So the owner of the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas ..

[accountinquestion]

I don't like the idea of what Hillary did but I am not seeing how it compares to Trump. Even GWB did something very similar to Hillary. https://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/...ls-497373.html

You have no idea whether Russians and CHinese hacked her server but it was done on a shitty microsoft server by a putz IT guy who didn't have it encrypted properly at the start. If she should have went to jail, then I suspect there are lots of people in GWB's administration who should have also.


References, please?. Everything i'm reading said she didn't have any top secret documents but apparently the subject matter she discussed made the emails deemed sensitive and secret after the fact.

From wiki -
Federal agencies did, however, retrospectively determine that 100 emails contained information that should have been deemed classified at the time they were sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret".

SO she did not deliberately take classified documents and send them via email. If you believe that then well this all goes back to her lock her up.





Just because you think your dear beloved ex-president is above any rules doesn't mean the rest of us believe he can totally snub this country's security.

THERE WAS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO INDICT HILLARY. THE FBI HELPED HER BY NOT CHARGING HER. THE FBI INVENTS CHARGES ON REPUBLICANS AND COVERS UP DEMOCRAT CRIMES.

Yes, to the same extent GWB should have been indicted. He did the same shit. Look it up. Pull your head out of your partisan ass. What Trump did is considerably different than either of those.

GWB and Hillary did it as part of their job. Likely to prevent partisan hacks from weaponizing emails. I don't like it, but what either did is not the same as Trump.

Trump and his 'lock her up lock her up'. What a piece of shit that guy.

As far as media etc, again it goes both ways. Look into history of Fox News and Trump. Just liberals don't whine about it as much and perhaps it isn't the same as what Twitter did. Twitter however never claimed to be anything like a news organization.

FOX NEWS IS ABOUT 2% OF THE MEDIA. THE MSM IS 98% IN THE TANK FOR DEMS. THE LATEST BOMBSHELL STORY IS BIDEN BEING BRIBED BY BURISMA. A TON OF EVIDENCE THERE. BUT IT IS NOT EVEN BEING REPORTED IN THE MSM.

Fox is the biggest conservative News outlet, right? Actually their viewership is more than CNN and MSNBC COMBINED and it isn't even close. 2% ? Ditz, is that you? And now they don't count? lol. Do you crack up at yourself when you look in the mirror? "A ton of evidence". Maybe if you live on Mars with Ditz. Anyway, it is reported by the MSM, just do a google. If it does in fact have gravity behind it then it will be all over the place.


LOL....THE DEMS ARE AFTER TAKING AWAY YOUR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS BUT YOU BITCH ABOUT REPUBLICANS TRYING TO KEEP PORNOGRAPHY OUT OF GRADE SCHOOLS.

THE FIRST THING THE FASCIST DEMS WANT TO REMOVE FROM YOU ARE YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS. IT'S ALWAYS THE FIRST THING FASCISTS REMOVE.

Pornography in grade schools ? lol. Okey dokey. I'm sure there are some books that would be best to not be in the library but it is all political stunts. Having a book about some trans kid doesn't make it porn.

As far as Fascists - not only is this nonsensical but you do realize that Trump has suggested we suspend the Constitution because he LOST. This is a joke.

You obviously haven't seen the latest primetime viewership stats:

CNN 600,000
FNC 1.5 million
MSNBC 1.7 million.

That's right. MSNBC is beating FNC ever since the idiots fired Tucker Carlson.

Watch Comey state that classified information was on Hillary's server.



Trump was president for 4 years and didn't do anything to Hillary. But dems are to much sleazeball to give Trump the same respect.

Please show the quote where Trump said "suspend the constitution." No hearsay allowed. Only video of Trump saying that or any official document of Trump saying that is allowed. No lying bastards used as source, please.

And puhleeeeeeeese, quit using fake fucking news sources for any of your cited information.

Then kill yourself.

Ok so Tucker made Fox go under MSNBC. I guess that settles it.

"FOX NEWS IS ABOUT 2% OF THE MEDIA. THE MSM IS 98% IN THE TANK FOR DEMS. THE LATEST BOMBSHELL STORY IS BIDEN BEING BRIBED BY BURISMA. A TON OF EVIDENCE THERE. BUT IT IS NOT EVEN BEING REPORTED IN THE MSM."

