“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Monday, August 01, 2016

Crooked Hillary: Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said Russians trying to help Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump -But What are the connections with the Clintons and Russia?

The Clinton Foundation, State and Kremlin Connections

Why did Hillary’s State Department urge U.S. investors to fund Russian research for military uses?

Peter Schweizer
Hillary Clinton touts her tenure as secretary of state as a time of hardheaded realism and “commercial diplomacy” that advanced American national and commercial interests. But her handling of a major technology transfer initiative at the heart of Washington’s effort to “reset” relations with Russia raises serious questions about her record. Far from enhancing American national interests, Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in this area may have substantially undermined U.S. national security. 

Consider Skolkovo, an “innovation city” of 30,000 people on the outskirts of Moscow, billed as Russia’s version of Silicon Valley—and a core piece of Mrs. Clinton’s quarterbacking of the Russian reset. 

Following his 2009 visit to Moscow, President Obama announced the creation of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state directed the American side, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represented the Russians. The stated goal at the time: “identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people.”

The Kremlin committed $5 billion over three years to fund Skolkovo. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department worked aggressively to attract U.S. investment partners and helped the Russian State Investment Fund, Rusnano, identify American tech companies worthy of Russian investment. Rusnano, which a scientific adviser to President Vladimir Putin called “Putin’s child,” was created in 2007 and relies entirely on Russian state funding
What could possibly go wrong?

Soon, dozens of U.S. tech firms, including top Clinton Foundation donors like Google, Intel and Cisco, made major financial contributions to Skolkovo, with Cisco committing a cool $1 billion. In May 2010, the State Department facilitated a Moscow visit by 22 of the biggest names in U.S. venture capital—and weeks later the first memorandums of understanding were signed by Skolkovo and American companies.

By 2012 the vice president of the Skolkovo Foundation, Conor Lenihan—who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation—recorded that Skolkovo had assembled 28 Russian, American and European “Key Partners.” Of the 28 “partners,” 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.

Russians tied to Skolkovo also flowed funds to the Clinton Foundation. Andrey Vavilov, the chairman of SuperOx, which is part of Skolkovo’s nuclear-research cluster, donated between $10,000 and $25,000 (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton’s family charity. Skolkovo Foundation chief and billionaire Putin confidant Viktor Vekselberg also gave to the Clinton Foundation through his company, Renova Group.

Amid all the sloshing of Russia rubles and American dollars, however, the state-of-the-art technological research coming out of Skolkovo raised alarms among U.S. military experts and federal law-enforcement officials. Research conducted in 2012 on Skolkovo by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth declared that the purpose of Skolkovo was to serve as a “vehicle for world-wide technology transfer to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.” 
Moreover, the report said: “the Skolkovo Foundation has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project—the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine. . . . Not all of the center’s efforts are civilian in nature.”

Technology can have multiple uses—civilian and military. But in 2014 the Boston Business Journal ran an op-ed placed by the FBI, and noted that the agency had sent warnings to technology and other companies approached by Russian venture-capital firms. The op-ed—under the byline of Lucia Ziobro, an assistant special agent at the FBI’s Boston office—said that “The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from the companies.”
Ms. Ziobro also wrote that “The [Skolkovo] foundation may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application.” 

To anyone who was paying attention, the FBI’s warnings should have come as little surprise. A State Department cable sent to then-Secretary Clinton (and obtained via WikiLeaks) mentioned possible “dual use and export control concerns” related to research and development technology ventures with Moscow. And in its own promotional literature Skolkovo heralded the success of its development of the Atlant hybrid airship. 

“Particularly noteworthy is Atlant’s ability to deliver military cargoes,” boasts the Made in Skolkovo publication: “The introduction of this unique vehicle is fully consistent with the concept of creating a mobile army and opens up new possibilities for mobile use of the means of radar surveillance, air and missile defense, and delivery of airborne troops.”

Even if it could be proven that these tens of millions of dollars in Clinton Foundation donations by Skolkovo’s key partners played no role in the Clinton State Department’s missing or ignoring obvious red flags about the Russian enterprise, the perception would still be problematic. (Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Clinton Foundation responded to requests for comment.) What is known is that the State Department recruited and facilitated the commitment of billions of American dollars in the creation of a Russian “Silicon Valley” whose technological innovations include Russian hypersonic cruise-missile engines, radar surveillance equipment, and vehicles capable of delivering airborne Russian troops.
A Russian reset, indeed.

Mr. Schweizer is president of the Government Accountability Institute and the author of “ Clinton Cash.” A larger report on the subject of this article is available at



    September of 2005: Canadian Frank Giustra visits Kazakhstan with Bill Clinton. Days later, his company UrAsia wins a major uranium deal with the country.

    * 2006: Giustra donates $31 million to the Clinton Foundation.

    * February 2007: UrAsia merges with Uranium One and expands into the U.S..*
    + June 2008: Russian atomic agency Rosatom begins talks to acquire Uranium One.

    * 2008 to 2010: Uranium One and UrAsia investors donate $8.65 million to Clinton Foundation.

    * June 2009: Rosatom acquires 17% of Uranium One.

    * 2010 to 2011: Millions more donated by Uranium One investors to Clinton Foundation.

    * June 2010: Rosatom requests Committee on Foreign Investment (of which the State Department is a member and its approval is needed) to approve a majority ownership in Uranium One, promising not to purchase 100% of it nor take it private.

    * June 2010: Bill Clinton receives $500,000 to speak at a conference held by the Russian investment bank involved in the Rosatom transactions.

    * October 2010: Committee approves Rosatom’s request to acquire a majority share in Uranium One.

    * January 2013: Rosatom purchases remainder of Uranium One and takes it private.

    The origins of the story were reported in the NY Times in 2008 by Jo Becker, a co-author of the recent NYT piece:

  2. Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton….

    Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.

    The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

    Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month.


    There are intricacies and subtleties to this story that aren’t evident in the timeline.

    For example, when Hillary assumed the job as Secretary of State, she assented to a limitation of the foundation’s international activities and agreed to disclose contributors. It appears, at a minimum, there was incomplete follow-through upon these assurances.

    Furthermore, those involved in the transactions have denied that any special privileges were sought and that the donations were completely unrelated. The former chairman of Uranium One said this to Bloomberg News:

    “I have never met Hillary Clinton. This donation was made in support of Frank Giustra, my business partner and friend for more than 20 years. There was no thought of influencing anyone.”

    The Clinton campaign has denied that Hillary had any direct involvement in Rosatom’s obtaining approval to complete the deal. A spokesman said that no one:

    “…has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.”

    On the other hand, an individual – requesting anonymity – with knowledge of the Clintons’ fundraising operations, commented on the possible motivations for giving massive sums of money to the foundation:

    “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?”



    Mrs. Clinton said evidence that Russia was responsible for the email hack attack on the Democratic National Committee, coupled with what she described as Mr. Trump’s soft-on-Russia policies, raised serious concerns about the New York billionaire’s fitness for the White House.


    Hillary Clinton is a better fit to be in an orange jumpsuit than the Clinton Crime Family back in The White House.

  6. .

    From the previous thread on Trump insulting the mother of an American hero

    The media is so biased for Clinton and against Trump, that I doubt anything they report will be taken seriously.

    Nonsense. Look at the polls.

    Did the Clintons and the DNC know exactly what they were doing in putting the parents of a dead American hero up at the convention? Yes. Was he Muslim? Yes. Was it political? Yes.

    So what?

    Did Trump respond to the politics? No. Did he respond to the charges? No

    He did what he always does. He went on a bigoted tirade about the mother of the soldier because she was too choked up to speak. Typical Trump. He's an asshole. and surely not fit for president.

    You defend the indefensible.


    1. I stand by my quote that you refer to. I also said: Khizr Khan and his wife allowed themselves to be used as political pawns by the Clintons. It was Hillary Clinton’s vote that sent Capt. Khan to his death. It was Keizer Khan that attacked Donald Trump questioning his citizenship, right to free speech, understanding of the US Constitution and did in a public national televised event where Trump could not respond.

      Mr Khan, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

      Mr. Trump, Clinton Baited you and you fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

      Is that a defense or a statement of the facts with a final opinion that Clinton played Trump and Trump fell for it?

      Tie the two posts together and I conclude that Clinton is unfit to be president and is actually a worse choice than Trump. That is what makes a horse race.

    2. .

      Hillary has nothing to do with this. This is about Trump, his words and his personality.

      How can you, having been in the service justify or at least rationalize, his comments about the mother?

      Trump's a slimeball.

      The fact that he can't respond to criticism with an effective argument argues to his intelligence and ability to act under pressure.

      The fact that he responds by attacking the mother in the way he did speaks to the fact that he is a slimeball.

      The fact that he seems so defensive in the way he strikes out at anyone who criticizes him speaks of a massive insecurity likely a massive inferiority complex. To my mind, that is dangerous especially in someone who seeks the presidency.

      I repeat you defend the indefensible. In this, you remind me of another here.


    3. The father is hardly a victim. There are ten of thousands of US dead and wounded victims of the unnecessary US war in Iraq.
      They are victims of Washington politicians. If the Clintons were concerned about the consequences of that war on US military veterans and their families, there is a pool of tens of thousands they could have paraded before the Nation. That would have had a politically unfortunate consequence for ex US Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. She voted for the war
      I’ll save my fire for what she did as SOS.

      The Clintons opted for a twofer. Get a family who happens to be a dead Muslim veteran and make the point about Trump’s insensitivity for his criticisms about Muslims entering the US and use the dead veterans family to screen Hillary from her vote. Change the subject.

      The father went for it and came to the podium with props, a sad face and his portable US Constitution. He entered the political arena and waved the red flag in front of the bull, Trump. Trump foolishly took the bait and instead of fighting by Marquess of Queensberry rules, went to bite off an ear.

    4. FYI

      One of the happy consequences of having been in the US military as an enlisted man during the period of conscription and Viet Nam, is that it was an age where people kept it real about what the military is and isn’t. It was pre-OOrah and gungho lifers were not something that required mandatory adulation.

      We did not show up for domestic flights in combat uniforms and expect for people to thank us for our service. We represented the real country. The officers and deferred enlistees were overwhelmingly Republican and the enlisted and NCO ranks, Democrats. We were citizen soldiers prepared and trained to defend our country, but we were not drones and knew that all politicians and ranks over a major were all politicians and basically all full of shit.

  7. So because he is a Muslim and only because, Hillary parades this guy in front of the cameras whose son was killed in combat 12 years ago. A typical slimy Muslim man, in a nice expensive suit, with his wife 2 steps behind him with her head covered not allowed to speak. And your calling Trump an asshole? She's too choked up to speak? After 12 years? Please.

    Hillary likes to talk about the war on women, but let's this guy speak at the convention like some kind of show pony, with his slave wife standing behind him? Please.

    I see these Muslim men all over the country in their expensive clothes, designer jeans, shirts half buttoned, and lots of gold jewelry, and their poor slave wives are always 3 to 5 steps behind them, never holding the door for them as enter or leave a building, not opening car doors for them, etc. They may as well have them on a leash.

    War on women? Right. Islam has nothing to do with Terror? Right.

    1. .

      A typical slimy Muslim man, in a nice expensive suit, with his wife 2 steps behind him with her head covered not allowed to speak.

      Your words speak for themselves. There is no need me to respond further.

      If you want me to respond further I will.


    2. You make the most sense when you keep your trap shut.

      You are talking about ONE incident.

      Hustled up on stage at the Convention as a gotcha.

      If you got to run your mouth of purity run it about the Hillary Foundation and the Ruskie Uranium Deal.

      What new has gone done in Mafia World ? What's all the Talk of The Day at insfo-central, The Barber Shop ?

      Did you finally get a hair cut ?


    3. What about Hillary's Response to Mrs Smith ?

      Comment on that, Our Ethical Highness, or get back to The Barber Shop with you. Where your silence is golden.

      You are missed like a full spittoom.

    4. .

      Your comments reflect the reasons for my comments on no intelligent life here. You are a hick that is dumb as a rock.

      It is no wonder you favor Trump, you have the same mentality. Rather than answer a charge you divert, you change the subject, you make an ass of yourself.

      My comments were about Trump yet you attempt to change the conversation to Hillary, to her foundation, to the Russian uranium deal. What the fuck does that have to do with Trump's boorish comments about the mother of an American hero?

      Bob, you are one dumb fuck. Do us a favor and slink off to the casino.


    5. No one wants you to respond further.

      Most here have had a gut of you already.

      Your absence was not missed.

      Go back to you faux advertising agency.

      Sell winter boots, or something.

    6. .

      Of course, you don't want to respond you dumb ass.


  8. I called him typically slimy by the way he treats his wife. Anyone who treats his wife that way is slimy, in my book. So you must approve of that treatment of women? Wow, very telling.

    1. .

      Another moronic comment.


    2. Another moronic comment by Quirk.

      No even a denial.

      Just a moronic comment.

    3. Quirk, let's face it, doesn't have a real stronging history of bring to light and complaining about moslem mistreatment of women across the world.

    4. Quirk gets a C- in this regard.

      WiO - A+
      Bob - A+
      Doug - A+
      Sam - A+
      Smirk, Quirk and the other fakaroo libs quite further down this list....

    5. Mome,

      How do you have any idea how he treats his wife? Do you have any information beyond what you observed on TV at the convention because if that is what you based your comments on it does not reflect well on your at all.

  9. The optimum would be that Trump and Clinton so destroy each other that the Libertarian party becomes a viable option.

    1. The optimum would be that Trump and Clinton and Johnson so destroy themselves that Jill becomes a viable option.

    2. My agreement is to the Libertarian party option, not Jill.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. Hey Ash

    Have you ever flown WestJet? Your opinion? thanks.

    1. Once I think. My impression of the airline is a basic cram in the plane as many folks as possible, charge for all extras, and sell tickets for a good price. It seems to be a successful and growing enterprise.

  12. The Lord's Hands never being idle.....later

    Cheers !

    1. Now you are doing the Lord’s work are you?

    2. Never done. Always something more.

      Suggestion for Quirk, the guy with the time on is hands:

      Look up and read the history of The Clinton Foundation and Haiti, and give us a 1,0000 word report.

  13. No more Mr Nice Guy with Quirk.

    I'm takin' the gloves off on his High Snootyness, and Now.

    I'm calling the old ad fraud out from behind the spittoon.

  14. Corey Lewandowski: If Trump were president, the Khans’ son would still be alive

    posted at 11:31 am on August 1, 2016 by Allahpundit

  15. Since Quirk has obviously scurried back into hiding, I'm heading out to do some things....

    Cheers !

    1. The fact that Quirk never has anything positive to say, never takes ann proactive Smirk.....just always bitch bitch bitch....this is coming to an end....

  16. Gallup Good Jobs Index continues to soar 47%


  17. CBS News has it as

    Clinton/Kaine 46%

    Putin/Trump 39%

  18. This weekend, HRC went on Fox News to try and sway Republican voters who may not vote for Trump. Here is a little of the transcript as Chris Wallace asks her about the email security scandal.

    Wallace: After a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true.

    Mrs. Clinton: Chris, that’s not what I heard Director Comey say, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity, in my view, clarify.
    Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.


    I wish I would have know that tactic when I was a kid. My dad: "son, I told you to cut the grass." Me: "sorry, dad, that's not what I heard, I thought you said I didn't need to cut the grass."

    I recall Comey all but throwing her under the bus before he remembered his secret visit from Bill, then he said she wouldn't shouldn't be indicted.

    Recividism at its best. Serial lying at its worst.

  19. Wallace followed up the question with clips of Comey answering questions from Rep. Trey Gowdy during a hearing July 7, two days after the director announced his recommendation not to prosecute:

    Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?

    Comey: That’s not true.

    Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” Was that true?

    Comey: There was classified material emailed.

    Recividism at this best. Serial lying at its worst.

  20. The post is on Hillary, the Clinton Foundation and Russia.
    Quirk attempts to turn it into a column on Trumps personality.

    A proven crook and traitor against a proven blowhard.

    ...Quirk evidently supports the traitor.

    1. Rufus simply cheers on the ignorant supporters of the Traitor.

  21. Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

    As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

    And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
    Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left.

    Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

  22. "Good Star Families"

    This is the firs I've heard the term. I take it this has been a long time term used by the political/military class? It's kinda creepy - I remember getting gold stars in school; it was a good thing.

    1. Errrr "Gold Star Families"

    2. We had silver and red stars, also.

      Hillary should wear a Red Star.

  23. Julian Assange: Hacked Emails Include Info On Hillary’s Arming of Jihadists, Including ISIS, in Syria

    Hillary Clinton denied she knew about the weapons shipments during public testimony (under oath) in early 2013 after the Benghazi terrorist attack.

  24. It will all depend on what she HEARD.

  25. Khizr Khan is the father of a true American who gave his life for his country. He is also everything that is wrong with American politics today.

    It is not entirely his fault, though he has only himself to blame for allowing his dead son to be used for the most hideous of purposes and dragged through the gutter of nasty and dishonest partisan politics.

    Khan and his wife took to the stage at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia last week to deliver an impassioned rebuke of Donald J.Trump that was universally celebrated by the media. Even Republican politicos swooned at the gambit. The Clinton campaign trotted out the Muslim couple because their son, Captain Humayun Khan, was killed by a car bomb in 2004 while guarding a base in Iraq.
    “If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America,” said Khan, sliding easily into the political tradition of lying and distorting the position of one’s opponent.

    “Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims,” he went on. “He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country.”

    Despite all efforts by the media to distort Trump’s position about “banning” Muslims, he has made perfectly clear time and again that he does not want to ban all Muslims. He wants to simply perform thorough and complete background checks on all immigrants coming from countries presently in the grips of violent Islamic terrorism.

    Yes, that means if you are a Muslim who wants to immigrate from Syria or Afghanistan, you are going to get a lot more scrutiny than if you are a Jew trying to immigrate from Canada. That is most unfortunate, but not nearly as unfortunate as innocents getting slaughtered by 10th Century savages killing in the name of Allah.

    Anyway, this higher scrutiny should be no obstacle for the likes of Khizr Khan and his family, except for the additional hassle.

    So, why would Khizr Khan choose to insert himself into politics and demean his son’s sacrifice by lying at a political convention on national television?

    The answer is simple: He allowed himself to be tricked into it. And the Clinton campaign was all too eager to take advantage of him and his family and Capt. Khan and use them for their own political partisan purposes.



    1. Stop for a moment and ask yourself how exactly the Clinton campaign arrived at the decision to trot out the Khan family in the middle of their highly-choreographed, exhaustively produced convention?

      Were they just looking to give voice to the parents of a soldier? That would be a first. Did they want parents of anyone who had died abroad in the defense of their country? Gee, why not pick the parents of one of the fallen warriors who died defending the U.S. consulate in Benghazi? Oh, that’s right. They would have called Hillary Clinton a liar. Can’t have that.

      No. Politicians like Hillary Clinton do not see people like Capt. Humayun Khan as a soldier who made the ultimate sacrifice on a foreign battlefield in defense of his country.

      Politicians like Hillary Clinton see him only a demographic, a dispensable political pawn to be scooted around an electoral map, the way generals used to move armies across giant maps of the lands they were invading.

      But instead of liberating Europe from evil fascists, politicians like Hillary Clinton use their long, worn croupier rakes to move their pawns about with the singular goal of advancing their own personal political careers.

      To her, Capt. Khan is not a just soldier who died defending his country in a foreign land. First and foremost, to her, he is a Muslim of Pakistani heritage and therefore is a perfect political pawn for just the right situation.

      For just about every American alive, Capt. Khan is an inspiring and unifying figure. To Hillary Clinton, he is a tool to be used to divide people. In her false promise of unifying America, she creates a national political Babylon. Her avaricious greed for more and more power knows no bounds.

      It is an open secret in Washington that politics is the last bastion of rampant racial profiling. Both parties do it, but Democrats have taken it to a whole new scientific level.

      Politicians like Hillary Clinton slice and dice people into racial and gender groups. Then they toot on all their little “dog whistles” to send all their little demographic pawns scurrying in various directions. That is how you wind up with Khizr Khan standing on stage beside his head-scarved wife, waving around the U.S. Constitution and distorting Donald Trump’s position on keeping radical Islamic terrorism at bay.

      Perhaps a better testimony from Khizr Khan would have been for him to talk about how Hillary Clinton was in the U.S. Senate when she voted to invade Iraq. Years later, after that position became politically unpopular, she changed her mind and joined new political forces to vacate all the land across Iraq that so many great American patriots like Capt. Humayun Khan had died for.

      It was her vote that sent Capt. Khan to his death. And then it was her decisions later to render that sacrifice worthless.

      Charles Hurt - The Hill

    2. " He wants to simply perform thorough and complete background checks on all immigrants coming from countries presently in the grips of violent Islamic terrorism."

      Riiiiight- trying to put lipstick on the pogo. Thats not what Trump said only what he's said after he realized the stupidity of his original statement.

  26. Quirk: My comments were about Trump yet you attempt to change the conversation to Hillary, to her foundation, to the Russian uranium deal. What the fuck does that have to do with Trump's boorish comments about the mother of an American hero?

    This mother of the American hero was silent on stage. Please show me another recent example of a couple walking up to a microphone, during a convention that did not at least say something.

    It seems to me it was observant of Trump to notice her silence.

    1. Ummm, dude, he did more than simply notice her silence.

    2. Maybe she should have spoken up and not been a woman standing behind her dominating, Islamic husband.

      Then no one would have said anything.

  27. Quirk needs to learn to keep his silence.

    Then the atmosphere in the Bar would be much improved, the 'guffaw' level would drop....

  28. Help requested from Bar Mates:

    I'm looking to buy a new phone and server:

    1) Want GPS
    2) Be able to call internationally
    3) Want to be able to movie ephoto/audio record jihadi attacks should I encounter one

    What is best for me ?

    Help/suggestions would be appreciated.

  29. iPhone, for international call use FaceTime, Skype, Viber and Whats app. All free international when using wifi. FaceTime is free if both users are using Wifi. Using Skype, you can get a local US number in the country you ate calling and the local costs are a fishcake.

  30. New CNN?ORC Poll:

    Clinton/Kaine 52

    Putin/Trump 43

    Clinton goes from "down 3," immediately following the Republican Convention, to "up 9," following the Dem. Convention.

    CNN Poll

  31. After watching the Trump follies of the past weekend I have come to the conclusion that Trump isn't a very smart person.

    1. He just isn't that smart even with Putin as VP.