• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary Clinton is Done: part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
cantonear1968 said:
TPD, I was a long time lurker in the 9/11 forum and infrequent contributor. I was an admirer of yours in your participation of taking down the ridiculous arguments that were provided by truthers.

Now seeing you offer this drivel as a counter-argument saddens me to see your inadequacy but also my lack of judgement.
Click to expand...

There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere. People can be inconsistent. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Life is complicated sometimes.
 
Expert: Only criminal if classified emails....

That's a little obvious. I guess experts are masters of the obvious.
 
Tony Stark #3996 of Part 3.

The first of my answers to that post:

TS: Just as I knew, you think you know more than charity watchdogs because that's what you need to believe in order to maintain your conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...


I don’t think I know, I do know. For about 4 years I was involved with various charities in South Africa. I was at the coal face where the “benefits” are supposed to be delivered.

My involvement would get to the point that I learned a lot about how many of them operated, and the reality was vastly different from the corporate audits and brochures.

I got involved because my late (American) wife was the director of a key South African charity. She did the fund raising for the organization. Prior to that she did international fund raising for the ruling ANC party, until she became aware of the extent of the corruption. Her late husband gathered and analyzed information for the CIA.

I had a lot of questions about her work since I traveled with her and assisted her. At no charge or cost to the organization directly or indirectly. The bureaucracy in her organization was minimal and downright sparse. They used little Renault wagons because they could go into poor areas without being hijacked. They delivered a lot of "bang for the buck".

She compared her organization to others that benefited the leaders with little or no benefit to the targeted poor. They rented expensive office space, drove luxury cars, traveled first class and stayed in five star accommodation.

Those would go to a resort close to a poor rural area, and employ a few people at $20 a day to go and sign up people for the courses. While maybe 10% got some sort of training in a conference setting (of no benefit really), the organization would report everyone that signed up as a “beneficiary”.
Their brochures were professional and looked good, but I was told how the figures lied.

I have had to deal with scamsters legally and conducted a forensic audit into a woman in NZ who had been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. It took three High Court applications to get all the information out of her after I uncovered her dodges.

See my pending post about the Foundation and the so-called Watchdog.

First of all $250k for a speech is nothing for a large corporation. Second of all it is not unusual or suspicious that a company would be willing to pay a former President and former First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State for speeches. If Obama wants to, he will make millions giving speeches too and he will never hold any public office again.
Click to expand...


A typical Hillary pivot. What you needed to answer was: “What is/was the benefit to the corporations?”

One of my late wife's sayings was the Five Finger Rule (WHAT DO I GET OUT) which she applied to many situations to get to the truth. She said there are very few truly charitable people.
 
PartSkeptic said:
Tony Stark #3996 of Part 3.

The first of my answers to that post:




I don’t think I know, I do know. For about 4 years I was involved with various charities in South Africa. I was at the coal face where the “benefits” are supposed to be delivered.

My involvement would get to the point that I learned a lot about how many of them operated, and the reality was vastly different from the corporate audits and brochures.

I got involved because my late (American) wife was the director of a key South African charity. She did the fund raising for the organization. Prior to that she did international fund raising for the ruling ANC party, until she became aware of the extent of the corruption. Her late husband gathered and analyzed information for the CIA.

I had a lot of questions about her work since I traveled with her and assisted her. At no charge or cost to the organization directly or indirectly. The bureaucracy in her organization was minimal and downright sparse. They used little Renault wagons because they could go into poor areas without being hijacked. They delivered a lot of "bang for the buck".

She compared her organization to others that benefited the leaders with little or no benefit to the targeted poor. They rented expensive office space, drove luxury cars, traveled first class and stayed in five star accommodation.

Those would go to a resort close to a poor rural area, and employ a few people at $20 a day to go and sign up people for the courses. While maybe 10% got some sort of training in a conference setting (of no benefit really), the organization would report everyone that signed up as a “beneficiary”.
Their brochures were professional and looked good, but I was told how the figures lied.

I have had to deal with scamsters legally and conducted a forensic audit into a woman in NZ who had been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. It took three High Court applications to get all the information out of her after I uncovered her dodges.

See my pending post about the Foundation and the so-called Watchdog.
Click to expand...

Your experience with charities in South Africa is completely irrelevant to the charities in the United States.

Your claim that you know more about how to evaluate American charities than American charity watchdogs is laughable.

Fact is that the a small percentage of the Clinton Foundation money goes to overhead. The rest goes to helping people. Yes, I know, the evidence for this was all faked. Your evidence for this assertion is non existent of course. You just believe it because you desperately want to.


A typical Hillary pivot. What you needed to answer was: “What is/was the benefit to the corporations?”

One of my late wife's sayings was the Five Finger Rule (WHAT DO I GET OUT) which she applied to many situations to get to the truth. She said there are very few truly charitable people.
Click to expand...

They get to have an extremely important and famous person show up to their event and give a speech.

Lots of famous people get paid to give speeches, and most of them aren't even politicians.

https://priceonomics.com/why-do-famous-people-get-paid-s250000-to-give-a/


If Obama decides to cash in on the paid speech circuit, how could he possibly be accepting bribes or whatever? He will never hold office again.

When Ronald Reagan gave paid speeches after leaving office, how could he have possibly been accepting bribes?
 
Last edited:
Part two of my reply to Tony Stark #3996 of Part 3.

Arbitrary standard that you pulled out of your ass. Fact of the matter is that they give millions to charity. Which is in fact infinitely more than your Fuhrer does as he gives nothing despite being an alleged multibillionaire.
Click to expand...


If you wish to trade insults, I would say that what I pull out my rear end is worth many times more than what comes out of your mouth (or your typing fingers).

It is no "standard". Strawman! It was a comment about what scammers do to make themselves look good. "Look how charitable I am". What percentage did Robin Hood give to the poor from his spoils?

The one person I know of who was truly charitable turned over the bulk of his fortune in billions and rented a modest flat and drove a second hand car.

It is not reasonable to believe they are paid for working on the foundation board since they aren't.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...nal-benefit-f/

Can you prove they are compensated some other way? No, of course you can't. And so the sane, non conspiracy theory whackjob explanation for why they serve on the board is that want to ensure that the charity that they founded and bears their name continues to do good work. And they can certainly afford to work for free.
Click to expand...


From the link you quoted:
"So the Clintons don’t receive compensation from the foundation. However, you can make a case that they have received some indirect personal benefits. This is not to say that any of these benefits are unethical or improper. Experts on nonprofit ethics told us these are pretty standard, and they haven’t seen anything reported about the Clinton Foundation that proves corruption."

And I then looked up the 2014 tax return of the Clinton Foundation. (My rounding)

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_2014.pdf

Page 28
Revenue = $177 million
Expense = $ 91 million
Grants = $ 5 million
Salaries = $ 35 million
Fundraising = $ 1 million
Other = $ 50 million

Page 37 for Details of Expenses
Conferences = $ 12 million
Travel = $ 8 million
Travel for government officials = $ 12 million
Depreciation = $ 5 million

Page 68 for Compensation
First class travel ticked but hard to see who compensates. But why first class? Are Bill, Hillary and Chelsea in this group?

I am no tax expert and am not going to learn. But ONLY $ 5 million in grants from revenue of $ 177 million - and to companies to improve their services? Why is your watchdog not picking this up?

After my checks I found this article while looking for any salary to Chelsea:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archi...dation-a-slush-fund-fund-for-the-clintons.php

Posted on April 26, 2015 by Paul Mirengoff

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month, the New York Post reports.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.” Instead, it placed the Foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities.

...The Clinton Foundation’s problems run deeper. According to the Post, it took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

Much of the Foundation’s money goes to travel ($8.5 million in 2013); conferences, conventions and meetings ($9.2 million); and payroll and employee benefits ($30 million). Ten executives received salaries of more than $100,000 in 2013. Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton, was paid nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits, and a housing allowance for just five months’ work as CEO that year.
Click to expand...
 
Tony Stark said:
Your experience with charities in South Africa is completely irrelevant to the charities in the United States.

Your claim that you know more about how to evaluate American charities than American charity watchdogs is laughable.

Fact is that the a small percentage of the Clinton Foundation money goes to overhead. The rest goes to helping people. Yes, I know, the evidence for this was all faked. Your evidence for this assertion is non existent of course. You just believe it because you desperately want to.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant! What nonsense. The Clinton's Foundation claims to benefit foreigners in such countries as South Africa. How did people know about the lack of benefit to Haiti? From the people in Haiti who were supposed to benefit.

The laugh is on you. Check the figures in my previous post. Faked evidence? It comes from the Clinton Foundation itself.

To me you have very little credibility. You use insult and distortion. Just like the Clinton campaign.
 
PartSkeptic said:
Irrelevant! What nonsense. The Clinton's Foundation claims to benefit foreigners in such countries as South Africa. How did people know about the lack of benefit to Haiti? From the people in Haiti who were supposed to benefit.

The laugh is on you. Check the figures in my previous post. Faked evidence? It comes from the Clinton Foundation itself.

To me you have very little credibility. You use insult and distortion. Just like the Clinton campaign.
Click to expand...

OMG! Why aren't you doing the news circuit with this evidence?

:rolleyes:
 
PartSkeptic is doing the same mistake as Carly Fiorina when evaluating the Clinton Foundation:

By only looking at the amount the Clinton Foundation doled out in grants, Fiorina “is showing her lack of understanding of charitable organizations,” Borochoff said. “She’s thinking of the Clinton Foundation as a private foundation.” Those kinds of foundations are typically supported by money from a few people, and the money is then distributed to various charities. The Clinton Foundation, however, is a public charity, he said. It mostly does its own charitable work. It has over 2,000 employees worldwide.
“What she’s doing is looking at how many grants they write to other groups,” Borochoff said. “If you are going to look at it that way, you may as well criticize every other operating charity on the planet.”
In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
“Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”
Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
PartSkeptic said:
From the link you quoted:
"So the Clintons don’t receive compensation from the foundation. However, you can make a case that they have received some indirect personal benefits.
Click to expand...


You can make the case that the only reason why humans do things it's because they get something from it, even if it's only the satisfaction of doing the right thing (or the wrong one, depending on taste).

And I then looked up the 2014 tax return of the Clinton Foundation. (My rounding)

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_2014.pdf

Page 28
Revenue = $177 million
Expense = $ 91 million
Grants = $ 5 million
Salaries = $ 35 million
Fundraising = $ 1 million
Other = $ 50 million

Page 37 for Details of Expenses
Conferences = $ 12 million
Travel = $ 8 million
Travel for government officials = $ 12 million
Depreciation = $ 5 million

Page 68 for Compensation
First class travel ticked but hard to see who compensates. But why first class? Are Bill, Hillary and Chelsea in this group?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but more importantly, why would that be a problem? An organization pays thousands of dollars for an executive's time, and then will skimp on the price of an upgrade?

"Yes, we know it's a 12 hour flight and you have a presentation when you arrive, but we're saving 500 bucks, so you'll have to sleep sitting."

That makes no sense at all. Anyone that has ever been in such a situation knows that you overspend on travel comfort or you fly early and overspend on hotel stays.

I am no tax expert and am not going to learn. But ONLY $ 5 million in grants from revenue of $ 177 million - and to companies to improve their services? Why is your watchdog not picking this up?
Click to expand...

Probably because that item doesn't mean what you think it means. That's normally why the non-experts pick up things the experts apparently failed to notice: because they're wrong.

After my checks I found this article while looking for any salary to Chelsea:
Click to expand...

Again, why is this supposed to be a bad thing (it's not)? Is it higher or lower than average for the same position at equivalent charities (meh)? Is it the highest salary ever (nope)?
Should the Clinton Foundation only hire unknown people? You do realize that the network of a former POTUS and Sec.State are gigantic, don't you?

Also, the article makes a big thing of the Charity Navigator not rating the CF. But that was before, and now they rate them with their top rating. Other watchdogs rated the CF as a very good foundation for a long time.

So we have some more of the "Clinton Syndrome": whenever a subject is not crystal clear, ignore all other sources and assume the absolute worse. The next step, which I hope you don't take, is to handwave the whole matter as really unimportant, and focusing on the next outrage. The final step is, of course, to continue to spread the initial rumours as if they were never dispelled.
 
Last edited:
PartSkeptic said:
Part two of my reply to Tony Stark #3996 of Part 3.




If you wish to trade insults, I would say that what I pull out my rear end is worth many times more than what comes out of your mouth (or your typing fingers).

It is no "standard". Strawman! It was a comment about what scammers do to make themselves look good. "Look how charitable I am". What percentage did Robin Hood give to the poor from his spoils?

The one person I know of who was truly charitable turned over the bulk of his fortune in billions and rented a modest flat and drove a second hand car.
Click to expand...

Not a strawman. You are literally creating an arbitrary standard and then claiming that anyone who doesn't meet it isn't charitable. For the sole reason so you can claim that the Clintons aren't charitable despite giving millions to charity.

And to top it off you couldn't care less that your alleged multibillionaire Fuhrer claims to be charitable but gives literally nothing to charity.

From the link you quoted:
"So the Clintons don’t receive compensation from the foundation. However, you can make a case that they have received some indirect personal benefits. This is not to say that any of these benefits are unethical or improper. Experts on nonprofit ethics told us these are pretty standard, and they haven’t seen anything reported about the Clinton Foundation that proves corruption."
Click to expand...

So indirect benifits that are standard, not unethical or improper, and do not prove corruption. So what.

And I then looked up the 2014 tax return of the Clinton Foundation. (My rounding)

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_2014.pdf

Page 28
Revenue = $177 million
Expense = $ 91 million
Grants = $ 5 million
Salaries = $ 35 million
Fundraising = $ 1 million
Other = $ 50 million

Page 37 for Details of Expenses
Conferences = $ 12 million
Travel = $ 8 million
Travel for government officials = $ 12 million
Depreciation = $ 5 million

Page 68 for Compensation
First class travel ticked but hard to see who compensates. But why first class? Are Bill, Hillary and Chelsea in this group?
Click to expand...

Oh no, people at the charity, not even necessarily any of the Clintons flew first class. That therefore proves the whole thing is a sham.:rolleyes:

I am no tax expert and am not going to learn. But ONLY $ 5 million in grants from revenue of $ 177 million - and to companies to improve their services? Why is your watchdog not picking this up?
Click to expand...

You're just making **** up. The $5m is grants they gave to other charities. Exactly where this money went to is listed on page 66.

You're right. You're clearly not an expert on American taxes and charities. You know who are? Charity watchdogs that give the CF very high ratings.

After my checks I found this article while looking for any salary to Chelsea:
Click to expand...

OMG, someone that Chelsea knows and trusts did work for the foundation and was paid for it.

BTW, your article cites Charity Navigator which has since updated their non rating of the foundation to a very high rating.
 
Last edited:
PartSkeptic said:
Irrelevant! What nonsense. The Clinton's Foundation claims to benefit foreigners in such countries as South Africa. How did people know about the lack of benefit to Haiti? From the people in Haiti who were supposed to benefit.
Click to expand...

You working on charities in South Africa does not even slightly make you an expert on American charities. Certainly not more than American charity watchdogs.

The laugh is on you. Check the figures in my previous post. Faked evidence? It comes from the Clinton Foundation itself.
Click to expand...

The only thing your use of the figures in that post proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.

To me you have very little credibility. You use insult and distortion. Just like the Clinton campaign.
Click to expand...

Says someone who worships Donald Trump.
 
Surely PartSkeptic didn't skip over this because he has no answer.

Tony Stark said:
They get to have an extremely important and famous person show up to their event and give a speech.

Lots of famous people get paid to give speeches, and most of them aren't even politicians.

https://priceonomics.com/why-do-famous-people-get-paid-s250000-to-give-a/


If Obama decides to cash in on the paid speech circuit, how could he possibly be accepting bribes or whatever? He will never hold office again.

When Ronald Reagan gave paid speeches after leaving office, how could he have possibly been accepting bribes?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom