Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    California of America
    Posts
    18,150

    Default Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    Hilary making a fortune.

    You can't tell me she gives one hell of a speech.

    Are they paying her for the fellatio she was giving the attendees? That would be more believable.

    [QUOTE]The paid speeches are just a slim chapter of her relationship with financial titans. According to Clinton Foundation records, Wall Street financial institutions have donated around $40 million to the eponymous family foundation.

    As a non-profit, the Clinton Foundation isn

  2. #2
    The People's Choice Draz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Strong Men Island
    Posts
    20,206

    Default Re: Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    Gotta make that money

  3. #3
    pronouns - he/haw Nanners's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    11,235

    Default Re: Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    clinton foundation is such a ****ing disgrace. its basically a private slush fund the family uses to legally accept bribes and favor money. the money is used for covering family expenses like chartering private jets and lining their friends wallets, they do virtually zero real charity work.


    Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    California of America
    Posts
    18,150

    Default Re: Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    Clinton Foundation acts like a bank account. There are millions and millions of dollars in that 'foundation'.

    If they disclosed $40 million then I'm assuming there are hundreds of millions of dollar in it.

  5. #5
    I'm down with HRC
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,074

    Default Re: Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanners
    clinton foundation is such a ****ing disgrace. its basically a private slush fund the family uses to legally accept bribes and favor money. the money is used for covering family expenses like chartering private jets and lining their friends wallets, they do virtually zero real charity work.
    Nanners, you may want to look into that, you're buying right wing spin.

    https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings...foundation/478

    CharityWatch gives the Clinton charities an A with a very low cost of $3 to raise $100 and 89% of expenses going to charities programs

    Program Percentage : 89 %
    Overhead % 11
    Calculated Total Expenses: $218,000,000

    CharityWatch analysts perform in-depth evaluations of complex charity financial reporting, including audited financial statements, tax forms, annual reports, state filings, and other documents. Once our analysis of a charity is complete, and any required adjustments are made, we perform two end calculations, then assign the charity a letter grade efficiency rating on an A+ to F scale. The results of these end calculations include:
    Program % reflects the percent of total expenses a charity spent on its programs in the year analyzed. For example, a Program % of 80% means that the charity spent 80% of its expenses on charitable programs. The remaining 20% was spent on overhead, which includes fundraising, and management & general.
    Cost to Raise $100 reflects how much it cost the charity to bring in each $100 of cash donations from the public in the year analyzed. For example, a Cost to Raise $100 of $20 means that the charity spent $20 on fundraising for each $100 of cash donations it received.
    CharityWatch considers a charity to be highly efficient when our end calculations produce a Program % of 75% or higher, and a Cost to Raise $100 of $25 or less.

  6. #6
    I'm down with HRC
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,074

    Default Re: Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    Other charities in the same category include

    Physicians for Social Responsibility Rating A- 78% goes to charity, $18 to raise 100
    AFS-USA (deals with foreign exchange students) Rating B+ 91% to charity, $35 to raise 100.


    The idea that the Clinton Foundation doesn't do much charity work is based on a misunderstanding of how they operate. They are not a pass-through charity where they give grants to other organizations that do the work. They do the work themselves.

  7. #7
    pronouns - he/haw Nanners's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    11,235

    Default Re: Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    Quote Originally Posted by FillJackson
    Nanners, you may want to look into that, you're buying right wing spin.

    https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings...foundation/478

    CharityWatch gives the Clinton charities an A with a very low cost of $3 to raise $100 and 89% of expenses going to charities programs

    Program Percentage : 89 %
    Overhead % 11
    Calculated Total Expenses: $218,000,000
    so this is all bullshit then?

    http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity...-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.

    care to comment on the donations from the saudi royal family?
    Last edited by Nanners; 02-29-2016 at 06:49 PM.

  8. #8
    ~the original p.tiddy~ ~primetime~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    ~dallas,texas~ team: ~cowboys~
    Posts
    17,992

    Default Re: Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    The money going to employees can be explained by the fact there are 2,000 employees.

    $30 mill divided by 2,000 is just $15k a person.



    The rest of that sounds highly illegal, but maybe it is a private charity so they can do whatever they want? Whoever donates does so knowing what's up???

  9. #9
    ~the original p.tiddy~ ~primetime~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    ~dallas,texas~ team: ~cowboys~
    Posts
    17,992

    Default Re: Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    I'd also wager that the Clintons have done 10x more 'real charity' work than Trump ever has...

  10. #10
    pronouns - he/haw Nanners's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    11,235

    Default Re: Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    Quote Originally Posted by ~primetime~
    The money going to employees can be explained by the fact there are 2,000 employees.

    $30 mill divided by 2,000 is just $15k a person.



    The rest of that sounds highly illegal, but maybe it is a private charity so they can do whatever they want? Whoever donates does so knowing what's up???
    im guessing a lot of those people are unpaid volunteers or part timers.

    and yeah when the saudis give them 10 million dollars they know whats up. it isnt your mom and pop donating money to this "charity", its transnational corporations and foreign governments.
    Last edited by Nanners; 02-29-2016 at 06:58 PM.

  11. #11
    ~the original p.tiddy~ ~primetime~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    ~dallas,texas~ team: ~cowboys~
    Posts
    17,992

    Default Re: Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanners
    im guessing a lot of those people are unpaid volunteers or part timers.

    and yeah when the saudis give them 10 million dollars they know whats up. it isnt your mom and pop donating money to this charity, its transnational corporations and foreign governments.
    I haven't really looked into this issue but you would think 2,000 employees would be doing some actual charity work...

  12. #12
    A humble prophet Dresta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Medina
    Posts
    9,848

    Default Re: Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    Quote Originally Posted by FillJackson
    Nanners, you may want to look into that, you're buying right wing spin.


    wow, pathetic. "Right wing spin":

    I can already hear you crying that the President's private life is his own affair and everyone lies about sex. The more daring and historically ignorant may even be muttering that the most powerful man on earth was a victim of sexual McCarthyism.

    In reply, Hitchens asks you to consider the treatment of Kathleen Willey, a friend of the President whose husband had died unexpectedly. She went to the Oval Office to ask for a job and was rewarded by 'the guiding by the presidential mitt of her own hand on to his distended *****'. When she spoke out, everyone believed her, although many wished she'd held her tongue. (No one automatically dismisses accusations against Clinton as preposterous even accusations of rape.) Willey was a wealthy, middle-aged woman who could not be dismissed as 'trailer trash', like so many of her predecessors. What was to be done? An anonymous voice phoned to inquire after the health of her children and the fate of a missing cat, and to point out that someone had driven nails into the tyres of her car. The voice belonged to a private eye who became so ashamed of his mission to terrify her he confessed to being hired by a millionaire, Nathan Landow, who had pushed pelf into Clinton 's coffers.

    When the conspiracy trick can't be pulled, the ****-up gambit has its uses. Even the US administration was admitting this week that the pharmaceutical plant Clinton wrecked in the Sudan, one of the most violent and pestilential nations on earth, was not a chemical weapons factory after all. As I write, learned commentators are on the radio saying the President must have made an innocent mistake and the bombing couldn't be a distraction from Monica Lewinsky's headline-hoarding appearance before a grand jury the next day. They sound reasonable until you read Hitchens's forensic section on Clinton 's war crimes, which shows he excluded all his military advisers who might have warned that he was about to make a terrible error before he gave the order to fire.

    Clinton 's defenders should ask if thousands of sick and dying Africans realised the distinction between the personal and the political as they suffered without relief, and count the number of innocent blunderers they know who take such care to watch their backs.

    http://www.theguardian.com/theobserv...eview.review10
    https://youtu.be/_RQoSSOoISk?t=1191

    "right-wing spin"


  13. #13
    I'm down with HRC
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,074

    Default Re: Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanners
    Yes, in fact that is exactly the issue I was talking about. Charity Navigator withdrew their assessment. That NY Post article has tons of errors.

    https://www.charitynavigator.org/ind...4#.VtTNDvkrIVB

    FactCheck.org wrote about this about it herehttps://philanthropy.com/article/Cha...Removes/234700

  14. #14
    I'm down with HRC
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,074

    Default Re: Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    Quote Originally Posted by ~primetime~
    The money going to employees can be explained by the fact there are 2,000 employees.
    $30 mill divided by 2,000 is just $15k a person.

    The rest of that sounds highly illegal, but maybe it is a private charity so they can do whatever they want? Whoever donates does so knowing what's up???
    These numbers are wrong because of the way the Clinton Foundation is set up, you can't look at a single tax form, you have to look at what they call Audited Consolidated Financial Statements in addition to the 990 tax forms.

    CharityWatch says that in the last fiscal year they examined, the Clinton Foundation spent $218,000,000 with 89% going to charitable programs or 194,020,000. 11% or 23,980,000 went to overhead. This is actually a very efficient charity.

    Check out what CharityWatch says. Fare from any illegality, they have the CF as a top-rated charity in terms of transparency and governance.

  15. #15
    I'm down with HRC
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,074

    Default Re: Clinton Foundation, $40 Million in Wall Street Donations; for speech or blowjobs

    From the Chronicle of Philanthropy link I pasted above.
    Although it has "foundation" in its name, the Clinton Foundation is actually a public charity. In practical terms, this means both that it relies heavily on donations from the public and that it achieves its mission primarily by using those donations to conduct direct charitable activities, as opposed to providing grants from an endowment.

    Failure to understand the difference led to the widespread claim (covered by the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and others) that only a small portion of Clinton Foundation spending goes toward charity. While measuring charitable endeavors by the amount of grants awarded may be appropriate for many private foundations, it is not for an organization that acts as a direct service provider like the Clinton Foundation.

    This whole cycle of portraying the Clinton Foundation as nefarious was kicked off by a book from a Republican activist that soon had pretty much every important claim fizzle out.

    The biggest thing found was some misreporting that caused them to amend their tax returns. Charity Navigator put the foundation on their watchlist last year and then took them off their watchlist last year.

    Charity Navigator removed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from the Watchlist in December 2015 because the charity provided publicly accessible information regarding their amended tax Forms for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. In accordance with our policy for removing charities from the CN Watchlist, Charity Navigator removed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from the Watchlist in December 2015 because the charity provided publicly accessible information regarding their amended tax Forms for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. This information, along with the public memorandum submitted addressing the other issues raised in the Watchlist entry, meets our requirements for removal.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •