Clinton Foundation ?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Ok, I'm going to open this can of worms in a way that I hope can be productive and not devisive. The latest brouhaha seems to be over the Foundation. I've tried today to learn what I can about it. Which admittedly is not a whole lot. As I understand the charges, people say they are using the non profit as a money tree for themselves and their friends. There are also charges that she gave her influence at State for contributions.
 Here is what I can make of it . The foundation spends 88% of its funds on the actual help and 12% is admin and such (I have no idea if those are comparable to other nonprofits). Chelsea was made the vice chair of the Board. She receives no salary contrary to what has been posted here and other places. What info I could find on the influence peddling is minimal. But I have no doubts that money buys influence . It has for a long time and sadly probably will for a longer time. The opposing candidate says that's why he gave money. But as I understand it there is a pretty high bar for politicians. You practically have to say "I'm doing XYZ because you gave this money" for it to be illegal. It's what they do. 
 

 My questions are:
If I'm wrong or mistaken about these things can you point me to info repudiating it ?
If you have additional info can you point me to that ?
We have more than enough vitriolic posts on here. I really don't want to add to it. If my post comes off as devisive I apologize. That's not what I'm shooting for. Please try to keep it civil. I'm not trying to change anyone's vote. And I doubt my vote will change either. There is going to have to be something major to change my vote from Johnson. But I would like to know more verifiable info about this.

[Gavin_Sons]

This will be a hard one Meathead, you cant trust any source for correct information. It's not like the e mail scandal where they said she did it illegally then didn't press charges. That was plain as day. The only ones who know exactly what is going on with the foundation are insiders and maybe if the IRS pursues investigates it.

[hubcapsc]

You practically have to say "I'm doing XYZ because you gave this money" for it to be illegal.

There's probably no real way to know what she said to S. Daniel Abraham or
Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain when they had their private meetings with her.

I know what she said to me and you when we met with her, though...

-Mike

[JimC]

OK,
i'll bite.
Did you watch the video posted a couple weeks ago about CLINTON CASH? If you watched that and still have a question you were not watching with an open mind. (in my opinion)

From what I have read, your numbers are upside down. I have heard from several different sources that they were only using about 10% of the donations for various relief and humanitarian causes, and pocketing the rest, a fact that surely would be disputed by the Clinton's if it was wrong.

Granted, I get most of my news from conservative sources, BUT, I also listen to MSNBC and others just to see what they are saying, to get the other viewpoint. What worries me is that none of the liberal sources are disputing the conflict of interest's that have been brought up. I don't have the numbers exactly, but the Associated Press came out today and quoted about half of the people that SHE met with while Secretary of State were private party's that donated large sums to the FUND. (and the AP is not a conservative organization)

What is the old saying?            FOLLOW THE MONEY!  

Jim

[The emperor has no clothes]

OK,
i'll bite.
Did you watch the video posted a couple weeks ago about CLINTON CASH? If you watched that and still have a question you were not watching with an open mind. (in my opinion)

From what I have read, your numbers are upside down. I have heard from several different sources that they were only using about 10% of the donations for various relief and humanitarian causes, and pocketing the rest, a fact that surely would be disputed by the Clinton's if it was wrong.

Granted, I get most of my news from conservative sources, BUT, I also listen to MSNBC and others just to see what they are saying, to get the other viewpoint. What worries me is that none of the liberal sources are disputing the conflict of interest's that have been brought up. I don't have the numbers exactly, but the Associated Press came out today and quoted about half of the people that SHE met with while Secretary of State were private party's that donated large sums to the FUND. (and the AP is not a conservative organization)

What is the old saying?            FOLLOW THE MONEY!  

Jim

Thanks for the response . The numbers I got about the 88% were from one of those charity rating groups, nonpartisan as far as I can tell. I think there has been some dispute about the amount of meetings. I haven't figured out the facts on that yet. I don't think there is any disputing of any politician having a conflict with money involved. That's how they all work.

[Moonshot_1]

I don't know how things are accounted for at the Clinton Foundation. As to Chelsea not receiving salary, there are other avenues of compensation available.

Quite simply there needs to be an independent review or independent prosecutor to look into this relationship between the Foundation, Mrs. Clinton, and the State Department.
Mrs. Clinton speaks of transparency so she should have no issues with a legitimate independent review that she is compelled by law to cooperate with.

The fact that donations to the Foundation come from some questionable sources while Mrs. Clinton was Sec. of State should be all that is needed to prompt such an inquiry.

The issue for me is that there is a long list of questionable activities during the careers of the Clintons.
It is time for an independent and in-depth review of the latest activities of the Foundation and to be sure there are no conflicts with the campaign, or laws broken while Sec. of State.

And while this alone should trigger some kind of independent audit we have the email and server issues that lead one to suspect some deviousness on the Clintons part.

It is impossible to believe that Mrs. Clinton, despite all of her political and high level political experience
had no idea how this security stuff is supposed to work and why.

Logic would strongly suggest that she indeed knows the how and why. So the only logical conclusion I can come up with in regards to the emails and server is that it was done to skirt the law concerning communication records.

Something about complex webs we weave when we try to deceive comes to mind.






















 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Logic would strongly suggest that she indeed knows the how and why. So the only logical conclusion I can come up with in regards to the emails and server is that it was done to skirt the law concerning communication records.























 

Of this we are in complete agreement.

[f6gal]

During the primaries, one of the republican candidates placed the Clinton Foundation's charitable grants at 6% of its revenue.  This was based on the foundation's 2013 IRS Form 990 (link below), which reveals a total revenue of $148,889,439 (line 12) and total charitable disbursements of $8,865,052 (line 13).  This document also reveals salaries/benefits expenses at $29,914,108 (line 15) and total expenses at $84,684,494 (line 18).  

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf

[f6gal]

During the primaries, one of the republican candidates placed the Clinton Foundation's charitable grants at 6% of its revenue.  This was based on the foundation's 2013 IRS Form 990 (link below), which reveals a total revenue of $148,889,439 (line 12) and total charitable disbursements of $8,865,052 (line 13).  This document also reveals salaries/benefits expenses at $29,914,108 (line 15) and total expenses at $84,684,494 (line 18).  

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf

Additional note:  They appear to have carried over approximately $64m.  Discounting the carryover, a more accurate accounting of their charitable grants vs expenses would be 9.5%, rather than the stated 6%.

[Oss]

I a not a Canadian attorney but is there any chance the CANADIAN authorities could investigate the Foundation,
or is it zero chance since the Canadian government may be getting a piece of the pie?

What say you from north of the border eh??

[TallRider]

Yep everybody is on the payroll. He buddy we have this load of potato to send to to Tim buck two. It's worth about 1,000 bucks we will give you 2 mil to transport it there, that should cover our secret deal, wink, wink.

[Simmy74]

+1 on watching the Clinton Cash video.  There is a large amount of figures and dates thrown about and I admit I found it hard to follow at first.  THEN, I watched it in segments, paused and replayed parts, etc...

I think any of the main cases they look at (Haiti relief, India nuclear program, African resource mining, Russian Uranium deals) is worth some time to digest and do some self digging and research on your own.

Admittedly,  it's hard to verify if so-and-so wired Xdollars on such and such date using Google,  but some of the bigger picture dates of meetings and decisions by the Sec. Of Defense are publicly documented.


I, for one, was shocked and frankly appalled by what I see as conflict of interest and actions incongruous with the traditional "party line" of humanitarian and environmental righteousness.


We all have to make up our own minds, in the end.  But that is why I still love America.

[Simmy74]

During the primaries, one of the republican candidates placed the Clinton Foundation's charitable grants at 6% of its revenue.  This was based on the foundation's 2013 IRS Form 990 (link below), which reveals a total revenue of $148,889,439 (line 12) and total charitable disbursements of $8,865,052 (line 13).  This document also reveals salaries/benefits expenses at $29,914,108 (line 15) and total expenses at $84,684,494 (line 18).  

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf

Additional note:  They appear to have carried over approximately $64m.  Discounting the carryover, a more accurate accounting of their charitable grants vs expenses would be 9.5%, rather than the stated 6%.

I like how after the salaries are paid, there is still 45 million  in other expenses and that alone is over 5x the amount paid out to charitable groups.


The other point is, who made money  (contractors,  etc..) in deals that the S.O.D. allowed from her office.  That cash is not seen in the foundation documents.

[The emperor has no clothes]

During the primaries, one of the republican candidates placed the Clinton Foundation's charitable grants at 6% of its revenue.  This was based on the foundation's 2013 IRS Form 990 (link below), which reveals a total revenue of $148,889,439 (line 12) and total charitable disbursements of $8,865,052 (line 13).  This document also reveals salaries/benefits expenses at $29,914,108 (line 15) and total expenses at $84,684,494 (line 18).  

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf

I am going to qualify this right off the bat by saying I don't know the accuracy of it. But as I was trying to learn about the foundation, one of the things that was said about it was they don't do much of the traditional grants like most non profits. They instead keep their projects in house and hire workers to do the jobs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation

[Patrick]

I ain't stepping in this.

But if you're just starting to look into clinton shenanigans then there is a lot of studying to do before the election.

[Alberta Patriot]

Associated Press Re:  Clinton Foundation

Fox News and the AP are being as fair as possible to the "Foundation"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mzkHQWIf3I

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP

Associated Press sues State Department, seeking access to Clinton records:
http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2015/AP-sues-State-Department-seeking-access-to-Clinton-records

Hillary needs to campaign on building a wall....Between Government and Foreign Donors to her Clinton Slush Fund....too late.

[therapist]

Charity Watch gives the foundation an A rating.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

[Serk]

Some will see the obvious corruption and have it back up their opinion of the morals of these individuals.

Some will ignore the corruption or try to explain it away and excuse it because it would require them to either vote for a blatant organized crime family or vote for "the other."

No minds will be changed, however.

[Wizzard]

Charity Watch gives the foundation an A rating.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Wonder what that cost them?

[Daddie O]

What is interesting is that although there have been no allegations of anyone that contributed to the Clinton Foundation got a meeting with Hillary without going through State Department channels, I'm curious that there is no outrage about politicians getting donations directly and then meeting with those lobbyists and special interests.  Could you point to a Republican that doesn't accept donations?  Or to a Republican that refuses to meet with those that give them direct donations?  Of course Democrats do it too (with the possible exception of Bernie who was an independent).

Pretty much most people, when they become really wealthy, open a philanthropic foundation.  Buffett. Gates, Zuckerberg, the Clintons, many NFL players, etc etc do it.  Do they meet with donors?  Of course they do.  Many people donate to the Clinton Foundation, including Donald Trump.  I repeat, it has not been shown that Hillary met with any donors that did not request a meeting through official State Department channels.

Seriously though, are there any Republicans at all that do not engage in "pay to play"?  I find your outrage to be a double standard.  When Reagan TRIPLED the national debt, he is deemed by your party to be one of the best presidents ever.  Obama inherited a annual deficit of 1.4 Trillion, which has been cut to 400 Billion, he is the worst president ever.  When Reagan sells weapons to Iran, and uses that money and cocaine sales to fund the terrorist Contras, he is amazing.  When Obama negotiates a deal to end Iranian nuclear proliferation, he is a terrible person.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Some will see the obvious corruption and have it back up their opinion of the morals of these individuals.

Some will ignore the corruption or try to explain it away and excuse it because it would require them to either vote for a blatant organized crime family or vote for "the other."

No minds will be changed, however.

I'm not quite that cynical about it. The reason for the post was to try to learn about it. I've "heard" so many things about it. I just would like to know the facts. If you have something for me to read I would appreciate it. If they really are paying themselves I would like to know it.

[Wizzard]

What is interesting is that although there have been no allegations of anyone that contributed to the Clinton Foundation got a meeting with Hillary without going through State Department channels, I'm curious that there is no outrage about politicians getting donations directly and then meeting with those lobbyists and special interests.  Could you point to a Republican that doesn't accept donations?  Or to a Republican that refuses to meet with those that give them direct donations?  Of course Democrats do it too (with the possible exception of Bernie who was an independent).

Pretty much most people, when they become really wealthy, open a philanthropic foundation.  Buffett. Gates, Zuckerberg, the Clintons, many NFL players, etc etc do it.  Do they meet with donors?  Of course they do.  Many people donate to the Clinton Foundation, including Donald Trump.  I repeat, it has not been shown that Hillary met with any donors that did not request a meeting through official State Department channels.

Seriously though, are there any Republicans at all that do not engage in "pay to play"?  I find your outrage to be a double standard.  When Reagan TRIPLED the national debt, he is deemed by your party to be one of the best presidents ever.  Obama inherited a annual deficit of 1.4 Trillion, which has been cut to 400 Billion, he is the worst president ever.  When Reagan sells weapons to Iran, and uses that money and cocaine sales to fund the terrorist Contras, he is amazing.  When Obama negotiates a deal to end Iranian nuclear proliferation, he is a terrible person.

Daddie O ,, I find it mildly amusing that you practice exactly what you say the Republicans should not. Most of your posts are about Republicans expressing their feelings about Democrats and how you think they are out of line, but then you go do the exact same thing from the other side. You need to practice what you preach.

[MotorPsycho]

According to what I've read, there are two foundations. 

The "Clinton Family Foundation," is a benevolent foundation, giving at least some of it's receipts to worthy causes.

The "Clinton Foundation," is a different beast altogether.  Funds that Hillary received as inducement to grant audiences during her stint in the State Department, went to the "Clinton Foundation."  Clinton family speaking fees, etc. go into this foundation.  No mention was made it the new article as to the disposition of funds of the "Clinton Foundation."

Personally, I find the similarity in names of the two foundations interesting.  Have you ever played a shell game? 

Another interesting mention in the news article was that, during Bill Clinton's presidency, they were encouraging donations by offering an overnight stay in the Lincoln Room of the Whitehouse.

That Hillary will be on the ballot at all has to be generating a lot of global humor.

[Robert]

Obama inherited a annual deficit of 1.4 Trillion, which has been cut to 400 Billion, he is the worst president ever.  When Reagan sells weapons to Iran, and uses that money and cocaine sales to fund the terrorist Contras, he is amazing.  When Obama negotiates a deal to end Iranian nuclear proliferation, he is a terrible person.

You are so on crack

http://www.crfb.org/papers/fy-2015-deficit-falls-439-billion-debt-continues-rise
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 budget deficit totaled $439 billion, according to today’s statement from the Treasury Department. Although this is roughly 10 percent below the FY 2014 deficit and nearly 70 percent below its 2009 peak, the country remains on an unsustainable fiscal path.

In this paper, we show:

    Annual deficits have fallen substantially over the past six years, largely due to rapid increases in revenue (largely from the economic recovery), the reversal of one-time spending during the financial crisis, small decreases in defense spending, and slow growth in other areas.
    
  Simply citing the 70 percent fall in deficits over the past six years without context is misleading, since it follows an almost 800 percent increase that brought deficits to record-high levels.
    
   Even as deficits have fallen, debt held by the public has continued to rise, growing from $5.0 trillion in 2007 and $7.5 trillion in 2009 to $13.1 trillion today. As a share of GDP, debt rose from 35 percent in 2007 to about 74 percent in 2014 and 2015.
    

  Both deficits and debt are projected to rise over the next decade and beyond, with trillion-dollar deficits returning by 2025 or sooner and debt exceeding the size of the economy before 2040, and as soon as 2031.

Unfortunately, the recent fall in deficits is not a sign of fiscal sustainability.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/obama-lied-us-had-no-liability-with-iran-money-paid-for-hostages-was-ransom/

After Court Threw Out Iran’s Claim to $2.2 Billion, Obama Reinstated Liability to Pay Ransom for Hostages

The $400 million payment made to Iran for hostages in January was not owed to Iran as Obama stated.  It was a ransom.

According to a report from the Canada Free Press the Obama Administration argued that the payment made to Iran in January was not a ransom paid to release Iranian hostages but instead was money owed to Iran as a result of a court case settled in 2009.  But this was not true.  The money was a ransom because no money was owed to Iran.  The Iran – US Claims Tribunal actually dismissed Iran’s claim for compensation in July of 2009!

[Daddie O]

I do not do drugs Robert.  Your post corroborates what I said, and what I've been saying.  Our annual deficit spending is down 70%!  That's pretty fricking amazing.  Let me guess, you want our spending to go up?  Your post goes on to say that the reduction is not only due to cuts in spending, but also due to rapid increases in revenue (due to economic recovery).  But I thought the sky was falling, and there hasn't been this amazing boom in jobs and spending.  What is this increased revenue then?  Oh, then it says it is out of context because under Bush there was an 800 percent increase that brought deficits to record highs.  Those dang Republicans and their ballooning of our deficits with their out of control borrowing and spending.  I am so glad they haven't been able to do that the past 7 years.  With 8 years of Hillary we will probably be back to a surplus and paying down the debt.  You know, like we were when her husband was president?  I remember Bush and Gore debating what to do with the extra cash.  Gore said we should put it into Social Security, keeping it solvent for another 50 years.  Bush said, typical Democrat thinks he knows better what to do with your money.  He offered to send us all a check for $300, and after he won he did get those checks sent.  Typical Republican.  Steal from Social Security, then borrow money with no way to pay it back. 

The thing is, we don't have to debate hypotheticals since we have history to look towards.  Republicans are devastatingly bad for our economy.  Republicans love to borrow and spend, borrow and spend.  They leave the mess to Democrats to clean up.  Of course the deficit goes higher when you are handed a budget that spends more than you take in.  It has taken years to cut that deficit by a TRILLION DOLLARS a year.  To hear you whine about 438 billion a year deficit spending, when a Republican president was spending 1.4 TRILLION DOLLARS a year more than he was taking in, is laughable. 

[..]

Please learn the difference between debt and deficit.

[..]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3757409/Hillary-Clinton-knew-aides-working-family-foundation-despite-pledge-not-to.html

[..]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12192975/The-KKK-leader-who-says-he-backs-Hillary-Clinton.html

[Robert]

I do not do drugs Robert. 

Anything good from O has been smoke and mirrors just like the reduction if you take into consideration. The 2009 fiscal year represented a huge jump in the deficit, partly because of the massive stimulus program to jump start the cratering economy. This is not to say that that large deficit was his fault, but if one used the 2008 deficit as a frame of reference, the comparison would be quite different. So he did not reduce the deficit, he only claimed he did, a liar till the end.

[Patrick]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/feb/27/debt-vs-deficit-whats-difference/

[JimC]

You just can't make this up!

17 MILLION dollar job for Bill Clinton, although he did visit 19 campus's in a five year span to earn the 17 MILLION.

Presidential
Clinton camp dismisses questions over Bill's $17M job with firm invited to State Dept. dinner
Published August 25, 2016 FoxNews.com
Facebook Twitter   livefyre Email Print

Now Playing

Clinton Foundation controversy: Was it transparent?

The Clinton campaign pushed back against allegations Thursday of another pay-to-play scheme, calling “absurd” any connection between a private dinner invite for a for-profit college network during Hillary Clinton’s State Department days and a multi-million-dollar job her husband landed months later.

The former secretary of state’s intervention in that incident was revealed in an email first disclosed by the website “Inside Higher Education.”

The exchange shows Clinton emailing chief of staff Cheryl Mills telling her to invite someone from Laureate Education to an Aug. 17, 2009 dinner at the State Department with experts in higher education. Clinton described the network as “the fastest growing college network in the world” and a “for-profit model that should be represented.”

The schedule shows Mills complied, and the dinner was attended by Laureate Senior Vice President Joseph Duffey, who had once awarded President Bill Clinton an honorary doctorate.

Eight months after Mrs. Clinton’s private dinner, Laureate – which operates 84 schools in 30 countries – hired the former president as “honorary chancellor.”

The job saw him traveling to locales like Madrid and touting the company alongside VIPs like Prince Felipe of Spain. The position paid him $17.6 million over five years -- until he stepped down 12 days before his wife launched her campaign for the White House last year.
2016 Election Headquarters

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.
See Latest Coverage →

The connections between the company and the Clintons add to a growing list of interactions during her State Department days fueling allegations that she traded access for contributions and payments, which her campaign has denied. Laureate also has donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.

“It clearly shows that she intervened on behalf of a for-profit organization and within months, her family personally benefited to the tune of -- well, over 17 million dollars,” said Larry O’Connor, editor-at-large with HotAir.com, which has written about the Clintons’ connections to the for-profit college industry. “That's a lot of money. They got wealthy off of what appears to be her intervention, including this organization in a very exclusive club.”

But a spokesman for the Clinton campaign told Fox News that any attempt to link the hiring of Bill Clinton and Secretary Clinton’s private dinner is “absurd.”

The campaign also pointed to Clinton’s tough stance regarding some for-profit colleges that act in a “predatory” way, suggesting that shows she did not allow her husband's contract with Laureate to influence her policies.

In a statement, Laureate said the former president visited 19 Laureate campuses in 14 countries across a five-year term that expired when it did by prior arrangement.

The State Department said it couldn’t say what was going through Hillary Clinton’s mind when she made a point of including the company at the 2009 dinner.

“The State Department regularly engages with arranged academics, NGO's, think tanks, business leaders, you know, speakers, commentators on a range of issues,” department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau said.





Stick around, I am sure there will be more.

JIM


ARTICLE:                                                                                                                                       http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/25/clinton-camp-dismisses-questions-over-bills-17m-job-with-firm-invited-to-state-dept-dinner.html

[baldo]

“It clearly shows that she intervened on behalf of a for-profit organization and within months, her family personally benefited to the tune of -- well, over 17 million dollars,” said Larry O’Connor, editor-at-large with HotAir.com, which has written about the Clintons’ connections to the for-profit college industry.

A story from Fox...and it reads like that...lol

I like the source.

[Patrick]

If its from Fox then one has to believe it. Fair and Balanced, the only one that can say that.

[FLAVALK]

“It clearly shows that she intervened on behalf of a for-profit organization and within months, her family personally benefited to the tune of -- well, over 17 million dollars,” said Larry O’Connor, editor-at-large with HotAir.com, which has written about the Clintons’ connections to the for-profit college industry.

A story from Fox...and it reads like that...lol

I like the source.

He who scoffs at Fox and holds the Huff & Puffington Post as the media gold standard. What a laugh 

[baldo]

If its from Fox then one has to believe it. Fair and Balanced, the only one that can say that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4mY4FHyT80

[JimC]

I joined this thread because meathead seemed to really be interested in obtaining information on the Clinton Foundation. I did not do so to try and convince some that they should change their preferences.

Serk said it best;

Some will ignore the corruption or try to explain it away and excuse it because it would require them to either vote for a blatant organized crime family or vote for "the other."

You can mock all the news organizations that you want, the fact that this is coming out tells me that there is a pretty solid basis for the information. If it were to be aired without a factual basis I am sure the lawsuits and the cease and desist orders would be flying already.

Instead of attempting to stop the Foundation rumors, the Clinton Campaign is only trying to deflect and change the topic.

Jim

 

[The emperor has no clothes]

I joined this thread because meathead seemed to really be interested in obtaining information on the Clinton Foundation. I did not do so to try and convince some that they should change their preferences.

Serk said it best;

Some will ignore the corruption or try to explain it away and excuse it because it would require them to either vote for a blatant organized crime family or vote for "the other."

You can mock all the news organizations that you want, the fact that this is coming out tells me that there is a pretty solid basis for the information. If it were to be aired without a factual basis I am sure the lawsuits and the cease and desist orders would be flying already.

Instead of attempting to stop the Foundation rumors, the Clinton Campaign is only trying to deflect and change the topic.

Jim

 

I did start the thread for those reasons. Thank you for responding. Although I've come to see it was a hopeless, fruitless attempt. I guess I should have known better. 

[Gavin_Sons]

they should rename it "Criminal Foundation"

[Rams]

Regardless of source, the media is bias'd.   Anyone who doesn't see that needs to lay off the Kool Aid.   Clinton gets good press from several sources that quickly drop any news that might be bad.   Trump gets a lot of bad coverage and it sticks around forever.    BTW, I'm not fond of any of the choices I'm presented with this election year but, I have to decide from what's on the menu.

Regardless of what's reported on any source, the Clintons have increased their wealth substantially while Hillary was Sec. of State.    Hillary denies that where there's smoke there is fire.    Again, she's denied and been proven to be a liar more times than I can count.  

You believe what ever makes you happy.   I'm convinced she's pure greed and power hungry.

[Simmy74]

And----------------- Trolled....