exactlyA 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.No, idiot. You are illiterate because you cant tell the difference between of and have."Must have" You are illiterate as well as ignorant.The Clinton's must of modeled their expenses after SarahPac.
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!
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.
Only the Clinton foundation did no such thing.