Charles Ortel Lobs the First of 40 Bombs at the Clinton Foundation

Zerohedge had an article about this with lots of links to interviews Ortel has done recently:

Zerohedge

a reply to: Annee

"I can't find anything on him, therefore he is clearly biased.."

That's basically what you just said, and it makes you look more than a little biased in your own assessment of people who put forth information which impinges upon your political sense of cognitive coherence...

He ain't dirty, so he must be biased.

Hmm...

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry but you're so unhinged I probably won't bother responding to you anymore. Am I partisan because I detest Hillary and Trump equally but for different reasons?

If I tend to trust someone who is in the business of financial analysis (unlike someone on a conspiracy forum with a marked rush to judgement) and who has obviously done a painstaking investigation of the subject at hand?

Again, as I stated before, why don't we wait until we see what he's come up with?

If anyone is partisan, it's you for jumping all over this thread without ANY evidence to back up your own assertions - only emotion.

Maybe you'd like to start your own thread - you could call it 'Clinton Foundation Perfectly Legitimate' and your evidence would be.... no research at all. Or a link to the Youtube video playing the song 'Feelings...'

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Maybe you'd like to start your own thread - you could call it 'Clinton Foundation Perfectly Legitimate' and your evidence would be.... no research at all. Or a link to the Youtube video playing the song 'Feelings...'

BUt but but i like her more than him so na nanna na na na...

a reply to: Annee

"You disagree with me, therefore your opinion is invalid."


LOL

Seriously? This is the second incidence of flawed logic & severe bias evident from your posting history, both made within minutes of each other. Something tells me there's bound to be more further down the line.

Something also tells me that we neutral observers (I'm a Brit, and dislike both candidates) perhaps don't have to take YOUR opinion as being particularly valid...

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Looks like a whole lot of ammo to help control her. The Clinton Foundation won't be put on trial, it will simply be used as a tool to gain influence. ("You want this to go away, you'll make sure our 'Ban Organic Food' bill gets passed!")

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... the accusation is enough for conviction?

No one wants to vet or review the information for accuracy?

Oh, that's right, it's what the right-wing sheep have been led to believe already.

My baaaad.

Jeez this isn't a one off event with the Clintons. So I guess your saying they have done NOTHING wrong and are good upstanding people?

It's a pattern of behavior that clearly shows intent, no matter what they do.

Nobody can bumble around like that for decades and be that lucky.

Lies. They have been caught in so many.

If people automatically assume they're guilty it's because they are.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... the accusation is enough for conviction?

No one wants to vet or review the information for accuracy?

Oh, that's right, it's what the right-wing sheep have been led to believe already.

My baaaad.

Jeez this isn't a one off event with the Clintons.

That's right!

They have been accused of all kinds of things by the right so they MUST be guilty.

It is insane logic...Attack someone and then explain the very fact they got attacked must mean there is a good reason.

How about you just admit the OP is silly, stupid, unproven bunk? Or is the plan to continue to go all Birther where facts don't matter?

..No need to answer..I know the answer...the Right Wing doesn't care about facts.

Like the fact that hillary started the whole birther thing?

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Annee

"You disagree with me, therefore your opinion is invalid."


LOL

Seriously? This is the second incidence of flawed logic & severe bias evident from your posting history, both made within minutes of each other. Something tells me there's bound to be more further down the line.

Something also tells me that we neutral observers (I'm a Brit, and dislike both candidates) perhaps don't have to take YOUR opinion as being particularly valid...

I don't consider anyone's opinion valid that is extreme to one side or the other.

There is no objectivity.

But, go right ahead and twist it to mean what you want or think it should mean.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Annee

"I can't find anything on him, therefore he is clearly biased.."

That's basically what you just said, and it makes you look more than a little biased in your own assessment of people who put forth information which impinges upon your political sense of cognitive coherence...

He ain't dirty, so he must be biased.

Hmm...

Ahhhhh, another "Twist and Shout" Trying to twist something to mean what you want it to mean, instead of what it actually says.

If you don't have a history of someone's thinking to show they have objectivity - - you can not determine if their opinion is unbiased.

This is what I actually said: "I really can't find anything on this guy to give him unbiased credibility."

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
Zerohedge had an article about this with lots of links to interviews Ortel has done recently:

ZERO HEDGE - - not what I would call a credible unbiased source.

According to the Boston Business Journal, the website "publishes financial news and opinion, aggregated and original" from a number of writers "who purportedly hail from within the financial industry." Posts on the website are signed "Tyler Durden," a character in the Chuck Palahniuk book and movie Fight Club.

In 2009, shortly after the blog was founded, news reports identified Daniel Ivandjiiski, a Bulgarian-born former hedge-fund analyst who was barred from the industry for insider trading by FINRA in 2008, as the founder of the site, and reported that "Durden" was a pseudonym for Ivandjiiski.

One contributor, who spoke to New York magazine after an interview was arranged by Ivandjiiski, said that "up to 40" people were permitted to post under the "Durden" name.

In April 2016, the authors writing as "Durden" on the website were reported by Bloomberg News to be Ivandjiiski, Tim Backshall ), and Colin Lokey. Lokey, the newest member revealed himself and the other two when he left the site.

Ivandjiiski confirmed that the three men "had been the only Tyler Durdens on the payroll"

On leaving, Lokey said:"I can't be a 24-hour cheerleader for Hezbollah, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and Trump anymore. It's wrong. Period. I know it gets you views now, but it will kill your brand over the long run. This isn't a revolution. It's a joke."[ en.wikipedia.org...

So then why did she lie so much about it? I still can't get an honest answer from her supporters.....why did she lie so much? a reply to: AboveBoard

The ball doesn't start rolling until something, or someone pushes it.

