PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on June 23, 2016, 01:35:06 PM
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/06/23/cnns-clinton-cash-fact-check-ends-embarrassment-cristina-alesci-laurie-frankel/
-
Yes, Clinton has a real scandal on her hands with this one. I don't think she broke any laws, but holy cow does this smell of corruption.
-
Yes, Clinton has a real scandal on her hands with this one. I don't think she broke any laws, but holy cow does this smell of corruption.
Hillary must be one of the smartest lawyers in the world. If I did a tiny fraction of the types of things she has done I would be in a Federal Pen for the rest of my life for breaking laws I never knew existed. But she can do all this shit and somehow, none of it is against the law. She must know all the laws inside out to be able to get away with so much shit that isn't technically illegal. Or if it is illegal, she is smart enough to hide all the evidence (and witnesses). That really takes one smart person to do all that.
-
Yes, Clinton has a real scandal on her hands with this one. I don't think she broke any laws, but holy cow does this smell of corruption.
You owe me a new keyboard
-
"Clinton Cash" should really be part of the main playbook that Trump uses to go after her during the general election. Even if it turns out not to be illegal, it's unethical at the very least and shows she has poor judgement. The fact that she would accept large sums of money from foreign governments for influence is dangerous to our country.
-
"Clinton Cash" should really be part of the main playbook that Trump uses to go after her during the general election. Even if it turns out not to be illegal, it's unethical at the very least and shows she has poor judgement. The fact that she would accept large sums of money from foreign governments for influence is dangerous to our country.
Ordinarily, if one accepts large sums of cash from foreign governments or agents, one will lose their security clearance. But, the corrupt doormat is no ordinary piece of trash.
-
By the way, if anyone is interested. There has been quite a bit of talk about how vile the Clinton Foundation is, and what a horrid charity it is. So I looked it up on Charity Watch.
What a surprise! They give it an "A" rating. Other institutions that get a similar rating include the Sloan-Kettering, Children's Defense Fund, Goodwill Industries, the NRA and the Sierra Club, among others.
According to Charity Watch the Clinton Foundation spends 12% of its donations on administrative overhead. The NRA spends 18%, just for comparison.
-
Here's how it is done and kept legal (not necessarily ethical). Bill and Hill pick a target country, Bill makes arrangements to go and speak and in doing so he asks if there is anything they might need from the State Dept. (wink, wink) and then it is determined how much money needs to go to the Clinton Foundation for Hill to make their dreams come true.
-
By the way, if anyone is interested. There has been quite a bit of talk about how vile the Clinton Foundation is, and what a horrid charity it is. So I looked it up on Charity Watch.
What a surprise! They give it an "A" rating. Other institutions that get a similar rating include the Sloan-Kettering, Children's Defense Fund, Goodwill Industries, the NRA and the Sierra Club, among others.
According to Charity Watch the Clinton Foundation spends 12% of its donations on administrative overhead. The NRA spends 18%, just for comparison.
I have never heard that it is a lousy charity. I have heard that their fundraising techniques are "questionable".
And I don't believe that 12%. I suspect there are a zillion accounting methods to hide the slush, including counting the Clinton family as one of the charities.
-
I have never heard that it is a lousy charity. I have heard that their fundraising techniques are "questionable".
And I don't believe that 12%. I suspect there are a zillion accounting methods to hide the slush, including counting the Clinton family as one of the charities.
Charity watch is pretty good, I've used it for some time. If you have suspicions I'd' love to see the documentation. Given all the falsehoods and vitriol being spun this election season I think it important to document such accusations.
-
Charity watch is pretty good, I've used it for some time. If you have suspicions I'd' love to see the documentation. Given all the falsehoods and vitriol being spun this election season I think it important to document such accusations.
Sorry, but I can't document my suspicions. I will admit that I could be wrong, but I don't think so. My suspicions are built on decades of "circumstantial evidence" from hundreds of sources, including liberal sources.
What do you think about the fact that Clinton's book originally championed the TPP trade deal with a whole chapter. But after she changed her position, the reprinting of that book left that chapter out completely. I know that's not illegal. But it is the kind of thing that makes me disbelieve anything she says.
-
Found this........http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/
After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back (https://twitter.com/ClintonFdn/status/592047971631570944). In a tweet (https://twitter.com/ClintonFdn/status/592047971631570944/photo/1) posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to [the foundation’s] life-changing work.”
-
What do you think about the fact that Clinton's book originally championed the TPP trade deal with a whole chapter. But after she changed her position, the reprinting of that book left that chapter out completely. I know that's not illegal. But it is the kind of thing that makes me disbelieve anything she says.
Anyone can change their mind. If I did about face on an issue I'd probably leave it out of my book too. What interests me is why she changed her mind.
-
Charity watch is pretty good, I've used it for some time. If you have suspicions I'd' love to see the documentation. Given all the falsehoods and vitriol being spun this election season I think it important to document such accusations.
Funny how those on the left don't require the same due diligence when it comes to accusations to those on the other side.
-
Funny how those on the left don't require the same due diligence when it comes to accusations to those on the other side.
What accusations are those?
-
I prefer Guidestar myself so I can see their actual tax returns.
-
Anyone can change their mind. If I did about face on an issue I'd probably leave it out of my book too. What interests me is why she changed her mind.
Read some of the posts on here regarding Trump "changing his mind".
-
Read some of the posts on here regarding Trump "changing his mind".
I can't blame the Donald one bit for changing his tune over decades. But he's done quite a few about faces on big issues in the very recent past. That brings up the question of just what his opinion is.
I think everyone has a pretty good motion of who the Hildebeast is. But the Donald is a bit more mysterious, we've no record of public service. All we really have is his say so, and it can be a bit unclear. If he gets elected you'll finally find out for real January 20, 2017. I hope you like what you see.
-
I think everyone has a pretty good motion of who the Hildebeast is. But the Donald is a bit more mysterious, we've no record of public service. All we really have is his say so, and it can be a bit unclear. If he gets elected you'll finally find out for real January 20, 2017. I hope you like what you see.
Hope versus the certainty of the corrupt doormat.
-
The Clintons have been in the public light for 30+ years. Scandal after scandal, corruption, lying, adultery and even an impeachment. Then we have Hillary as a nothing Senator and one of the worse Secretary of States ever, again plagued with scandals and monumental failure in policy.
No thanks.
-
My thinking. The Clintons are from Arkansas, a fairly impoverished southwestern state. We tend to this of such places as rife with Good Old Boy style corruption. Had they indulged in such the odds on them being caught were pretty low, they were not the focus of any kind of national attention before Bill ran for POTUS.
The stereotype of southern corruption seems to have held since most of the Clinton's associates wound up indicted. However, after 5 years of investigations by three different investigators no one could find any substantial evidence of wrongdoing.
I envision three scenarios. One is the investigators were simply incompetent. Never heard that description used for Ken Starr. The second is the Clintons are master criminals, and could hide their nefarious deeds from investigators. Hillary is a horrid liar, and I find this explanation lacks credibility. The third is they were innocent of wrongdoing.
Think about that, they were innocent of wrongdoing even in the middle of this hotbed of corruption with no one paying attention.
Now everyone is saying that they're indulging in all this corruption within the national spotlight. I'm not buying it, not even a bit. Yeah, lots of folks contributed to the Clinton's nonprofit. I bet the same folks contribute to George Bush's nonprofit, and Jimmy Carter's nonprofit, and will donate to Obama's nonprofit. I won't, I can't imagine giving money to folks who are already fabulously wealthy. But someone does.
If the Clintons are getting some sort of kickbacks from this stuff there'll be a record, bank statements and such. Unlike the Donald the Clintons have released their tax records. If there is some sort of tit for tat there will be a record, someone will squeal. This is the first time the wife of a President is herself running for high office. I think if Barbara Bush ran for president you'd have the exact same issues.
-
Barbara Bush has class.
Hillary is a low life lying and conniving bitch.
Big difference.
-
If you're so certain about corruption, show me the money. Same for the Donald's vast riches. Show me the money. Otherwise it's all naught but supposition.
-
If you're so certain about corruption, show me the money. Same for the Donald's vast riches. Show me the money. Otherwise it's all naught but supposition.
none so blind as those that will not see.
-
none so blind as those that will not see.
Insulting me won't change the facts.
-
Insulting me won't change the facts.
ignoring the facts won't make them go away either.
-
ignoring the facts won't make them go away either.
Most Democrats don't deny that Hillary is corrupt. They just don't care as long as she is a Democrat.
-
ignoring the facts won't make them go away either.
Again, what facts? Show me the money.