MPs expenses in the UK showed, some certainly are and there’s no distinction of party. So, if Clinton goes, there are many Republicans who will also be shaking in their boots.

And if Clinton wins

Soros will get a huge payout for helping the Clintons with his voting machines.
https://youtu.be/FhdRr3oFcrA
Trump will never see a US government contract – will have the full weight of every investigative agency levelled at him and will be generally hounded out of the US (to Scotland?? Argh!). The sycophantic press will be granted exclusive rights over any US news (what’s new?). There will be a green light to “upjusting” data of all kinds. Bribery and corruption will become endemic (what’s new).
But  most importantly of all … the Clintons will try to destroy the internet freedom which nearly brought them and all the “ring a roses” down. Just as Google now gives prominence to any “official” source, so that e.g. articles on WUWT appear around page 30 of any search unless it specifically mentions WUWT, so this control over what we read and see will be rolled out by various means to all internet channels.
Fortunately, I think the internet is far more robust than they imagine – like wacky-mole – they’ll stamp down on one place, only to have internet freedom appear elsewhere – because the internet cannot be controlled like the press to be a mouthpiece of the Whitehouse. However … there are ways of massively corrupting what we read and Google is a prime example.
So this presidential race is far more important than just who governs the US. Because in a real sense it will determine what freedoms the whole world shares in the future. If Trump wins – the forces that want to repress internet freedoms will be too busy staying out of jail to plan more attacks on our freedom. But if Clinton wins ….. BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

In my last post I listed all the allegations against Hillary Clinton. But because I’m aware that I’ve been receiving an overwhelming (100%) predominance of pro-Trump (or is that anti-Clinton) tweets, I thought I should try to seek out the Democrats on twitter and find what they were saying.
Well I’m now getting pretty pissed off! Not by democrats – but by pro-Trump supporters – not because what they are saying but because there are just so many tweets pro-Trump that I’m struggling to find any real person who supports Clinton.
I did at one time think, I’d found one, when I saw a link to a video. But then having watching an appalling “as a women you should vote for Hillary because she’s a woman” video (which no juicy allegations against Trump – what a waste of time that was) … I spotted a whole host of the same tweets at the same time from a number of different accounts. So, far from being a real person, it was just a series of Bots.
That is not to say there isn’t the occasional democrat, however they are almost invariably just clicking on some link on some obsessively pro-Clinton journalist.  There’s no thought in the tweet  – so I can’t say what the people think themselves.
This effect – the overwhelming swing to one side was exactly what we saw at #brexit – indeed if I’m honest it’s also what we saw before the SNP victory. One side is totally demoralised – it stops tweeting and we then see twitter dominated by one side, with a very few tweeters – clearly either party hacks or paid workers – valiantly trying to be heard amongst the deafening roar for the other side.
I’ve even opened up a private window and viewed the hashtags from that in case twitter was filtering out pro-Trump tweets for me. But apparently not.
The only note of caution I’d add, is that the twitter userbase in the US may be different – so perhaps it is inherently dominated by Trump supporters, so the number may not reflect the general population. Also, I’ve not been monitoring the debate – so unlike #brexit where I could see the change, I come to the US election as a “snapshot” which means I cannot see the trend.
Note I’ve tried #democrat #democrats #hillaryclinton @hillaryclinton #clinton2016 (or perhaps #hillary2016)

Not being from the US, I’ve been coming across a bombardment of allegations against Hillary Clinton, many of which appear so serious that it just beggars belief that she is not in jail let alone was never investigated and there are just so many I cannot comprehend the scale and breadth.
But when I came across this video

listing “21 reasons why so many people hate Hilary Clinton”, I took the opportunity to list the allegations and try and make sense as to which are serious and compelling and which may be just Republican mischief making:

1. There is strong evidence she has some form of illness causing her to stumble, have spasms & uncontrolled movements. She is also described as forgetful by people working for her. There’s clearly some form of illness – at her age that is not unexpected, and the illness may not exclude her from office, but the US people ought to know about it and lying about having the illness does in my view exclude her from office.
2. Several people who have worked with her testify that she is cold and lacks empathy with other people – again not a crime – but from the viewpoint of those outside the US these are not the attributes we want in someone with their finger on the nuclear button who could blow up half the globe.
3. Email Liar – there is clear public testimony that she knowingly lied about her email server which had the emails deleted. When she knew it was criminal to do so. I don’t think there is any question she committed a crime in this instance.
4. She also had high security information on a very insecure server (so insecure the emails have found their way to wikileaks). As I understand it, not securing highly secret information like this is also illegal under US law.
5. I read somewhere from what I remember was a credible source, that when Wikileaks started to release emails Hilary asked to “drone” Julian Assange. This is illegal under US law and she would have known it. It also smacks of a trigger happy person who has no regard for law and order.
6. Bill Clinton raped four women – obviously that crime was committed by her husband and he is the one who should be investigated. Those  in themselves do not exclude her from office (except for the bad choice of having a rotten husband) – but the fact she threatened the rape victims to keep them silent does.
7. (This is new to me) Vince foster was “mysteriously suicided“, office plundered and files destroyed, then ended up with carpet follicles on him, placed by a river with the blood going upwards. I don’t know what links them to the Clintons … but it needs a proper investigation. And there are more allegations of murders: “A lot of it might not be true, but how many freak accidents associated with the Clintons and working against the Clintons can we have until someone starts to wonder … mysteriously chopped up in dumpsters“. I admit US politics is dirty – and perhaps allegations like this are commonplace. But I have to mention that the head of the Clinton Foundation (who presumably could testify against Clinton) has sought political asylum in Russia apparently in fear of his life. This suggests that people close to the Clintons know their life is at risk.
8. The Clinton foundation. There are whole videos just on the corruption. The most credible allegations involve payments to the foundation for contracts in Haiti and the the way very little money donated to Haiti through the foundation got to Haitians (as recounted by the ex president of Haiti). Another very specific allegation is the way Clinton’s brother ended up with a plush job in one of those given a lucrative contract.
9. Benghazi – she was responsible for an initial press release blaming a video and slow to acknowledge it was a terrorist attack “they [republicans] blame Clinton for being among those who misled the public ‘rather than tell the American people the truth and increase the risk of losing an election.'”. There does not appear to be a criminal act here.
10. George Soros (his name keeps coming up – but I do not know why)
11. Destabilising middle east then arming ISIS. (Sounds like it is difficult to pin on her personally)
12. Taking money from sexist Saudis and other dictators with appalling human rights and then falsely claiming to be fighting for women. This is important because she herself is making a huge thing about being a woman. She can’t support regimes that treat women like dirt and then claim to be on the side of women (unless she’s a sexist, racist Xenophobe).
13. Claims she is named after Sir Edmund Hilary who climbed Everest – even though she was born several years before the event. There appears to be an excuse about reading the name in a bee-keeping magazine. It doesn’t sound credible.
14. Lying about landing in Bosnia under fire “where the welcoming ceremony had to be moved inside because of sniper fire” – video shows her speaking to girls on the Tarmac. What makes this so poignant is the remarks were made in Waco (A place in US where there had been a massacre)
15. Election rigging – there is repeated allegations that electronic machines change Republican votes to Democrat. It’s not clear what involvement Hillary has nor what scale or change of result this caused. It is very concerning it can happen – and if there is evidence it is still happening – no matter the scale – then the election should be declared void and retaken in those states using electronic machines.

On the Email scandal, I searched for the Democrat “response” and found very little at all defending her action. Eventually I found a video so banal and obtuse in that it did not at all addressing the serious points that I searched again and found this (which compares the same video with another to show the blatant lies and serious criminal activity):

In particular, the statement that she used multiple devices is highly damning as is the fact that they intentionally wiped the system clean so that it was no possible to forensically recover the emails that had been deleted.
Given her consistent lies, it is almost certain she illegally wiped emails which would themselves have been evidence of criminal activity. Or to put it another way, she intentionally removed all the evidence she could have used to prove she was not a criminal fraud who should be in jail.

For anyone who has children in Scotland or has family or friends with children in Scotland this video will make your stomach churn knowing that it could so easily happen to any honest person.
I watched it all the way through, and I’ve never felt so uncomfortable knowing that the people accused of such corruption could so easily do the same to me and my family.
However, like Brian & Janice Docherty I would speak out in exactly the same way and expect the justice system, social workers and courts to behave with integrity and bring those who are actually breaking the law in the various agencies to justice.
Yes as a sceptic, I always consider the possibility that the testimony I see is untrue. Indeed the scale of the allegations are so enormous it beggars belief that it could happen. However, if these people are telling lies, then they need an Oscar for their performance because they are the best actors I’ve seen. So, is the story credible? I have never seen something like this, but I too have seen police corruption – using threats of “bringing in social services” to try to threaten individuals. So it does ring true.
Therefore it appears to be two ordinary people who appear to have acted entirely properly. Their only “crime” was to report a person who offered a large sum of money for access to their child. They reported it – just as I would have done – but instead of investigating the potential paedophile, it appears that the alleged paedophile was friendly with a “viscount”  who in turn was friendly with the police and in turn the social workers and as a result, these agencies in NE Scotland colluded, to turn a simple report of a potential paedophile and what would presumably have been a relatively simple investigation – possibly with no outcome – into a massive internationalist affair with police monitoring – insinuations of more and more corruption – a complete failure of the legal profession in Ireland to help and what amounts to full blown harassment and criminal conspiracy against the couple by numerous agencies.
Reports were fabricated by people who had never met them – they were kept under observation (apparently by anti-terrorist units). Children were seized forcibly with no paper work. Procedures were not followed and at no time does it appear there was any accusation except that they had made the original complaint – and then as the harassment continued, they properly reported each case of harassment.
It is just mind boggling that it could happen.
And to sum it all up – there were attempts to prevent the couple discussing the case or letting anyone know what had happened.
PLEASE Watch the video and make up your own mind .
https://youtu.be/k4J4KGHS0Rg

Addendum

I’ve spent a few hours this morning trying to find “the other side” of this case. The best I could find was a “devil’s advocate” comment on this blog: https://catholictruthblog.com/2016/01/11/state-vs-parents-scots-father-fights-to-protect-family-against-authorities-in-scotland-and-ireland/
I’ve taken out the parts of the comment that seem most relevant:

Continue reading →