Let's see where this ball lands, as it has one hell of a rocky, bumpy, divot filled landscape ahead of it.

Still waiting on the first of the installments to come out - they were supposed to have started 'late' last night.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Annee

"You disagree with me, therefore your opinion is invalid."


LOL

She never said that? You should finish Grammar School...Or at least google what quotation marks are used for?

Charles Ortel (the author) is a conspiratorial right-wing hack. He engages in accounting babble to claim stupid things.

Looking at his Washington Times article history...He accused GE of being an giant racketeering operation...said GM would fail...and claimed in 2014 that the US economy was going to collapse....apart form steady Obama hate..He traffics in BS.

originally posted by: Indigo5

Charles Ortel (the author) is a conspiratorial right-wing hack. He engages in accounting babble to claim stupid things.

Looking at his Washington Times article history...He accused GE of being an giant racketeering operation...said GMN would fail...and claimed in 2014 that the US economy was going to collapse....apart form steady Obama hate..He traffics in BS.

Yes, that seems to be my conclusion as well.

I do try to research authors of articles/opinions - - before commenting.

I HAVE occasionally found reputable sources that I feel are objective. This one is not.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Annee

"You disagree with me, therefore your opinion is invalid."


LOL

She never said that? You should finish Grammar School...Or at least google what quotation marks are used for?

Charles Ortel (the author) is a conspiratorial right-wing hack. He engages in accounting babble to claim stupid things.

Looking at his Washington Times article history...He accused GE of being an giant racketeering operation...said GM would fail...and claimed in 2014 that the US economy was going to collapse....apart form steady Obama hate..He traffics in BS.

I don't know enough about this Ortel fellow to speak to his character or the validity of his information, but it could be said that GM did collapse, could it not? I seem to recall them going bankrupt and being bailed out by the goodwill and generosity of the American taxpayer. And at the risk of being called out for a negative proof fallacy, do we know for certain that GM isn't subverting the law somehow? Would it be a surprise or without precedent that an international mega-corporation is stacking the deck in it's favour? And as for the U.S. economy, I think that still remains to be seen.

originally posted by: Orwells Ghost

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Annee

"You disagree with me, therefore your opinion is invalid."


LOL

She never said that? You should finish Grammar School...Or at least google what quotation marks are used for?

Charles Ortel (the author) is a conspiratorial right-wing hack. He engages in accounting babble to claim stupid things.

Looking at his Washington Times article history...He accused GE of being an giant racketeering operation...said GM would fail...and claimed in 2014 that the US economy was going to collapse....apart form steady Obama hate..He traffics in BS.

I don't know enough about this Ortel fellow to speak to his character or the validity of his information, but it could be said that GM did collapse, could it not? I seem to recall them going bankrupt and being bailed out by the goodwill and generosity of the American taxpayer.

His claim that they would collapse was in 2014. He made the claim after the bailout...since then GM has grown to been a record breaking success story. The exact opposite of his prediction happened.

And as for the U.S. economy, I think that still remains to be seen.

Predicting calamity is easy...once you stop predicting the "when" part... He was full of crap and wrong..

America nears financial suicide as voters head to the polls (November 2, 2014 )
As President Obama hides, the American economy heads for another fall (October 26, 2014)
ORTEL: For investors, Obama in 2014 will be far worse than Nixon was in 1974 (June 29 2014)
ORTEL: Has the Obama administration embraced economic 'terrorism'? (June 2014)
www.washingtontimes.com...

It's a long list of articles...Half is Obama-hate...half is just failed fear mongering..in the name of Obama-hate..

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry but you're so unhinged I probably won't bother responding to you anymore. Am I partisan because I detest Hillary and Trump equally but for different reasons?

If I tend to trust someone who is in the business of financial analysis (unlike someone on a conspiracy forum with a marked rush to judgement) and who has obviously done a painstaking investigation of the subject at hand?

Again, as I stated before, why don't we wait until we see what he's come up with?

If anyone is partisan, it's you for jumping all over this thread without ANY evidence to back up your own assertions - only emotion.

Maybe you'd like to start your own thread - you could call it 'Clinton Foundation Perfectly Legitimate' and your evidence would be.... no research at all. Or a link to the Youtube video playing the song 'Feelings...'

Unhinged? That's a new one. Ridiculous, but original. So you're going to lead in your sincere, academic rebuttal with ad hominem? Pfft.

Thanks for dropping the pretense of being so "even-handed" in your approach though. Honesty is good for the soul.

Ortel is not "a trusted analyst" ... he's a Washington Times/World Net Daily hack.

I pointed out MULTIPLE inaccuracies in his first statement and backed that up with facts.

Anyone can read his screed and easily see that there is no attempt at a "legitimate" analysis with the loaded biased terminology he uses FROM THE FIRST SENTENCE.

I have not said even once nor implied that the "Clinton Foundation is Totally Legitimate" so why would I start such a thread?

No, I think I'll follow yours and keep inserting the truth backed up with referenced facts ... look forward to seeing you soon.

a reply to: Gryphon66

20 posts from you in six pages; unhinged, yes. Take a breather, man.

You've spent all this time and energy fixating on his ANNOUNCEMENT that he had 40 reports he was going to release.

Maybe his announcement was loaded with 'biased terminology' because as he's done the research over the last ~15 or more months, he's uncovered a mess of felony-level crimes.

Where were YOU when he was doing all this research? Ever been down to Haiti and seen all the 'good' the Clintons and Bushes did down there? I didn't think so. Neither has anyone else.

A normal person without an emotional stake in the thread would state their case and then move on. Maybe come back much later when there was more to work with.

Good luck with your 'referenced facts' - I haven't seen any yet, just hair on fire emotion from you.

Buh-bye!