Liberal Billionaire George Soros Mentioned Over 50 Times In Leaked Hillary Campaign Emails

[HAPPY2BME]

 Jim Hoft Oct 19th, 2016 8:04 am

Who runs the US? Apparently George Soros.

The liberal billionaire funder, who has been tied to a globalist elite pushing the Muslim migrant crisis and multiculturalism onto Western societies, comes up a lot in private discussions between top Hillary Clinton campaign officials.

A search by American Lookout showed Soros has been mentioned at least 56 times throughout the 11 batches of emails put out by Wikileaks which show collusion between elites, the mainstream media and the Hillary campaign.

Likewise, Soros was directly mentioned in multiple subject headlines on emails, often times requesting a meeting with top Clinton official, John Podesta.

Take a look:

    #PodestaEmails11:
    Question: So who runs the USA?
    Answer: George Soros pic.twitter.com/gkpVr7IzFy

    — MicroSpookyLeaks™ (@WDFx2EU7) October 18, 2016

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/liberal-billionaire-george-soros-mentioned-50-times-leaked-hillary-campaign-emails/

[HAPPY2BME]

[geronl]

“Oh, forget Soros, leave him alone..." - Trump, 2011

[Gov Bean Counter]

Fine and dandy, but he Pubbies don't have a candidate smart or disciplined enough to know how to use this information effectively.

[geronl]

note that Soros and Trump were once on good enough terms that Soros lent Trump $160 million in 2004 to help fund his Chicago Trump Tower.

[Gov Bean Counter]

note that Soros and Trump were once on good enough terms that Soros lent Trump $160 million in 2004 to help fund his Chicago Trump Tower.

...and then there's that.

[HonestJohn]

30,000 emails, 50 mentions of Soros.

Math time:

56/30,000 = 0.0018666666

0.18%

Not even 1%.  Heck, double that and it's still less than a percent.

Furthermore, as the Gateway Pundit has already tried to claim forwarded email as written by Clinton, I'd have to ask... how many of those 56 were forwarded emails?

[Right_in_Virginia]

note that Soros and Trump were once on good enough terms that Soros lent Trump $160 million in 2004 to help fund his Chicago Trump Tower.

Oh, for cripes sake, @geronl .  Soros wasn't "funding"--he made an investment loan. 

And, in case you are unaware of this:  no one lends a private business $160 million (or $1) because he or she is on good terms with the owner.  Money is lent in business because the lender will make money on the loan - - -  and the Chicago Trump Tower had success written all over it.   It is dishonest to transform a business loan into anything more than a business investment made in the hope of making money.

But Soros IS "funding" Hillary  Clinton.  Are you the least bit curious about what the hell Soros has been promised from President Clinton in return for the money he's poured into her personal campaign?   

[txradioguy]

Oh, for cripes sake, @geronl .  Soros wasn't "funding"--he made an investment loan. 

And, in case you are unaware of this:  no one lends a private business $160 million (or $1) because he or she is on good terms with the owner.  Money is lent in business because the lender will make money on the loan - - -  and the Chicago Trump Tower had success written all over it.   It is dishonest to transform a business loan into anything more than a business investment made in the hope of making money.

But Soros IS "funding" Hillary  Clinton.  Are you the least bit curious about what the hell Soros has been promised from President Clinton in return for the money he's poured into her personal campaign?

Amazing...you refuse to hold YOUR Liberal candidate to the same standard as the one you don't like.

In reality they BOTH have funded Hillary in the past.  An interesting little fact of life that you refuse to admit or even accept.

[Norm Lenhart]

Oh, for cripes sake, @geronl .  Soros wasn't "funding"--he made an investment loan. 

And, in case you are unaware of this:  no one lends a private business $160 million (or $1) because he or she is on good terms with the owner.  Money is lent in business because the lender will make money on the loan - - -  and the Chicago Trump Tower had success written all over it.   It is dishonest to transform a business loan into anything more than a business investment made in the hope of making money.

But Soros IS "funding" Hillary  Clinton.  Are you the least bit curious about what the hell Soros has been promised from President Clinton in return for the money he's poured into her personal campaign?

The local mob boss makes investment loans too. It's a bad idea to borrow from him.

Conservatives all know what Hillary and Soros are doing. It's not a surprise they are fellow travelers doing whatever they can to advance leftism. It's not news to us. We've discussed it for years. There is nothing Wiki is gonna tell us we don't already know or have deduced based on economics and the politics of the people involved.

The MSM will not cover it and the GOP you love so much refuses to do anything about it.

[txradioguy]

note that Soros and Trump were once on good enough terms that Soros lent Trump $160 million in 2004 to help fund his Chicago Trump Tower.

They were also named together in a lawsuit over the GM Building in Detroit.

So it's not just a one off Chicago deal they were tied to.

[XenaLee]

Oh, for cripes sake, @geronl .  Soros wasn't "funding"--he made an investment loan. 

And, in case you are unaware of this:  no one lends a private business $160 million (or $1) because he or she is on good terms with the owner.  Money is lent in business because the lender will make money on the loan - - -  and the Chicago Trump Tower had success written all over it.   It is dishonest to transform a business loan into anything more than a business investment made in the hope of making money.

But Soros IS "funding" Hillary  Clinton.  Are you the least bit curious about what the hell Soros has been promised from President Clinton in return for the money he's poured into her personal campaign?

Good grief.  I hate to break this to you.....reality being so very inconvenient and uncomfortable for the Trump parsers and all...but....

investment loans are the very definition of "funding".   When a business goes out to seek funding, what do you think they seek to get that funding based on....their good looks?  Loans are "funding", whether you choose to recognize that fact or not.  Just like all of the 'other' loans Trump made and just like he was indebted to the very same people Trump accused Cruz of being "indebted to"... even though the Goldman Sachs loan Cruz made was against HIS OWN benefit and money.  He basically borrowed the money from himself.  A fact and truth that would never pass Trump's lying pouty lips.

So Trump was also indebted to Goldman Sachs.  Which shows his (and his followers') blatant hypocrisy.  And on top of being a hypocrite, Trump is also a blatant liar.  Yet another trait that apparently his followers are A-OK with.  Anything goes, apparently.

The report into the "financial maze" of Trump's business dealings found that companies he owns have accrued $650 million in debt.
 
Trump released a 104-page federal financial disclosure form earlier in the campaign, which, according to the Times, claimed he only owed $315 million in debt, less than half of what the report found.
 
According to the Times, a building on the Avenue of the Americas in New York City's Manhattan borough that is partially owned by Trump has a loan of $950 million that was paid for by a few different entities, including the Bank of China and Goldman Sachs.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nyt-report-trump-owes-money-to-bank-of-china-goldman-sachs/article/2599815

[Right_in_Virginia]

Amazing...you refuse to hold YOUR Liberal candidate to the same standard as the one you don't like.

In reality they BOTH have funded Hillary in the past.  An interesting little fact of life that you refuse to admit or even accept.

@txradioguy --- pull yourself together and effing FOCUS on what's important here---the country's running out of time.

Yes, ..... both contributed to lots of US politicians, including Hillary (albeit Trump in the past and at a vastly lower amount).  What is critically important for all to understand is that both did so for one of two reasons: (1) to either lessen the effects of government regulations on his business (Trump) .... or  .... (2) to have a voice in and control over government decision making (Soros).

The reason the controlling oligarchy---from both political parties and the billionaire class--do not want Donald Trump in the White House is because Trump understands the game, inside and out.  Not only has Trump played it; he has played it damn well. 

He said "no" to their money so the special interests, lobbyists, and (especially) foreign governments have NO SWAY over President Trump. 

Trump knows this and they know it.  This is a very good news for us and a terrible, terrible setback for the bad guys who want ownership in the US Government.

This is just one of the reasons Trump is a living nightmare for the globalists---and we should be smiling!!  ^-^

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy --- pull yourself together and effing FOCUS on what's important here---the country's running out of time.

Yes, ..... both contributed to lots of US politicians, including Hillary (albeit Trump in the past and at a vastly lower amount).  What is critically important for all to understand is that both did so for one of two reasons: (1) to either lessen the effects of government regulations on his business (Trump) .... or  .... (2) to have a voice in and control over government decision making (Soros).

The reason the controlling oligarchy---from both political parties and the billionaire class--do not want Donald Trump in the White House is because Trump understands the game, inside and out.  Not only has Trump played it; he has played it damn well. 

He said "no" to their money so the special interests, lobbyists, and (especially) foreign governments have NO SWAY over President Trump. 

Trump knows this and they know it.  This is a very good news for us and a terrible, terrible setback for the bad guys who want ownership in the US Government.

This is just one of the reasons Trump is a living nightmare for the globalists---and we should be smiling!!  ^-^

The ONLY people here not focused on what's happening to the country...are the people telling me I need to vote for one NY Liberal over the other with no real good reason to do so.

You're so blind to the reality that Trump is just as big of a globalist as Hillary that you've lost all sense of reason and sanity where this election is concerned.

[txradioguy]

Trump is a living nightmare for the globalists---and we should be smiling!!

No one who is honest about Trump believes he is anti-Globalism. 

Donald Trump's primary concern is not just the United States. That in and of itself is not a problem at all. In fact, the United States often finds itself entering deals and alliances that protect the well-being of other countries because that is what makes America so great. We look out for the little guy. The issue is that Trump's nationalist base sees globalism as this horrific idea that will bring about the destruction of America, unless Trump says it won't. In this case, as we see time and time again, his supporters are blindly following the leader right over the cliff and into the abyss, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Globalism, to some extent, is a necessary thing. Trump knows, he makes the large majority of his products in other countries because it's cheaper that way, and there is no tax on imported goods such as Trump Ties. Trump claimed to support such ridiculous import tariffs because it's what gave him his base, but he proved again in Mexico that everything he says on the campaign trail is a lie.

Donald Trump is a globalist neocon, and a proud one too. His supporters should be angry, but they won't. Instead, they'll continue to defend his every flip-flop because, as the theme of 2016 goes; nothing matters.

http://www.redstate.com/kylefoley/2016/08/31/despite-nationalist-base-donald-trump-proud-globalist/

While Trump and his surrogates denounce free trade, proclaiming that they stand with and for America’s working men and women, they find it hard to explain away the billionaire's own practices for most of his business career. As it turns out, Trump has never shown any qualms about using foreign labor, foreign capital and even foreign-owned companies to service his personal interests and acquire wealth.

Even a cursory examination of Trump’s business dealings reveals that playing in international markets is a matter of routine for him. The Donald J. Trump Collection brand shirts, eyeglasses, perfume, cufflinks and suits are made in low-wage countries like Bangladesh, China, Honduras, and Mexico to keep costs down.  And Ivanka Trump’s own product line imports 628 of its 838 items on offer.

Other Trump brand products such as shoes, ballpoint pens, soap and ties have been outsourced to China, Japan, Honduras, Brazil, Norway, Italy and Germany since 2006. And about 1,200 shipments of Trump brand goods have been imported into the United States by foreign companies since 2011.

And for all Trump’s criticisms of foreigners stealing American jobs, nine of Trump’s companies have tried to import at least 1,100 foreign workers to America via short-term visas.

Trump’s foreign dealings are not limited to consumer products. The Trump Hotel Collection has locations in Panama, Rio de Janeiro, Ireland, Toronto, Vancouver and Azerbaijan. The Trump Real Estate Collection has Trump Towers in India, Istanbul, Uruguay and the Philippines, as well as Trump World in South Korea.  Apparently, what’s good for Donald Trump Inc. is not good for Ford, Apple or any other American business.  Trump knows best.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/05/trump-the-globalist

[geronl]

  What is critically important for all to understand is that both did so for one of two reasons: (1) to either lessen the effects of government regulations on his business (Trump)

Trump has funded lobbyists to stop legalised casino gambling in NYC (this is using big government power to stop the competition), to stop an Indian reservation from getting a casino (Trump illegally funded a campaign against it and was caught), to use the power of government to take property (Kelo), to receive subsidies and handouts and incredible tax abatements.

Never has Trump tried to lessen government regulations. Mostly he tried to increase them on his competition.

[goodwithagun]

note that Soros and Trump were once on good enough terms that Soros lent Trump $160 million in 2004 to help fund his Chicago Trump Tower.

Yet Trumpsters were foaming at the mouth over Cruz and Goldman Sachs.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Yet Trumpsters were foaming at the mouth over Cruz and Goldman Sachs.

Yes, yes we were.  And we're foaming at the mouth over the Goldman Sachs-Hillary connection, too.

What business interest is Goldman Sachs investing in by giving huge sums of money to any politician?  Where will the return on their investment come from when the money is given to a political human?   What promises have been made to Goldman Sachs---as their profit?

Connect the dots @goodwithagun   Let go of your talking points and see reality----before--in your willful ignorance-- you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Good grief.  I hate to break this to you.....reality being so very inconvenient and uncomfortable for the Trump parsers and all...but....

investment loans are the very definition of "funding".   

Ping me when you stumble on the essential issue of this article.  Until then,  :talkhand:

[goodwithagun]

Yes, yes we were.  And we're foaming at the mouth over the Goldman Sachs-Hillary connection, too.

What business interest is Goldman Sachs investing in by giving huge sums of money to any politician?  Where will the return on their investment come from when the money is given to a political human?   What promises have been made to Goldman Sachs---as their profit?

Connect the dots @goodwithagun   Let go of your talking points and see reality----before--in your willful ignorance-- you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You need a huge helping of your own advice.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Oh, for cripes sake, @geronl .  Soros wasn't "funding"--he made an investment loan. 

And, in case you are unaware of this:  no one lends a private business $160 million (or $1) because he or she is on good terms with the owner.  Money is lent in business because the lender will make money on the loan - - -  and the Chicago Trump Tower had success written all over it.   It is dishonest to transform a business loan into anything more than a business investment made in the hope of making money.

But Soros IS "funding" Hillary  Clinton.  Are you the least bit curious about what the hell Soros has been promised from President Clinton in return for the money he's poured into her personal campaign?

Oh, good I'm glad Soros is just investing in America. I wouldn't want people to have the wrong impression about such an upstanding guy.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Yes, yes we were.  And we're foaming at the mouth over the Goldman Sachs-Hillary connection, too.

What business interest is Goldman Sachs investing in by giving huge sums of money to any politician?  Where will the return on their investment come from when the money is given to a political human?   What promises have been made to Goldman Sachs---as their profit?

Connect the dots @goodwithagun   Let go of your talking points and see reality----before--in your willful ignorance-- you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Are you aware of things called individual loans? Donald Trump is loaning himself money for the race, why?

[goodwithagun]

Are you aware of things called individual loans? Donald Trump is loaning himself money for the race, why?

I just shake my head at the cult of personality.