At about 9:54, the dude on the right asks:
"But why are you assuming that we would find out about it [something / anything shady] then [just before the general election]?"

Because that is when it would cause the most damage, duh. It is well possible that some parties on the right already have something, considering that Guccifer probably DID hack into her server. If any such people DO have anything (or if they get anything new), they are well motivated to hold their cards until revealing them would have the most impact -- ie., AFTER she's locked up the nomination, but just BEFORE the general election.

Cenk and other democrats are 100% right to be absolutely terrified by this. I don't know that I think it is *likely*, but the democrat establishment just glossing over it seems bizarre and shortsighted.

Also, I seriously doubt that Biden would ever attempt to pick up Clinton's hypothetical fumble and run away after the DNC. I figure the GOP bigwigs that are suggesting it just want to make it look like the democrat side is in just as much disarray as the republican side.

But if either party actually does any "contested convention" shenanigans, all they will accomplish is to bring up serious and legitimate questions about their legitimacy within their core base of supporters. This election is proving that large segments of BOTH parties are NOT going to be blindly loyal to their party line and the status quo. In that environment, pushing their luck by inserting some handpicked golden child as their candidate would be suicidally stupid for either party.

Both parties clearly pine for the old days where the party bigwigs gathered in a smoke-filled room and decided who the nominee was going to be.

Sometimes it seems like that system resulted in higher-quality candidates. Or at least candidates who were better able to hide their sleazy politician auras behind a screen of charisma.

But shit like this makes it very clear how and why that system was shady and corrupt.

Unfortunately, I don't think this story will be big enough news to change anything. The likelihood of the GOP going to a contested convention and foisting some candidate on voters that hasn't even been running (Drudge Report suggests Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan are likely choices of the party) is much more likely to cause a big enough splash to change things.

Well, sure, but it was at least slightly amusing that a fund run by David Cameron’s father avoided paying tax in Britain http://gu.com/p/4tvn6/stw (as far as I can tell just about legal, but very shady) and watching FIFA squirm (again) could provide some amusement too.

Maybe my outlook is coloured by living in a country where although we don't have a huge problem with corruption (at least compared to Brazil, or the US) we can very much appreciate the Brazilian saying about corruption inquiries ending in pizza...

I have no doubt he's on the take in some way or another and I'd be surprised if he wasn't laundering money through offshore accounts. However, Poroshenko is right there on the list and given how the German media has been pro Poroshenko/Yatsenyuk, having Putin on the cover of this story is just the icing on the cake.

That said, I don't really care about the officials or, generally speaking, the high profile cases. The fixers are more interesting, including the individuals set up as fake directors on dozens if not hundreds of shell companies -- a perfect entry into the network. Sueddeutsche has already provided graphs of how many shell companies large German banks have created through MossFon. In the lead, as you will have guessed, is Deutsche Bank, as always when we're talking shady business.

The fact that a German lawyer by the name of Jürgen Mossack co-founded MossFon might motivate same folks to at least dig deeper into MossFon, which would be a start.

People forget, Hillary scammed tons of money with the Whitewater scandal for decades until it was leaked in 1992, but they protected Hillary by everyone else in the partnership taking the heat but her, then very quickly almost without media catching it Bill Clinton as lame duck end of term pardoned everyone involved in Whitewater, in 1994 Hillary was stealing money "again", her law firm partner "fell on his sword" accepting the blame keeping Hillary safe, 1996 democrat fundraising head "fell on his sword" receiving 17 count indictment for money again.

there's ton of stuff even back to her youth with money scams and always wiggling out of it.


“In 1997, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala over closed-door meetings related to the health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of the task force. Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the unethical tactics especially as she was a partner in a lawfirm, at least before it was shut down due to her partner "falling on his sword for theft and scamming clients".


“In the weeks before the inauguration, he [Vince Foster] had worked intensively with another Arkansas lawyer to expunge Bill and Hillary’s financial records of a shady land deal – a scandal later known as the Whitewater affair… One of his [Vince Foster’s] first jobs in the White House was to try to make sense of the Clintons’ false tax returns concerning the Whitewater land investment. A note in his hand-writing, found much later, warned that Whitewater was “a can of worms you shouldn’t open.”

Vince Foster was assassinated 1993.

@VoodooV

You notice how newtboy assumes so much, but then attacks people for assuming (Claiming only his logic is almost always correct.)

Case in point--a corporation that hires racist people probably loathes it? Why would they give a fuck if it didn't involve money? They almost NEVER do otherwise.

We see nearly EVERY corporation use shady shit. They try to shirk tax obligations via foreign accounts. They buy elected officials to do their bidding while screwing others. BP blew people up and didn't give a fuck. Toyota burned people alive for a profit. Rick Scott, Governor of Florida, stole billions of tax dollars from a program to help the needy.

The Salvation Army paid a politician 90K a year just to do no work, and they are not even supposed to be a political organization. They use sweat shops that abuse children...

The COMPANY, not the "boss", makes choices. Yet we are expected to believe that the emotionless company gives a fuck about anything besides money.

But to point out this is assuming in Newt's eyes. Silly, isn't it?

I'm confused - people are saying that Trump gets coverage so that the media group in question make more money (through bigger audiences). But what makes more money in the long run than a useful ally in a position of power?

A little bit naive to think that personal politics (of the owner, who chooses the editor, etc.) plays no part in media coverage. They don't call Rupert Murdoch a king maker for nothing, and it isn't like the Murdoch family has a list as long as my arm of shady dealings, bribery, corruption, etc.

The turkeys don't vote for christmas, and Murdoch isn't going to advertise for someone who believes in workers rights, equality and making sure huge multinationals pay their fair share of tax.

Exchange Murdoch for any billionaire media mogul you like - the Barclay brothers for example, also not very interested in equality and paying a fair share of tax. Yes it's sensationalism, but it's also powerful men using their influence to protect their interests. As the man in the video himself says.

Anyway, it worked for us over here - we got Jeremy Corbyn in despite the best efforts of every prominent news outlet. I'm not sure if America is ready for a bit socialism just yet, but the tide is changing in worldwide public opinion, i hope.

Yes! That's what this research is telling us. I'm quite certain that this relabeling has been done already by some shady operators, without advising the consumers.

I suspect the effect would be stronger in the U.S. with direct drug advertising... is that legal anywhere else in the world?

How long until some shady character uses it as a defence in court? We just did it to increase the effectiveness of the generic drug... it's almost a public service

I agree with everything you said brycewi. And it would apply here too IF Adam was providing information that wasn't well known by nearly everyone today. Most people believe lie detectors are pseudo science. It is not even comparable to global warming, and even less than anti-vaccines (Or if this is somehow untrue, then Adam doesn't provide how truly well believed this phenomenon is as he prattles on.) So that is where we would vary significantly on, not that the service of providing debunking of something taken as true is important/unimportant.

Yes, some people believe it works. Others watch it on talk shows and such for entertainment and even some law enforcement use it for confessional purposes. We get that. But then again some Africans believe raping a virgin will cure AIDs...does that mean their country is a bunch of degenerates? No, because only a few do.

Adam goes off on this rant based on information in what, the 90s? When everyone had this unshakable faith in the lie detector? My family's entire life rested on one of these machines at one time, so I know. (It didn't turn out good, lets leave it at that.)

Further, we differentiate three "uses" of the lie detector.
1-Entertainment:
A-Nobody believes it works, just like nobody believes Jerry Springer or Wrestling isn't fake.
B-Lumping those people in with those who do believe is disingenuous at best, manipulative at worst.
2-Law Enforcement:
A-They really don't care as long as they obtain guilty confessions. In other words, they already know (think) they have the bad guy and use it as an interrogation techniques.
B-You can argue with this practice as shady and deceptive (ironic isn't it?) but we shouldn't confuse belief with reliance.
3-Excluding the examples above, since they DON'T believe, those in the ultra fringe don't constitute "widely accepted."

Egads @TheFreak @kceaton1 @ant ... all of these comments Makes me feel the need to 'splain the situation! Not that I should have to ... but here goes:

I am friendly and open to almost everyone I meet [there have been very few exceptions] in my life ... up to a point. I prefer my solitude. However, in a rather large living environment where one must leave the property to smoke nicotine [don't judge me], human interaction with fellow pariahs is unavoidable. Several of us tend to hang out by the lake around the same times during the day and a few of us have become good friends. Over the years people come and go so he started hanging around [99% are women in this bunch by the way] on a regular basis shortly after moving here a couple of months ago. I'm generally not in a hurry to get to know someone new and will often avoid the gang altogether in favor of quiet time under a shady tree.

I was cordial with him at first, but I also trust my instincts which picked up a slight player/creep vibe that quickly overrode the initial physical attraction there could have been. He started bringing a chair out to sit by me if I didn't go where everyone was congregated. Chagrined, I try to zone him out by playing games on my phone [hint hint] and don't initiate any conversation. He has a asked a mutual friend to find out if I like him [what is this ... grade school??]. He has also made inappropriate comments when others aren't present.

So, ah ... I don't think it's me ... m'kay

The Office of the Prosecutor General just notified the public that it has closed the investigation into Netzpolitik.org: neither were the published documents state secrets, nor did the journalists involved in this matter show any intent to harm the country.

Just like basically every non-hardliner said the moment this was made public. Pure intimidation, and possibly, if not probably, a pretty shady way to get legal permission to employ digital surveillance against those involved.

Edit: Guardian, NYT

Cheers for the info, mate, but... cash up front, non-refundable? Sweet mother of fuck, that's a shakedown. Nothing shady about it, that's pure-D corruption.

If this creative business model of theirs is then enforced by the police in such a manner as we witnessed in this clip, it might probably be a good idea to get the feds involved in this.

They had a business permit, just not the new one that Santa Ana came up with for Pot Dispensaries. These shops have been operating in legal grey areas in Orange County, awhile back Santa Ana decided that they'd directly permit for it... but did it in a really screwed up way. A lottery.

Anybody who wanted to operate a dispensary had to pay $1690, a non-refundable amount, to enter a lottery for the privilege to buy a permit. Santa Ana collected more than a million dollars in the lottery fees. There have been enough accusations of shady behavior with the lottery process that a Judge recently issued an order to stop the program from going forward until it can be investigated.

The business in the video has been around since well before the Lottery. They got word that the city was going to use the Police to raid them instead of doing any of the normal things when shutting down a business, which is why they setup the hidden cameras.

Hardly a good metaphor for what happened, given the investigations into the incident. Newt sort of fixes the analogy, but I don't think he took it far enough.

It's not like it was an illicit deal with a shady prostitute, but more of a wedding to a supposed good person. We thought everything was above board and that our significant other was true and faithful. While, in reality they were shagging every person they could behind our back.

One day we go to donate blood, only to find out we have HIV. In the aftermath of this discovery, it becomes apparent of our spouse's perfidy and the fact that they have HIV from their careless affairs. We find out they weren't wearing proper protection. Now we have to live with their mess.

Of course FIFA is shady as hell just like the IOC, but weird about how the FBI and DOJ became involved. Kinda seems like the gist of their argument is that if you use the US dollar (which ultimately must pass through a US bank), that makes you subject to US law enforcement.

Since everyone knew FIFA was corrupt, the paranoid conspiracist part of me wonders if this isn't a ploy to set a precedent for its own sake or as a prelude to something else.