cvslyeoukael9qc

Last night.

Highlights from Donald Trump’s roast of Hillary Clinton (and others, including his wife) at white tie fundraiser the Alfred E Smith Memorial Dinner in Washington DC last night.

Compiled and augmented with triumphalist airhorn sound effects by pro-Trump and/or anti-Hillary YouTuber Cpt Pipedream

Hillary’s response here

Guests included Cardinal Timothy Dolan (top middle), no stranger to ‘sheet readers.

Meanwhile

Another email from Clinton aide Huma Abedin to Mook and Podesta in January 2015 details how Moroccan authorities donated to the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) to get access to Clinton.

Abedin says the “King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting” and that “the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation. If hrc was not part of it, meeting was a non-starter.”

She goes on to say that the meeting had been Clinton’s idea. “Our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request,” Abedin adds. “She created this mess and she knows it.”

Good times

Best of the worst: Here are the most shocking WikiLeaks Podesta emails so far (RT)

Meanwhile…

Donald Trump is pointing to a stream of hacked emails as proof that Hillary Clinton would be a compromised president, but a surprising number of progressives are drawing similar conclusions — albeit for totally different reasons.

Some of the left’s most influential voices and groups are taking offense at the way they and their causes were discussed behind their backs by Clinton and some of her closest advisers in the emails, which swipe liberal heroes and causes as “puritanical,” “pompous”, “naive”, “radical” and “dumb,” calling some “freaks,” who need to “get a life.”

The very best of times.

WikiLeaks poisons Hillary’s relationship with left (Politico)

Sponsored Link

Related posts:

The Fix Is In Stuck In The Middle Leaking Support Fair And Balanced

53 thoughts on “Roasted”

    2. moould

      you’re saying there’s something distasteful with promoting alt-right propaganda, complete with gunshot sound effects? no way!

    4. munkifisht

      Yep. I may come back from time to time, but it’s like visiting a grandparent who’s slowly losing their minds. The nutters and loonies are in charge now.

      1. MoyestWithExcitement

        And you never left. Still bullying and demeaning everyone you disagree with while at the same time whining about the quality of posts twice a day?

    6. Sheik Yahbouti

      I’d hazard that the boul’ Donald has participated in a few other “roasts” of women in his time.

    1. Neilo

      Doubt it, but this is absolute tripe. Makes me almost nostalgic for the days of never-ending Apple bits. Almost.

  6. Michael

    Broadsheet sharing Russia Today- Putin’s propaganda arm as it uses illegal Russian hacks to interfere with the US election.

    1. Talismania!

      Maybe Broadsheet can follow up by posting some hard hitting journalism from the Korean Central News Agency to show how oppressive the USA is to simple peace loving countries.

      I believe that the records will show that Hillary was not Secretary of State in January 2015, and was not running for president formally until April. I fail to see the smoking gun here.

  7. ceo

    I didn’t hear a word Trump said. I was too distracted by that lady in red (a US news anchor I think). Those ear-rings are mesmerizing.

  8. Listrade

    I’m sure the booing at his comments were all part of the “destroying” her.

    Losing faith that Bodger’s posts are being done ironically.

  10. some old queen

    Trump did not destroy anything, he just repeated the same accusations again. He has no substance.

    Here is a question for you Bodger. Mike Spence, Trump’s running mate, is an out and out homophobic bigot. Do you also support him? I would like an answer please.

  11. Johnny

    “Cardinal Dolan also has a history of alleged attempts to protect the church from the costly fallout of sexual abuse cases. Back in 2013, documents released by the Milwaukee archdiocese—where Dolan served as Archbishop —showed that he had moved $57 million in church funds into a private trust, allegedly to protect it from lawsuits by alleged sex abuse victims. The files also revealed the archdiocese had reassigned priests who were accused of sexual molestation. An attorney representing alleged victims said at the time that the transferred funds were meant to “pay off some of the offenders to quietly go away.”

    https://www.google.com/amp/amp.gothamist.com/amp/articles/create%3farticle_id=57f7c55aada6e27c5876ccca?client=safari

  13. jambon

    Did we all read the same thing? About HILBOT accepting a €12MILLION gift from a corrupt, human rights abuser in return for endorsing said corrupt, human rights abuser? And while this has nothing to do with the vile scumbag in a suit that is Trump, Hillary is just as appalling.

    1. Neilo

      Got it one, jambon: Sophie’s Choice is a lark in comparison to what will confront the US voter in a couple of weeks.

    2. Bob

      Every US president (including Trump, god forbid) has to support despots. There’s no real choice for them. The world isn’t black and white, it’s just various shades of sh*te.

          3. _d_a_n_

            That seems like a strange question. Are we to automatically assume that her wealth is ill-gotten? If it has been ill-gotten, then we should at least have some evidence, instead of scratching our chins and mouthing ‘suspicious’.

            I believe you can read her tax returns somewhere.

          4. MoyestWithExcitement

            “Are we to automatically assume that her wealth is ill-gotten?”

            Do the words ‘generally troubling’ mean ‘automatically assume guilt’?

            “I believe you can read her tax returns somewhere.”

            Are you implying any case about financial irregularities can be solved by just checking tax returns? You recall the Panama papers I assume

    3. _d_a_n_

      She agreed to a meeting to receive funds for the foundation. The foundation is problematic, it seems to serve two purposes, it’s charity work is undeniable, it happens, but it also serves as a networking platform for the global elite. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, I mean the web summit is a networking platform, the problem is the foundation being an intermediary. Say you have a small energy company which has bought x amount of acres in northern Africa and have the ability to route solar power to Morocco at a reasonable price. You may want to meet an official of the Moroccan energy department and you’ve heard the King say nice things about Clinton and seen pictures of their meeting in the press. You buy a ticket to a foundation event, you make a donation and the foundation relates to you when such an official will also be in attendance.

      There’s no endorsement of anyone. The money does go to a registered and regulated charity and the small energy company gets to chinwag with a government official. I don’t see it as enriching.

      There is an assumption of corruption when people talk about politics these days. I am not saying that it doesn’t exist, and the Clinton foundation definitely bothers me, but the discussion usually centers around money. I don’t see money as being the driving force, I see power as the goal, which obviously is much harder to quantify.

      All I’m saying is the truth isn’t as simple as Clinton taking 12 million from King Mohammed and pocketing it because she’s a venal and crass politician and wants to get rich. She’s already rich. She wants power, and the foundation puts her at a nexus of power. We have to ask ourselves why she wants that power. Are her motives honorable? At the base of it I think she wants to live forever, be a hero, like Kennedy, she wants to be worshiped. I just don’t what for yet.

      There’s a lot of noise and static this election cycle and I really hope it calms down.

        1. _d_a_n_

          I’m not sure what your point is here. My point was partly that every situation is complicated and unique. Carter and Clinton are two entirely different political animals. A one term president who handled the Iran hostage crisis, among other things, so badly, that reelection was out of the question, a one term senator and one term governor who came to power using outsider status on the heels of the Watergate scandal, and who benefited greatly from the racist run of George Wallace. The Clintons have been fixtures at the highest echelons of American power longer than Carter’s entire political career. Kings and Leaders were not knocking down Carter’s door. In retirement, controversy did not find him.

          1. Johnny

            It’s not complicated at all-it’s called pay to play.President Carter’s foundation Habitat for Humanity,has done more good that the Clintons with all the kings,queens,masters off the universe ever will.

            “Moderator Chris Wallace pointed out that Clinton had pledged to avoid appearances of conflict of interest between the Clinton Foundation and her work as secretary of state. “But emails show that donors got special access to you. Those seeking grants for Haiti relief were considered separately from non-donors, and some of those donors got contracts, government contracts, taxpayer money,” Wallace said. “Can you really say that you kept your pledge to that Senate committee? And why isn’t what happened and what went on between you and the Clinton Foundation, why isn’t it what Mr. Trump calls pay-to-play?”

            http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/clinton-foundation-pay-to-play-debate/504803/

          2. _d_a_n_

            I don’t think we’re arguing here. I have nothing against habitat for humaity at all. I think you missed my point.

            My point wasn’t that it’s fine. My argument was that it’s not simply access for cash for her pocket, it goes to the foundation, which isn’t her personal ATM, it’s regulated. It’s about power. I am asking the question, what is that power for? What is the aim?

            Pay to play is a media buzz word this cycle that seems to stop any further inquiry. It’s taken as automatically bad in and of itself with no further analysis. I hate it.

            If we are to take the worst case, and a contract is awarded to a company after state department approval, and that company had made a large donation to the foundation, and the foundation used that money for various humanitarian efforts, then we need to ask firstly whether that company deserved the contract or not or whether it was awarded because of the donation, because if it contravened tender and competition regulations the foundation and indeed the Clintons should be punished, and secondly we have to ask whether taking money from large businesses and directing it to relief efforts is actually for the greater good.

            Also, a ‘pay for play’ situation wherein a contract is involved is much different than a meeting with a King.

            All I’m saying is, it’s quite complicated…and nothing to do with Carter.

          3. johnny

            i just leave this here…

            “A top official at the Clinton Foundation said he could name “500 different examples” of conflicts of interest, including some involving former President Bill Clinton, according to more of the e-mails purportedly hacked from the account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.
            The official, Doug Band, allegedly wrote on Nov. 17, 2011, that he had been required to sign a conflict-of-interest statement as a board member of the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, but that the former president “oddly” didn’t have to sign one “even though he is personally paid by 3 cgi sponsors, gets many expensive gifts from them, some that are at home etc”.
            “I could add 500 different examples of things like this,” said Band, who’s no longer affiliated with the foundation. At the time, according to previous releases of alleged e-mails, Band was fighting openly with Chelsea Clinton as she expanded her role at the foundation and accused Band of misusing his influence. In one e-mail he allegedly called her a “spoiled brat kid.”
            http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-20/clinton-foundation-aide-said-to-have-cited-conflicts-of-interest

  14. SomeChump

    Best bit is when he says “I see Hillary isn’t laughing as much as the rest of you” after about 6 Hillary jokes that nobody laughed at.

  15. Boy M5

    These dinners full of bloated Washington egos just go to prove how much of a game this all is.

    One image for the public, another for indoors.

    It’s all rubbish.

  16. Friscondo

    It really does seem some people can’t grasp that there is a possibility that there is a possibility that there can be bad and worse. Also RT is a propaganda outlet, just like the ones that spread a western narrative that we’re subject to. The world seems to be mostly poisonous at the moment. Use a range of media sources and draw conclusions based on fact. Trump being an odious scumbag does not automatically mean HRC is not a deeply flawed and dangerous candidate.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie