Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
PartSkeptic said:
When private people benefit to the tune of millions of dollars, especially when such benefits are non-cash benefits in the way of flights, accommodation, meals, speaking fees and so on, it is not a charity. The Clintons should be donating their own money, and their own time, in a charitable manner.

Many charities are fronts for schemes to benefit a select group. When a charity rents very high priced offices, takes expensive trips, are given the highest price vehicles then it is a scam, not a true charity.

Having being involved in a properly run African charity, and seen the competition, it is not hard to spot the difference.

Why do you think the Revenue services do lifestyle audits?

Either you do not know what you are talking about, or you are trying to defend the indefensible.
Click to expand...

Prove that the Clintons use the Clinton Foundation to benefit themselves to the tune of millions of dollars. Hint: I know for a fact that you can't. You just made it up.

The Clintons do donate to the foundation. And they get other people to as well. Because you know, the more money a charity has, the more people it can help.

The Clinton Foundation is a highly rated charity that uses an excellent nearly 88% of its money on its programs.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

But let me guess, you know how to evaluate charities better than charity watchdogs, right.
 
PartSkeptic said:
When private people benefit to the tune of millions of dollars, especially when such benefits are non-cash benefits in the way of flights, accommodation, meals, speaking fees and so on, it is not a charity.
Click to expand...

In the U.S. there are organizations that investigate charities. The Clinton Foundation gets good marks.
 
Minoosh said:
He released the info that emails had been found that were, however tangentially, related to the cowboy server case.

If there are fresh emails from Hillary or from her server on a non-government computer, how does it look for him if he keeps that a secret from the people investigating Hillary?

My logic is based on the belief that this information was going to get out before the election, one way or another.
Click to expand...

It's not a secret and nothing came out. Congress or the people did not have a need to know as it is superfluous information at this point. What are we to think? Comey's letter in fact tells us not to.
 
Minoosh said:
He released the info that emails had been found that were, however tangentially, related to the cowboy server case.

If there are fresh emails from Hillary or from her server on a non-government computer, how does it look for him if he keeps that a secret from the people investigating Hillary?

My logic is based on the belief that this information was going to get out before the election, one way or another.
Click to expand...

Why should he give a **** if House Republicans get mad? He doesn't work for them and had no obligation to send them the letter.
 
PartSkeptic said:
When private people benefit to the tune of millions of dollars, especially when such benefits are non-cash benefits in the way of flights, accommodation, meals, speaking fees and so on, it is not a charity. The Clintons should be donating their own money, and their own time, in a charitable manner.

Many charities are fronts for schemes to benefit a select group. When a charity rents very high priced offices, takes expensive trips, are given the highest price vehicles then it is a scam, not a true charity.

Having being involved in a properly run African charity, and seen the competition, it is not hard to spot the difference.

Why do you think the Revenue services do lifestyle audits?

Either you do not know what you are talking about, or you are trying to defend the indefensible.
Click to expand...

And the Clinton foundation has survived every audit.
 
The Big Dog said:
False.

More importantly the State Department has not.

I guess on one but me read Doug band's memo about how cff lined the Clinton's pockets?

Nauseating.
Click to expand...

False? Wat audit did they fail?

And I did read.the doug band account. That is the very definition of non corruption.
 
BobTheCoward said:
False? Wat audit did they fail?

And I did read.the doug band account. That is the very definition of non corruption.
Click to expand...

The one that caused them to have to refile all their tax returns obviously.

You mean the one that outlines all the corporations who have business with the state department lining bills pockets is non-corruption?

'K.
 
The Big Dog said:
False.

More importantly the State Department has not.

I guess on one but me read Doug band's memo about how cff lined the Clinton's pockets?

Nauseating.
Click to expand...

So what if some companies donated to the foundation and also paid Bill to give speeches.
 
The Big Dog said:
The one that caused them to have to refile all their tax returns obviously.

You mean the one that outlines all the corporations who have business with the state department lining bills pockets is non-corruption?

'K.
Click to expand...

They are allowed to refile tax returns.

Correct. That is not corruption. Evidence of different treatment by the state department would be corruption. The fact that organizations that have to deal with governments like speeches from former government figures is not interesting.
 
BobTheCoward said:
They are allowed to refile tax returns.

Correct. That is not corruption. Evidence of different treatment by the state department would be corruption. The fact that organizations that have to deal with governments like speeches from former government figures is not interesting.
Click to expand...

But I was told that they passed all audits, and just happened to refile the tax returns to disclose the donors that poured money into the foundation while Hillary was sos.

The naïveté of Hillary fans about why all those companies were making the Clintons rich is utterly charming.
 
The Big Dog said:
But I was told that they passed all audits, and just happened to refile the tax returns to disclose the donors that poured money into the foundation while Hillary was sos.

The naïveté of Hillary fans about why all those companies were making the Clintons rich is utterly charming.
Click to expand...

I think you confuse naivete with blind hatred for the Clintons. Those who don't possess this blind hatred are "naive".

It's cute.

As explained, there is nothing in the Band memo which indicates any preferential treatment proffered by Hillary Clinton. That is the there there you fail to provide despite years of investigations looking into this very matter. Until you provide it I'll choose not to make this leap of faith with you.
 
cantonear1968 said:
I think you confuse naivete with blind hatred for the Clintons. Those who don't possess this blind hatred are "naive".

It's cute.

As explained, there is nothing in the Band memo which indicates any preferential treatment proffered by Hillary Clinton. That is the there there you fail to provide despite years of investigations looking into this very matter. Until you provide it I'll choose not to make this leap of faith with you.
Click to expand...

Aggressive use of the "I know you are but what am I" "rebuttal."
 
The Big Dog said:
But I was told that they passed all audits, and just happened to refile the tax returns to disclose the donors that poured money into the foundation while Hillary was sos.

The naïveté of Hillary fans about why all those companies were making the Clintons rich is utterly charming.
Click to expand...
You insinuating that there is something nefarious about extremely famous people getting paid to give speeches is not even slightly close to evidence of corruption.

If Obama decides to get rich giving speeches, will that also be a cover for bribery? Even though he will never hold a position in government again and his wife has no ambition to be a politician?
 
The Big Dog said:
But I was told that they passed all audits, and just happened to refile the tax returns to disclose the donors that poured money into the foundation while Hillary was sos.

The naïveté of Hillary fans about why all those companies were making the Clintons rich is utterly charming.
Click to expand...

They didn't refile as a result of an audit, right?

What you call a lack of naivete is a willingness to take your speculation of reasons as fact. They resubmitted missing information. You have no evidence the information was initially missing to avoid scrutiny. You say they paid for speeches to receive favors. You have no evidence they received favors. I need to actually see evidence of that before believing the charge leveled at them.
 
The Big Dog said:
Aggressive use of the "I know you are but what am I" "rebuttal."
Click to expand...

God. Not even close.

I didn't call you naive. I said you're misusing the term simply because I don't think like you. And I don't think like you because you can't provide any There to bolster your argument. You reference material that is so short of anything resembling evidence for your claim that I question if you even read them.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
They didn't refile as a result of an audit, right?

What you call a lack of naivete is a willingness to take your speculation of reasons as fact. They resubmitted missing information. You have no evidence the information was initially missing to avoid scrutiny. You say they paid for speeches to receive favors. You have no evidence they received favors. I need to actually see evidence of that before believing the charge leveled at them.
Click to expand...

That's what I said and he accused me of a kindergarten response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom