Vegas Free-for-All - Clinton Foundation / Clinton Wealth questions linger (POL)

Clinton Foundation / Clinton Wealth questions linger (POL)

forkushV

Apr 24, 2015
2:10am

Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man

Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: CowboyKell
So, I heard some others bitching about this Mark Levin guy so I decided to give a listen to one of his pod cast' to see just who he was.....

WOW, what a loud obnoxious ass. Well, that's my opinion anyway. The really funny thing is, as I was listening I thought, "this must be what marcisdave sounds like".
Hey, this could be a fun exercise, as long as the two-year olds here don't ruin it.

I see BobOrme as Senator Joseph McCarthy (I don't think Bob would be insulted), Boilerman as Bill O'Reilly (ditto), Roulette Man as General Jack D. Ripper from Dr. Strangelove, and DonDiego as Dr. Strangelove himself.

And of course CowboyKell is Joe Isuzu.

And Forkie as the old west medicine man.

Only if it's FDA approved! Remember, I actually believe in science.

Roulette Man

Apr 24, 2015
2:13am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: jphelan

Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote
Originally posted by: jphelan
So, I see three sources here:

1) The Federalist website which I provided
2) The Clinton Foundation which PJ Provided
3) The Tax returned which Roulette Man provided

#1 and #3 agree that only a small amount of Clinton Foundation revenue went to Grants:
#1 said 15%
#3 said 6% while ~20% went to salaries

In the meantime, no one has explained why anyone would donate to this "charity" and / or paying upwards of $500,000 per speech for Bill and / or Hillary. I suggest people are buying influence at the very least and more likely bribing.

Can anyone explain how the Clinton's wealth now approaches that of the Romney family? Can anyone explain how their 35 year old daughter can afford a $10.5m home when her "work" outside the foundation is minimal? I did not realize public servants and foundations added that much to personal net worth.

If people like thumper took the time to think rather than hate, they might someday see through the fog.

#1 and #3 do not back up the utter BS premise of your initial statement where you falsely stated only 15% of donations go to the actual cause of the charity.

Someone with integrity would fess up to that error. Someone without integrity would double down on it. Whats your choice, Jphelan?

PJ - how about this from Page 88 of the 2013 Clinton Foundation tax return Link that YOU provided:

Here is a quick breakdown or 2012 and 2013 revenue / salaries and expenses. I was wrong. it looks like far less than 15% is going to charitable causes unless this is somehow buried in "other expenses"

That is a different organization than what I was referring to. The return I looked up was the Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation which Guidestar then says AKA The Clinton Foundation.

jphelan

Apr 24, 2015
2:21am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV

Quote
Originally posted by: jphelan
Here is a quick breakdown or 2012 and 2013 revenue / salaries and expenses. I was wrong. it looks like far less than 15% is going to charitable causes unless this is somehow buried in "other expenses"...

Nope, those amounts are going to "grants." But like I said yesterday:

So the Federalist Society/Freepers are claiming that the ONLY CGI money that actually helps people is in the form of grants to other organizations, as if the CGI is incapable of administering programs themselves. I can't believe they can find people dim enough to believe that claim. Obviously, they've found people dishonest enough to spread it.

Kind of nailed it, didn't I?

So Forkie - how much did the CGI take in and how much did they distribute? If it is < 80%, there is no way I would donate money to this "charity" unless I was corrupt and looking to buy favor.

hoops2

Apr 24, 2015
2:36am

Block User

So forky doesn't see anything wrong with a Russian company paying bubba $500k plus millions in donations so shrillery's state dept can allow the Russians to control 20% of the US uranium supply?

pjstroh

Apr 24, 2015
2:59am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: jphelan

PJ - how about this from Page 88 of the 2013 Clinton Foundation tax return Link that YOU provided:

That tax return is dead-on-balls accurate, jphelan! Unfortunately, your narrative about it is 100% false...a complete lie, even !

"Grants" is not the definition of "money spent on the charity". You've tried to falsely claim that 4 different times on this thread now. Saying it more frequently does not make it true. It only undermines your already shambled integrity.

I published and sourced the breakdowns of the actual charity expenditures.

The CGI has saved more lives than you will ever do in 100 lifetimes. Its sad enough that you would declare war on such an effort. Its beyond sad that you would fabricate false statistics about the charity's finances.

jphelan

Apr 24, 2015
3:24am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: jphelan

PJ - how about this from Page 88 of the 2013 Clinton Foundation tax return Link that YOU provided:

Having passed the Illinois CPA examination and possessing a MBA makes me pretty qualified in this area. As such, I tend to trust Audited Financial Statements more than "Unaudited" results. I even trust IRA filings more than "unaudited" results. It looks like you cherry picked numbers from a "unaudited" financial statements and I do not trust those results.

Below are the numbers I gleamed from page 48 of the 2013-2014 Annual Report on the Clinton Foundation web site. Do you notice that salaries are missing? They are BURIED in the PROGRAM SERVICES. Salaries are REQUIRED in the IRS filing and it changes then numbers dramatically doesn't it?

One last question - which do you trust more?

A Glossy annual report from a corporation with unaudited financial statements

Audited financial statements and legal / IRS filings

Also do you have an "independent" reference for all the "lives saved" by any Clinton foundation? To me, it looks like 85% or more of the "good" they have done has been for themselves personally.

pjstroh

Apr 24, 2015
4:26am

Block User

Jphelan continues to lie even as he posts the financial statement that proves he's lieing. The financial statement shows a breakdown of all the expenditures by program...and it goes far beyond the "grants" declaration that jphelan falsely claims is the total expenditure of the charity .

Jphelan the Illinois CPA cant do the most basic arithmetic or read a basic financial statment. I cant do anything at this point except feel sorry for him.

Don

Apr 24, 2015
4:29am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
I see BobOrme as Senator Joseph McCarthy (I don't think Bob would be insulted), Boilerman as Bill O'Reilly (ditto), Roulette Man as General Jack D. Ripper from Dr. Strangelove, and DonDiego as Dr. Strangelove himself.

And of course CowboyKell is Joe Isuzu.

DonDiego thanks forkushV for "seeing" DonDiego as Dr Strangelove [AKA Doktor Merkwürdigliebe.]

However, poor old DonDiego fancies himself more in the mold of Major T. J. "King" Kong.

Major "King" Kong: "Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one forty-five caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days' concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon stockings. Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff."

Or, perhaps General Jack D. Ripper.

General Jack D. Ripper: "You know when fluoridation first began?"
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake:"I... no, no. I don't, Jack."
General Jack D. Ripper: "Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works."

And forkushV is clearly simpatico with Premier Dmitri Kissoff.

Or, perhaps the feckless President Merkin Muffley.

President Merkin Muffley [on the telephone with Soviet Premier Kissoff]: "Ah-ah-eh-uhm-hm... I'm sorry, too, Dmitri... I'm very sorry... *All right*, you're sorrier than I am, but I am as sorry as well... I am as sorry as you are, Dmitri! Don't say that you're more sorry than I am, because I'm capable of being just as sorry as you are... So we're both sorry, all right?... All right."

jatki

Apr 24, 2015
4:56am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
They say follow the money

1a- bubba gets $500,000 for a speech in Russia
1b - Same company donates to the clinton charities
1c - Company is approved by the State Dept to get 20% control of the country's uranium

2A - bubba gets free flighs on a private jet to Columbia
2B - bubba gets $300,000 for a speech in Columbia
2C - Same company donates to the clinton charities
2D - same company gets approval from state for a trade deal. when shrillery otiginally opposed it

3 - clinton charities are now restating 5 years of tax returns

4-Now we know why like a good mafia don bubba doesn't send emails or leave any trails. Now we know why shrillery deleted 30,000 emails on her private server

Senator Menendez has been indicted on less evidence than this

jatki

Apr 24, 2015
5:08am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: jphelan
So, I see three sources here:

1) The Federalist website which I provided
2) The Clinton Foundation which PJ Provided
3) The Tax returned which Roulette Man provided

#1 and #3 agree that only a small amount of Clinton Foundation revenue went to Grants:
#1 said 15%
#3 said 6% while ~20% went to salaries

In the meantime, no one has explained why anyone would donate to this "charity" and / or paying upwards of $500,000 per speech for Bill and / or Hillary. I suggest people are buying influence at the very least and more likely bribing.

Can anyone explain how the Clinton's wealth now approaches that of the Romney family? Can anyone explain how their 35 year old daughter can afford a $10.5m home when her "work" outside the foundation is minimal? I did not realize public servants and foundations added that much to personal net worth.

If people like thumper took the time to think rather than hate, they might someday see through the fog.

#1 and #3 do not back up the utter BS premise of your initial statement where you falsely stated only 15% of donations go to the actual cause of the charity.

Someone with integrity would fess up to that error. Someone without integrity would double down on it. Whats your choice, Jphelan?

It's funny, you claim utter bullsit, who made you the final word judge. RM posted an IRS return, well the numbers anyway and you just shrug 'em off.."oh, that's BS". Well, I look at all of them, what you posted, what everyone posted, I also read and I've been reading up a bit on the Clintons and Bill(and Hillary) are the wealthiest living pres. and in the top ten wealthiest of all time. Hard to imagine one could amass 100 mil just from speaking engagements. Thay're as crooked of politicians that ever came down the road, I'm sure there's some worse but they're pretty bad. You can try and defend it all you want but taken everything together, the CF is a huge piggy bank for them.

«‹6 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now