Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Are Sitting In a Bar.

5 views
Skip to first unread message

raykeller

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 1:16:12 AM8/23/16
to
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Are Sitting In a Bar.

Donald leans over and, with a smile on his face, says: "Do you think the
media were too hard on you about that scandal?"

Hillary: "You mean my lying about Benghazi?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "You mean the massive voter fraud?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "Using my secret private server with classified material to hide my
activities?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything else?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "Using the Clinton Foundation as a cover for tax evasion, hiring
cronies, and taking bribes from foreign countries?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "You mean the drones being operated in our own country without the
benefit of the law?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million, and right afterward it
declared bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "You mean arming the Muslim Brotherhood and hiring them in the
White House?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "Whitewater, Watergate committee, Vince Foster, commodity deals?"

Trump: "No the other one:"

Hillary: "The IRS targeting conservatives?"

Trump: "No the other one:"

Hillary: "Turning Libya into chaos?"

Trump: "No the other one:"

Hillary: "Trashing Mubarak, one of our few Muslim friends?"

Trump: "No the other one:"

Hillary: "Turning our backs on Israel?"

Trump: "No the other one:"

Hillary: "The joke Iran Nuke deal?"

Trump: "No the other one:"

Hillary: "Leaving Iraq in chaos?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "The DOJ spying on the press?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "You mean HHS Secretary Sibelius shaking down health insurance
executives?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "Giving our cronies in SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 months
later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "The NSA monitoring citizens'?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General
investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "Me, The IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "Threats to all of Bill's former mistresses to keep them quiet?"

Trump: "No, the other one."

Hillary: "I give up!!! . Oh wait, I think I've got it!!! When I stole the
White House furniture, silverware and china when Bill left office?"

Trump: "THAT'S IT!!! I almost forgot about that one!!!"



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jim Wilkins

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 7:10:36 PM8/23/16
to
"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:770prbhtjbl46t6c7...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22, "raykeller@looser_losers.com> wrote:
>
>>Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Are Sitting In a Bar.
>>
>>Donald leans over and, with a smile on his face, says: "Do you think
>>the
>>media were too hard on you about that scandal?"
>>
>>Hillary: "Using my secret private server with classified material to
>>hide my
>>activities?"
>
> 15,000 new ones just disclosed in the last day or two. That's from
> the
> SecOfState account. A bunch more just turned up from the Clinton
> Foundation.
>
> We can only wonder how many are being held off until after the
> election.
>

Here is the phone number and website of the Russian Foreign
Intelligence Service:
Sluzhba Vneshney Razvedki
095 923 62 13
svr.gov.ru




Ed Huntress

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 7:13:12 PM8/23/16
to
It's a handy place to make a contribution to Trump's campaign, too.

--
Ed Huntress

Jim Wilkins

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 7:36:28 PM8/23/16
to

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p1mprbh2qlqna7t6b...@4ax.com...
If they are pulling the strings he'll soon appear in a matryoshka set.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-handpainted-world-leader-nesting-political-matryoshka-figures-set-of-5-/151114146463

I have the set from Lenin to Yeltsin.



Frank

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 7:58:11 PM8/23/16
to
Obama nested inside Hillary - guess he belongs there.

Ed Huntress

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 8:09:35 PM8/23/16
to
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 19:35:56 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
And they'll be beautiful! Or maybe they'll just be YUGE...

>
>I have the set from Lenin to Yeltsin.

Putin to Trump will be the next big thing. Getting the hair right will
be the hard part.

--
Ed Huntress

Jim Wilkins

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 8:20:15 PM8/23/16
to
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p1mprbh2qlqna7t6b...@4ax.com...
The Clinton Foundation has sold 100% influence to foreign interests
more times than Max Bialystock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_(musical)

--Leo Bloom


Ed Huntress

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 8:25:22 PM8/23/16
to
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:19:42 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
Really? You have evidence of that?

It sounds like the same kind of *access* that every politician in the
United States, federal and state, gives to people who contribute to
their campaigns. The claim of *influence* sounds like a lot of hot air
from people who have no idea, but who are getting desperate to avoid
humiliation.

--
Ed Huntress

Jim Wilkins

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 8:49:56 PM8/23/16
to
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:26qprbpqq1anscbhi...@4ax.com...
Oh, Trump jokes are acceptable but not Clinton ones.


Ed Huntress

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 9:09:19 PM8/23/16
to
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:49:21 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
Good ones are always welcome. Obscure ones are always suspect. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress
>

Jim Wilkins

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 10:29:11 PM8/23/16
to
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:orsprbptvln344dj9...@4ax.com...
New York culture is obscure to you?


Governor Swill

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 10:54:08 PM8/23/16
to
On Tue, 23 Aug "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
>The Clinton Foundation has sold 100% influence to foreign interests
>more times than Max Bialystock.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_(musical)

If I understand it correctly, the main complaint is money coming in
from foreigners, but the money is being spent abroad so where's the
problem?

Millions of poor around the world get medication because of the CF.
AIDS medication is provided to over 10M Africans. And millions of
kids are alive because they were fed by, and got health care from, the
Clintons. Small business loans in poor countries that create jobs and
prosperity; education, health care, clean water, consultancy, legal
services, the list of benefits the Clintons provide world wide is
enormous. What's wrong with them doing it with foreign money?

When did charitable work become a political football?

Swill
--
"If Donald Trump is our standard bearer,
what's happened to our standards?

Governor Swill

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 11:01:01 PM8/23/16
to
Thank you. Trump sold seats on his economic advisory panel to
billionaires willing to pony up seven figure donations. Politicians
routinely take private meetings with big dollar donors. Media
companies run contests where the prize is to spend an evening or a day
with a celebrity. Joe Blow's wife is dying to meet Robert Redford so
he makes a big donation to Redford's favorite charity and takes him
and the wives out for dinner.

The Clinton Foundation through the Clinton Global Initiative does
charitable work around the world. Charitable work that comes from
Americans named Clinton. The value of the good will this will give
our incoming President in her international relations and negotiations
is incalculable.

Afaic, the Clintons should NOT separate themselves from the foundation
if she's elected. If anything, they should draw closer to it and
promote that connection world wide in every country in which they're
provided food and health care for kids, educated them, and done all
the other things that've saved lives and promoted work, prosperity and
free market values.

Jim Wilkins

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 9:29:07 AM8/24/16
to
"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:ss5qrbd9cmgr9ftdo...@4ax.com...
> On Tues, 23 Au 2016 19:10:06 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"wrote:
>>"Winston_Smith" wrote
>
>>> 15,000 new ones just disclosed in the last day or two. That's from
>>> the SecOfState account. A bunch more just turned up from the
>>> Clinton
>>> Foundation.
>>>
>>> We can only wonder how many are being held off until after the
>>> election.
>>
>>Here is the phone number and website of the Russian Foreign
>>Intelligence Service:
>>Sluzhba Vneshney Razvedki
>>095 923 62 13
>>svr.gov.ru
>
> Oh, my. Seems where they came from is more important than what they
> say.
>
> You do have some evidence for your charge don't you? Not just some
> leftist diversion made up on the fly is it?

What???

Failure to safeguard national security from espionage is -very-
serious. The ultimate price for willful disclosure is execution, even
in peacetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg
The revelations in the Mitrokhin Archive of KGB secret documents
confirm that Julius was absolutely as guilty as charged. Ethel had the
intent but was too inept to do much damage.

An espionage situation pulled the US into WW1 on the British side. We
wanted to remain neutral and were annoyed by the actions of both
sides. The British were secretly monitoring and deciphering US
transatlantic cable communications when they discovered a relayed
German message encouraging Mexico to attack us (and tie up our Army)
to regain the Southwest, already a hot spot from Pancho Villa's
activities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Columbus_(1916)
Before releasing it the British made up cover stories about alternate
message channels to conceal the disturbing fact that they were spying
on us, and to direct all our anger toward Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram

The NSA spying revelation blew over because it only confirmed what
everyone who mattered expected anyway.

The claims of Guccifer and the SVR hacking Hillary's server could be
another distraction. Espionage is an exceedingly complex and devious
business. Whatever can't be hidden is obscured in a mass of
disinformation, like the huge Soviet rocket factory that was very
effectively disguised from us as an apartment complex, with the cars
in the parking lot moved to simulate residential instead of industrial
daily patterns. This is a good illustration of how far those involved
will go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat

We 'generously' provided refugees from Nazi Germany with all new
clothing, then passed their old ones to infiltrated agents so they
would be dressed just like the locals.

--nc5c3r


Jim Wilkins

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 12:28:00 PM8/24/16
to
"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:6mhrrbd3mhdjl5c2h...@4ax.com...
> Then bitch about the bitch and leave Trump out of it.
>

Ed Huntress added the line:

Just Wondering

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 2:31:06 PM8/24/16
to
On 8/23/2016 9:01 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>
> The Clinton Foundation through the Clinton Global Initiative does
> charitable work around the world. Charitable work that comes from
> Americans named Clinton. The value of the good will this will give
> our incoming President in her international relations and negotiations
> is incalculable.
>
> Afaic, the Clintons should NOT separate themselves from the foundation
> if she's elected. If anything, they should draw closer to it and
> promote that connection world wide in every country in which they're
> provided food and health care for kids, educated them, and done all
> the other things that've saved lives and promoted work, prosperity and
> free market values.
>
Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most
influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic
nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in
grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and
salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed
it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in
rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and
meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel.
None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class
flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its
2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the
organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than
2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around
the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that
nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the
Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t
meet our criteria.”

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.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton
Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons
traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the
Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight
Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and
Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they
both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton
Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a
housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013,
tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to
$395,000, according to a report in Politico.

Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a
falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose
at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former
secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was
hired to replace Braverman.

Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax
filings show.

The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary
Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that
allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all
uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian
company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend
of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged
over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.

The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in
foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five
years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the
discrepancies in its filings last week.


Just Wondering

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 2:33:48 PM8/24/16
to
On 8/23/2016 8:54 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
>> The Clinton Foundation has sold 100% influence to foreign interests
>> more times than Max Bialystock.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_(musical)
>
> If I understand it correctly, the main complaint is money coming in
> from foreigners, but the money is being spent abroad so where's the
> problem?
>
> Millions of poor around the world get medication because of the CF.
> AIDS medication is provided to over 10M Africans. And millions of
> kids are alive because they were fed by, and got health care from, the
> Clintons. Small business loans in poor countries that create jobs and
> prosperity; education, health care, clean water, consultancy, legal
> services, the list of benefits the Clintons provide world wide is
> enormous. What's wrong with them doing it with foreign money?
>

Ed Huntress

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 3:12:47 PM8/24/16
to
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:35:08 -0600, Just Wondering
<fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 8/23/2016 8:54 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Aug "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
>>> The Clinton Foundation has sold 100% influence to foreign interests
>>> more times than Max Bialystock.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_(musical)
>>
>> If I understand it correctly, the main complaint is money coming in
>> from foreigners, but the money is being spent abroad so where's the
>> problem?
>>
>> Millions of poor around the world get medication because of the CF.
>> AIDS medication is provided to over 10M Africans. And millions of
>> kids are alive because they were fed by, and got health care from, the
>> Clintons. Small business loans in poor countries that create jobs and
>> prosperity; education, health care, clean water, consultancy, legal
>> services, the list of benefits the Clintons provide world wide is
>> enormous. What's wrong with them doing it with foreign money?
>>
>Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’
>
>http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
>
>The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most
>influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic
>nonprofits last month.

<snip>
>
>Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the
>Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model .?.?. doesn’t
>meet our criteria.”

100% NYP bullshit. This is why the Post isn't used as a birdcage liner
by New Yorkers anymore. It's too toxic, and it kills the birds. <g>

Charity Navigator did NOT put them on a "watch list." They just
decided not to rate them -- because they are not a foundation, and
their business model does not fit into the CN foundation model.

Here's what CN actually said:

"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."

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204

So, what's the "business model" thing about? Here's what FactCheck
said about it:

"Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private
foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private
donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public
charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly."

An interview with a Charity Navigator executive:

"We spoke by phone with Sandra Minuitti at Charity Navigator, and she
told us Charity Navigator decided not to rate the Clinton Foundation
because the foundation spun off some entities (chiefly the Health
Access Initiative) and then later brought some, like the Clinton
Global Initiative, back into the fold. Charity Navigator looks at a
charity’s performance over time, she said, and those spin-offs could
result in a skewed picture using its analysis model. If the foundation
maintains its current structure for several years, she said, Charity
Navigator will be able to rate it again.

"The decision to withhold a rating had nothing to do with concerns
about the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. Further, Minuitti said
citing only the 6 percent of the budget spent on grants as the sum
total spent on charity by the foundation — as Willis and [Carly]
Fiorina did — is inaccurate."

"She referred us to page 10 of the 2013 990 form for the Clinton
Foundation. When considering the amount spent on “charitable work,”
she said, one would look not just at the amount in grants given to
other charities, but all of the expenses in Column B for program
services [that's how direct charities like the Clinton Foundation give
out their money]. That comes to 80.6 percent of spending. (The higher
89 percent figure we cited earlier comes from a CharityWatch analysis
of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.)

“That’s the standard way” to measure a charity’s performance, Minuitti
said. “You have to look at the entirety of that column.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

CharityWatch gives the Clinton Foundation an "A" rating. Charity
Navigator says that 80.6% of the Clinton Foundation's money goes
directly to charity programs. Charity Watch says it's 86%. Both are
EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH for any chairty. That's why CW gives them an "A"
rating.

FWIW, when I was an editor at McGraw-Hill I sometimes had lunch with
the New York Post people. They're a wild bunch, and a lot of fun, but
they are not what you'd call "fair and balanced." They are also sloppy
as hell when it comes to research and fact-checking. We got into it
with them here on RCM some years ago, by way of John Lott, the "More
Guns..." guy:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/01/30/roshhuntress/

--
Ed Huntress

Rudy Canoza

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 4:30:15 PM8/24/16
to
On 8/23/2016 7:54 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
>> The Clinton Foundation has sold 100% influence to foreign interests
>> more times than Max Bialystock.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_(musical)
>
> If I understand it correctly, the main complaint is money coming in
> from foreigners, but the money is being spent abroad so where's the
> problem?

The main complaint, of course, is that the Clintons strong-arm
contributions to their "charity" from people who want the Clintons'
political influence in order to advance the donors' financial interests.
The other big complaint is that the foreign donors bought access and
influence with Hillary Clinton to promote the foreigners' interests
rather than the interests of the United States while she was Secretary
of State.

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who
met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money —
either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton
Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible
ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone
conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department
donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its
international programs, according to a review of State Department
calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85
donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more
than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state

-----------------------------

The Clinton Foundation may well engage in a lot of good and appropriate
charitable work, but that's obviously not the problem. The problem is
that the Clintons, especially Hillary, shake down donors for money for
the foundation, then work to promote the donors' interests to the U.S.
government. It's corruption on a colossal scale.

There's also the matter that the foundation is a bit of a slush fund
when it comes to providing highly compensated employment to the
Clintons' friends.

PaxPerPoten

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 5:51:40 PM8/24/16
to
The Emails are all over the Net, Ed. I find it amusing that the
socialist/Communist-Democrats accuse Trump of exactly what their Party
has been doing ever since they managed to assassinate Senator Joseph
McCarthy's "UnAmerican Activities Committee".




--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

Ed Huntress

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 8:12:52 PM8/24/16
to
Which emails are you talking about? How about pointing to some source
that you feel is accurate and representative?

--
Ed Huntress

Governor Swill

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 8:51:09 PM8/24/16
to
On Wed, 24 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
>On 8/23/2016 9:01 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> The Clinton Foundation through the Clinton Global Initiative does
>> charitable work around the world. Charitable work that comes from
>> Americans named Clinton. The value of the good will this will give
>> our incoming President in her international relations and negotiations
>> is incalculable.
>> Afaic, the Clintons should NOT separate themselves from the foundation
>> if she's elected. If anything, they should draw closer to it and
>> promote that connection world wide in every country in which they're
>> provided food and health care for kids, educated them, and done all
>> the other things that've saved lives and promoted work, prosperity and
>> free market values.
>Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’
>http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

All bullshit and thoroughly debunked. Even Newsmax is critical of the
NY Post article.
<http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-foundation-factcheck-org-donations/2015/06/19/id/651411/#ixzz4IITXSNNT>

"Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina has charged that "so
little" of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation
"actually go to charitable works," a figure her Super PAC has put at 6
percent of the Foundation's annual revenue.

"The bottom line, according to the online information watchdog
FactCheck.org: "Fiorina is simply wrong."

"Fiorina is referring only to the amount of money donated by the
Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most
of the Foundation's charitable work is performed in-house.

"The independent philanthropy watchdog CharityWatch analyzed
Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of it went to
charity — higher than the 75 percent considered the industry
standard."

>The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most
>influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic
>nonprofits last month.
>
>The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in
>grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

As above, that is what the Clinton Foundation donated to other
charities, but it does most of it's work in house. That is, it isn't
just a group that collects money and gives it to charity, it is
*itself* a charity. The 6% only counts money given by the CF to
*other* charities. It doesn't count what they spent directly on their
own charitable projects.

>The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and
>salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
>
>On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed
>it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in
>rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and
>meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel.
>None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class
>flights paid for by the foundation.

>In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its
>2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the
>organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.
>
>Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than
>2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around
>the world.

It takes a lot of workers to help the hundreds of millions the CF has
assisted around the world. Like the 18M US students who've received
educational support from the CF, or the more than half a million
African children who get free AIDS/HIV meds and the millions more
world wide who get it at a 90% or greater discount. The farmers who
get the benefit of agricultural professionals to teach them how to
increase yields. There are millions who get health care because of
the CF. CF provides or connects people to microbusiness loans and
marketing consultants who help lift families out of poverty by backing
small businesses and connecting them with global markets. Donna
Karan, for example, is a CF partner who sells third world artisanal
products. The Clinton Foundation helps set up such arrangements so
impoverished workers can access valuable western markets.

>But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that
>nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Please note that in this right wing distorted list of expenses, the
only reference to the Foundation's donations for that year is off by
$120M. Further, charitable work is a "functional expense" since
charity work is the foundation's function. Iow, most of the 84.6M
above was spent providing aid and that 84.6 is only half that year's
total donations and pledges.

The "leftover" money not directly spend is being used to build an
endowment that well carry the Clinton Foundation over during the
expected period of Hillary's Presidency when neither she nor Bill will
be allowed to actively operate or fund raise for the organization.

>Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the
>Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model .?.?. doesn’t
>meet our criteria.”
>
>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.

This is an outright lie.

"Fox Business Network's Gerri Willis also claimed that only 6 percent
of the Clinton Foundation's 2013 revenue "went to help people," and
said that watchdog Charity Navigator had placed the Foundation on a
watch list.

"But Charity Navigator's Sandra Minuitti told FactCheck that her
organization had decided not to rate the Clinton Foundation, and said
the decision to withhold a rating had nothing to do with concerns
about the Foundation's charitable work."
<http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-foundation-factcheck-org-donations/2015/06/19/id/651411/#ixzz4IITXSNNT>

CF is *not* on Charity Navigator's watch list.
<https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.watchlist>

CN doesn't rate CF.
<https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204>

CGI America has committed over 13B in value to date to help Americans.
Schools are assisted in getting STEM professionals and grads on board
to mentor students in local school systems, for example.

The problem here is that the criticism is politically driven and has
come from the right while the Clintons have simply ignored the charges
as ludicrous - which they are. So effective has this right wing
brainwash been that even the mainstream media has bought into some of
it.

Republicans would apparently prefer to see millions of children and
adults die of disease and starvation than see the Clintons succeed in
doing good works.

The fact remains, the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative
have helped nearly half a billion people worldwide and done much to
foster good will for America. Republicans are desperate to prevent
the voters from realizing this.

"Winding down" the CF while Hillary is in office would negatively
affect tens of millions, many of them Americans, and it is no
exaggeration to say that shutting it down would lead directly to the
deaths of at least half a million people, mostly children.

That the GOP and the right wing fanatics that form much of their base
would rather see people die than a Democrat, especially a Clinton, get
into office is beyond disgusting. Trump and the Grand Old Party
deserve each other.

http://blogs.elespectador.com/george-o-nomics/files/2016/03/TRUMP.jpg

Swill
--
#imwithher #stronger together
"It's shameful how Hillary is selling access to government
through the Clinton Foundation! She should do it like everybody
else - through campaign contributions!

Governor Swill

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 10:54:43 PM8/24/16
to
Why are you asking that idiot? He's got nothing. Never has, never
will.

Swill
--
#imwithher #stronger together
And then the elephant said . . ,
"It's outrageous how donors to the Clinton Foundation got access
to government!
We prefer they get access the old fashioned way.
Through campaign contributions."

Ed Huntress

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 8:09:01 AM8/25/16
to
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 22:54:43 -0400, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Aug Ed Huntress wrote:
>>On Wed, 24 Aug PaxPerPoten wrote:
>>>On 8/23/2016 7:25 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> It sounds like the same kind of *access* that every politician in the
>>>> United States, federal and state, gives to people who contribute to
>>>> their campaigns. The claim of *influence* sounds like a lot of hot air
>>>> from people who have no idea, but who are getting desperate to avoid
>>>> humiliation.
>>>
>>>The Emails are all over the Net, Ed. I find it amusing that the
>>>socialist/Communist-Democrats accuse Trump of exactly what their Party
>>>has been doing ever since they managed to assassinate Senator Joseph
>>>McCarthy's "UnAmerican Activities Committee".
>>
>>Which emails are you talking about? How about pointing to some source
>>that you feel is accurate and representative?
>
>Why are you asking that idiot? He's got nothing. Never has, never
>will.
>
>Swill

Well, we'll see what he comes up with. Most of what we're hearing from
the right here is either outright lies and propaganda, like the New
York Post, Rupert Murdoch, tabloid bullshit that "Just Wondering"
posted yesterday, or vague accusations with no legitimate support.
We'll see if he's capable of fact-checking or if he's just a parrot.

--
Ed Huntress

Governor Swill

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 6:18:30 PM8/25/16
to
On Thu, 25 Aug Ed Huntress wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Aug Governor Swill wrote:
>>On Wed, 24 Aug Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>On Wed, 24 Aug PaxPerPoten wrote:
>>>>The Emails are all over the Net, Ed. I find it amusing that the
>>>>socialist/Communist-Democrats accuse Trump of exactly what their Party
>>>>has been doing ever since they managed to assassinate Senator Joseph
>>>>McCarthy's "UnAmerican Activities Committee".
>>>Which emails are you talking about? How about pointing to some source
>>>that you feel is accurate and representative?
>>Why are you asking that idiot? He's got nothing. Never has, never
>>will.

>Well, we'll see what he comes up with. Most of what we're hearing from
>the right here is either outright lies and propaganda, like the New
>York Post, Rupert Murdoch, tabloid bullshit that "Just Wondering"
>posted yesterday, or vague accusations with no legitimate support.
>We'll see if he's capable of fact-checking or if he's just a parrot.

Have a box of crackers handy.

PaxPerPoten

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 6:42:54 PM8/25/16
to
On 8/24/2016 9:54 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug PaxPerPoten wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2016 7:25 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> It sounds like the same kind of *access* that every politician in the
>>>> United States, federal and state, gives to people who contribute to
>>>> their campaigns. The claim of *influence* sounds like a lot of hot air
>>>> from people who have no idea, but who are getting desperate to avoid
>>>> humiliation.
>>>
>>> The Emails are all over the Net, Ed. I find it amusing that the
>>> socialist/Communist-Democrats accuse Trump of exactly what their Party
>>> has been doing ever since they managed to assassinate Senator Joseph
>>> McCarthy's "UnAmerican Activities Committee".
>>
>> Which emails are you talking about? How about pointing to some source
>> that you feel is accurate and representative?
>
> Why are you asking that idiot? He's got nothing. Never has, never
> will.

Ah yes..The two biggest liars on net are still selling America down the
tubes for Klinton profiteers, One for sure is queer as they come and the
other is a wanna be.
>
> Swill

PaxPerPoten

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 6:43:48 PM8/25/16
to
Are you two buttfucking each other..right here on the net?

PaxPerPoten

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 6:45:48 PM8/25/16
to
On 8/25/2016 5:18 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> We'll see if he's capable of fact-checking or if he's just a parrot.
>
> Have a box of crackers handy.

Yep..Old Swill just loves being Buttfucked by Crackers. Probably go
ecstatic if nailed by the Brothers.
>
> Swill

Ed Huntress

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 7:13:37 PM8/25/16
to
No evidence, eh? Pax, you empty blowhard, you have no "emails" showing
evidence of influence-pedalling. You're just a bag of hot air.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 7:15:31 PM8/25/16
to
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 17:42:59 -0500, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:

>On 8/24/2016 9:54 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Aug PaxPerPoten wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2016 7:25 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> It sounds like the same kind of *access* that every politician in the
>>>>> United States, federal and state, gives to people who contribute to
>>>>> their campaigns. The claim of *influence* sounds like a lot of hot air
>>>>> from people who have no idea, but who are getting desperate to avoid
>>>>> humiliation.
>>>>
>>>> The Emails are all over the Net, Ed. I find it amusing that the
>>>> socialist/Communist-Democrats accuse Trump of exactly what their Party
>>>> has been doing ever since they managed to assassinate Senator Joseph
>>>> McCarthy's "UnAmerican Activities Committee".
>>>
>>> Which emails are you talking about? How about pointing to some source
>>> that you feel is accurate and representative?
>>
>> Why are you asking that idiot? He's got nothing. Never has, never
>> will.
>
>Ah yes..The two biggest liars on net are still selling America down the
>tubes for Klinton profiteers, One for sure is queer as they come and the
>other is a wanna be.

Out of gas once again, eh, Pax? You can't answer the question, so you
reach into your bag of homoerotic slurs.

I'll bet you're going to vote for Trump. You've got the intellectual
argument down pat.

--
Ed Huntress
0 new messages