|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| The former president of the United States agreed to accept a lifetime achievement award at the June 2014 event after Ms. Nemcova offered a $500,000 contribution to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds — enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia..... "This is primarily a small but telling example of the way the Clintons operate,” said Doug White, who directs the master’s program in fund-raising management at Columbia University. “The model has responsibility; she paid a high price for a feel-good moment with Bill Clinton. But he was riding the back of this small charity for what? A half-million bucks? I find it — what would be the word? — distasteful.” ...... Further, it is extremely rare for honorees, or their foundations, to be paid from a gala’s proceeds, charity experts said — as it is for the proceeds to be diverted to a different cause...... In the charity gala world, it is considered unacceptable to spend more than a third of gross proceeds on costs, and better to spend considerably less. If the donation to the Clinton Foundation were counted as a cost, Happy Hearts would have spent 34 percent of its announced $2.5 million in proceeds on its gala. |
Pretty clear from the article that he would not do the event absent the $500k honorarium. Did he raise $1.5M - yeah if none of that money would have been raised without. That isn't clear from the article though.
It's going to be a long elections season. And it won't really start until the Republican herd gets thinned out a bit. Personal, I think HRC is more than competent enough to be POTUS, but, these "issues" keep popping up.
But yeah, it's just like giving to Medecins Sans Frontieres. Link - ( New Window )
There is nothing to that story, number 974 in a series of jumping to ridiculous conclusions about the Clintons:
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12306721 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
No, these are facts. If you didn't live in a bubble you would have heard of it.
But it doesn't really matter. We could have pictures of Bill and Hillary murdering little children and you would still vote for them. This is why politics such so much.
Quote:
In comment 12306759 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12306721 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
Ahem Link - ( New Window )
Page Not Found. Fitting.
Quote:
In comment 12306759 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12306721 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
Ahem Link - ( New Window )
Need a lozenge?
Your link says this:
Quote:
In comment 12306759 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12306721 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
No, these are facts. If you didn't live in a bubble you would have heard of it.
But it doesn't really matter. We could have pictures of Bill and Hillary murdering little children and you would still vote for them. This is why politics such so much.
So as i thought, you don't actually have any proof of this stuff, your just talking out of your ass while your head is stuck up it.
Do you think while you up there you could find a copy of the Constitution and tell us all again how it is "Not our right to vote, its a privilege"?
He's going to go down as Jimmy Carter part deux in a lot of ways, but that doesn't make him a bad person.
Quote:
Mark it down. Economic recovery. Bin Laden. Obamacare. Those 3 ensure his legacy.
He's going to go down as Jimmy Carter part deux in a lot of ways, but that doesn't make him a bad person.
+1
Try the second one you useless cunt.
Quote:
Mark it down. Economic recovery. Bin Laden. Obamacare. Those 3 ensure his legacy.
He's going to go down as Jimmy Carter part deux in a lot of ways, but that doesn't make him a bad person.
He was given that label before he took the oath. Some people will hold onto it regardless.
Quote:
In comment 12306852 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
Mark it down. Economic recovery. Bin Laden. Obamacare. Those 3 ensure his legacy.
He's going to go down as Jimmy Carter part deux in a lot of ways, but that doesn't make him a bad person.
He was given that label before he took the oath. Some people will hold onto it regardless.
The shoe has fit, to an extent. Lukewarm recovery (though nowhere near the doldrums of the late-70's), chaos in the Middle East and a strained relationship with Israel, and a Commander in Chief who seems decent enough and is certainly very smart but largely ineffective, and for what in the eyes of their critics seem like similar reasons.
LOL. Republicans are so cute.
Quote:
In comment 12306759 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12306721 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
No, these are facts. If you didn't live in a bubble you would have heard of it.
But it doesn't really matter. We could have pictures of Bill and Hillary murdering little children and you would still vote for them. This is why politics such so much.
"The Clintons are bad bad people. I don't have any nonpartisan proof of this, but you really really really have to believe me. Just like Bengahzi."
By the way, I found your link.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359.html
Then I found another article on the same site.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/sidney-blumenthal-fake-clinton-scandals-118389.html
ERIC SHAWN: That sounds really bad but it’s actually incredibly misleading, because it’s the way the charity works. They don’t give grants to other charities — they do most of it themselves, so that they actually have spending of about 80 percent, according to the IRS figures. They say 88 percent. You know, Bill, the experts for charity say that’s very good. They usually want a charity to give about 80 percent of [garbled]…
BILL O’REILLY: …So their own people whom they hire do the work in Haiti, do the work in the other Third World nations, paid by the Clinton Foundation themselves [garbled] going in for infrastructure, for salaries, travel, for them to do the charitable work, rather than giving it to someone else.
ERIC SHAWN: Or partners that they work with, as opposed to being the charity [garbled]…
BILL O’REILLY: So right now the amount of money from the $2 billion that’s going out is okay.
ERIC SHAWN: Yeah. According to experts, that’s okay.
BILL O’REILLY: But 20 percent left over — that’s a lot of money left over. Wanna point that out.
ERIC SHAWN: For staples..
Note: Eric Shawn is an American television news reporter for the Fox News Channel.
And while we are at it, the reason why Hillary has a very good chance of surviving her semi- and quasi-scandals can be found way over on her right, where much of the Republican party resides. This race will be decided in a lot of battleground states with 1) no love of Obama, but also 2)no love of where Republican leaders are taking their states.
Not just liberals, but also many moderates fear giving control of both houses of Congress plus the Presidency to a successively more right leaning party. That type of person will overlook a lot in the Clintons. And don't underestimate Bill as a campaigner on Hill's behalf.
And, of course, whomever comes out of this wacky Republican primary race with 19 or so name candidates will have an awful lot of mud of their own to wash off before taking on Hillary. And all of the messiness Rand Paul is going to generate without having a prayer of getting the candidacy.
ERIC SHAWN: That sounds really bad but it’s actually incredibly misleading, because it’s the way the charity works. They don’t give grants to other charities — they do most of it themselves, so that they actually have spending of about 80 percent, according to the IRS figures. They say 88 percent. You know, Bill, the experts for charity say that’s very good. They usually want a charity to give about 80 percent of [garbled]…
BILL O’REILLY: …So their own people whom they hire do the work in Haiti, do the work in the other Third World nations, paid by the Clinton Foundation themselves [garbled] going in for infrastructure, for salaries, travel, for them to do the charitable work, rather than giving it to someone else.
ERIC SHAWN: Or partners that they work with, as opposed to being the charity [garbled]…
BILL O’REILLY: So right now the amount of money from the $2 billion that’s going out is okay.
ERIC SHAWN: Yeah. According to experts, that’s okay.
BILL O’REILLY: But 20 percent left over — that’s a lot of money left over. Wanna point that out.
ERIC SHAWN: For staples..
Note: Eric Shawn is an American television news reporter for the Fox News Channel.
Well some charity groups beg to differ....
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
Also...
Link - ( New Window )
And while we are at it, the reason why Hillary has a very good chance of surviving her semi- and quasi-scandals can be found way over on her right, where much of the Republican party resides. This race will be decided in a lot of battleground states with 1) no love of Obama, but also 2)no love of where Republican leaders are taking their states.
Not just liberals, but also many moderates fear giving control of both houses of Congress plus the Presidency to a successively more right leaning party. That type of person will overlook a lot in the Clintons. And don't underestimate Bill as a campaigner on Hill's behalf.
And, of course, whomever comes out of this wacky Republican primary race with 19 or so name candidates will have an awful lot of mud of their own to wash off before taking on Hillary. And all of the messiness Rand Paul is going to generate without having a prayer of getting the candidacy.
The question isn't if there is a Republic to vote for, but why are there no other Democrats to vote for? Why is it this early in the process and Hilary is locked in? It's as if you don't, as Democrats, get a choice. You are stuck with Hilary. Maybe you are happy with that. But somehow I doubt it.
ERIC SHAWN: That sounds really bad but it’s actually incredibly misleading, because it’s the way the charity works. They don’t give grants to other charities — they do most of it themselves, so that they actually have spending of about 80 percent, according to the IRS figures. They say 88 percent. You know, Bill, the experts for charity say that’s very good. They usually want a charity to give about 80 percent of [garbled]…
BILL O’REILLY: …So their own people whom they hire do the work in Haiti, do the work in the other Third World nations, paid by the Clinton Foundation themselves [garbled] going in for infrastructure, for salaries, travel, for them to do the charitable work, rather than giving it to someone else.
ERIC SHAWN: Or partners that they work with, as opposed to being the charity [garbled]…
BILL O’REILLY: So right now the amount of money from the $2 billion that’s going out is okay.
ERIC SHAWN: Yeah. According to experts, that’s okay.
BILL O’REILLY: But 20 percent left over — that’s a lot of money left over. Wanna point that out.
ERIC SHAWN: For staples..
Note: Eric Shawn is an American television news reporter for the Fox News Channel.
Well some charity groups beg to differ.... Quote:Why isn't this organization rated?
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
I don't see how the Charity Navigator blurb is in any way negative towards the O'Reilly Factor transcript. Please explain "beg to differ".
Crazy, crazy, milquetoast, who the fuck are you, crazy, I could live with it, I could live with it, crazy, crazy, PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP, I'd rather vote for Bernie, maybe, maybe, crazy. That's my preview of the field.
Link - ( New Window )
Meh. He's been writing for the right's journal of record for a decade plus, he has sold a few million books, you may not like him but he's no hackier than your garden variety op-ed journalist.
So, you get two potential outcomes here. Either the National Review did the kind of unbiased reporting Politico tends to, or they are actually part of the big lie Politico is describing. They have done it before.
From Wiki:
The magazine's current editor is Rich Lowry. Many of the magazine's commentators are affiliated with think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. Prominent guest authors have included Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin in the on-line and paper edition.
Here is their current Washington Editor:
Quote:
In comment 12306783 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306759 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12306721 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
No, these are facts. If you didn't live in a bubble you would have heard of it.
But it doesn't really matter. We could have pictures of Bill and Hillary murdering little children and you would still vote for them. This is why politics such so much.
"The Clintons are bad bad people. I don't have any nonpartisan proof of this, but you really really really have to believe me. Just like Bengahzi."
By the way, I found your link.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359.html
Then I found another article on the same site.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/sidney-blumenthal-fake-clinton-scandals-118389.html
So once again per those links we have a bunch of theories, accusations, and slanted opinions about the Charity they run. Where is the absolute proof positive of what they are accused of? Where is the proven criminal act?
100M spent and counting, the FBI, Secret Service, AK State Police, numerous Govt investigative depts, Congress, House, a corrupt Ind prosecutor in Starr, illegal wiretaps, and out of all of that array of power and money tasked with finding proof of some tangible wrongdoing you have a red dress that Bill ran a batch on.
For 20+ years the all we have heard is all this wrong doing, all these criminal acts, all this obvious corruption done by these two people and you have as a sum total after all the ranting and wailing about them, a shitty little red dress.
The question isn't if there is a Republic to vote for, but why are there no other Democrats to vote for? Why is it this early in the process and Hilary is locked in? It's as if you don't, as Democrats, get a choice. You are stuck with Hilary. Maybe you are happy with that. But somehow I doubt it.
Buford seeing as she routinely is polling 65% among Dems which is literally almost un-unprecedented for a non sitting president, I would say us Dems are plenty comfortable with her as a choice. Of course the Right isn't, they have made that abundantly clear over the past 2 decades. Frankly though she is not running for their votes.
Let's face it, you don't care if she tortures puppies. It's all party first, and damn everything else.