• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Clinton Crime Family Foundation

16.5 said:
Some of the money earned by the Clintons has paid their personal expenses, some has paid off millions of dollars in old legal debts incurred during those earlier fake scandals, and some has gone toward political campaigns, including Hillary's presidential race.
Click to expand...
Is there a point in this somewhere? Could a team of volunteers and four bloodhounds find a point in this somewhere? I have my doubts.
 
barehl said:
Is there a point in this somewhere? Could a team of volunteers and four bloodhounds find a point in this somewhere? I have my doubts.
Click to expand...

No, your highlighting makes no sense at all, as such no one can find what ever point you thought you were making.
 
I just don't feel the hate-vibe wrt the CF.

Every American has a right to organize his affairs to minimize taxation. If my service was as intangible as a speech, I might try the "charity" route too. OTOH as politicians they have to accept the "hypocrite" label unless that can show they were a real charity and not a tax dodge.
=====

The real issues are these -
Hillary seems to have clearly violated the executive conflict of interest laws

http://www.oge.gov/Laws-and-Regulat...Acts-affecting-a-personal-financial-interest/
18 U.S.C. § 208, the basic criminal conflict of interest statute, prohibits an executive branch employee from participating personally and substantially in a particular Government matter that will affect his own financial interests, as well as the financial interests of:

His spouse or minor child
Click to expand...

The actual USC code does say "his spouse"(!!) so maybe Hillary can wriggle off that hook by seeking special exemption for females - but at an additional burden of hypocrisy.

&

The destruction of email records while under investigation is obstruction of justice, but the partisan DoJ won't prosecute that one.

Neither is a direct product of the CF charity matter.

====

The core problem is McCain–Feingold, which forces career politicians into such tax distortions. and additionally stifles free speech.

Scumbaggery, hypocrisy and distortion of the meaning of "charity" by politicians - sure. So what ?
" I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

=======

I think Bill could dance around this. Just another case of a lovable scaliwag piddling in the punch bowl.
Hillary can't dance.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
I wonder if some of that Qatari donation went to Hillary's election campaign.
Click to expand...

Why not?

Some probably went to her cowboyz OMG!! homebrewz server maintenance too. And some went to pay off the Vince Foster thing. And some went to hush money for Benghazi!!1!!!.

But you have no evidence where it went, so we'll just make some **** up JAQ a bit.

:rolleyes:
 
stevea said:
...The real issues are these -
Hillary seems to have clearly violated the executive conflict of interest laws

http://www.oge.gov/Laws-and-Regulat...Acts-affecting-a-personal-financial-interest/


The actual USC code does say "his spouse"(!!) so maybe Hillary can wriggle off that hook by seeking special exemption for females - but at an additional burden of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
You still have no quid pro quo.

And if you are interpreting the statute correctly, what about Cheney-Halliburton among other egregious cronyism by our legislators?


stevea said:
...The destruction of email records while under investigation is obstruction of justice, but the partisan DoJ won't prosecute that one.
Click to expand...
"While under investigation"?


stevea said:
...Hillary can't dance.
Click to expand...
Looks to me like she can, and quite well at that.
 
Last edited:
Do you think Hillary had enough pull to also get her emails erased from the server? Or are they waiting there for a change of administration and a prosecution? I expect the file to hold some smoking emails re: quid pro quo.

eta: I wonder at what level an investigation can start? Some Republican state attorney general? Any state? Where is/was her residence?
 
Last edited:
Hillary says she is not going to talk about the Foreign Donations

Hillary was asked during last night's interview/debacle about the Corporate and Foreign donations to the Foundation, after a long winded and completely off topic speech she said, and I quote:

"I have no - I have no plans to say or do anything about The Clinton Foundation other than to say how proud I am of it and that I think for the good of the world, its work should continue."

Alrighty then, sorry to bring your massive conflicts of interest up.:rolleyes:
 
Roger Ramjets said:
And so you should be. Knocking a charity that is helping millions of people all around the world just to score partisan political points not something to be proud of.

But wait, do I detect a hint of sarcasm? Is your contrition not sincere? Figures...
Click to expand...

the part I like is when you deleted my reference to "massive conflicts of interest." That was pretty clever.

Say what does Charity Navigator say about the "charity"?

"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."

But Hillary is refusing to answer questions about that, because she is READY to be President!
 
16.5 said:
the part I like is when you deleted my reference to "massive conflicts of interest." That was pretty clever.

Say what does Charity Navigator say about the "charity"?

"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."

But Hillary is refusing to answer questions about that, because she is READY to be President!
Click to expand...

I thought that difficulty in rating the charity arose from the Clinton's charity donating money to other charities. Therefore Charity Navigator was unable to determine how much ended up in the hands of end-users. If I am way off base, I will gladly listen to the correct reason why the Clinton's charity cannot be rated using CN's methodology. But if I am not off base, then your concerns about the charity may be unfounded.
 
Ladewig said:
I thought that difficulty in rating the charity arose from the Clinton's charity donating money to other charities. Therefore Charity Navigator was unable to determine how much ended up in the hands of end-users. If I am way off base, I will gladly listen to the correct reason why the Clinton's charity cannot be rated using CN's methodology. But if I am not off base, then your concerns about the charity may be unfounded.
Click to expand...

That is not correct, it stemmed from a host of problems, including the Foundations failure to file proper tax returns and to segregate out donations from Foreign Governments.

All done, tellingly enough, while Hillary was SoS.

Plus, although probably not on Charity Navigator's radar, there is the fact that the "Charity" gave Clinton family attack dog Sid Blumenthal about $750k for... well that is expertly covered elsewhere on this website... lets just say here not for charitable purposes.
 
16.5 said:
That is not correct, it stemmed from a host of problems, including the Foundations failure to file proper tax returns and to segregate out donations from Foreign Governments.

All done, tellingly enough, while Hillary was SoS.

Plus, although probably not on Charity Navigator's radar, there is the fact that the "Charity" gave Clinton family attack dog Sid Blumenthal about $750k for... well that is expertly covered elsewhere on this website... lets just say here not for charitable purposes.
Click to expand...

I see.
The filed tax returns were incorrect and had to be refiled to account for the foreign donations.
 
16.5 said:
That is not correct, it stemmed from a host of problems, including the Foundations failure to file proper tax returns and to segregate out donations from Foreign Governments.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that is why Charity Navigator stopped rating them? I would think that after the correct figures were filed then the initial invalid returns would no longer be an issue for deciding a charity's rating.

I went to CN website and found this

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.VZ8m10o8KrU
[please let me know if I messed up the link]

Why isn't this organization rated?

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.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.​

Maybe the lack of rating is not a negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
Are you sure that is why Charity Navigator stopped rating them? I would think that after the correct figures were filed then the initial invalid returns would no longer be an issue for deciding a charity's rating.

I went to CN website and found this

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.VZ8m10o8KrU
[please let me know if I messed up the link]

Why isn't this organization rated?

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.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.​

Maybe the lack of rating is not a negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
Click to expand...

Yeah if you read the dozens of articles it links it would be. At least you dropped the nonsense about giving to other charities.
 
wareyin said:
Don't forget that they paid their employee. I mean, come on, what charity actually pays its employees? Other than all of them.
Click to expand...

Their employee who was a political hit man and lobbied for other governments. Charity!

Man, the pro Hillary shilling here is unbelievable.
 
16.5 said:
Yeah if you read the dozens of articles it links it would be.
Click to expand...

I am having a hard time understanding what you are saying here - it would be what?

I am taking CN at its word. The CN website's exact wording is the lack of rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment. Are you suggesting otherwise?

ETA
the first article quoted states
On February 18, 2015, The Washington Post reported that, "the foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs."​

At least you dropped the nonsense about giving to other charities.
Click to expand...

I made a mistake and admitted I was misinformed. I see that the tax returns had to be refiled because they violated tax law. However, I still see no evidence that the rating was dropped because of tax forms being refiled.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Their employee who was a political hit man and lobbied for other governments. Charity!

Man, the pro Hillary shilling here is unbelievable.
Click to expand...
Not paying an employee's wages would be a bad sign, and paying an employee is bad. Are you sure that not falling for that little catch 22 is "pro Hillary shilling"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom