Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AP:
"There's a lot of potential conflicts and a lot of potential problems," said Douglas White, an expert on nonprofits who previously directed Columbia University's graduate fundraising management program. "The point is, she can't just walk away from these 6,000 donors."
Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State
SURE she can. She's been screwing people for years....she walked away from 4 Americans in Benghazi, leaving them to die while she concocted her lie about a video to save her own ass.
About as stupid as using a private unsecure server for classified Intel knowing your going to run for President in a few years.
ILLEGAL, UNAUTHORIZED, UNENCRYPTED private serverS housing an ILLEGAL mix of 'Confidential', 'Secret', 'Top SECRET', 'Top Secret Compartmentalized' information (which she was not even authorized to have after leaving the State Dept.....
Yeah, she has to either be the most stupid person to ever run for the Presidency or either just did not give a damn about anything other than keeping her illegal activity out of the public eye.
You know that because they told you that.AP:
"Last week, the Clinton Foundation moved to head off ethics concerns about future donations by announcing changes planned if Clinton is elected."
"I will stop taking millions from foreign / Islamic nations that support and fund terrorism, stop taking millions from Islamic nations that oppress/mutilate/murder women (for BEING raped), and stop taking millions from nations that murder gays...IF ELECTED PRESIDENT."
...and the million dollar question is 'WHY DOESN'T SHE STOP NOW?'
Why are you so offended that she takes money from nasty people? What matters is what the Clintons do with that money, which is use it to help the people harmed.
We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.
The other guy did it excuse?
Hardly hon, go get all of 'em, please.
All I have to do is look at your posts to find the other guy did it excuses.
Sure, or perhaps you are what you decry.
Or perhaps you're exactly what I said you are and won't admit it.
Excersize a bit of intellectual integrity.I truly think all the Clinton Foundation recriminations exist and are even possible to make for the following reasons:
- Most people are not senior executives and have no clue of what a senior executive does, what their work days are like or anything else about how they live, other than that outwardly senior execs and principals appear to live "the live of Riley."
- Senior executives and principals are not about to publicly discuss what their work days and lives are like, other than perhaps to talk about interesting places, interesting people/conversations, hobbies, vacations or their kids or some other "polite" topic that somehow intersects with their work lives.
For all the Clinton Foundation hoopla, people are forgetting (or don't know) one thing:
People don't set up 501(c) foundations, which is what the Clinton Foundation is, to collect/make money; they set them up to give it away!!!
Can the creator of a 501(c) earn something from the Foundation? Yes, they can if the foundation pays them a salary. They can if the foundation buys their founder's goods and services. The Clinton's don't have any goods, and their only service offerings are honoraria and government service. Do you really think the Clinton Foundation is going to engage the Clintons to give a speech to the Clinton Foundation?
There's plenty of sensationalism about the Clinton Foundation and the people who met with Mrs. Clinton.
- Meetings:
Out of curiosity, what the heck do you think a Secretary of State or any other senior executive mostly does? Well, I'll tell you: mostly, they go from one meeting to the next. In between "big" meetings, they read stuff to get prepared for the next meeting, they sign documents that lower level staff prepared as a consequence of prior meetings, they talk to folks on the phone to get details about a meeting that already took place or that will take place.- Money:
What money? Who gets rich saying, "Give money to this charity that does nothing for and buys nothing from me or my friends, and maybe I'll talk to you."?
In alleged the Clinton Foundation "pay to play" scheme, what personal financial gain did Hillary or Bill Clinton get?
Looking at the (as known) process of donations to the Clinton Foundation (CF) and meeting requests with HRC, the process would look as follows:
- 2010 Clinton Foundation Tax Return
- Page 7: Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
- No Clinton received compensation of any sort.
- 2012 Clinton Foundation Tax Return
- Page 7: Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
- Chelsea Clinton and Terry McAuliffe are both listed. How much did they receive? $0.00.
So, somebody please show me some tangible proof that Hillary Clinton personally benefitted from anything having to do with the Clinton Foundation's fundraising. In other words, just what did the Clintons receive in exchange for all these donations and meetings? The CF is not like Trump Organization, which is a business. It's a charity, just like the Shawn Carter Foundation.
- Donor gives "big money" to CF
- CF spends money on needy people and various good/service providers
- Was HRC one of those recipients of money? No.
- The donor clearly wasn't.
- Donor requests meeting with Hillary Clinton (HRC)
- Meeting does not occur --> End.
- Meeting occurs --> Go to #4.
- Donor and HRC meet.
- Donor ask for "something" from HRC/SecState, which by inference means U.S.
- Donor receives what was requested --> Go to #6
- Donor does not receive what was requested.--> Go to #6
- Increase in HRC personal fortune?
- Yes --> deposit is recorded and investigated
- No --> nothing happens
- End
Seeing as Mrs. Clinton wasn't paid anything by the CF, that's not where she'd have gotten a personal financial gain. The next place to look is to see what outcomes took place subsequent to the meeting. I looked into one such donor, the first one noted in the AP's article.
What does the AP article say? (I have time right now to address only the first person noted.)
Donors who were granted time with Clinton included:An internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran.So, while it may massage one's feelings of disdain toward Mrs. Clinton for what her relationships looked like superficially, exercise just a little bit of intellectual integrity and at least look further than just what you see published in a newspaper article. Mrs. Clinton is quite like many senior execs in that she acts to do the right thing first and worries about optics later. That's hurting her right now given the acrimony over the CF. But if you read the content I've linked in this post, you'll find that at least one of the associations noted in the AP article the thread OP references is not one whereof there existed some untoward goings on.
- Bangladesh's GDP is $150B. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could together buy and sell the whole damn country. I realize that to most Americans, the idea that a private individual can have meaningful enough influence in a country like Bangladesh is absurd. Well, it's not, not by a longshot. In countries that have only very wealthy and very poor citizens, the wealthy folks there, be they part of the government or not, have tremendous say in the governance of the place. If they have a role in government or an arm of it, they have even more.
The man who for some reason went unnamed in the AP's article is Muhammad Yunus. What help did he get from Mrs. Clinton? Apparently not enough...He was forced to step down from his position on the board at the Bangladeshi nonprofit organization involved.
What organization? Grameen Bank, which is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning microfinance organization and community development bank founded in Bangladesh. It makes small loans (known as microcredit or "grameencredit") to the impoverished without requiring collateral. The name Grameen is derived from the word gram which means "rural" or "village" in the Bengali Language.
Now what do "Mr. and Mrs. Typical American" know about Bangladesh or the Grameen Bank? I suspect nothing for I doubt that most Americans even know where Bangladesh is, much less the name of its domestic development bank (it's essentially their version of the Small Business Administration); however, there's quite a lot to know about the bank and its role in Bangladesh governance.
The first thing to know is that in countries as small and poor as Bangladesh, a single very wealthy (for that country) individual usually has a huge influence on the functioning and stability of the country. Here you'll find why Mr. Yunus and Mrs. Clinton had a U.S. government related reason to interact.
There's more to Mr. Yunus and the bank than just that, however. I'll leave it to you to peruse the following and lean a bit on your own.What is the value of the Grameen Bank? In addition to what you'll have found if you read the content at the links I provided, it, under Mr. Yunus, has pioneered a new approach to making the benefits of capitalism available to poor folks and has played a central role in bringing more wealth to the poorest people there.. Do you suppose there's a reason for Mrs. Clinton to want to understand?
More directly related to her role at State, are you aware of how ISIS preys on poor nations and inserts itself? Do you know where Bangladesh may fit in ISIS' designs? If ISIS were to have its way, Bangladesh could easily become a place where ISIS inserts itself. What about Myanmar right next door to Bangladesh?
Are you aware of the history of government regulations? If so, you would know that the central government had very few regulations in place for roughly the first hundreds of the republic. Today we have a regulatory state gone mad, in part because it allows pols to make lots of money.Can't agree. When the federal gov was small, as was intended, pols did not have this opportunity for corruption open to them.We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.
..the federal government imposes an infinite number of rules and regulations purposely to make it difficult to do things, so that pols can get big money people to give them money to navigate through the maze. Its great for pols like Cankles and Bubba.
And when would you say that started exactly?
I did not state only Ds do it. Both stinking corrupt lying parties do it, but one of them has the major media in it's pocket, so they tend to get away with a lot more corruption.
How'd that work when she was SOS? It was a cue saying get your bribes in now.AP:
"On Monday, Bill Clinton said in a statement that if his wife were to win, he would step down from the foundation's board and stop all fundraising for it. The foundation would also accept donations only from U.S. citizens and what it described as independent philanthropies, while no longer taking gifts from foreign groups, U.S. companies or corporate charities.
Those planned changes would not affect more than 6,000 donors who have already provided the Clinton charity with more than $2 billion in funding..."
Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State
'If you people will get off our ass about our Pay-to-Play scandal we promise to make a token gesture that won't change anything AFTER she becomes President, of course. Until then, and if we don't win the Presidency, we will keep taking money like we always have.'
- Slick Willey
You have trouble comprehending the written word.Are you aware of the history of government regulations? If so, you would know that the central government had very few regulations in place for roughly the first hundreds of the republic. Today we have a regulatory state gone mad, in part because it allows pols to make lots of money.Can't agree. When the federal gov was small, as was intended, pols did not have this opportunity for corruption open to them.We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.
..the federal government imposes an infinite number of rules and regulations purposely to make it difficult to do things, so that pols can get big money people to give them money to navigate through the maze. Its great for pols like Cankles and Bubba.
And when would you say that started exactly?
I did not state only Ds do it. Both stinking corrupt lying parties do it, but one of them has the major media in it's pocket, so they tend to get away with a lot more corruption.
Sure, we're back to the "well yeah they're 'all' corrupt" but 'my side' ain't as bad as the 'other side'" argument. Sorry, don't buy it, the entire systen is the problem - all of it, the entire thing. As for your media? Yeah, well, that's what happens when you over deregulate, thank you Bill Clinton for deregulating the FCC. The 50 some odd companies involved in the american media machine back in the 1980s have now been concentrated into the hands if 6 major multinational corporations. Sounds to me like you have an issue with concentrated corporate power and wealth redistribution. So I don't buy the "liberal MSM media" bit either.
Excersize a bit of intellectual integrity.I truly think all the Clinton Foundation recriminations exist and are even possible to make for the following reasons:
- Most people are not senior executives and have no clue of what a senior executive does, what their work days are like or anything else about how they live, other than that outwardly senior execs and principals appear to live "the live of Riley."
- Senior executives and principals are not about to publicly discuss what their work days and lives are like, other than perhaps to talk about interesting places, interesting people/conversations, hobbies, vacations or their kids or some other "polite" topic that somehow intersects with their work lives.
For all the Clinton Foundation hoopla, people are forgetting (or don't know) one thing:
People don't set up 501(c) foundations, which is what the Clinton Foundation is, to collect/make money; they set them up to give it away!!!
Can the creator of a 501(c) earn something from the Foundation? Yes, they can if the foundation pays them a salary. They can if the foundation buys their founder's goods and services. The Clinton's don't have any goods, and their only service offerings are honoraria and government service. Do you really think the Clinton Foundation is going to engage the Clintons to give a speech to the Clinton Foundation?
There's plenty of sensationalism about the Clinton Foundation and the people who met with Mrs. Clinton.
- Meetings:
Out of curiosity, what the heck do you think a Secretary of State or any other senior executive mostly does? Well, I'll tell you: mostly, they go from one meeting to the next. In between "big" meetings, they read stuff to get prepared for the next meeting, they sign documents that lower level staff prepared as a consequence of prior meetings, they talk to folks on the phone to get details about a meeting that already took place or that will take place.- Money:
What money? Who gets rich saying, "Give money to this charity that does nothing for and buys nothing from me or my friends, and maybe I'll talk to you."?
In alleged the Clinton Foundation "pay to play" scheme, what personal financial gain did Hillary or Bill Clinton get?
Looking at the (as known) process of donations to the Clinton Foundation (CF) and meeting requests with HRC, the process would look as follows:
- 2010 Clinton Foundation Tax Return
- Page 7: Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
- No Clinton received compensation of any sort.
- 2012 Clinton Foundation Tax Return
- Page 7: Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
- Chelsea Clinton and Terry McAuliffe are both listed. How much did they receive? $0.00.
So, somebody please show me some tangible proof that Hillary Clinton personally benefitted from anything having to do with the Clinton Foundation's fundraising. In other words, just what did the Clintons receive in exchange for all these donations and meetings? The CF is not like Trump Organization, which is a business. It's a charity, just like the Shawn Carter Foundation.
- Donor gives "big money" to CF
- CF spends money on needy people and various good/service providers
- Was HRC one of those recipients of money? No.
- The donor clearly wasn't.
- Donor requests meeting with Hillary Clinton (HRC)
- Meeting does not occur --> End.
- Meeting occurs --> Go to #4.
- Donor and HRC meet.
- Donor ask for "something" from HRC/SecState, which by inference means U.S.
- Donor receives what was requested --> Go to #6
- Donor does not receive what was requested.--> Go to #6
- Increase in HRC personal fortune?
- Yes --> deposit is recorded and investigated
- No --> nothing happens
- End
Seeing as Mrs. Clinton wasn't paid anything by the CF, that's not where she'd have gotten a personal financial gain. The next place to look is to see what outcomes took place subsequent to the meeting. I looked into one such donor, the first one noted in the AP's article.
What does the AP article say? (I have time right now to address only the first person noted.)
Donors who were granted time with Clinton included:An internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran.So, while it may massage one's feelings of disdain toward Mrs. Clinton for what her relationships looked like superficially, exercise just a little bit of intellectual integrity and at least look further than just what you see published in a newspaper article. Mrs. Clinton is quite like many senior execs in that she acts to do the right thing first and worries about optics later. That's hurting her right now given the acrimony over the CF. But if you read the content I've linked in this post, you'll find that at least one of the associations noted in the AP article the thread OP references is not one whereof there existed some untoward goings on.
- Bangladesh's GDP is $150B. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could together buy and sell the whole damn country. I realize that to most Americans, the idea that a private individual can have meaningful enough influence in a country like Bangladesh is absurd. Well, it's not, not by a longshot. In countries that have only very wealthy and very poor citizens, the wealthy folks there, be they part of the government or not, have tremendous say in the governance of the place. If they have a role in government or an arm of it, they have even more.
The man who for some reason went unnamed in the AP's article is Muhammad Yunus. What help did he get from Mrs. Clinton? Apparently not enough...He was forced to step down from his position on the board at the Bangladeshi nonprofit organization involved.
What organization? Grameen Bank, which is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning microfinance organization and community development bank founded in Bangladesh. It makes small loans (known as microcredit or "grameencredit") to the impoverished without requiring collateral. The name Grameen is derived from the word gram which means "rural" or "village" in the Bengali Language.
Now what do "Mr. and Mrs. Typical American" know about Bangladesh or the Grameen Bank? I suspect nothing for I doubt that most Americans even know where Bangladesh is, much less the name of its domestic development bank (it's essentially their version of the Small Business Administration); however, there's quite a lot to know about the bank and its role in Bangladesh governance.
The first thing to know is that in countries as small and poor as Bangladesh, a single very wealthy (for that country) individual usually has a huge influence on the functioning and stability of the country. Here you'll find why Mr. Yunus and Mrs. Clinton had a U.S. government related reason to interact.
There's more to Mr. Yunus and the bank than just that, however. I'll leave it to you to peruse the following and lean a bit on your own.What is the value of the Grameen Bank? In addition to what you'll have found if you read the content at the links I provided, it, under Mr. Yunus, has pioneered a new approach to making the benefits of capitalism available to poor folks and has played a central role in bringing more wealth to the poorest people there.. Do you suppose there's a reason for Mrs. Clinton to want to understand?
More directly related to her role at State, are you aware of how ISIS preys on poor nations and inserts itself? Do you know where Bangladesh may fit in ISIS' designs? If ISIS were to have its way, Bangladesh could easily become a place where ISIS inserts itself. What about Myanmar right next door to Bangladesh?
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.
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
What kind of moron thinks the US government ever regulated the press?Are you aware of the history of government regulations? If so, you would know that the central government had very few regulations in place for roughly the first hundreds of the republic. Today we have a regulatory state gone mad, in part because it allows pols to make lots of money.Can't agree. When the federal gov was small, as was intended, pols did not have this opportunity for corruption open to them.We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.
..the federal government imposes an infinite number of rules and regulations purposely to make it difficult to do things, so that pols can get big money people to give them money to navigate through the maze. Its great for pols like Cankles and Bubba.
And when would you say that started exactly?
I did not state only Ds do it. Both stinking corrupt lying parties do it, but one of them has the major media in it's pocket, so they tend to get away with a lot more corruption.
Sure, we're back to the "well yeah they're 'all' corrupt" but 'my side' ain't as bad as the 'other side'" argument. Sorry, don't buy it, the entire systen is the problem - all of it, the entire thing. As for your media? Yeah, well, that's what happens when you over deregulate, thank you Bill Clinton for deregulating the FCC. The 50 some odd companies involved in the american media machine back in the 1980s have now been concentrated into the hands if 6 major multinational corporations. Sounds to me like you have an issue with concentrated corporate power and wealth redistribution. So I don't buy the "liberal MSM media" bit either.
Top Three Salaries at Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation (Based on Fiscal Year-Ended 12/31/14)Excersize a bit of intellectual integrity.I truly think all the Clinton Foundation recriminations exist and are even possible to make for the following reasons:
- Most people are not senior executives and have no clue of what a senior executive does, what their work days are like or anything else about how they live, other than that outwardly senior execs and principals appear to live "the live of Riley."
- Senior executives and principals are not about to publicly discuss what their work days and lives are like, other than perhaps to talk about interesting places, interesting people/conversations, hobbies, vacations or their kids or some other "polite" topic that somehow intersects with their work lives.
For all the Clinton Foundation hoopla, people are forgetting (or don't know) one thing:
People don't set up 501(c) foundations, which is what the Clinton Foundation is, to collect/make money; they set them up to give it away!!!
Can the creator of a 501(c) earn something from the Foundation? Yes, they can if the foundation pays them a salary. They can if the foundation buys their founder's goods and services. The Clinton's don't have any goods, and their only service offerings are honoraria and government service. Do you really think the Clinton Foundation is going to engage the Clintons to give a speech to the Clinton Foundation?
There's plenty of sensationalism about the Clinton Foundation and the people who met with Mrs. Clinton.
- Meetings:
Out of curiosity, what the heck do you think a Secretary of State or any other senior executive mostly does? Well, I'll tell you: mostly, they go from one meeting to the next. In between "big" meetings, they read stuff to get prepared for the next meeting, they sign documents that lower level staff prepared as a consequence of prior meetings, they talk to folks on the phone to get details about a meeting that already took place or that will take place.- Money:
What money? Who gets rich saying, "Give money to this charity that does nothing for and buys nothing from me or my friends, and maybe I'll talk to you."?
In alleged the Clinton Foundation "pay to play" scheme, what personal financial gain did Hillary or Bill Clinton get?
Looking at the (as known) process of donations to the Clinton Foundation (CF) and meeting requests with HRC, the process would look as follows:
- 2010 Clinton Foundation Tax Return
- Page 7: Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
- No Clinton received compensation of any sort.
- 2012 Clinton Foundation Tax Return
- Page 7: Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
- Chelsea Clinton and Terry McAuliffe are both listed. How much did they receive? $0.00.
So, somebody please show me some tangible proof that Hillary Clinton personally benefitted from anything having to do with the Clinton Foundation's fundraising. In other words, just what did the Clintons receive in exchange for all these donations and meetings? The CF is not like Trump Organization, which is a business. It's a charity, just like the Shawn Carter Foundation.
- Donor gives "big money" to CF
- CF spends money on needy people and various good/service providers
- Was HRC one of those recipients of money? No.
- The donor clearly wasn't.
- Donor requests meeting with Hillary Clinton (HRC)
- Meeting does not occur --> End.
- Meeting occurs --> Go to #4.
- Donor and HRC meet.
- Donor ask for "something" from HRC/SecState, which by inference means U.S.
- Donor receives what was requested --> Go to #6
- Donor does not receive what was requested.--> Go to #6
- Increase in HRC personal fortune?
- Yes --> deposit is recorded and investigated
- No --> nothing happens
- End
Seeing as Mrs. Clinton wasn't paid anything by the CF, that's not where she'd have gotten a personal financial gain. The next place to look is to see what outcomes took place subsequent to the meeting. I looked into one such donor, the first one noted in the AP's article.
What does the AP article say? (I have time right now to address only the first person noted.)
Donors who were granted time with Clinton included:An internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran.So, while it may massage one's feelings of disdain toward Mrs. Clinton for what her relationships looked like superficially, exercise just a little bit of intellectual integrity and at least look further than just what you see published in a newspaper article. Mrs. Clinton is quite like many senior execs in that she acts to do the right thing first and worries about optics later. That's hurting her right now given the acrimony over the CF. But if you read the content I've linked in this post, you'll find that at least one of the associations noted in the AP article the thread OP references is not one whereof there existed some untoward goings on.
- Bangladesh's GDP is $150B. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could together buy and sell the whole damn country. I realize that to most Americans, the idea that a private individual can have meaningful enough influence in a country like Bangladesh is absurd. Well, it's not, not by a longshot. In countries that have only very wealthy and very poor citizens, the wealthy folks there, be they part of the government or not, have tremendous say in the governance of the place. If they have a role in government or an arm of it, they have even more.
The man who for some reason went unnamed in the AP's article is Muhammad Yunus. What help did he get from Mrs. Clinton? Apparently not enough...He was forced to step down from his position on the board at the Bangladeshi nonprofit organization involved.
What organization? Grameen Bank, which is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning microfinance organization and community development bank founded in Bangladesh. It makes small loans (known as microcredit or "grameencredit") to the impoverished without requiring collateral. The name Grameen is derived from the word gram which means "rural" or "village" in the Bengali Language.
Now what do "Mr. and Mrs. Typical American" know about Bangladesh or the Grameen Bank? I suspect nothing for I doubt that most Americans even know where Bangladesh is, much less the name of its domestic development bank (it's essentially their version of the Small Business Administration); however, there's quite a lot to know about the bank and its role in Bangladesh governance.
The first thing to know is that in countries as small and poor as Bangladesh, a single very wealthy (for that country) individual usually has a huge influence on the functioning and stability of the country. Here you'll find why Mr. Yunus and Mrs. Clinton had a U.S. government related reason to interact.
There's more to Mr. Yunus and the bank than just that, however. I'll leave it to you to peruse the following and lean a bit on your own.What is the value of the Grameen Bank? In addition to what you'll have found if you read the content at the links I provided, it, under Mr. Yunus, has pioneered a new approach to making the benefits of capitalism available to poor folks and has played a central role in bringing more wealth to the poorest people there.. Do you suppose there's a reason for Mrs. Clinton to want to understand?
More directly related to her role at State, are you aware of how ISIS preys on poor nations and inserts itself? Do you know where Bangladesh may fit in ISIS' designs? If ISIS were to have its way, Bangladesh could easily become a place where ISIS inserts itself. What about Myanmar right next door to Bangladesh?
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.
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
And now he's gone, point?
You have trouble comprehending the written word.Are you aware of the history of government regulations? If so, you would know that the central government had very few regulations in place for roughly the first hundreds of the republic. Today we have a regulatory state gone mad, in part because it allows pols to make lots of money.Can't agree. When the federal gov was small, as was intended, pols did not have this opportunity for corruption open to them.We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.
..the federal government imposes an infinite number of rules and regulations purposely to make it difficult to do things, so that pols can get big money people to give them money to navigate through the maze. Its great for pols like Cankles and Bubba.
And when would you say that started exactly?
I did not state only Ds do it. Both stinking corrupt lying parties do it, but one of them has the major media in it's pocket, so they tend to get away with a lot more corruption.
Sure, we're back to the "well yeah they're 'all' corrupt" but 'my side' ain't as bad as the 'other side'" argument. Sorry, don't buy it, the entire systen is the problem - all of it, the entire thing. As for your media? Yeah, well, that's what happens when you over deregulate, thank you Bill Clinton for deregulating the FCC. The 50 some odd companies involved in the american media machine back in the 1980s have now been concentrated into the hands if 6 major multinational corporations. Sounds to me like you have an issue with concentrated corporate power and wealth redistribution. So I don't buy the "liberal MSM media" bit either.
My post clearly and concisely stated both parties are corrupt, but one of them has the media in their pocket so that party gets away with more. You need to read those words slowly and then compare them to what you concluded they mean.
Top Three Salaries at Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation (Based on Fiscal Year-Ended 12/31/14)Excersize a bit of intellectual integrity.I truly think all the Clinton Foundation recriminations exist and are even possible to make for the following reasons:
- Most people are not senior executives and have no clue of what a senior executive does, what their work days are like or anything else about how they live, other than that outwardly senior execs and principals appear to live "the live of Riley."
- Senior executives and principals are not about to publicly discuss what their work days and lives are like, other than perhaps to talk about interesting places, interesting people/conversations, hobbies, vacations or their kids or some other "polite" topic that somehow intersects with their work lives.
For all the Clinton Foundation hoopla, people are forgetting (or don't know) one thing:
People don't set up 501(c) foundations, which is what the Clinton Foundation is, to collect/make money; they set them up to give it away!!!
Can the creator of a 501(c) earn something from the Foundation? Yes, they can if the foundation pays them a salary. They can if the foundation buys their founder's goods and services. The Clinton's don't have any goods, and their only service offerings are honoraria and government service. Do you really think the Clinton Foundation is going to engage the Clintons to give a speech to the Clinton Foundation?
There's plenty of sensationalism about the Clinton Foundation and the people who met with Mrs. Clinton.
- Meetings:
Out of curiosity, what the heck do you think a Secretary of State or any other senior executive mostly does? Well, I'll tell you: mostly, they go from one meeting to the next. In between "big" meetings, they read stuff to get prepared for the next meeting, they sign documents that lower level staff prepared as a consequence of prior meetings, they talk to folks on the phone to get details about a meeting that already took place or that will take place.- Money:
What money? Who gets rich saying, "Give money to this charity that does nothing for and buys nothing from me or my friends, and maybe I'll talk to you."?
In alleged the Clinton Foundation "pay to play" scheme, what personal financial gain did Hillary or Bill Clinton get?
Looking at the (as known) process of donations to the Clinton Foundation (CF) and meeting requests with HRC, the process would look as follows:
- 2010 Clinton Foundation Tax Return
- Page 7: Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
- No Clinton received compensation of any sort.
- 2012 Clinton Foundation Tax Return
- Page 7: Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
- Chelsea Clinton and Terry McAuliffe are both listed. How much did they receive? $0.00.
So, somebody please show me some tangible proof that Hillary Clinton personally benefitted from anything having to do with the Clinton Foundation's fundraising. In other words, just what did the Clintons receive in exchange for all these donations and meetings? The CF is not like Trump Organization, which is a business. It's a charity, just like the Shawn Carter Foundation.
- Donor gives "big money" to CF
- CF spends money on needy people and various good/service providers
- Was HRC one of those recipients of money? No.
- The donor clearly wasn't.
- Donor requests meeting with Hillary Clinton (HRC)
- Meeting does not occur --> End.
- Meeting occurs --> Go to #4.
- Donor and HRC meet.
- Donor ask for "something" from HRC/SecState, which by inference means U.S.
- Donor receives what was requested --> Go to #6
- Donor does not receive what was requested.--> Go to #6
- Increase in HRC personal fortune?
- Yes --> deposit is recorded and investigated
- No --> nothing happens
- End
Seeing as Mrs. Clinton wasn't paid anything by the CF, that's not where she'd have gotten a personal financial gain. The next place to look is to see what outcomes took place subsequent to the meeting. I looked into one such donor, the first one noted in the AP's article.
What does the AP article say? (I have time right now to address only the first person noted.)
Donors who were granted time with Clinton included:An internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran.So, while it may massage one's feelings of disdain toward Mrs. Clinton for what her relationships looked like superficially, exercise just a little bit of intellectual integrity and at least look further than just what you see published in a newspaper article. Mrs. Clinton is quite like many senior execs in that she acts to do the right thing first and worries about optics later. That's hurting her right now given the acrimony over the CF. But if you read the content I've linked in this post, you'll find that at least one of the associations noted in the AP article the thread OP references is not one whereof there existed some untoward goings on.
- Bangladesh's GDP is $150B. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could together buy and sell the whole damn country. I realize that to most Americans, the idea that a private individual can have meaningful enough influence in a country like Bangladesh is absurd. Well, it's not, not by a longshot. In countries that have only very wealthy and very poor citizens, the wealthy folks there, be they part of the government or not, have tremendous say in the governance of the place. If they have a role in government or an arm of it, they have even more.
The man who for some reason went unnamed in the AP's article is Muhammad Yunus. What help did he get from Mrs. Clinton? Apparently not enough...He was forced to step down from his position on the board at the Bangladeshi nonprofit organization involved.
What organization? Grameen Bank, which is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning microfinance organization and community development bank founded in Bangladesh. It makes small loans (known as microcredit or "grameencredit") to the impoverished without requiring collateral. The name Grameen is derived from the word gram which means "rural" or "village" in the Bengali Language.
Now what do "Mr. and Mrs. Typical American" know about Bangladesh or the Grameen Bank? I suspect nothing for I doubt that most Americans even know where Bangladesh is, much less the name of its domestic development bank (it's essentially their version of the Small Business Administration); however, there's quite a lot to know about the bank and its role in Bangladesh governance.
The first thing to know is that in countries as small and poor as Bangladesh, a single very wealthy (for that country) individual usually has a huge influence on the functioning and stability of the country. Here you'll find why Mr. Yunus and Mrs. Clinton had a U.S. government related reason to interact.
There's more to Mr. Yunus and the bank than just that, however. I'll leave it to you to peruse the following and lean a bit on your own.What is the value of the Grameen Bank? In addition to what you'll have found if you read the content at the links I provided, it, under Mr. Yunus, has pioneered a new approach to making the benefits of capitalism available to poor folks and has played a central role in bringing more wealth to the poorest people there.. Do you suppose there's a reason for Mrs. Clinton to want to understand?
More directly related to her role at State, are you aware of how ISIS preys on poor nations and inserts itself? Do you know where Bangladesh may fit in ISIS' designs? If ISIS were to have its way, Bangladesh could easily become a place where ISIS inserts itself. What about Myanmar right next door to Bangladesh?
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.
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
And now he's gone, point?
Name Title Compensation Notes
Eric Braverman Past CEO $ 532,361 --
Bruce R. Lindsey Chairman of the Board $ 395,460 --
Mark Gunton CEO, Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership $ 313,992 --
Charities interested in charity don't pay those kinds of salaries. Especially when it's to close friends.Top Three Salaries at Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation (Based on Fiscal Year-Ended 12/31/14)Excersize a bit of intellectual integrity.I truly think all the Clinton Foundation recriminations exist and are even possible to make for the following reasons:
- Most people are not senior executives and have no clue of what a senior executive does, what their work days are like or anything else about how they live, other than that outwardly senior execs and principals appear to live "the live of Riley."
- Senior executives and principals are not about to publicly discuss what their work days and lives are like, other than perhaps to talk about interesting places, interesting people/conversations, hobbies, vacations or their kids or some other "polite" topic that somehow intersects with their work lives.
For all the Clinton Foundation hoopla, people are forgetting (or don't know) one thing:
People don't set up 501(c) foundations, which is what the Clinton Foundation is, to collect/make money; they set them up to give it away!!!
Can the creator of a 501(c) earn something from the Foundation? Yes, they can if the foundation pays them a salary. They can if the foundation buys their founder's goods and services. The Clinton's don't have any goods, and their only service offerings are honoraria and government service. Do you really think the Clinton Foundation is going to engage the Clintons to give a speech to the Clinton Foundation?
There's plenty of sensationalism about the Clinton Foundation and the people who met with Mrs. Clinton.
- Meetings:
Out of curiosity, what the heck do you think a Secretary of State or any other senior executive mostly does? Well, I'll tell you: mostly, they go from one meeting to the next. In between "big" meetings, they read stuff to get prepared for the next meeting, they sign documents that lower level staff prepared as a consequence of prior meetings, they talk to folks on the phone to get details about a meeting that already took place or that will take place.- Money:
What money? Who gets rich saying, "Give money to this charity that does nothing for and buys nothing from me or my friends, and maybe I'll talk to you."?
In alleged the Clinton Foundation "pay to play" scheme, what personal financial gain did Hillary or Bill Clinton get?
Looking at the (as known) process of donations to the Clinton Foundation (CF) and meeting requests with HRC, the process would look as follows:
- 2010 Clinton Foundation Tax Return
- Page 7: Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
- No Clinton received compensation of any sort.
- 2012 Clinton Foundation Tax Return
- Page 7: Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
- Chelsea Clinton and Terry McAuliffe are both listed. How much did they receive? $0.00.
So, somebody please show me some tangible proof that Hillary Clinton personally benefitted from anything having to do with the Clinton Foundation's fundraising. In other words, just what did the Clintons receive in exchange for all these donations and meetings? The CF is not like Trump Organization, which is a business. It's a charity, just like the Shawn Carter Foundation.
- Donor gives "big money" to CF
- CF spends money on needy people and various good/service providers
- Was HRC one of those recipients of money? No.
- The donor clearly wasn't.
- Donor requests meeting with Hillary Clinton (HRC)
- Meeting does not occur --> End.
- Meeting occurs --> Go to #4.
- Donor and HRC meet.
- Donor ask for "something" from HRC/SecState, which by inference means U.S.
- Donor receives what was requested --> Go to #6
- Donor does not receive what was requested.--> Go to #6
- Increase in HRC personal fortune?
- Yes --> deposit is recorded and investigated
- No --> nothing happens
- End
Seeing as Mrs. Clinton wasn't paid anything by the CF, that's not where she'd have gotten a personal financial gain. The next place to look is to see what outcomes took place subsequent to the meeting. I looked into one such donor, the first one noted in the AP's article.
What does the AP article say? (I have time right now to address only the first person noted.)
Donors who were granted time with Clinton included:An internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran.So, while it may massage one's feelings of disdain toward Mrs. Clinton for what her relationships looked like superficially, exercise just a little bit of intellectual integrity and at least look further than just what you see published in a newspaper article. Mrs. Clinton is quite like many senior execs in that she acts to do the right thing first and worries about optics later. That's hurting her right now given the acrimony over the CF. But if you read the content I've linked in this post, you'll find that at least one of the associations noted in the AP article the thread OP references is not one whereof there existed some untoward goings on.
- Bangladesh's GDP is $150B. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could together buy and sell the whole damn country. I realize that to most Americans, the idea that a private individual can have meaningful enough influence in a country like Bangladesh is absurd. Well, it's not, not by a longshot. In countries that have only very wealthy and very poor citizens, the wealthy folks there, be they part of the government or not, have tremendous say in the governance of the place. If they have a role in government or an arm of it, they have even more.
The man who for some reason went unnamed in the AP's article is Muhammad Yunus. What help did he get from Mrs. Clinton? Apparently not enough...He was forced to step down from his position on the board at the Bangladeshi nonprofit organization involved.
What organization? Grameen Bank, which is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning microfinance organization and community development bank founded in Bangladesh. It makes small loans (known as microcredit or "grameencredit") to the impoverished without requiring collateral. The name Grameen is derived from the word gram which means "rural" or "village" in the Bengali Language.
Now what do "Mr. and Mrs. Typical American" know about Bangladesh or the Grameen Bank? I suspect nothing for I doubt that most Americans even know where Bangladesh is, much less the name of its domestic development bank (it's essentially their version of the Small Business Administration); however, there's quite a lot to know about the bank and its role in Bangladesh governance.
The first thing to know is that in countries as small and poor as Bangladesh, a single very wealthy (for that country) individual usually has a huge influence on the functioning and stability of the country. Here you'll find why Mr. Yunus and Mrs. Clinton had a U.S. government related reason to interact.
There's more to Mr. Yunus and the bank than just that, however. I'll leave it to you to peruse the following and lean a bit on your own.What is the value of the Grameen Bank? In addition to what you'll have found if you read the content at the links I provided, it, under Mr. Yunus, has pioneered a new approach to making the benefits of capitalism available to poor folks and has played a central role in bringing more wealth to the poorest people there.. Do you suppose there's a reason for Mrs. Clinton to want to understand?
More directly related to her role at State, are you aware of how ISIS preys on poor nations and inserts itself? Do you know where Bangladesh may fit in ISIS' designs? If ISIS were to have its way, Bangladesh could easily become a place where ISIS inserts itself. What about Myanmar right next door to Bangladesh?
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.
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
And now he's gone, point?
Name Title Compensation Notes
Eric Braverman Past CEO $ 532,361 --
Bruce R. Lindsey Chairman of the Board $ 395,460 --
Mark Gunton CEO, Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership $ 313,992 --
Yeah, lotta money, and?
You have trouble comprehending the written word.Are you aware of the history of government regulations? If so, you would know that the central government had very few regulations in place for roughly the first hundreds of the republic. Today we have a regulatory state gone mad, in part because it allows pols to make lots of money.Can't agree. When the federal gov was small, as was intended, pols did not have this opportunity for corruption open to them.
..the federal government imposes an infinite number of rules and regulations purposely to make it difficult to do things, so that pols can get big money people to give them money to navigate through the maze. Its great for pols like Cankles and Bubba.
And when would you say that started exactly?
I did not state only Ds do it. Both stinking corrupt lying parties do it, but one of them has the major media in it's pocket, so they tend to get away with a lot more corruption.
Sure, we're back to the "well yeah they're 'all' corrupt" but 'my side' ain't as bad as the 'other side'" argument. Sorry, don't buy it, the entire systen is the problem - all of it, the entire thing. As for your media? Yeah, well, that's what happens when you over deregulate, thank you Bill Clinton for deregulating the FCC. The 50 some odd companies involved in the american media machine back in the 1980s have now been concentrated into the hands if 6 major multinational corporations. Sounds to me like you have an issue with concentrated corporate power and wealth redistribution. So I don't buy the "liberal MSM media" bit either.
My post clearly and concisely stated both parties are corrupt, but one of them has the media in their pocket so that party gets away with more. You need to read those words slowly and then compare them to what you concluded they mean.
Someone has difficulty with the written word, yeah. " ... but one of them has the media in their pocket so that party gets away with more." was disagreed with, have a nice day.
I have no false sense of realism and know this is how the criminal political system now operates due to people like Hillary, but none have done it more, bigger, badder, more brazenly, more openly than the Clintons. They are the political Mafia family and have been for decades. 'Everyone does it' is not justification for her actions. The amount of slime and crime coming out now and her not being forced out of this race is amazing.When you come to the realization that this is how your entire political class operates we may be able to have a rational conversation, the entire system needs to be challenged, not just "one" side. But to you that sounds like making excuses, so here we are, stuck.
Name one other US charity that foreign governments give tens of millions of dollars to. Just one.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......
It doesn't bother you that Trump is now scamming his base? Just like we said. He can't help himself.Crook Crook!!!! that woman is a crook and Bill Clinton is a other crook.... SHAME ON YOU BOTH! YOU CAN NOT TAKE IT WITH YOU WHEN YOU FINALLY LEAVE THIS EARTH!
“There has to be a full accounting of where this money came from,” Priebus said. Adding that there should be an “accounting” of the funds that came from foreign governments in order to “be able to track this money and what it was used for. And whether or not anyone profited from these arraignments.”
Read more: Priebus: ‘The Only Work That The Clinton Foundation Is Doing Is Lining The Pockets Of Bill And Hillary Clinton’
The Democrats are trying to put the biggest crook, swindler, cheat and bribe taking manslaughtering fraud this country has ever seen in the Executive branch to be the POTUS of the USA.
And they could not care less as long as they get their free shit.
I totally agree with you!
Name one other US charity that foreign governments give tens of millions of dollars to. Just one.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......
- UNICEF
- Red Cross
- Bush–Clinton Katrina Fund -- $250M from Saudi Arabia -- donated while George Bush was a sitting President.
- Bush Center/Foundation (501(c)) -- Kuwait and the UAE.
- George H.W. Library