I can't argue with that, just that as of a month ago Fox was actually the most wildly viewed news source. I am not sure how to quantify "the media". Just nonsense.

lol at me reading news outlet viewerships. You are correct. It is not relevant to me in any way so yea, I can say I kept up on them.

Here is the quote from trump.
https://www.foxnews.com/shows/media-...set-off-alarms
Ok, it wasn't "suspend" the word was "terminate". Oh you got me Ditz. Nice strawman ya fuckin goofball.

I said that Comey said yes, there was classified stuff. I believe if you talk about classified stuff then that is implied to be classified. This is not the same as taking the original documents. I may be wrong about this but I try to stay away from hack news sources. I did come up with Fox for you just so you don't claim it is made up. lol making news up.

You'll never change your mind about anything. Maybe you changed it on Rob Singer when he talked you into his bs. lol. Ok 1 time, I am AGAIN wrong.

[accountinquestion]

Mickey you shared that you are on the welfare program know as social security, so I have a question for you. I am kidding mickey, everyone on all forums understand you earned and are entitled to your social security. Well everyone except one person I guess.

So here is my serious question. The SS cola was over 9% last year and 5.9 the year before if I am not mistaken. That is 15% over 2 years. Of course that kind of cola means there is run-away inflation. I know from my late partner's social security that you never really catch up. The increases are always running behind as well as come 6 months behind the inflation numbers.

So the last couple days I have seen 2 different economic numbers saying inflation is down. (I guess that is from the same month a year ago) And I see projections that next years SS cola will be 2, maybe 2.2%. The cola is officially determined by the July, August, Sept numbers, so it is just projection at this point. But really how the fuck can they be saying inflation is easing. I place the grocery order for 3 adults in our house, one large order and usually a second smaller order each month, as well as picking up a few things here and there, and I know food prices continue to rise.

I don't get this idea and numbers saying inflation is easing. Please don't give me the spiel that Joe Biden is to blame. Whichever side is in power fudges the economic numbers released monthly, and often they go back the next month and totally adjust the numbers from the month before.

Anybody that is a consumer, knows inflation is not down right now. I don't get it.

I do all the grocery shopping for us so I'll give you the truth about inflation with groceries.

First--and this is no surprise--you lied about this year's COLA increase for SS. It's UNDER 9%, not over. Who told you that--the black security guard?

And the reason why the liberal media likes to say "inflation has been going down for months" is because back when Biden caused it to reach record high numbers, it had only one way to go: down. But it remains high, which is why your groceries cost more. It really doesn't mean squat to us because we can get whatever we want anyway, and my wife graduated from Culinary Arts school during the 90's as a filler while I was always away. IE, she cooks A LOT and loves to do it, and of course I love every bit of it.

I'm actually a big fan of high gas prices due to Biden's ineptness on US energy. $20/gal would be fine with me. It keeps the punks from driving around at night as much, so we don't have to listen to their cheapo rice burners with loudass mufflers. So keep failing Joe!

It (Biden's ultra high inflation) also took down some banks like First Republic Bank,Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. This is because the Fed raised interest rates in order to try and control inflation and this, in turn, led all the low interest rate bonds these banks owned to become worthless. It wouldn't surprise me if other banks go down who are also holding large amounts of toxic paper. The thing is, the evil fuck Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, allowing banks to once again use their customer bank deposits for investment purposes such as the purchase of U.S. treasuries.

On a different note, having a condotel as a primary residence is quite convenient, but they seem to only be available in places with shit weather. For example Myrtle Beach has a lot of inexpensive ones, but there are no casinos there and the weather is ultra-muggy for 4 months of the year. Vegas and Florida have them, with plenty of casinos nearby in each market, but you have to deal with shit weather a lot of the year. I wish Reno would get some. The ones at GSR cannot be purchased as a primary residence - only for one month of the year. I thought about buying 12 of them and then just switching rooms at the end of each month, but that's fucking expensive and if I get kicked out of GSR for vulturing, would they still allow me to go upstairs to my room ? Anyway I was just half jesting with all my condotel comments, but they are really convenient.

Those banks were offering higher than market rates. They didn't practice any sort of risk mitigation. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this coming and they did too, they just didn't care. Now it is Clinton's fault for lack of regulation as if Republicans haven't been chanting that mantra forever. I assume you're right about repealing as you seem more grounded in facts but I can't go down every rabbithole.

[kewlJ]

PS: You didn't have a problem voting for decrepit 79 year old Biden in 2020.

I don't think this is being honest, nor fair mickeycrimm. I had a MAJOR problem voting for Joe Biden at 78 years old. (he was 78 on election day, 79 later in November.) I along with many other former or displaced republicans just did not feel we were given a choice.

Now let me ask you this mickeycrim, and others, hoping but not expecting an honest answer. You guys that screamed about Joe Biden being to old in 2020 at age 78, what are you going to be saying next year if Trump is still running when he too will be 78 on election day?

[accountinquestion]

Does he literally call himself a "superlawyer"?

No.

Trump is not a President, so he would have needed to declassify this in some formal way while during President if this was to hold water. Is there any indication he did that?

The legal precedent has already been established with Bill Clinton (see 12:47 of this video). Bill didn't declassify classified documents in any formal way. Rules only apply when the Deep State says they apply.

The tapes being discussed were of a private nature he recorded for the guy who write his biography. This sums up everything I've read on it. Again Clinton's discussions with a historian are not the same as taking top secret documents that could be damaging.

Furthermore, this came out of a clearly partisan process. Just like Hillary and Bengazi. You guys may want to think it is the same but it surely doesn't seem the same to me.

The Clinton Sock Case: Clinton was interviewed 79 times during his presidency by historian Taylor Branch. These interviews were recorded by the White House, and Clinton reportedly kept the tapes in a sock drawer and took them when he left office. In 2010, the conservative non-profit organization Judicial Watch sued the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in an effort to get the tapes classified as presidential records. A judge threw out the case, siding against Judicial Watch and ruling that “NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as ‘Presidential records,’ NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.”

Not Relevant: Legal experts quoted in analyses from Reuters (Center bias) and Politifact (Lean Left bias) drew distinctions between the sock drawer tapes and top-secret classified documents, determining the case is not relevant.

Relevant: The attorney for Judicial Watch wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal Opinion (Lean Right bias), arguing the precedent set in the sock case meant a president “may take with him whatever records he chooses at the end of his term.”

[accountinquestion]

These fucking lefty fascist bastards take their fake news sources seriously. Didn't even know that FNC no longer leads cable news. That's how out of touch these morons are. Dimwitted fuckers believe all that propaganda bullshit spewed by the lamestream media. LOL. Fucking lackey's.

Tucker's first 2 episodes on Twitter has gotten 170 million views so far. He's leaving cable news in the dust.

Tucker on Twitter Episode 3

I don't watch cable news at all. Why on Earth you think this is a relevant thing to follow is beyond me. Is cable news like sports to you? Fox is your dog in the race?

Help me understand why I should give a fuck.

[tableplay]

Look, this case is different than all these other cases being compared to. for one this was apparently extremely top secret military, nuclear information.

Then the presidential declassification law should be amended to make it illegal for the president to declassify "extremely top secret information". But right now it doesn't. How lawmakers would go about quantifying this subjective term (so that they can add an amendment against it) is anyone's guess.

Yes, I agree. I guess congress does need to actually spell that out in law. I guess it was just assumed no president would take top secret information. Now that one has and repeatedly claims it was his to take, when it obviously is not, I guess they should make it official.

Look, George W's home is filled with his water-color painting of landscapes and whatever else he is painting these days. Bill Clinton's home probably filled with porn. No one has boxes of presidential documents stacked in their bathroom, do they? Those documents do NOT belong to the President, despite what Mr crazy thinks. They go to the national archives and if and when a president opens a presidential library he can request things he wants in there and if the national archies thinks it appropriate, they release those documents.

Trump just seems to think Top-secret national security documents are his to take, like towels, pens and other souvenirs. And the big problem with this guy is that nobody can tell him anything. He knows it all. The man surrounded himself with yes men that tell him what he wants to hear his whole life. Anybody that doesn't tell him what he wants to hear gets fired. Well now, somebody is telling him the truths he doesn't want to hear, and he can't fire them. And if he doesn't stop acting like a complete jackass and defying them, he is going to end up in jail, which is probably where he belongs.

KewlJ, I would appreciate it if you could post some web link(s) here which give some sort of specifics about the type of documents that fall into this category "extremely top secret military". Obviously I don't expect verbatim classified information be posted here at VCT, but some sort of redacted documents that can be legally posted here (or linked to). I would like to judge for myself how sensitive this information is such that Trump is getting special indictment treatment compared to all his predecessors. Right now, without this document information, it looks like this is a power grab by the Deep State to dispose of democracy.

[monet]

Then the presidential declassification law should be amended to make it illegal for the president to declassify "extremely top secret information". But right now it doesn't. How lawmakers would go about quantifying this subjective term (so that they can add an amendment against it) is anyone's guess.

Yes, I agree. I guess congress does need to actually spell that out in law. I guess it was just assumed no president would take top secret information. Now that one has and repeatedly claims it was his to take, when it obviously is not, I guess they should make it official.

Look, George W's home is filled with his water-color painting of landscapes and whatever else he is painting these days. Bill Clinton's home probably filled with porn. No one has boxes of presidential documents stacked in their bathroom, do they? Those documents do NOT belong to the President, despite what Mr crazy thinks. They go to the national archives and if and when a president opens a presidential library he can request things he wants in there and if the national archies thinks it appropriate, they release those documents.

Trump just seems to think Top-secret national security documents are his to take, like towels, pens and other souvenirs. And the big problem with this guy is that nobody can tell him anything. He knows it all. The man surrounded himself with yes men that tell him what he wants to hear his whole life. Anybody that doesn't tell him what he wants to hear gets fired. Well now, somebody is telling him the truths he doesn't want to hear, and he can't fire them. And if he doesn't stop acting like a complete jackass and defying them, he is going to end up in jail, which is probably where he belongs.

KewlJ, I would appreciate it if you could post some web link(s) here which give some sort of specifics about the type of documents that fall into this category "extremely top secret military". Obviously I don't expect verbatim classified information be posted here at VCT, but some sort of redacted documents that can be legally posted here (or linked to). I would like to judge for myself how sensitive this information is such that Trump is getting special indictment treatment compared to all his predecessors. Right now, without this document information, it looks like this is a power grab by the Deep State to dispose of democracy.

Remember Now... we don't want Democracy.
We want our Constitutional Democracy back.
Majority Rule is the Devil!

[tableplay]

The Presidential Records Act says a president can remove any and all documents and keep them for 5 years. Repeat, 5 years.

Except if you are Trump. Then you can't.

[tableplay]

No.

Trump is not a President, so he would have needed to declassify this in some formal way while during President if this was to hold water. Is there any indication he did that?

The legal precedent has already been established with Bill Clinton (see 12:47 of this video). Bill didn't declassify classified documents in any formal way. Rules only apply when the Deep State says they apply.

The tapes being discussed were of a private nature he recorded for the guy who write his biography. This sums up everything I've read on it. Again Clinton's discussions with a historian are not the same as taking top secret documents that could be damaging.

Furthermore, this came out of a clearly partisan process. Just like Hillary and Bengazi. You guys may want to think it is the same but it surely doesn't seem the same to me.

The Clinton Sock Case: Clinton was interviewed 79 times during his presidency by historian Taylor Branch. These interviews were recorded by the White House, and Clinton reportedly kept the tapes in a sock drawer and took them when he left office. In 2010, the conservative non-profit organization Judicial Watch sued the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in an effort to get the tapes classified as presidential records. A judge threw out the case, siding against Judicial Watch and ruling that “NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as ‘Presidential records,’ NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.”

Not Relevant: Legal experts quoted in analyses from Reuters (Center bias) and Politifact (Lean Left bias) drew distinctions between the sock drawer tapes and top-secret classified documents, determining the case is not relevant.

Relevant: The attorney for Judicial Watch wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal Opinion (Lean Right bias), arguing the precedent set in the sock case meant a president “may take with him whatever records he chooses at the end of his term.”

If you listen to Robert Barnes' analysis you will be provided with over a dozen legal reasons Trumps' indictment is absurd. Not only just the sock case. Unless you know what was on the tapes, you cannot assume they don't contain highly classified information in any event.

[tableplay]

Yes, I agree. I guess congress does need to actually spell that out in law. I guess it was just assumed no president would take top secret information. Now that one has and repeatedly claims it was his to take, when it obviously is not, I guess they should make it official.

Look, George W's home is filled with his water-color painting of landscapes and whatever else he is painting these days. Bill Clinton's home probably filled with porn. No one has boxes of presidential documents stacked in their bathroom, do they? Those documents do NOT belong to the President, despite what Mr crazy thinks. They go to the national archives and if and when a president opens a presidential library he can request things he wants in there and if the national archies thinks it appropriate, they release those documents.

Trump just seems to think Top-secret national security documents are his to take, like towels, pens and other souvenirs. And the big problem with this guy is that nobody can tell him anything. He knows it all. The man surrounded himself with yes men that tell him what he wants to hear his whole life. Anybody that doesn't tell him what he wants to hear gets fired. Well now, somebody is telling him the truths he doesn't want to hear, and he can't fire them. And if he doesn't stop acting like a complete jackass and defying them, he is going to end up in jail, which is probably where he belongs.

KewlJ, I would appreciate it if you could post some web link(s) here which give some sort of specifics about the type of documents that fall into this category "extremely top secret military". Obviously I don't expect verbatim classified information be posted here at VCT, but some sort of redacted documents that can be legally posted here (or linked to). I would like to judge for myself how sensitive this information is such that Trump is getting special indictment treatment compared to all his predecessors. Right now, without this document information, it looks like this is a power grab by the Deep State to dispose of democracy.

Remember Now... we don't want Democracy.
We want our Constitutional Democracy back.
Majority Rule is the Devil!

Indeed - it all rests on the disposition of this Trump indictment case now.

[tableplay]

They didn't practice any sort of risk mitigation. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this coming and they did too, they just didn't care.

Exactly; I totally agree - they bought a fuck ton of US bonds when the interest rates were at historical lows and now those bonds are worthless since interest rates are much higher now.

Now it is Clinton's fault for lack of regulation as if Republicans haven't been chanting that mantra forever. I assume you're right about repealing as you seem more grounded in facts but I can't go down every rabbithole.

If the Glass-Steagall Act (which Clinton repealed) was still in place, the banks could not have made treasury investments with their depositors' money - it would have been illegal under this act. So yes, it was Clinton's fault.

[monet]

lol Arnold Studied this for 50 years!?

[accountinquestion]

If you listen to Robert Barnes' analysis you will be provided with over a dozen legal reasons Trumps' indictment is absurd. Not only just the sock case. Unless you know what was on the tapes, you cannot assume they don't contain highly classified information in any event.

You sorta can assume. At least until recently you could. I am not sure about either of the last 2 Presidents.

It had nothing to do with suspicion of highly classified documents to begin with unlike Trump. This was a pure political stunt where the judge ruled against them although who know what the political private entity suspected.

These cases are similar but seem QUITE different to me.

[accountinquestion]

They didn't practice any sort of risk mitigation. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this coming and they did too, they just didn't care.

Exactly; I totally agree - they bought a fuck ton of US bonds when the interest rates were at historical lows and now those bonds are worthless since interest rates are much higher now.

Now it is Clinton's fault for lack of regulation as if Republicans haven't been chanting that mantra forever. I assume you're right about repealing as you seem more grounded in facts but I can't go down every rabbithole.

If the Glass-Steagall Act (which Clinton repealed) was still in place, the banks could not have made treasury investments with their depositors' money - it would have been illegal under this act. So yes, it was Clinton's fault.

The people investing in those banks were actually private equity and the likes. Very savvy money. They didn't care when they invested but yea lets put it all on Clinton. Wonder how they thought this place gave interest above market rates.

[tableplay]

Exactly; I totally agree - they bought a fuck ton of US bonds when the interest rates were at historical lows and now those bonds are worthless since interest rates are much higher now.

Now it is Clinton's fault for lack of regulation as if Republicans haven't been chanting that mantra forever. I assume you're right about repealing as you seem more grounded in facts but I can't go down every rabbithole.

If the Glass-Steagall Act (which Clinton repealed) was still in place, the banks could not have made treasury investments with their depositors' money - it would have been illegal under this act. So yes, it was Clinton's fault.

The people investing in those banks were actually private equity and the likes. Very savvy money. They didn't care when they invested but yea lets put it all on Clinton. Wonder how they thought this place gave interest above market rates.

So if Clinton didn't repeal the Glass Steagall Act, then they still could have bought those bonds which bankrupted them right ? Why did all these Savvy investors all pull their money out (causing a bank run) if interest rates were so great ? Once the savvy depositors pulled their money out, Silicon Valley bank had no assets they could sell to make up for the removed deposits since the assets (worthless bonds) were worthless.

[tableplay]

If you listen to Robert Barnes' analysis you will be provided with over a dozen legal reasons Trumps' indictment is absurd. Not only just the sock case. Unless you know what was on the tapes, you cannot assume they don't contain highly classified information in any event.

You sorta can assume. At least until recently you could. I am not sure about either of the last 2 Presidents.

It had nothing to do with suspicion of highly classified documents to begin with unlike Trump. This was a pure political stunt where the judge ruled against them although who know what the political private entity suspected.

These cases are similar but seem QUITE different to me.

So, to be clear, these Tapes had no highly classified sensitive information on them right ? Of course this is all moot since, by constitutional law, a sitting president doesn't even have to go through a formal process to declassify documents.

[accountinquestion]

Exactly; I totally agree - they bought a fuck ton of US bonds when the interest rates were at historical lows and now those bonds are worthless since interest rates are much higher now.


If the Glass-Steagall Act (which Clinton repealed) was still in place, the banks could not have made treasury investments with their depositors' money - it would have been illegal under this act. So yes, it was Clinton's fault.

The people investing in those banks were actually private equity and the likes. Very savvy money. They didn't care when they invested but yea lets put it all on Clinton. Wonder how they thought this place gave interest above market rates.

So if Clinton didn't repeal the Glass Steagall Act, then they still could have bought those bonds which bankrupted them right ? Why did all these Savvy investors all pull their money out (causing a bank run) if interest rates were so great ? Once the savvy depositors pulled their money out, Silicon Valley bank had no assets they could sell to make up for the removed deposits since the assets (worthless bonds) were worthless.

If Clinton didn't repeal it and Bush II and Trump didn't or another Democrat then yes, it could not have happened. I'm still wondering why Clinton would do this for banks and Republicans did not?

I presume the investors started pulling their money out because all the interest was no longer competitive and since the bonds were longterm it caused a bank run. Of course they're not going to all do it at once. I'm not sure your point. Some will get out in time, some won't. It doesn't mean they're not savvy overall.

How were the bonds worthless ? I assumed they still have value but the interest is no longer competitive?

[accountinquestion]

If you listen to Robert Barnes' analysis you will be provided with over a dozen legal reasons Trumps' indictment is absurd. Not only just the sock case. Unless you know what was on the tapes, you cannot assume they don't contain highly classified information in any event.

You sorta can assume. At least until recently you could. I am not sure about either of the last 2 Presidents.

It had nothing to do with suspicion of highly classified documents to begin with unlike Trump. This was a pure political stunt where the judge ruled against them although who know what the political private entity suspected.

These cases are similar but seem QUITE different to me.

So, to be clear, these Tapes had no highly classified sensitive information on them right ? Of course this is all moot since, by constitutional law, a sitting president doesn't even have to go through a formal process to declassify documents.

I'm not sure I even see the comparison. Clinton didn't want to give his personal correspondance with someone to the public? Does that seem like the same thing? It wasn't even about classified materials unless that was his argument. (Was it?)

No one is demanding Trump's diary.

Trump's issue is about taking classified materials.

This whole declassifying thing - If there is no process involved then what defines it? Just keeping it in your possession automatically negates all classified status of the documents? I have not heard this process defined but it seems absurd to assume it is a 'if i removed it from the whitehouse' based rule. Is there not a formal process otherwise?

hypothetical -
So if we somehow knew that Trump did infact take classified materials that had the capacity to do great harm to our country and they were found in some unlocked bathroom in his house, would you still defend him?

[tableplay]

The people investing in those banks were actually private equity and the likes. Very savvy money. They didn't care when they invested but yea lets put it all on Clinton. Wonder how they thought this place gave interest above market rates.

So if Clinton didn't repeal the Glass Steagall Act, then they still could have bought those bonds which bankrupted them right ? Why did all these Savvy investors all pull their money out (causing a bank run) if interest rates were so great ? Once the savvy depositors pulled their money out, Silicon Valley bank had no assets they could sell to make up for the removed deposits since the assets (worthless bonds) were worthless.

If Clinton didn't repeal it and Bush II and Trump didn't or another Democrat then yes, it could not have happened. I'm still wondering why Clinton would do this for banks and Republicans did not?

I presume the investors started pulling their money out because all the interest was no longer competitive and since the bonds were longterm it caused a bank run. Of course they're not going to all do it at once. I'm not sure your point. Some will get out in time, some won't. It doesn't mean they're not savvy overall.

How were the bonds worthless ? I assumed they still have value but the interest is no longer competitive?

The bonds are worthless because when the Fed raised interest rates, bond investors could buy higher interest rate bonds issued by the government so the value of the lower interest rate bonds (which Silicon Valley bank was holding in mass) lost a huge percentage of their value (who is going to be the counterparty that buys the bonds off of Silicon Valley Bank's portfolio when buyers can go to the treasury to buy bonds with a higher interest rate instead?). The market price of a bond is inversely related to the prevailing interest rate. My point is that when the bank run occurred (which can now happen electronically in an instant), the remaining depositors could not be made whole because Silicon Valley Bank leveraged the depositor cash many times over to buy these worthless bonds and could raise no money by selling worthless assets in order to give the withdrawing depositors their money back when they tried to withdraw.
I don't care what Clinton's motivations were for repealing the Glass-Steagall Act (he probably owed a lot of favors to his bankster friends)- the point is he did, and this made it possible for Silicon Valley Bank to bankrupt itself since it could now lawfully buy assets which would become worthless when interest rates were raised by the Fed.
The whole reason the Glass-Steagall Act was put into place in 1933 was to prevent this exact scenario.

[accountinquestion]

So if Clinton didn't repeal the Glass Steagall Act, then they still could have bought those bonds which bankrupted them right ? Why did all these Savvy investors all pull their money out (causing a bank run) if interest rates were so great ? Once the savvy depositors pulled their money out, Silicon Valley bank had no assets they could sell to make up for the removed deposits since the assets (worthless bonds) were worthless.

If Clinton didn't repeal it and Bush II and Trump didn't or another Democrat then yes, it could not have happened. I'm still wondering why Clinton would do this for banks and Republicans did not?

I presume the investors started pulling their money out because all the interest was no longer competitive and since the bonds were longterm it caused a bank run. Of course they're not going to all do it at once. I'm not sure your point. Some will get out in time, some won't. It doesn't mean they're not savvy overall.

How were the bonds worthless ? I assumed they still have value but the interest is no longer competitive?

The bonds are worthless because when the Fed raised interest rates, bond investors could buy higher interest rate bonds issued by the government so the value of the lower interest rate bonds (which Silicon Valley bank was holding in mass) lost a huge percentage of their value (who is going to be the counterparty that buys the bonds off of Silicon Valley Bank's portfolio when buyers can go to the treasury to buy bonds with a higher interest rate instead?). The market price of a bond is inversely related to the prevailing interest rate. My point is that when the bank run occurred (which can now happen electronically in an instant), the remaining depositors could not be made whole because Silicon Valley Bank leveraged the depositor cash many times over to buy these worthless bonds and could raise no money by selling worthless assets in order to give the withdrawing depositors their money back when they tried to withdraw.
I don't care what Clinton's motivations were for repealing the Glass-Steagall Act (he probably owed a lot of favors to his bankster friends)- the point is he did, and this made it possible for Silicon Valley Bank to bankrupt itself since it could now lawfully buy assets which would become worthless when interest rates were raised by the Fed.
The whole reason the Glass-Steagall Act was put into place in 1933 was to prevent this exact scenario.

I'm not sure the wording used originally but I just see a urge to blame Clinton for the whole thing when there is tons of blame going around. Greedy bankers not giving a shit because they can jump ship anyway. Bonuses likely tied to deposits. F

or example, just as much of the problem is there will never be true accountability for the actual executives behind these bad decisions

I don't know enough to understand the upsides of not having that. Odd though that a Democrat is the one repealing regulations.