Clinton Foundation: Only 6% Goes to Direct Aid. The Rest? Their Personal Piggie Bank.

[The Rabbi]

"Must have" You are illiterate as well as ignorant.
What does Sarah Palin have to do with anything? Nothing.
So focus on the issue here.
The Clinton Foundation is not a foundation at all. It is merely a PAC designed to give tax free income to support the Clinton lifestyle, which resembles that of the uber-wealthy. Meanwhile Hillary is roaming around in a luxury automobile (when she's not flying first class) pretending to be an ordinary American.
Does anyone really think people will be fooled by this?

Hey folks it's Rabbi!
Considering SarahPac also contributes almost nothing financially to it's advertised cause, it can be used a tie-in to this thread as a "per-example" of the OP implied Clinton scam. Using examples in the course of discussion, is nothing new, I'd bet you have done it yourself thousands of times and that would be just on these boards.
Therefore, implying illiteracy and ignorance is complete hypocrisy. Way to go Rabbi!

No, idiot. You are illiterate because you cant tell the difference between of and have.
If Palin's PAC did that does that make the Clinton's PAC OK? You are a lying little piece of sniveling shit hypocrite. Sarah is not running for the presidency. Clinton is. Sarah did not sell out government favorites in exchange for contributions to her PAC, Clinton did. Sarah's PAC is not resubmitting new tax reports to reflect foreign contributions which were omitted in previous years, Clinton's is.
See the difference, you worthless piece of shit? Go ahea, post a graph so your humiliation is complete.

"Must have" You are illiterate as well as ignorant.
What does Sarah Palin have to do with anything? Nothing.
So focus on the issue here.
The Clinton Foundation is not a foundation at all. It is merely a PAC designed to give tax free income to support the Clinton lifestyle, which resembles that of the uber-wealthy. Meanwhile Hillary is roaming around in a luxury automobile (when she's not flying first class) pretending to be an ordinary American.
Does anyone really think people will be fooled by this?

Hey folks it's Rabbi!
Considering SarahPac also contributes almost nothing financially to it's advertised cause, it can be used a tie-in to this thread as a "per-example" of the OP implied Clinton scam. Using examples in the course of discussion, is nothing new, I'd bet you have done it yourself thousands of times and that would be just on these boards.
Therefore, implying illiteracy and ignorance is complete hypocrisy. Way to go Rabbi!

No, idiot. You are illiterate because you cant tell the difference between of and have.
If Palin's PAC did that does that make the Clinton's PAC OK? You are a lying little piece of sniveling shit hypocrite. Sarah is not running for the presidency. Clinton is. Sarah did not sell out government favorites in exchange for contributions to her PAC, Clinton did. Sarah's PAC is not resubmitting new tax reports to reflect foreign contributions which were omitted in previous years, Clinton's is.
See the difference, you worthless piece of shit? Go ahea, post a graph so your humiliation is complete.

Haaaaaa no evidence there either, you're nothing but a bunch of Hot Air .... Say something with substance instead of blah blah blah...

Sarah Palin should really think about running: Saturday Night Live needs some new material....

There were 9 parts of the Government that signed off of this deal...
Anyway with the Koch Brothers funding this book, I am not too worried... They are worried about Hillary and are digging deep those assholes.







~

No evidence? You're joking, right? They admitted they failed to disclose foreign contributions. They took foreign contributions after Hillary promised Obama she wouldnt. And that's just what we know for a fact. Arent you bothered even by the suggestion that Hillary took bribes while in office?

What did you go and watch Fox news finally? There is no clear evidence about what your saying, I am sure we will hear the facts soon...Fox news.1 % truth and 99% fabricated..
What is concerning to me is she deleted all of her emails. ummmm concerns me. There could have been some bad info in those emails. I do not like this fogged transparency from her.




~

No clear evidence? I think you are dreaming.
Exclusive Clinton charities will refile tax returns audit for other errors Reuters
The Foundation is restating years' worth of tax returns because they didnt disclose foreign contributions.

Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept. - The Washington Post

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.]

OK, so now I have proven this, are you concerned that there is at least the appearance of bribery from when Clinton was SecState?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I say get the IRS to go after --


those phoney baloney religious and Tea Party groups who LIE in their filings

 

[The Rabbi]

George W. Bush racks up $15 million in speaking fees

George W. Bush racks up 15 million in speaking fees The Ticket - Yahoo News

Bush spokesman David Sherzer tells iWatch News that Bush has earned at least $15 million for nearly 140 paid speeches since he left office in Jan. 2009. That's an average of about $110,000 per speech. (iWatch News reports that his average fee is pegged between $100,000 and $150,000.)

That's 110,000 per speech. Not 500,000 for one speech.
What was your point?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hey folks it's Rabbi!
Considering SarahPac also contributes almost nothing financially to it's advertised cause, it can be used a tie-in to this thread as a "per-example" of the OP implied Clinton scam. Using examples in the course of discussion, is nothing new, I'd bet you have done it yourself thousands of times and that would be just on these boards.
Therefore, implying illiteracy and ignorance is complete hypocrisy. Way to go Rabbi!

No, idiot. You are illiterate because you cant tell the difference between of and have.
If Palin's PAC did that does that make the Clinton's PAC OK? You are a lying little piece of sniveling shit hypocrite. Sarah is not running for the presidency. Clinton is. Sarah did not sell out government favorites in exchange for contributions to her PAC, Clinton did. Sarah's PAC is not resubmitting new tax reports to reflect foreign contributions which were omitted in previous years, Clinton's is.
See the difference, you worthless piece of shit? Go ahea, post a graph so your humiliation is complete.

Hey folks it's Rabbi!
Considering SarahPac also contributes almost nothing financially to it's advertised cause, it can be used a tie-in to this thread as a "per-example" of the OP implied Clinton scam. Using examples in the course of discussion, is nothing new, I'd bet you have done it yourself thousands of times and that would be just on these boards.
Therefore, implying illiteracy and ignorance is complete hypocrisy. Way to go Rabbi!

No, idiot. You are illiterate because you cant tell the difference between of and have.
If Palin's PAC did that does that make the Clinton's PAC OK? You are a lying little piece of sniveling shit hypocrite. Sarah is not running for the presidency. Clinton is. Sarah did not sell out government favorites in exchange for contributions to her PAC, Clinton did. Sarah's PAC is not resubmitting new tax reports to reflect foreign contributions which were omitted in previous years, Clinton's is.
See the difference, you worthless piece of shit? Go ahea, post a graph so your humiliation is complete.

Haaaaaa no evidence there either, you're nothing but a bunch of Hot Air .... Say something with substance instead of blah blah blah...

Sarah Palin should really think about running: Saturday Night Live needs some new material....

There were 9 parts of the Government that signed off of this deal...
Anyway with the Koch Brothers funding this book, I am not too worried... They are worried about Hillary and are digging deep those assholes.







~

No evidence? You're joking, right? They admitted they failed to disclose foreign contributions. They took foreign contributions after Hillary promised Obama she wouldnt. And that's just what we know for a fact. Arent you bothered even by the suggestion that Hillary took bribes while in office?

What did you go and watch Fox news finally? There is no clear evidence about what your saying, I am sure we will hear the facts soon...Fox news.1 % truth and 99% fabricated..
What is concerning to me is she deleted all of her emails. ummmm concerns me. There could have been some bad info in those emails. I do not like this fogged transparency from her.




~

No clear evidence? I think you are dreaming.
Exclusive Clinton charities will refile tax returns audit for other errors Reuters
The Foundation is restating years' worth of tax returns because they didnt disclose foreign contributions.

Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept. - The Washington Post

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.]

OK, so now I have proven this, are you concerned that there is at least the appearance of bribery from when Clinton was SecState?

Go ahead, attack the Clintons some more -- their secret weapon for solidifying support? Why of course, you

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

George W. Bush racks up $15 million in speaking fees

George W. Bush racks up 15 million in speaking fees The Ticket - Yahoo News

Bush spokesman David Sherzer tells iWatch News that Bush has earned at least $15 million for nearly 140 paid speeches since he left office in Jan. 2009. That's an average of about $110,000 per speech. (iWatch News reports that his average fee is pegged between $100,000 and $150,000.)

That's 110,000 per speech. Not 500,000 for one speech.
What was your point?

OMFG! Reagan is rolling over in his grave -- except he forgot how to roll so he's just mumblimg "mommy...mommy..."

 

[tinydancer]

George W. Bush racks up $15 million in speaking fees

George W. Bush racks up 15 million in speaking fees The Ticket - Yahoo News

Bush spokesman David Sherzer tells iWatch News that Bush has earned at least $15 million for nearly 140 paid speeches since he left office in Jan. 2009. That's an average of about $110,000 per speech. (iWatch News reports that his average fee is pegged between $100,000 and $150,000.)

That's 110,000 per speech. Not 500,000 for one speech.
What was your point?

OMFG! Reagan is rolling over in his grave -- except he forgot how to roll so he's just mumblimg "mommy...mommy..."

Dante you are personally trolling this thread. Cut it out.

 

[Dragonlady]

Charity watchdog Clinton Foundation a slush fund New York Post


Well....is anyone surprised by anything the Clinton's do? According to the NY Post the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in 2013. So what did the people get in direct aid from the $140 million?

Per tax records $9 million. That is a 6.4% return on money given.


Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation has been placed on a charity watch for "problematic activities. Quote:

"Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years."
That

Fucking thieves.....pure fucking thieves....

Liar!

Please show us the lie.

Page 16: Program expenses: $196,633,380, Fundraising expenses $10,129,160, Salaries and benefits $16,633,562, Total $222,396,102. By my calculations, that's 88% of the money going to programing, which is a decent return.

The Clintons would have to be idiots to set up a charity as a personal slush fund given that everything they've ever done over the past 25 years has been scrutinized, studied, parsed and discussed, and they knew she would be running for office and this would come up.

There is no way she can legally set up her own PAC, so that part is a total lie. But it's not like this is the first time right wingers have lied about the Clintons.

Who can forget that the New York Times said that her use of private email was illegal and she could go to jail for it, and then they had to retract that statement because it was false. She broke no laws and was in no danger of going to jail.

I know you lot are desperate to get something, anything on Hillary to disqualify her candidacy but seriously people. check the facts. Google is your friend. If only you'd bother to use it.

 

[Eaglewings]

That's 110,000 per speech. Not 500,000 for one speech.
What was your point?

Well...who wants to hear Bush.....but he was getting paid quit a lot .

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That's 110,000 per speech. Not 500,000 for one speech.
What was your point?

Well...who wants to hear Bush.....but he was getting paid quit a lot .

yep

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

George W. Bush racks up $15 million in speaking fees

George W. Bush racks up 15 million in speaking fees The Ticket - Yahoo News

Bush spokesman David Sherzer tells iWatch News that Bush has earned at least $15 million for nearly 140 paid speeches since he left office in Jan. 2009. That's an average of about $110,000 per speech. (iWatch News reports that his average fee is pegged between $100,000 and $150,000.)

That's 110,000 per speech. Not 500,000 for one speech.
What was your point?

OMFG! Reagan is rolling over in his grave -- except he forgot how to roll so he's just mumblimg "mommy...mommy..."

Dante you are personally trolling this thread. Cut it out.

huh? some people think all of your posts constitute trolling.

this thread is just another bullshit thread

 

[Dragonlady]

I also check the Charity Navigator website and The Clinton Foundation is indeed on their "watch list", but not for the reasons stated in the OP. It's because of allegations that they accepted donations from foreign governments and allegations related to selling influence in exchange for "donations".

Here is the Clinton Foundation page at Charity Navigator.

Charity Navigator Profile - Bill Hillary Chelsea Clinton Foundation

A quote from their page emphasizes their reasons for the watch:

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I also check the Charity Navigator website and The Clinton Foundation is indeed on their "watch list", but not for the reasons stated in the OP. It's because of allegations that they accepted donations from foreign governments and allegations related to selling influence in exchange for "donations".

Here is the Clinton Foundation page at Charity Navigator.

Charity Navigator Profile - Bill Hillary Chelsea Clinton Foundation

A quote from their page emphasizes their reasons for the watch:

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

Wow!

I guess I'll hold back on the 20 million I was thinking of giving them

whew! thanks

 

[The Rabbi]

That's 110,000 per speech. Not 500,000 for one speech.
What was your point?

Well...who wants to hear Bush.....but he was getting paid quit a lot .

ALl presidents make that kind of money per speech. Except Bill Clinton, who commands about 5 times as much.
Youa re deflecting desperately

 

[The Rabbi]

I also check the Charity Navigator website and The Clinton Foundation is indeed on their "watch list", but not for the reasons stated in the OP. It's because of allegations that they accepted donations from foreign governments and allegations related to selling influence in exchange for "donations".

Here is the Clinton Foundation page at Charity Navigator.

Charity Navigator Profile - Bill Hillary Chelsea Clinton Foundation

A quote from their page emphasizes their reasons for the watch:

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

Here's their 990 from 2012. You tell me
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/311/580/2012-311580204-09d3e966-9.pdf

 

[Oldstyle]

Charity watchdog Clinton Foundation a slush fund New York Post


Well....is anyone surprised by anything the Clinton's do? According to the NY Post the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in 2013. So what did the people get in direct aid from the $140 million?

Per tax records $9 million. That is a 6.4% return on money given.


Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation has been placed on a charity watch for "problematic activities. Quote:

"Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years."
That

Fucking thieves.....pure fucking thieves....

Liar!

Please show us the lie.

Page 16: Program expenses: $196,633,380, Fundraising expenses $10,129,160, Salaries and benefits $16,633,562, Total $222,396,102. By my calculations, that's 88% of the money going to programing, which is a decent return.

The Clintons would have to be idiots to set up a charity as a personal slush fund given that everything they've ever done over the past 25 years has been scrutinized, studied, parsed and discussed, and they knew she would be running for office and this would come up.

There is no way she can legally set up her own PAC, so that part is a total lie. But it's not like this is the first time right wingers have lied about the Clintons.

Who can forget that the New York Times said that her use of private email was illegal and she could go to jail for it, and then they had to retract that statement because it was false. She broke no laws and was in no danger of going to jail.

I know you lot are desperate to get something, anything on Hillary to disqualify her candidacy but seriously people. check the facts. Google is your friend. If only you'd bother to use it.

Would you admit that you'd have to be an "idiot" to not declare contributions to your fund if you were going to run for President? Yet that is EXACTLY what Hillary Clinton did! Who would do that? Someone who's so arrogant that they don't think they're going to get caught?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That's 110,000 per speech. Not 500,000 for one speech.
What was your point?

Well...who wants to hear Bush.....but he was getting paid quit a lot .

ALl presidents make that kind of money per speech. Except Bill Clinton, who commands about 5 times as much.
Youa re deflecting desperately

Shame on the Free Market! Shame!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Charity watchdog Clinton Foundation a slush fund New York Post


Well....is anyone surprised by anything the Clinton's do? According to the NY Post the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in 2013. So what did the people get in direct aid from the $140 million?

Per tax records $9 million. That is a 6.4% return on money given.


Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation has been placed on a charity watch for "problematic activities. Quote:

"Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years."
That

Fucking thieves.....pure fucking thieves....

Liar!

Please show us the lie.

Page 16: Program expenses: $196,633,380, Fundraising expenses $10,129,160, Salaries and benefits $16,633,562, Total $222,396,102. By my calculations, that's 88% of the money going to programing, which is a decent return.

The Clintons would have to be idiots to set up a charity as a personal slush fund given that everything they've ever done over the past 25 years has been scrutinized, studied, parsed and discussed, and they knew she would be running for office and this would come up.

There is no way she can legally set up her own PAC, so that part is a total lie. But it's not like this is the first time right wingers have lied about the Clintons.

Who can forget that the New York Times said that her use of private email was illegal and she could go to jail for it, and then they had to retract that statement because it was false. She broke no laws and was in no danger of going to jail.

I know you lot are desperate to get something, anything on Hillary to disqualify her candidacy but seriously people. check the facts. Google is your friend. If only you'd bother to use it.

Would you admit that you'd have to be an "idiot" to not declare contributions to your fund if you were going to run for President? Yet that is EXACTLY what Hillary Clinton did! Who would do that? Someone who's so arrogant that they don't think they're going to get caught?

did not declare? where?

 

[tinydancer]

Bill's been selling his influence for years on end now. Just think of how much money could be donated to their *cough* charity if they get into 1600 again.

"That same month, Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said he traveled to Chappaqua, N.Y., to meet with Mr. Clinton at his home.

Mr. Dzhakishev said Mr. Giustra arranged the three-hour meeting. Mr. Dzhakishev said he wanted to discuss Kazakhstan’s intention — not publicly known at the time — to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology.

Nearly a year earlier, Mr. Clinton had advised Dubai on how to handle the political furor after one of that nation’s companies attempted to take over several American ports. Mrs. Clinton was among those on Capitol Hill who raised the national security concerns that helped kill the deal.

Mr. Dzhakishev said he was worried the proposed Westinghouse investment could face similar objections. Mr. Clinton told him that he would not lobby for him, but Mr. Dzhakishev came away pleased by the chance to promote his nation’s proposal to a former president.

Mr. Clinton “said this was very important for America,” said Mr. Dzhakishev, who added that Mr. Giustra was present at Mr. Clinton’s home.

Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra at first denied that any such meeting occurred. Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for Kazakh officials to meet with Mr. Clinton. Wednesday, after The Times told them that others said a meeting, in Mr. Clinton’s home, had in fact taken place, both men acknowledged it.

“You are correct that I asked the president to meet with the head of Kazatomprom,” Mr. Giustra said. “Mr. Dzhakishev asked me in February 2007 to set up a meeting with former President Clinton to discuss the future of the nuclear energy industry.” Mr. Giustra said the meeting “escaped my memory until you raised it.”

Wednesday, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman, Ben Yarrow, issued what he called a “correction,” saying: “Today, Mr. Giustra told our office that in February 2007, he brought Mr. Dzhakishev from Kazatomprom to meet with President Clinton to discuss the future of nuclear energy.”

Mr. Yarrow said his earlier denial was based on the former president’s records, which he said “show a Feb. 27 meeting with Mr. Giustra; no other attendees are listed.”

Mr. Dzhakishev said he had a vivid memory of his Chappaqua visit, and a souvenir to prove it: a photograph of himself with the former president.

“I hung up the photograph of us and people ask me if I met with Clinton and I say, Yes, I met with Clinton,” he said, smiling proudly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



David L. Stern and Margot Williams contributed reporting.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Bill's been selling his influence for years...

no big deal

it's for charity too

 

[Katzndogz]

The Clinton's must of modeled their expenses after SarahPac.

"Must have" You are illiterate as well as ignorant.
What does Sarah Palin have to do with anything? Nothing.
So focus on the issue here.
The Clinton Foundation is not a foundation at all. It is merely a PAC designed to give tax free income to support the Clinton lifestyle, which resembles that of the uber-wealthy. Meanwhile Hillary is roaming around in a luxury automobile (when she's not flying first class) pretending to be an ordinary American.
Does anyone really think people will be fooled by this?

Hey folks it's Rabbi!
Considering SarahPac also contributes almost nothing financially to it's advertised cause, it can be used a tie-in to this thread as a "per-example" of the OP implied Clinton scam. Using examples in the course of discussion, is nothing new, I'd bet you have done it yourself thousands of times and that would be just on these boards.
Therefore, implying illiteracy and ignorance is complete hypocrisy. Way to go Rabbi!

No, idiot. You are illiterate because you cant tell the difference between of and have.
If Palin's PAC did that does that make the Clinton's PAC OK? You are a lying little piece of sniveling shit hypocrite. Sarah is not running for the presidency. Clinton is. Sarah did not sell out government favorites in exchange for contributions to her PAC, Clinton did. Sarah's PAC is not resubmitting new tax reports to reflect foreign contributions which were omitted in previous years, Clinton's is.
See the difference, you worthless piece of shit? Go ahea, post a graph so your humiliation is complete.

A PAC is not a charitable foundation. Sarah had a political action committee. That's a PAC. The Clintons had a charitable foundation that was supposed to collect donations to be spent on charitable works not political campaigns.

Only the Clinton foundation did no such thing.