Why doesn't Trump attack Clinton for her corrupted charity foundation?

[dunksby]

Article from WSJ saying Clinton charity aided Clinton friends :

A $2 million commitment arranged by the nonprofit Clinton Global Initiative in 2010 went to a for-profit company part-owned by friends of the Clintons.
The Clinton Global Initiative, which arranges donations to help solve the world’s problems, set up a financial commitment that benefited a for-profit company part-owned by people with ties to the Clintons, including a current and a former Democratic official and a close friend of former President Bill Clinton.
The $2 million commitment was placed on the agenda for a September 2010 conference of the Clinton Global Initiative at Mr. Clinton’s urging, according to a document from the period and people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Clinton also personally endorsed the company, Energy Pioneer Solutions Inc., to then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu for a federal grant that year, said people with knowledge of the endorsement.
The Clinton Global Initiative is a program of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The foundation has been a focus of criticism this political season over donations received from governments and corporations that had business before Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state and that could be affected by decisions she would make as president. The foundation has said it “has strong donor integrity and transparency practices.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-aided-clinton-friends-1463086383
Another article from WSJ saying Clinton charity tapped foreign friends:

The Clinton Foundation swore off donations from foreign governments when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That didn’t stop the foundation from raising millions of dollars from foreigners with connections to their home governments, a review of foundation disclosures shows.

Some donors have direct ties to foreign governments. One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities. Their professed policy interests range from human rights to U.S.-Cuba relations.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-tapped-foreign-friends-1426818602
The articles were shared among DNC officials as well through email:
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2507

[dunksby]

Trump is either an idiot, or indeed there to make Clinton president.

[UK2K]

He does, but the media doesn't repeat it. He'll give an hour speech and one line will be contorted and replayed over and over again for days. Downside of not having your own propaganda machine.

After all, he gave her the name 'Crooked' Hillary Clinton.

[MMM]

He does, but the media doesn't repeat it. He'll give an hour speech and one line will be contorted and replayed over and over again for days. Downside of not having your own propaganda machine.

After all, he gave her the name 'Crooked' Hillary Clinton.

it's is funny how his media coverage has changed from the primary season to now. I guess after Hillary got her desired opponent things changed

[UK2K]

it's is funny how his media coverage has changed from the primary season to now. I guess after Hillary got her desired opponent things changed

As with anything, when you can put out YOUR side of any story first, and longest, it will eventually become fact.

Why would blacks vote for Clinton after she called them 'super predators'?


“They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

Because for every person who heard that statement, there's 1,000 who were told by the media that Trump said he hates immigrants (while omitting the 'illegal' part).

Trump wants someone to shoot Clinton (kinda but not really but who cares)? You heard that on the news for three days straight.


Obama also joked about rubbing out his opponents #TheChicagoWay:"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” #Obama, Philly, 2008
No heat? Just, everyone high fiving each other cause, why? He's down for the cause? He acts like a normal person? If Trump said the same thing, he'd get destroyed.

That's how propaganda works. That's why the population in Afghanistan is intentionally kept stupid; so they never figure it out. They think life is grand, or, as grand as life could be. Many don't know what the rest of the world looks like. Any time a school is built, it's blown up. Teachers and professors are executed to stop the spread of knowledge.

Tell someone something long enough, and it'll become fact. The dumber they are, the quicker you have your intended result.

[FillJackson]

Why doesn't Trump attack Clinton for her corrupted charity foundation?

It's mainly because the trumped up charges of corruption haven't stuck. The book that started all this was written by a Republican Operative was pretty flimsy and the author had to admit he had no evidence of wrongdoing and he pretty clearly indicates his willingness to deceive people. For example, he claimed that only 10% of donations go the philanthropy. He claimed the clintons or the foundations were "keeping the rest for themselves."

When people looked into this, they found it was bullshit. The Clinton Foundation is a "top rated" charity that spends 88% of donations on charity programs. (https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478)

RATING: A
Program Percentage : 88 %
Cost to Raise $100 : $ 2

This is a very good number. For comparions a well established charity like the American Red Cross spends 90% on programs and it's cost to raise $100 is $25.

The 10% the author claimed was for charitable programs NOT run by the Clinton Foundation. Many foundations raise money and pass the bulk of the money to folks doing the actual charity work by giving out grants. That's not how the Clinton Foundation operates. They themselves hire the people to administer the programs that provide low cost aids drugs in Africa or help poor farmers in South America or work with schools in the US on better nutrition. So this 10% number is only the amount of grant money passed to other organizations. An additional 79% is used on their own programs.

As for giving charity to a for-profit company, this is not unusual. Especially when the specific goal is reducing energy use in rural America by making people's home more energy efficient. It much, much more efficient to do that through an established organization. The USDA has a program for rural energy savings where people can get loans for this at 0% for 20 years. It's well understood that they would be spending those loans with for profit contractors to increase their energy efficiency.


The book also gets a ton of other issues wrong including how much control the Secretary of State has over US policies.

[Facepalm]

It's mainly because the trumped up charges of corruption haven't stuck. The book that started all this was written by a Republican Operative was pretty flimsy and the author had to admit he had no evidence of wrongdoing and he pretty clearly indicates his willingness to deceive people. For example, he claimed that only 10% of donations go the philanthropy. He claimed the clintons or the foundations were "keeping the rest for themselves."

When people looked into this, they found it was bullshit. The Clinton Foundation is a "top rated" charity that spends 88% of donations on charity programs. (https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478)


This is a very good number. For comparions a well established charity like the American Red Cross spends 90% on programs and it's cost to raise $100 is $25.

The 10% the author claimed was for charitable programs NOT run by the Clinton Foundation. Many foundations raise money and pass the bulk of the money to folks doing the actual charity work by giving out grants. That's not how the Clinton Foundation operates. They themselves hire the people to administer the programs that provide low cost aids drugs in Africa or help poor farmers in South America or work with schools in the US on better nutrition. So this 10% number is only the amount of grant money passed to other organizations. An additional 79% is used on their own programs.

As for giving charity to a for-profit company, this is not unusual. Especially when the specific goal is reducing energy use in rural America by making people's home more energy efficient. It much, much more efficient to do that through an established organization. The USDA has a program for rural energy savings where people can get loans for this at 0% for 20 years. It's well understood that they would be spending those loans with for profit contractors to increase their energy efficiency.


The book also gets a ton of other issues wrong including how much control the Secretary of State has over US policies.

Whoa whoa whoa there...let's not confuse the propaganda with facts now.

[~primetime~]

Attacking charity foundations would just end up being a horrible look for Trump as any corruption would just end up being inconclusive

[Im Still Ballin]

Because everyone knows who Hillary is

They just don't care!

[NumberSix]

Isn't it weird that Bill Clinton's speaking fees went up drastically when his wife was Secretary of State then his fees completely dropped off when she left office?

Isn't it weird that a group who never paid speaking fees suddenly decided to pay Bill $750k for a speech then coincidently Hillary decides to hand over 20% of Americas radioactive material even thoug she was previously against it? Weird, huh?

[Nick Young]

Attacking charity foundations would just end up being a horrible look for Trump as any corruption would just end up being inconclusive
"charity foundation"

You don't know jack shit about the Clinton Foundation, do you?

Do you have any idea about how they kept $30,000,000,000 in aid money from reaching the people of Haiti after the earth quake? (http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/)

[UK2K]

Because everyone knows who Hillary is

They just don't care!

Well, and mainly this.

Yesterday, circumstantial evidence was good enough for one of our posters... Today, all the evidence in the world, even though it hasn't led to a direct indictment, isn't quite enough.

At what point does the common person say 'I wonder if scandal 1 through 853 could be true'?

Or is the Clinton friendly media just out to make her look bad?

[Im Still Ballin]

Well, and mainly this.

Yesterday, circumstantial evidence was good enough for one of our posters... Today, all the evidence in the world, even though it hasn't led to a direct indictment, isn't quite enough.

At what point does the common person say 'I wonder if scandal 1 through 853 could be true'?

Or is the Clinton friendly media just out to make her look bad?
They simply do not care

It's more about hatred for Trump than support for Hillary

Donald's successful businessman obnoxious messiah persona kills the average humanoid

For so many reasons

They'll scramble for whatever news story or buzzword that'll support their hatred for the man

[dunksby]

It's mainly because the trumped up charges of corruption haven't stuck. The book that started all this was written by a Republican Operative was pretty flimsy and the author had to admit he had no evidence of wrongdoing and he pretty clearly indicates his willingness to deceive people. For example, he claimed that only 10% of donations go the philanthropy. He claimed the clintons or the foundations were "keeping the rest for themselves."

When people looked into this, they found it was bullshit. The Clinton Foundation is a "top rated" charity that spends 88% of donations on charity programs. (https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478)


This is a very good number. For comparions a well established charity like the American Red Cross spends 90% on programs and it's cost to raise $100 is $25.

The 10% the author claimed was for charitable programs NOT run by the Clinton Foundation. Many foundations raise money and pass the bulk of the money to folks doing the actual charity work by giving out grants. That's not how the Clinton Foundation operates. They themselves hire the people to administer the programs that provide low cost aids drugs in Africa or help poor farmers in South America or work with schools in the US on better nutrition. So this 10% number is only the amount of grant money passed to other organizations. An additional 79% is used on their own programs.

As for giving charity to a for-profit company, this is not unusual. Especially when the specific goal is reducing energy use in rural America by making people's home more energy efficient. It much, much more efficient to do that through an established organization. The USDA has a program for rural energy savings where people can get loans for this at 0% for 20 years. It's well understood that they would be spending those loans with for profit contractors to increase their energy efficiency.


The book also gets a ton of other issues wrong including how much control the Secretary of State has over US policies.
What book? Are you a ****ing bot?

[QUOTE]The Clinton Global Initiative

[gigantes]

[Trump] does [say it], but the media doesn't repeat it...
if what filljackson said is accurate, then the media is actually doing the GOP a big favor by not following the story to its end... that republicans are in fact the ones slandering (colloquially, no idea about legally) clinton.



Why doesn't Trump attack Clinton for her corrupted charity foundation?
another reason would be that the irony would swiftly bite him in the ass.

his own record on charity and defrauding investors is probably the last thing his campaign wants brought in to the spotlight. another big gift from the media, considering that he's already brought the charity stuff up...

[MintBerryCrunch]

He has also taken funds from charity for personal use, so not the best strategy to be a blatant hypocrite.

[Nick Young]

He has also taken funds from charity for personal use, so not the best strategy to be a blatant hypocrite.
Trump has never stolen $30 billion in aid money from the people of Haiti. (http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/)

Not a conspiracy. Documented fact.

Go on. Keep defending the Clintons.

[MintBerryCrunch]

Trump has never stolen $30 billion in aid money from the people of Haiti. (http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/)

Not a conspiracy. Documented fact.

Go on. Keep defending the Clintons.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/01/records-trump-used-charity-cash-for-tim-tebow-memorabilia.html

[Nick Young]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/01/records-trump-used-charity-cash-for-tim-tebow-memorabilia.html
That is not a defense of the Clintons stealing billions from the people of Haiti.:hammerhead:

Try again.

[MintBerryCrunch]

That is not a defense of the Clintons stealing billions from the people of Haiti.:hammerhead:

Try again.
My initial post was a response to the title of the thread. You are just changing the topic from my point and ignoring it.

Also, show me a reputable source that shows the Clinton's took $30B. Your propaganda website doesn't count. For the record, I do not believe Hillary is innocent of stealing from charity, I just don't believe the Clinton's stole $30B. Ultimately, Trump and Hillary both steal from charities, so Trump calling her out would just expose him as a hypocrite, which as I stated before, is why it is a bad strategy for him to call her out on it.

[dunksby]

He has also taken funds from charity for personal use, so not the best strategy to be a blatant hypocrite.
That doesn't make sense, he used to be very cozy with the Clintons and now he is an enemy, you think Trump or Clinton are worried about being labeled hypocrites? Trump has said worse, it's either a very bad negligence of opportunity or that he doesn't really want to hit them where it hurts.

[dunksby]

if what filljackson said is accurate, then the media is actually doing the GOP a big favor by not following the story to its end... that republicans are in fact the ones slandering (colloquially, no idea about legally) clinton.



another reason would be that the irony would swiftly bite him in the ass.

his own record on charity and defrauding investors is probably the last thing his campaign wants brought in to the spotlight. another big gift from the media, considering that he's already brought the charity stuff up...
I refer you to my post above yours.

[Nick Young]

My initial post was a response to the title of the thread. You are just changing the topic from my point and ignoring it.

Also, show me a reputable source that shows the Clinton's took $30B. Your propaganda website doesn't count. For the record, I do not believe Hillary is innocent of stealing from charity, I just don't believe the Clinton's stole $30B. Ultimately, Trump and Hillary both steal from charities, so Trump calling her out would just expose him as a hypocrite, which as I stated before, is why it is a bad strategy for him to call her out on it.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

I heard you like Politico (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-email-213110)

How the Clinton Foundation Got Rich off Poor Haitians
(http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation)

REPORT: The Clinton Foundation Enriched Itself By Ripping Off Haiti After 2010 Earthquake (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/report-clinton-foundation-enriched-ripping-off-haiti-2010-earthquake/)


Haitians Protest Outside Hillary Clinton’s Office Over ‘Billions Stolen’ by Clinton Foundation (http://freebeacon.com/politics/haitians-protest-outside-hillary-clintons-office-over-billions-stolen-by-clinton-foundation/)


I am happy to educate you about the truth about Killbot 3000 :cheers:


In before "Trump is worse doe. He's a meanie poo, John Oliver told me that so it must be true doe"

[MintBerryCrunch]

That doesn't make sense, he used to be very cozy with the Clintons and now he is an enemy, you think Trump or Clinton are worried about being labeled hypocrites? Trump has said worse, it's either a very bad negligence of opportunity or that he doesn't really want to hit them where it hurts.
Yes Trump is frequently a hypocrite, but his money stuff is something that is confirmed and he knows it.

[Nanners]

these shill accounts are getting out of control

[nightprowler10]

There you go Trumptards. You and your great leader have made sure with your daily stupidity that these type of scandals will be shoved under the rug. You've all been played by the Clintons.

[Hawker]

these shill accounts are getting out of control

They make me want to vote for Trump.

[gigantes]

That doesn't make sense, he used to be very cozy with the Clintons and now he is an enemy, you think Trump or Clinton are worried about being labeled hypocrites? Trump has said worse, it's either a very bad negligence of opportunity or that he doesn't really want to hit them where it hurts.
what do mean by "cozy," exactly?

also, just because someone is "cozy" with someone else doesn't mean that they don't do certain stuff on their own... like run their businesses and handle their money the way they want.

why would you think that way...?



I refer you to my post above yours.
and i'll refer you to filljackson, who was the one you were rebutting.

i'm not cozy with filljackson, btw.

[gigantes]

There you go Trumptards. You and your great leader have made sure with your daily stupidity that these type of scandals will be shoved under the rug. You've all been played by the Clintons.
i can appreciate that.


http://www.pitt.edu/~myo3/trump-hair.jpg

[senelcoolidge]

You either pick the criminal that gives no fu#ks about you or the outsider business man that isn't politically savvy. It's not a hard choice.
The retard media is now on Trump for taking his words out of context yet again. Obama and Hillary are responsible for ISIS. In one of Trumps last speeches he talked about Hillary and her "Pay for Play". She's a crook.

[UK2K]

There you go Trumptards. You and your great leader have made sure with your daily stupidity that these type of scandals will be shoved under the rug. You've all been played by the Clintons.

I believe glad-handing media execs did that....


The email's subject line read: "per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated."

"Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it," Paustenbach wrote in an email to Luis Miranda, the DNC's communications director.

"Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back," he added.

When Politico has to ask the Democrats for permission to publish an article, it's gotten out of hand.

Promise free shit, though, and your average Democrat voter won't care.

[Nick Young]

They make me want to vote for Trump.
That is all they are doing. People who weren't going to vote at all are getting motivated to vote for Trump. I was not going to vote at all but the media bias, Trump smere that he is "LITERALLY WORST THAN HITLER" (I looked in to this after hearing it multiple times and discovered that he isn't Hitler 2) and corrupt journalism inspired me to start following these elections. If they had just operated this campaign like they normally do, Hilldawg would have won in a landslide. By isolating 50% of the country and calling them neonazis, they are hurting their chances.

That is what happens when the media and celebrities and faux-intellectual shills patronize and talk down to everyone who disagrees with them.

This style of campaigning the Dems are currently doing already failed spectacularly with the Brexit vote. I don't know why they are repeating the same shit they did in the UK when it already failed miserably. I guess their marketing team is still a few years behind current trends. Sad.

A bunch of people who weren't planning to vote are going to come out and vote for Trump now. People don't like being spoken down to like they're children.

Especially when the people speaking down to them are corrupt politicians and smug celebrities and fat college kids with moobs.

[FillJackson]

What book? Are you a ****ing bot?
The whole smearing of the Clinton charities started with a book.

Which has been made into a film and even a graphic novel.

As for the article, the article implies that there is something unethical or possible illegal simply because Energy Pioneer Solutions is a for profit company. That this means it's a prima facie violation. Does the article cite a Tax Expert who says that?

A. Because it's actually fairly routine for the charities to partner with for-profit companies.

B. If you think "The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests" means no private interest can benefit at all, you're wrong. It's far more complex than that.

When Habitat for Humanity builds a house, they have to acquire the land. If the land doesn't come in the form of donation that means they are buying the land. Habitat for Humanity is not in violation of IRS rules if they buy the land from a private interest. The same applies to pipes, toilets, lumber etc. Habitat for Humanity doesn't make toilets and it would absurd to think they should. And do you know who definitely benefits from Habitat for Humanity, the folks who are getting a cheap home. They are definitely a private interest. But them getting a cheap home does not equal Habitat for Humanity is operated for the benefit of private interests.

The issue of the company being friends of the Clintons is irrelevant too. The way the most of the Clinton charitable works is people make a "commitment to action" (https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/about-us/commitments-action)[QUOTE]A Commitment to Action

[falc39]

The whole smearing of the Clinton charities started with a book.

The book may be one source but it is not the only one. It is all too common now to find suspicious connections everywhere. Most recently from newly released e-mails (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/)from a Judicial Watch records request.

[FillJackson]

The book may be one source but it is not the only one. It is all too common now to find suspicious connections everywhere. Most recently from newly released e-mails (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/)from a Judicial Watch records request.
The book set the narrative in place to the point where emails about ****ing networking are "raising questions."

Why are these connections suspicious? Well, questions have been raised.

[dunksby]

what do mean by "cozy," exactly?

also, just because someone is "cozy" with someone else doesn't mean that they don't do certain stuff on their own... like run their businesses and handle their money the way they want.

why would you think that way...?



and i'll refer you to filljackson, who was the one you were rebutting.

i'm not cozy with filljackson, btw.
What I posted has got nothing to do with a book, it's a WSJ article based on their own research, you based your post on the assumption that Kevin was right that it's from a debunked book which is wrong.
You also brought it being ironic as something that kept Trump from attacking Hillary which is ridiculous cause Trump has shown that he says what he wants, no matter how baseless and contradictory.

[Cleverness]

He does, but the media doesn't repeat it. He'll give an hour speech and one line will be contorted and replayed over and over again for days. Downside of not having your own propaganda machine.

After all, he gave her the name 'Crooked' Hillary Clinton.

this

and this is why I've always thought Hillary would win. She has a billion dollars behind her and the money wins 9/10. she can do anything and say anything she wants as long as the billionaires are media are with her

[MintBerryCrunch]

this

and this is why I've always thought Hillary would win. She has a billion dollars behind her and the money wins 9/10. she can do anything and say anything she wants as long as the billionaires are media are with her
Isn't Trump running on a platform that brags about how good of a business man he is? Sounds like Clinton is owning him in the making money department. :pimp:

[gigantes]

1) What I posted has got nothing to do with a book, it's a WSJ article based on their own research, you based your post on the assumption that Kevin was right that it's from a debunked book which is wrong.

2) You also brought it being ironic as something that kept Trump from attacking Hillary which is ridiculous cause Trump has shown that he says what he wants, no matter how baseless and contradictory.
1) i did not. i made an "IF - THEN" statement. reading comprehension is your friend.

believe it or not, i'm under no obligation to investigate any particular series of links / diagrams / articles just because someone thinks they're relevant.

so when are you going to explain to me what trump and the clintons being cozy actually means, eh?

2) i already addressed that. there's a difference between what trump does and what his handlers want him to do. again, reading comprehension is your friend.

[Dresta]

Isn't Trump running on a platform that brags about how good of a business man he is? Sounds like Clinton is owning him in the making money department. :pimp:
Wealthy people giving your campaign large sums of money to buy political favours has nothing to do with being a good businessman. Idiot.

While we're on that topic, here's an email from George Soros to Hilary Clinton, which shows how much control these wealthy donors have over US foreign policy:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/29008#efmAgGAgTBCVBDSBGsBG4

That's not being a businessman, but being a criminal. Selling political influence to vested and foreign interests should be considered an act of high treason.

That would bring down the amount of corruption in the US Government for sure. Let politicians know, that if they want to play this dirty and unscrupulous game, then they are playing for their heads.

[Dresta]

There you go Trumptards. You and your great leader have made sure with your daily stupidity that these type of scandals will be shoved under the rug. You've all been played by the Clintons.
What a load of bs.

Seriously, what utter nonsense.

That the media is rotted through with corruption is the fault of Trump? That the media refuses to address the heaps of evidence pointing to Clinton malfeasance is the fault of Trump?

What the literal f*ck are you talking about dude?

That these scandals are perpetually shoved under the rug has nothing to do with Trump whatsoever. IF someone else was running, the media would use them (or other things) to distract the people from these things. They've been doing this for ages, long before Trump started running for President.

Trump has actually been good in this respect: he's been so gratuitously and unfairly panned by nearly the entire media, that people are losing respect for the media in droves, by the day; it is this campaign that has made media bias and media agenda palpably clear to anyone willing to open their eyes.

[falc39]

The book set the narrative in place to the point where emails about ****ing networking are "raising questions."

Why are these connections suspicious? Well, questions have been raised.

So your whole stance is that questions should have never been raised? How ridiculous... "How dare you ask questions!!!" But even so, the Clintons have been under scrutiny for far longer than that book was in existence. Can you blame the book for every e-mail that has been released? Once e-mails are released, anyone can take the time to read and see possible connections with corruption. Every candidate with a large amount of money is looked at with a microscope. Clinton it is even worse because her career of holding a high position in office adds a much greater possibility of corruption compared to someone like Mitt Romney (for example).

[Nanners]

Throughout the entirety of the mass circle jerk known as the DNC, democrats took turns talking about all the reasons why Hillary is the greatest person on earth, yet the Clinton Foundation was not mentioned a SINGLE TIME.

Isnt that strange? Hillary helped to build a $2 billion charity that is supposedly helping to improve the lives of millions of people, and during this massive convention highlighting all of Hillarys accomplishments this wonderful charity doesnt get brought up once...

[gigantes]

Throughout the entirety of the mass circle jerk known as the DNC, democrats took turns talking about all the reasons why Hillary is the greatest person on earth, yet the Clinton Foundation was not mentioned a SINGLE TIME.

Isnt that strange? Hillary helped to build a $2 billion charity that is supposedly helping to improve the lives of millions of people, and during this massive convention highlighting all of Hillarys accomplishments this wonderful charity doesnt get brought up once...
are charities usually brought up during nominating conventions? i have no idea, but i can think of some reasons why it might not be a habit or something that's encouraged:

1) bragging about money accomplishments, even charities, could be seen as gauche by many.

2) policy goals accomplished are perhaps easier to quantify and are cleaner talking points.

3) i would guess a healthy proportion of charities don't stand up to investigation as well as their trumpeters might desire. why give the other party potentially free ammunition, especially since (as we've seen) facts can be distorted and attacks can be manufactured out of nonsense?

[Nanners]

are charities usually brought up during nominating conventions? i have no idea, but i can think of some reasons why it might not be a habit or something that's encouraged:

Are you serious?

Typically when you are talking about someones accomplishments you would mention the fact that they helped build a $2billion charity that has supposedly helped millions of people around the world.

[gigantes]

Are you serious?

Typically when you are talking about someones accomplishments you would mention the fact that they helped build a $2billion charity that has supposedly helped millions of people around the world.
in nominating conventions? ...was my question.

[Nanners]

in nominating conventions? ...was my question.

did you watch any of the convention?

[Hawker]

Throughout the entirety of the mass circle jerk known as the DNC, democrats took turns talking about all the reasons why Hillary is the greatest person on earth, yet the Clinton Foundation was not mentioned a SINGLE TIME.

Isnt that strange? Hillary helped to build a $2 billion charity that is supposedly helping to improve the lives of millions of people, and during this massive convention highlighting all of Hillarys accomplishments this wonderful charity doesnt get brought up once...

Bernie Sanders just bought a third house for $600k thanks to the charity.

[MintBerryCrunch]

Wealthy people giving your campaign large sums of money to buy political favours has nothing to do with being a good businessman. Idiot.

I'm sorry that you can't comprehend when somebody is simply being facetious. Idiot.

[gigantes]

did you watch any of the convention?
stretches and single speeches, yes.

did you watch ALL of it?

because aren't you proposing that nobody mentioned the charity across the entire event?

[Nanners]

stretches and single speeches, yes.

did you watch ALL of it?

because aren't you proposing that nobody mentioned the charity across the entire event?

I watched most of the first two days but I lost interested after they kicked out all the rowdy bernie supporters

I am not "proposing" that nobody mentioned the clinton foundation, thats what happened (http://nypost.com/2016/07/29/why-didnt-the-democrats-even-mention-the-clinton-foundation/)

[gigantes]

I watched most of the first two days but I lost interested after they kicked out all the rowdy bernie supporters

I am not "proposing" that nobody mentioned the clinton foundation, thats what happened (http://nypost.com/2016/07/29/why-didnt-the-democrats-even-mention-the-clinton-foundation/)
that's "what happened" according to the NYP. that's a fairly tabloid kind of source, you know. i'll hold off on making conclusions for now.


anyway, my question remains-- is it usual or unusual for speakers to bring up charities during nominating conventions? i can think of some reasons why not.

[Nanners]

that's "what happened" according to the NYP. that's a fairly tabloid kind of source, you know. i'll hold off on making conclusions for now.


if they are liars then you are welcome to try to prove them wrong. find one youtube clip from the convention where someone mentions clinton foundation.


anyway, my question remains-- is it usual or unusual for speakers to bring up charities during nominating conventions? i can think of some reasons why not.

its usual to bring up someones accomplishments when you are talking about their accomplishments.

[Nick Young]

if they are liars then you are welcome to try to prove them wrong. find one youtube clip from the convention where someone mentions clinton foundation.


its usual to bring up someones accomplishments when you are talking about their accomplishments.
I watched the entire DNC. No mention of the Clinton Foundation, even in the epic Morgan Freeman narrated life story of Hillbot.

[gigantes]

1) if they are liars then you are welcome to try to prove them wrong. find one youtube clip from the convention where someone mentions clinton foundation.

2) its usual to bring up someones accomplishments when you are talking about their accomplishments.
1) it's fairly meaningless to me either way until i know more about how nominating conventions work.

2) that does not answer my question, as you already know.

[Dresta]

gigantes dude, i thought you were a reasonable guy. I totally get the widespread dislike of Trump, but don't let your despising him distort your view of that Queen Bitch, Hilary Clinton; it's looking like a kind of wilful denial right now.


The amount of evidence that has recently emerged showing she is a politician who is willing to be bought by just about anybody, is enormous--it's only in what you consider to be shitty publications because the mainstream media refuses to even acknowledge it.

Check out the wikileaks twitter feed. This stuff is undeniable. She is actually taking foreign policy directives from people like George Soros ffs (he also encouraged the hiring of people with links to business in Ukraine--you think the Ukraine crisis a coincidence still?)!:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/stunning_revelation_wikileaks_hack_shows_that_soro s_called_the_shots_on_us_policy_toward_albania.htm l

How bad does this need to get before you wake up?

Has there ever been a person so utterly up for sale?

edit: does anyone seriously think it a coincidence that we're constantly being told to get involved militarily in the only two places in the world that are essential to Russia's military capabilities? Why does no one ever talk about Yemen? Is it because there aren't important Russian interests in that country? This whole thing is a farce; the media simply cannot be trusted--if they'd had their way we'd have intervened in Syria by now and started a catastrophic war in Ukraine for no reason.

[Nanners]

1) it's fairly meaningless to me either way until i know more about how nominating conventions work.

2) that does not answer my question, as you already know.

1) then go learn about how conventions work

2) the question is stupid. has any previous political candidate ever built a charity as massively successful as the clinton foundation?

[Nick Young]

Wikileaks:


DC reporter says that FBI has worked around DoJ block and is investigating Clinton Foundation via New York Attorney (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/764080642342555649)

[QUOTE][URL="http://investmentwatchblog.com/assange-its-over-hillary-october-surprise-biggest-leak-to-date/"]Assange: It

[sd3035]

trump doesn't want to "accidentally" die

[UK2K]

1) then go learn about how conventions work

2) the question is stupid. has any previous political candidate ever built a charity as massively successful as the clinton foundation?

I can't name too many charities that receive $25 million donations from the Saudi royal family...

Kudos to her.

[gigantes]

1) then go learn about how conventions work

2) the question is stupid. has any previous political candidate ever built a charity as massively successful as the clinton foundation?
or maybe you should go f-ck yourself and leave the insults, evasion and diversionary stuff to others.

[Nick Young]

or maybe you should go f-ck yourself and leave the insults, evasion and diversionary stuff to others.
More ad-hominem and straw man attacks.

Only move the lower tier Dems of ISH have in their playbook.

[Nanners]

or maybe you should go f-ck yourself and leave the insults, evasion and diversionary stuff to others.

:oldlol:

it is a dumb question. thats not an insult its a fact.

an insult would be calling you a thin skinned dumbass.

[NumberSix]

So, apparently, someone who leaked Hillary's medical records was just found dead...

Are we going to just pretend that this isn't happening?

[Nick Young]

So, apparently, someone who leaked Hillary's medical records was just found dead...

Are we going to just pretend that this isn't happening?
Where are Hillary's leaked medical records?

The Dems are going to pretend it isn't happening for as long as they live.

Ignorance is bliss.

Reality is terrifying.

Why do you think dem leaders are pushing safe space ideology so hard in recent years?:confusedshrug:

[dunksby]

We got people here expecting others to ignore tangible proof because somebody wrote a sketchy book against the Clintons, none has managed to disprove the arthcles in the OP but somehow we ought to discard it all and pretend it's not there.

[poido123]

So, apparently, someone who leaked Hillary's medical records was just found dead...

Are we going to just pretend that this isn't happening?


Scary to think that a presidential candidate is hiring hitmen to wipe out her skeletons in the closet.

:(

[oh the horror]

So, apparently, someone who leaked Hillary's medical records was just found dead...

Are we going to just pretend that this isn't happening?



Any links to support that? I'd be interested to know what the medical records state and all of that to be proven before everyone here continues on as if it's actual fact.

[FillJackson]

So your whole stance is that questions should have never been raised?
No.

[FillJackson]

So, apparently, someone who leaked Hillary's medical records was just found dead...

Are we going to just pretend that this isn't happening?

No.

It's just not happening.

[FillJackson]

We got people here expecting others to ignore tangible proof because somebody wrote a sketchy book against the Clintons, none has managed to disprove the arthcles in the OP but somehow we ought to discard it all and pretend it's not there.

If the article in the OP has led you to believe her charity foundation is corruption, then that article is shit.

[FillJackson]

Originally Posted by Nanners
Are you serious?

Typically when you are talking about someones accomplishments you would mention the fact that they helped build a $2billion charity that has supposedly helped millions of people around the world.

Except there are rules about charities being using in political campaigns. You couldn't have someone on stage bragging about the work of the Clinton Global Initiative, it would be a violation of IRS rules. (https://www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics)


Charities, Churches and Politics
The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago.

[FillJackson]

Bernie Sanders just bought a third house for $600k thanks to the charity.
"the charity?" Are you claiming the Clinton Foundation bought Bernie Saners a house?

[FillJackson]

So, apparently, someone who leaked Hillary's medical records was just found dead...

Are we going to just pretend that this isn't happening?

HA.

This is hilarious. This is a follow up to those forged Clinton medical records that were leaked on Twitter.

[poido123]

No.

It's just not happening.


Explain?


Just because you say it isn't so, doesn't take away from the fact that it happened.


:oldlol:

[poido123]

Any links to support that? I'd be interested to know what the medical records state and all of that to be proven before everyone here continues on as if it's actual fact.



How much smoke needs to be around a fire before you actually acknowledge she is doing some very bad shit?


It's unbelievable the lengths some of you go to ignore Hillary' dark resume.

[dunksby]

Foreign governments love the Clinton foundation:

MILLIONS FLOWED TO CLINTON CHARITY FROM FOREIGN FRIENDS
The Clinton Foundation may have sworn off donations from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, but millions of dollars from individuals with ties to foreign governments and state-owned companies flowed into foundation coffers during her tenure. WSJ: “Some donors have direct ties to foreign governments. One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities… All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show…After Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in 2013, the foundation resumed accepting donations from foreign governments. Just after she stepped down as secretary of state, it received a large donation from a conglomerate run by a member of China’s National People’s Congress. In response to questions about foreign donations, a foundation official said the individuals have given to a host of other major philanthropies.”

[Nanners]

Except there are rules about charities being using in political campaigns. You couldn't have someone on stage bragging about the work of the Clinton Global Initiative, it would be a violation of IRS rules. (https://www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics)

jesus tapdancing christ you dumbshit shill, did you even read the quote you posted?


ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches

yes there is a ban on political activity by charities. there is not a ban on random politicians publicly talking about how a political candidates charity is a good example of how that political candidate has helped improve the lives of millions of people worldwide.

[Dresta]

http://yournewswire.com/julian-assange-wanted-dead-or-alive-by-u-s-government/


Senior US government figures including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have called for WikiLeaks to be registered as a terrorist organization and founder Julian Assange to be considered a “high-tech” terrorist, while government strategists and military top brass have called for his assassination.



Your political establishment Americans; this isn't from national security and warmongering Republicans, but from the supposedly peace and transparency loving Democrats.

And people seriously still have to wonder why Trump is appealing to many Americans?

[NumberSix]

Foreign governments love the Clinton foundation:
They ESPECIALLY loved it when Hillary was running the state department.

[NumberSix]

yes there is a ban on political activity by charities. there is not a ban on random politicians publicly talking about how a political candidates charity is a good example of how that political candidate has helped improve the lives of millions of people worldwide.
Uh oh! Trump just recently publicly supported and donated $1 million to various vets charities. I think he also bragged about it. FillJackson said that's super illegal.

[FillJackson]

jesus tapdancing christ you dumbshit shill, did you even read the quote you posted?

yes there is a ban on political activity by charities. there is not a ban on random politicians publicly talking about how a political candidates charity is a good example of how that political candidate has helped improve the lives of millions of people worldwide.
This is one of the many things you have no ****ing clue about. The IRS not only has bans on political activity, those are heightened during an election year.

A charity can certainly face fines and penalties or even have their tax status revoked if officers of that charity participate at partisan political event where the charity's work is being put to partisan use EVEN IF YOU are not the person doing it. This is especially true when the partisan event is being put on on behalf of the charity's officers. Hillary Clinton is an ex-board member of the Clinton Foundation and Bill and Chelsea are current board members. It would quite easy for Republican House members to request an IRS investigation. Why risk the foundation's time and money?

You can check the IRS regulations on Election Year activities, they specifically talk about the combination of specific activities. When multiple specific activities are combined that might indicate the tipping point into political activity. The specific thing are they types that happen multiple times at a convention.

Throughout the entirety of the mass circle jerk known as the DNC, democrats took turns talking about all the reasons why Hillary is the greatest person on earth, yet the Clinton Foundation was not mentioned a SINGLE TIME.

Isnt that strange? Hillary helped to build a $2 billion charity that is supposedly helping to improve the lives of millions of people, and during this massive convention highlighting all of Hillarys accomplishments this wonderful charity doesnt get brought up once...
Your whole premise rests on ignorance. It simply not strange. You think Hillary should be campaigning on this?

This isn't her first campaign. Show me where she campaigned on this previously. The Clinton Foundation was started in 1997, but it didn't get involved in Global Charity Work until about 2002. She was already a Senator. Show me where in her 2006 Senate Campaign or her 2008 re-election campaign she campaigned using the Foundation's work.

[FillJackson]

Uh oh! Trump just recently publicly supported and donated $1 million to various vets charities. I think he also bragged about it. FillJackson said that's super illegal.

No, I never said holding a fundraiser for other charities was illegal.

I said Trump lied about his donation and when reporters caught his lie, he quickly arranged to actually make the contribution that he said he had already paid out.

[oh the horror]

How much smoke needs to be around a fire before you actually acknowledge she is doing some very bad shit?


It's unbelievable the lengths some of you go to ignore Hillary' dark resume.



The way your brain processes information around you is funny.


No one is "ignoring her dark resume" but someone on a messageboard posting random shit like that without any links? Color me skeptical. I need information. Not some random person saying this.


You just go along with shit that suits your argument and what cracks me up is YOU don't even ask for actual evidence.


I've yet to see anything out there supporting this claim that she's in poor health and those crackerjack videos of her "demonic seizures" aren't evidence dude.

[Dresta]

The way your brain processes information around you is funny.


No one is "ignoring her dark resume" but someone on a messageboard posting random shit like that without any links? Color me skeptical. I need information. Not some random person saying this.


You just go along with shit that suits your argument and what cracks me up is YOU don't even ask for actual evidence.


I've yet to see anything out there supporting this claim that she's in poor health and those crackerjack videos of her "demonic seizures" aren't evidence dude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg