Clinton Foundation

[Parkbandit]

Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”


The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.


That number pales in comparison to the $34.8 million the foundation spent on salaries, compensation and employee benefits.


Another $50.4 million was marked as “other expenses,” while the remaining almost $851K was marked as “professional fundraising expenses.”




http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/just-5-7-percent-of-clinton-foundation-budget-actually-went-to-charity/#ixzz4KWSLgz6f

I need to start up a non-profit "charity". Sounds like easy money.

[Wrathbringer]

Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”


The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.


That number pales in comparison to the $34.8 million the foundation spent on salaries, compensation and employee benefits.


Another $50.4 million was marked as “other expenses,” while the remaining almost $851K was marked as “professional fundraising expenses.”




http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/just-5-7-percent-of-clinton-foundation-budget-actually-went-to-charity/#ixzz4KWSLgz6f

I need to start up a non-profit "charity". Sounds like easy money.

Bigot! Deplorable! Racist!

[time4fun]

Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”


The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.


That number pales in comparison to the $34.8 million the foundation spent on salaries, compensation and employee benefits.


Another $50.4 million was marked as “other expenses,” while the remaining almost $851K was marked as “professional fundraising expenses.”




http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/just-5-7-percent-of-clinton-foundation-budget-actually-went-to-charity/#ixzz4KWSLgz6f

I need to start up a non-profit "charity". Sounds like easy money.

Why do you people recycle these BS claims?

The Clinton Foundation does its own charitable work. It doesn't just sit around sending money to other organizations.

It has an A rating on charity navigator. And it doesn't, for example, buy the Clintons things or make illegal campaign contributions to people investigating them for Criminal wrongdoing.

That would be the Trump foundation.

[Warriorbird]

Potential issues aside (and those do exist) charities do endowment campaigns frequently when their key members are going to be running for the Presidency.

People should criticize her on the correct grounds.

[Parkbandit]

Why do you people recycle these BS claims?

Recycled.. from yesterday?


The Clinton Foundation does its own charitable work. It doesn't just sit around sending money to other organizations.

Please use the quotes around "charitable work" to be factually correct.


It has an A rating on charity navigator. And it doesn't, for example, buy the Clintons things

Wait.. so Bill, Hillary and Chelsea do not get ANY benefit from being board members?

Come on.. you can't possibly be this ignorant. Seriously?


or make illegal campaign contributions to people investigating them for Criminal wrongdoing.

That would be the Trump foundation.

B-b--b-b-b-b-ut Trump? That's your weak ass BF's schtick... stick with willful ignorance and absurd stupidity.. that's in your wheelhouse.

[Tgo01]

The Clinton Foundation does its own charitable work.

Source?

[Androidpk]

Charity Navigator (http://www.charitynavigator.org/), which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”
Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton (http://nypost.com/tag/Al-Sharpton)’s troubled National Action Network (http://nypost.com/tag/National-Action-Network/), which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.
“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

[Latrinsorm]

Charity Navigator (http://www.charitynavigator.org/), which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”
Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton (http://nypost.com/tag/Al-Sharpton)’s troubled National Action Network (http://nypost.com/tag/National-Action-Network/), which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.
“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.I had to check your post date to make sure I wasn't accidentally bumping an old thread. The "recently" refers to April 2015, when serious allegations were made against the Clinton Foundation. When the Clinton Foundation demonstrated those allegations were without merit, Charity Navigator removed (https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.history&orgid=16680) them from the watchlist and currently gives them an extremely high rating of 95 out of 100.

[ClydeR]

Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”

That's why the Gates Foundation, contrary to suggestions by Certain People, will not be able to take over all of the activities of the Clinton Foundation if Clinton is elected. Unlike most charitable foundations established by wealthy people, the Clinton Foundation engages in direct aid -- providing relief directly to those in need -- in addition to providing grants. Most charitable foundations just provide money grants to other charitable organizations that then use the money to provide the actual relief. The Clintons should have known better than to dirty their hands with direct aid. Providing direct aid is far more expensive than providing money. It requires lots of employees and lots of expenses. They should just raise money and donate the money to churches who know what they're doing.

[Jarvan]

I had to check your post date to make sure I wasn't accidentally bumping an old thread. The "recently" refers to April 2015, when serious allegations were made against the Clinton Foundation. When the Clinton Foundation demonstrated those allegations were without merit, Charity Navigator removed (https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.history&orgid=16680) them from the watchlist and currently gives them an extremely high rating of 95 out of 100.

They were concerned they would die while weight lifting at 4 am. Or get shot twice in the back during a mugging where nothing was taken.

[Kembal]

That article is manipulating numbers.

From the front page of the Clinton Foundation website:

87.2% went to program services. That includes direct aid and charitable grants.
8.6% went to administration.
3.7% went to fundraising.
0.5% allowance for uncollected pledges.

That's standard nonprofit accounting metrics. You can make any nonprofit that does direct work look bad if you say that only grants to other organizations are the measure of charitable work. The nonprofit I'm on the board of was similarly attacked a few years ago by opponents trying the same tactic, since most of our program services work is direct as opposed to giving others money.

[Tgo01]

I'm sure fraudulent charities flat out admit on their website "90% of money went into my pocket and 10% went to helping people."

[Kembal]

I'm sure fraudulent charities flat out admit on their website "90% of money went into my pocket and 10% went to helping people."

Generally, fraudulent charities don't have full blown audits done by Big Four accounting firms on an annual basis. The Clinton Foundation does, which makes it extremely unlikely that it has engaged in fraud.

[Whirlin]

I'm sure fraudulent charities flat out admit on their website "90% of money went into my pocket and 10% went to helping people."

Every 501.c.3 must file a form 990 on an annual basis to keep their 501.c.3 status with the IRS.
Most every 990 is on record publicly here... Well, after 2000
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/

[Tgo01]

Generally, fraudulent charities don't have full blown audits done by Big Four accounting firms on an annual basis. The Clinton Foundation does, which makes it extremely unlikely that it has engaged in fraud.

Why does that make it unlikely? Maybe they are just good at covering their corruption.

If Hillary says she needed 100k to travel to, I don't know, Hawaii, to do some fundraising bullshit, how would any "accounting firm" prove this was just a bullshit excuse to pay for a vacation?

Or maybe Hillary did do a day of fundraising over there so she could say "See? I did do fundraising over there, so I 'needed' that 100k in travel expenses."

I already posted this in another thread we have talking about the Clinton Foundation. They use a lot of their money for travel, fundraising, office space, and shit like that and it's all supposedly "charity" related. A charity is allowed to list 10% of their expenses as "other" expenses and they don't have to provide details of what these "other" expenses are unless the number is greater than 10%, and wouldn't you know it? The Clinton foundation had something like 9.8% in "other" expenses so they didn't have to say what it was for.

Then to top it off they listed "other" as an expenses in a different part of the form.

It smells so bad it's not even funny. See this? This is me not laughing.

But hey, as long as the Clinton Foundation's website says it's all on the up and up then I guess everything is okay.


Every 501.c.3 must file a form 990 on an annual basis to keep their 501.c.3 status with the IRS.
Most every 990 is on record publicly here... Well, after 2000
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/

This doesn't mean a charity can't be defrauding people.

[~Rocktar~]

Generally, fraudulent charities don't have full blown audits done by Big Four accounting firms on an annual basis. The Clinton Foundation does, which makes it extremely unlikely that it has engaged in fraud.

Large banks and auto makers have big firms auditing them and they still covered tons of crap and failed. Size and popularity are not a good measure of honesty.

[Kembal]

Why does that make it unlikely? Maybe they are just good at covering their corruption.

External auditors are fairly good at sniffing this type of stuff out. My company's external auditors figured out that an employee was creating fake invoices for printer toner 2 years ago. (And we use a firm that's one step below the Big Four firms) If you're going through a full blown audit, they go through everything.


If Hillary says she needed 100k to travel to, I don't know, Hawaii, to do some fundraising bullshit, how would any "accounting firm" prove this was just a bullshit excuse to pay for a vacation?

Or maybe Hillary did do a day of fundraising over there so she could say "See? I did do fundraising over there, so I 'needed' that 100k in travel expenses."

All of that would get categorized in the fundraising expenses though. Donors look at that number very carefully - if it's too high, they know something's fishy. Clinton Foundation's number is pretty low.


I already posted this in another thread we have talking about the Clinton Foundation. They use a lot of their money for travel, fundraising, office space, and shit like that and it's all supposedly "charity" related. A charity is allowed to list 10% of their expenses as "other" expenses and they don't have to provide details of what these "other" expenses are unless the number is greater than 10%, and wouldn't you know it? The Clinton foundation had something like 9.8% in "other" expenses so they didn't have to say what it was for.

Then to top it off they listed "other" as an expenses in a different part of the form.

It smells so bad it's not even funny. See this? This is me not laughing.

But hey, as long as the Clinton Foundation's website says it's all on the up and up then I guess everything is okay.

you're conflating two numbers together.

Line 11g "other expenses" relates to fees paid for services rendered by non-employees - this is 8%.
Line 24e "other expenses relates to miscellaneous expenses not covered in the other 34 expense lines above. - that is 1.8%

However, if both of those totaled up to over 10%, it still would not trigger the reporting requirement. As the form clearly states, it requires that the individual line has to be over 10% to trigger the additional reporting requirement for Schedule O.

Line 24d includes a line for other program expenses. I'm guessing that they wanted to separate it out from true miscellaneous expenses, but even if you put line 24d and 24e together, it'd only be 4.7%. Nothing would be triggered in the case of reporting requirements.

FWIW, 11g is generally the line used for consulting fees and independent contractors. Additionally, the vast majority of both lines (11g and 24e) is classified as program expenses as opposed to administrative and fundraising, which makes it extremely unlikely that funds are being siphoned off to benefit the Clintons.

[Kembal]

Large banks and auto makers have big firms auditing them and they still covered tons of crap and failed. Size and popularity are not a good measure of honesty.

Failure != embezzlement fraud, which is what Tgo is alleging.

[Androidpk]

Generally, fraudulent charities don't have full blown audits done by Big Four accounting firms on an annual basis. The Clinton Foundation does, which makes it extremely unlikely that it has engaged in fraud.

Are you sure about that?

[Androidpk]

Former President Bill Clinton and his Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) distributed “watered-down” HIV/AIDs drugs to patients in sub-Saharan Africa, and “likely increased” the risks of morbidity and mortality, according to a draft congressional report obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/19/exclusive-clinton-foundation-aids-program-distributed-watered-down-drugs-to-third-world-countries/

[Kembal]

Former President Bill Clinton and his Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) distributed “watered-down” HIV/AIDs drugs to patients in sub-Saharan Africa, and “likely increased” the risks of morbidity and mortality, according to a draft congressional report obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/19/exclusive-clinton-foundation-aids-program-distributed-watered-down-drugs-to-third-world-countries/

So I read through this, and checked a couple of links in the news story. There's a key piece of data missing: the timeframe and amount of drugs supplied by Ranbaxy since 2003. It's possible that CHAI is still using them now - but it's also possible that they cut them off a while back and never announced it. Since there are 3 other manufacturers, Ranbaxy is obviously not the only supplier.

I'm not saying that this story doesn't have something to it - it might - but without that data, it's impossible to actually evaluate the claims made in the article.

[Jarvan]

So I read through this, and checked a couple of links in the news story. There's a key piece of data missing: the timeframe and amount of drugs supplied by Ranbaxy since 2003. It's possible that CHAI is still using them now - but it's also possible that they cut them off a while back and never announced it. Since there are 3 other manufacturers, Ranbaxy is obviously not the only supplier.

I'm not saying that this story doesn't have something to it - it might - but without that data, it's impossible to actually evaluate the claims made in the article.

Well.. ~IF~ you had all the data, you would likely be one of the people involved.... since you know.... they are STILL investigating.

I bet if Clinton was found with a smoking gun, and a dead body right in front of here, with a CCTV loop of her shooting the guy in the back, you would say we need to wait till all the evidence is in, and the trial is over before jumping to a conclusion.

I am not saying we should jump to a conclusion in this case either tho.

But if this was trump... You and Time4fun would be like... HE IS EVIL>>!!!!!!

[Androidpk]

So it turns out that while Hillary was Secretary of State she was also Secretary/Treasurer of the Clinton Foundation as well.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CswzpuKUEAAv0sI.jpg



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CswzsQFUMAAEHai.jpg

[Androidpk]

So I read through this, and checked a couple of links in the news story. There's a key piece of data missing: the timeframe and amount of drugs supplied by Ranbaxy since 2003. It's possible that CHAI is still using them now - but it's also possible that they cut them off a while back and never announced it. Since there are 3 other manufacturers, Ranbaxy is obviously not the only supplier.

I'm not saying that this story doesn't have something to it - it might - but without that data, it's impossible to actually evaluate the claims made in the article.

Have you read the full report? It was just released earlier. I'm going through it now.

[Kembal]

Well.. ~IF~ you had all the data, you would likely be one of the people involved.... since you know.... they are STILL investigating.

I bet if Clinton was found with a smoking gun, and a dead body right in front of here, with a CCTV loop of her shooting the guy in the back, you would say we need to wait till all the evidence is in, and the trial is over before jumping to a conclusion.

I am not saying we should jump to a conclusion in this case either tho.

But if this was trump... You and Time4fun would be like... HE IS EVIL>>!!!!!!

Well, Trump definitely has violated US tax law at least once in regards to his foundation (and they admitted it and paid the penalty), and per the article in the Washington Post today, it looks like it's now 5 times. Some of them are fairly blatant self-dealing, and what I would consider corrupt acts. (esp. since he hasn't donated money to his own foundation since 2008, so he's using other people's donations to his foundation to pay off obligations to benefit him)

So no position on whether he's "evil" or whatever - but it'd seem to me that you're missing important factual information about Trump.

[Kembal]

So it turns out that while Hillary was Secretary of State she was also Secretary/Treasurer of the Clinton Foundation as well.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CswzpuKUEAAv0sI.jpg



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CswzsQFUMAAEHai.jpg

So I recommend signing up for Guidestar. It's free, and it lets you avoid mistakes such as this:

Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation - EIN: 31-1580204
Clinton Family Foundation - EIN: 30-0048438

The Clinton Family Foundation is a private family foundation that the Clintons use to make donations privately. You can read the last three years of Form 990s at the Guidestar website to verify.

[Kembal]

Have you read the full report? It was just released earlier. I'm going through it now.

No, that would be more time than I can spare at the moment.

[time4fun]

So I recommend signing up for Guidestar. It's free, and it lets you avoid mistakes such as this:

Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation - EIN: 31-1580204
Clinton Family Foundation - EIN: 30-0048438

The Clinton Family Foundation is a private family foundation that the Clintons use to make donations privately. You can read the last three years of Form 990s at the Guidestar website to verify.

Yeah this "confusion" has run rampant throughout the whole process. In fairness to the people on the boards, even the NY Times got this one wrong. But even after it was corrected, there's a whole network of blogs and fringe news sites who have continually conflacted the private family foundation with the public Clinton Foundation.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah this "confusion" has run rampant throughout the whole process. In fairness to the people on the boards, even the NY Times got this one wrong. But even after it was corrected, there's a whole network of blogs and fringe news sites who have continually conflacted the private family foundation with the public Clinton Foundation.

I'm sure people absolutely know it's a mistake but it's simultaneously valuable at leveraging millenials/former Sanders supporters upset about cheating away from Clinton.

[Androidpk]

Here's a link to the full report:

http://blackburn.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398055

[Jarvan]

Well, Trump definitely has violated US tax law at least once in regards to his foundation (and they admitted it and paid the penalty), and per the article in the Washington Post today, it looks like it's now 5 times. Some of them are fairly blatant self-dealing, and what I would consider corrupt acts. (esp. since he hasn't donated money to his own foundation since 2008, so he's using other people's donations to his foundation to pay off obligations to benefit him)

So no position on whether he's "evil" or whatever - but it'd seem to me that you're missing important factual information about Trump.

WTF does this have to do with Hillary?????

Seriously, shoot yourself now and end all our misery. Your head up Hillary's ass likely isn't doing her Colon any good.

[time4fun]

WTF does this have to do with Hillary?????

Seriously, shoot yourself now and end all our misery. Your head up Hillary's ass likely isn't doing her Colon any good.

I think the point here is that while you are all spinning your wheels unsuccessfully trying to find even a shred of evidence that the Clinton Foundation is corrupt or just a personal slush fund, irrefutable evidence that Trump's foundation is those things has popped up without a peep from your peanut gallery.

Which goes to show that you're not actually concerned about someone using their foundation to bribe public officials or as a personal bank account. Your only concern is finding a way to bring Clinton down- presumably because you want Trump in office but need a way to take the focus off of the horrible things he says and does.

[Kembal]

WTF does this have to do with Hillary?????

Seriously, shoot yourself now and end all our misery. Your head up Hillary's ass likely isn't doing her Colon any good.

You're the one that brought up Trump, not me.

[Parkbandit]

I think the point here is that while you are all spinning your wheels unsuccessfully trying to find even a shred of evidence that the Clinton Foundation is corrupt or just a personal slush fund, irrefutable evidence that Trump's foundation is those things has popped up without a peep from your peanut gallery.


You would have to be the biggest water carrying idiot to believe that.

Oh wait..... hey time4fun!!

[time4fun]

You would have to be the biggest water carrying idiot to believe that.

Oh wait..... hey time4fun!!

Says the guy who started this thread with misleading information and inaccurate analysis

[Parkbandit]

Says the guy who started this thread with misleading information and inaccurate analysis

Says the "gal" that can't admit to any Clinton wrongdoing at all.

[time4fun]

Says the "gal" that can't admit to any Clinton wrongdoing at all.

Uh huh.

That's the thing about people who've been through dozens of hearings and investigations (all started by the same group of House Oversight Committee republicans) and who have had tens of thousands of emails scoured....if they're not in jail or even facing charges, it's because there is no evidence of wrongdoing. The fact that people keep recycling inaccurate stories and debunked facts to keep your spin going is proof.

[Parkbandit]

Uh huh.

That's the thing about people who've been through dozens of hearings and investigations (all started by the same group of House Oversight Committee republicans) and who have had tens of thousands of emails scoured....if they're not in jail or even facing charges, it's because there is no evidence of wrongdoing. The fact that people keep recycling inaccurate stories and debunked facts to keep your spin going is proof.

So you are saying Trump is innocent.

Awesome double standards you have.

Your high profile "internet" life is amazing!

😂😂😂😂😂

[time4fun]

So you are saying Trump is innocent.

Awesome double standards you have.

Your high profile "internet" life is amazing!

����������

Um. except he's actually facing charges, and his foundation was actually fined for illegal political contributions?

Fun of you to invoke double standard here- since that's what you all have been trucking in

[Parkbandit]

So if he has no charges against him, by your definition he is innocent of any wrong doing?

And since the Clinton Foundation is under investigation, isn't she in the exact same boat that Trump is in?

[Methais]

Uh huh.

That's the thing about people who've been through dozens of hearings and investigations (all started by the same group of House Oversight Committee republicans) and who have had tens of thousands of emails scoured....if they're not in jail or even facing charges, it's because there is no evidence of wrongdoing. The fact that people keep recycling inaccurate stories and debunked facts to keep your spin going is proof.

It's almost like Cormey never said (paraphrased), "...if this were someone else doing this same shit though, they'd be in big trouble!"

Except he did say that.

Do you remember when Cormey said that?

[time4fun]

It's almost like Cormey never said (paraphrased), "...if this were someone else doing this same shit though, they'd be in big trouble!"

Except he did say that.

Do you remember when Cormey said that?

Except he said the EXACT OPPOSITE.


Some choice quotes:
"No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years focused on gross negligence"

"I'm highly confident there would not be criminal prosecution, no matter who it was"

"You know what would be a double standard? If she were PROSECUTED for gross negligence."

"That would be celebrity hunting. That would be treating this person [Clinton] differently than John Doe"


What you are referring to is a quote by him saying that current employees would face administrative consequences (i.e. you break the company IT policies, and you can get written up...but not if you don't work there anymore). He was NEVER arguing, not did ANY of his words suggest that Clinton was getting a pass because she was Clinton. He was clearly distinguishing between what is done between current employees vs previous employees, not Clintons vs Everyone Else.

His aforementioned quotes actually clearly stated that YOUR thoughts on how this should have ended were the real double standard.

So frankly, either you know that Comey wasn't remotely suggesting that Clinton got favorable treatment (in which case you're a damn liar), or you really didn't understand what he was saying (in which case you don't know enough about this topic to be discussing it).

[Jarvan]

You are so fucking stupid if you really don't think Clinton got favorable treatment.

I bet you think that the CEO of Wells Fargo should not step down or get in trouble either.

I bet you thought that the CEO of Enron did nothing wrong, and that company shouldn't have been hounded by the Fed.

~IF~ the Government WANTED to prosecute the case, there is MORE then enough evidence to do so. I mean... there doesn't HAVE to be an email saying "I want to keep all these emails on an unsecured server, even classified ones, when I know I am not supposed to so I can avoid FOIA requests." for them to bring charges.

There is a reason no REASONABLE prosecutor wouldn't bring charges.... A) they didn't ant to wind up dead. B) ~1~ Insane fucking Democrat like you and EVEN an email SAYING she knowing violated the law and didn't give a fuck because she is destined to be President and no law or person can stop her, and they wouldn't find her guilty anyway. (and seriously... you think there would be 12 Repubs or Indies on the jury?) C) NO fucking way would Obama let the Dem nominee get prosecuted during the election.

If this was a lower level staffer, they would already be in jail. End of Story.

They ALWAYS treat celebrities different then John Doe.... they get to kill people with their car and get off with community service.

It's funny.... You will trust Hillary with our nations biggest secrets... I bet you would trust Casey Anthony with watching your baby. I mean... she was found innocent... she MUST NOT have done anything wrong.

[Parkbandit]

So if he has no charges against him, by your definition he is innocent of any wrong doing?

And since the Clinton Foundation is under investigation, isn't she in the exact same boat that Trump is in?

https://media3.giphy.com/media/HkyKoqokMDq1i/200_s.gif

That's what I thought.

https://media.giphy.com/media/8HnoffKQUSRfW/giphy.gif

[Androidpk]

Seems like the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree. Her pitbull lackey David Brock is being accused of laundering money through his pro-Clinton super PACs and nonprofits.

http://www.thecitizensaudit.com/2016/09/19/money-laundering-david-brock/

He better hope Hillary wins or he'll be off to prison.

[Parkbandit]

Seems like the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree. Her pitbull lackey David Brock is being accused of laundering money through his pro-Clinton super PACs and nonprofits.

http://www.thecitizensaudit.com/2016/09/19/money-laundering-david-brock/

He better hope Hillary wins or he'll be off to prison.

He either needs to be in jail, facing charges or has a last name of Trump. Otherwise you're on a right wing conspiracy witch hunt.

[time4fun]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/HkyKoqokMDq1i/200_s.gif

That's what I thought.

https://media.giphy.com/media/8HnoffKQUSRfW/giphy.gif

Where did you get that there are no charges against him? He's in Court facing lots of charges all over the country, and the IRS DID fine his foundation for illegal campaign contributions to a PAC supporting the election of someone actively investigating him.

And just a few days ago, it was discovered that he used his foundation to pay off legal fines from previous court cases. Which would likely explain why NY is investigating his foundation now.

So, unlike the Clinton foundation, Trump's own foundation HAS actually been fined for illegal activities.

And, pay attention here, here's the difference between politically motivated allegations created to take down a rival party's nominee and investigations of actual wrongdoing:

Politically Motivated Investigations: allegations are made by political rivals without supporting evidence first, and then investigations are carried out to find evidence of wrongdoing. (Clinton Foundation)

Legitimate Investigations:. Evidence is discovered of wrongdoing, and investigations are carried out to determine the scope of the improper behavior. (Trump Foundation)

Please at least try to absorb real facts into your analysis.

[Methais]

Where did you get that there are no charges against him? He's in Court facing lots of charges all over the country, and the IRS DID fine his foundation for illegal campaign contributions to a PAC supporting the election of someone actively investigating him.

And just a few days ago, it was discovered that he used his foundation to pay off legal fines from previous court cases. Which would likely explain why NY is investigating his foundation now.

So, unlike the Clinton foundation, Trump's own foundation HAS actually been fined for illegal activities.

And, pay attention here, here's the difference between politically motivated allegations created to take down a rival party's nominee and investigations of actual wrongdoing:

Politically Motivated Investigations: allegations are made by political rivals without supporting evidence first, and then investigations are carried out to find evidence of wrongdoing. (Clinton Foundation)

Legitimate Investigations:. Evidence is discovered of wrongdoing, and investigations are carried out to determine the scope of the improper behavior. (Trump Foundation)

Please at least try to absorb real facts into your analysis.

Link to source that shows Trump having actual criminal charges against him?

[time4fun]

Link to source that shows Trump having actual criminal charges against him?

Irrelevant. Breaking the law doesn't always result in criminal charges. Civil violations don't turn into jail time but are just as illegal.

Civil fraud and racketeering, failing to pay thousands of employees, and alleged sexual assault ARE violations of the law. That's why they are handled with trials and Judges.

The RICO laws violations that Trump is on trial for were created to take down the mob. They literally only apply to organized criminal enterprises.

[khorpulent]

Says the guy who started this thread with misleading information and inaccurate analysis

Wait, where did you see analysis?

[Parkbandit]

Where did you get that there are no charges against him? He's in Court facing lots of charges all over the country, and the IRS DID fine his foundation for illegal campaign contributions to a PAC supporting the election of someone actively investigating him.

And just a few days ago, it was discovered that he used his foundation to pay off legal fines from previous court cases. Which would likely explain why NY is investigating his foundation now.

So, unlike the Clinton foundation, Trump's own foundation HAS actually been fined for illegal activities.

And, pay attention here, here's the difference between politically motivated allegations created to take down a rival party's nominee and investigations of actual wrongdoing:

Politically Motivated Investigations: allegations are made by political rivals without supporting evidence first, and then investigations are carried out to find evidence of wrongdoing. (Clinton Foundation)

Legitimate Investigations:. Evidence is discovered of wrongdoing, and investigations are carried out to determine the scope of the improper behavior. (Trump Foundation)

Please at least try to absorb real facts into your analysis.

Let me make sure you are understanding the stupidity you are posting....

On one hand, in reference to the Clintons, you said this:


if they're not in jail or even facing charges, it's because there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Even though their "charitable" Foundation are under investigation which could (well, if they weren't Clintons) lead to facing charges.. that's a witch hunt.

But because Trump is under investigation (the same place that the Clintons are in) he's guilty as fuck because he's.. Trump?

[Parkbandit]

Wait, where did you see analysis?

I linked a story from the previous day.. and by doing so, I gave analysis.

Don't be sexist.

[Androidpk]

Time4fun please tone down your toxic behavior. Thanks.

[Methais]

Irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? You said Trump has charges against him. Why is providing a source for that irrelevant?


Breaking the law doesn't always result in criminal charges.

So basically what you're saying is it the law should apply to Trump but not Hillary. Not exactly unexpected coming from you.


Civil fraud and racketeering, failing to pay thousands of employees, and alleged sexual assault ARE violations of the law. That's why they are handled with trials and Judges.

Emphasis on "alleged". But in your book, he's guilty until proven innocent, and Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. Nice double standard. Still waiting for a source that he has any criminal charges against him, despite its supposed irrelevancy.


The RICO laws violations that Trump is on trial for were created to take down the mob. They literally only apply to organized criminal enterprises.

Again, source for any of these charges against Trump? The fact that it's "irrelevant" shouldn't matter.

Stop being a miscreant.

[time4fun]

Why is it irrelevant? You said Trump has charges against him. Why is providing a source for that irrelevant?



So basically what you're saying is it the law should apply to Trump but not Hillary. Not exactly unexpected coming from you.



Emphasis on "alleged". But in your book, he's guilty until proven innocent, and Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. Nice double standard. Still waiting for a source that he has any criminal charges against him, despite its supposed irrelevancy.



Again, source for any of these charges against Trump? The fact that it's "irrelevant" shouldn't matter.

Stop being a miscreant.

Irrelevant because you attempted to shift the conversation from charges to criminal charges. And given that it's public knowledge that Trump is named in several cases right now, you don't need me to find the case numbers. The IRS fine is also documented and public knowledge. Go read something.

And yes, they are charges because the cases aren't done- except the IRS fine which already happened Of course there are literally thousands of past cases he's been involved in and had to settle or just lost. (Including civil rights abuses in housing and employment). So feel free to use those as well.

And, one more time, let me remind you that CLINTON isn't on trial, isn't facing charges, and has no concrete evidence against her. Which is why you losers have been frantically typing for the past year trying to find something. (Which...haha haha haha junior sleuths)

TRUMP is ACTUALLY on trial because there is ACTUAL evidence. His foundation was ACTUALLY fined because, again. ACTUAL evidence of wrongdoing.

[Methais]

Irrelevant because you attempted to shift the conversation from charges to criminal charges.

I didn't realize that sexual assault was a civil matter and not a criminal matter. Shouldn't you be in some feminist uproar over that or something?


And given that it's public knowledge that Trump is named in several cases right now, you don't need me to find the case numbers. The IRS fine is also documented and public knowledge. Go read something.

You made the claim, it's on you to provide the source.


And, one more time, let me remind you that CLINTON isn't on trial, isn't facing charges, and has no concrete evidence against her. Which is why you losers have been frantically typing for the past year trying to find something. (Which...haha haha haha junior sleuths)

What's your opinion on Cormey telling everyone "If someone else did this though, they'd be in big trouble." when he gave his no indictment speech?

Stop being a cuntcreant.

[time4fun]

I didn't realize that sexual assault was a civil matter and not a criminal matter. Shouldn't you be in some feminist uproar over that or something?



You made the claim, it's on you to provide the source.



What's your opinion on Cormey telling everyone "If someone else did this though, they'd be in big trouble." when he gave his no indictment speech?

Stop being a cuntcreant.

So 1) If you don't realize that sexual assault has both a criminal and a civil component, then you have no damn idea what you're talking about.

2) I gave you a response already to your factually incorrect analysis of what Comey said, including several direct quotes from him saying the opposite of that. Feel free to scroll up a pages.

[Methais]

So 1) If you don't realize that sexual assault has both a criminal and a civil component, then you have no damn idea what you're talking about.

Probably because sexual assault is a crime. Do you think OJ is innocent too?

Just out of random curiostiy, do you think Bill Clinton was innocent of all the sex based allegations made against him over the years?


2) I gave you a response already to your factually incorrect analysis of what Comey said, including several direct quotes from him saying the opposite of that. Feel free to scroll up a pages.

“This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”

[time4fun]

Probably because sexual assault is a crime. Do you think OJ is innocent too?

Just out of random curiostiy, do you think Bill Clinton was innocent of all the sex based allegations made against him over the years?



“This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”

1) OJ and Clinton's cases were litigated. Trump's current sexual assault case is being refiled. (he's had 3 accusers, but I genuinely don't know if the other two went to trial or not)

2) Here's (http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/trump-lawsuits/)a fun interactive tool that highlights the over 4,000 lawsuits he's been involved in. Now, in fairness, Trump is a prolific litigator, and a big chunk of these law suits are cases he's filed against others (he's notorious for counter suing anyone who dares to sue him and for filing defamation suits if anyone says something about him he doesn't like). He's also quite good at settling out of court. But before this conversation narrows to 2-3 cases, let's not lose sight of the fact that Trump has been fined and has had to settle in hundreds of cases for breaking laws ranging from campaign finance violations, to tax code violations, to employment and housing discrimination suits.

Since declaring his candidacy, his campaign has been sued at least 5 times, and his companies have been sued at least 5 times for tax evasion. And, again, the IRS has already fined his foundation for giving illegal campaign contributions to someone who was actively investigating him at the time. (And Trump himself, on national TV, told the world he bribes politicians to get what he wants) If Clinton had those things going on, you people would never shut up about it (and you'd be right not to).

For all of your Clinton BS, it's only ever been speculation. After years of withering scrutiny, tens of thousands of emails scoured, dozens of hearings, there's no smoking gun. No government agency that looked into her found anything worth even indicting over, let alone any Judges being convinced there was enough to actually go to trial. And the investigations were almost all brought on by the same small group on the House Oversight Committee (if you're wondering, THAT'S corruption).

People looked into Trump's foundation, for example, for a month or two and immediately found evidence of wrongdoing. That's the difference between someone who's guilty and someone who's innocent. If she were doing the things you say she did, they would've found the evidence by now. Meanwhile, there is enough evidence against Trump to not only go to Court but- in the Trump U case that's furthest along- to refuse to dismiss any of the charges against him.

[Methais]

1) OJ and Clinton's cases were litigated. Trump's current sexual assault case is being refiled. (he's had 3 accusers, but I genuinely don't know if the other two went to trial or not)

2) Here's (http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/trump-lawsuits/)a fun interactive tool that highlights the over 4,000 lawsuits he's been involved in. Now, in fairness, Trump is a prolific litigator, and a big chunk of these law suits are cases he's filed against others (he's notorious for counter suing anyone who dares to sue him and for filing defamation suits if anyone says something about him he doesn't like). He's also quite good at settling out of court. But before this conversation narrows to 2-3 cases, let's not lose sight of the fact that Trump has been fined and has had to settle in hundreds of cases for breaking laws ranging from campaign finance violations, to tax code violations, to employment and housing discrimination suits.

Since declaring his candidacy, his campaign has been sued at least 5 times, and his companies have been sued at least 5 times for tax evasion. And, again, the IRS has already fined his foundation for giving illegal campaign contributions to someone who was actively investigating him at the time. (And Trump himself, on national TV, told the world he bribes politicians to get what he wants) If Clinton had those things going on, you people would never shut up about it (and you'd be right not to).

For all of your Clinton BS, it's only ever been speculation. After years of withering scrutiny, tens of thousands of emails scoured, dozens of hearings, there's no smoking gun. No government agency that looked into her found anything worth even indicting over, let alone any Judges being convinced there was enough to actually go to trial. And the investigations were almost all brought on by the same small group on the House Oversight Committee (if you're wondering, THAT'S corruption).

People looked into Trump's foundation, for example, for a month or two and immediately found evidence of wrongdoing. That's the difference between someone who's guilty and someone who's innocent. If she were doing the things you say she did, they would've found the evidence by now. Meanwhile, there is enough evidence against Trump to not only go to Court but- in the Trump U case that's furthest along- to refuse to dismiss any of the charges against him.

So you do think OJ is innocent!