Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
I keep hearing this, but the only "work" I can really track down is that they go to lots of conferences. What exactly did they do? What are their actual achievements?
Click to expand...

If only they had a website which describes their activities. Ah, one can dream.
 
Ziggurat said:
I keep hearing this, but the only "work" I can really track down is that they go to lots of conferences. What exactly did they do? What are their actual achievements?
Click to expand...


Don't underestimate the success of the conferences. One of the big goals of the Clinton Foundation was bringing NGOs, charitable groups corporations and government officials together to find the best ways to work together to solve problems. Saying the Clinton Foundation did this or did that can easily be misleading as they never did things alone and it was never their mo.

https://www.alternet.org/election-2...oundation-right-wing-will-never-be-able-smear

And if you're really sincere in wanting to understand what the Foundation does (as opposed to just seeking ways to denigrate it for partisanship, here is a great article.

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/...-does-the-clinton-foundation-actually-do.html

The fact is the Clinton Foundation has a good reputation among charities. People in the world of philanthropy consider it to be an honest effort.

But of course this doesn't fit the narrative you are trying to push.
 
bonzombiekitty said:
A charity that does solely fundraising to distribute funds to other charities may simply be better at raising money if that's their primary focus. A given charity may be better off trying to get bunch of money from a couple large foundations rather than trying to raise a lot of money from a lot of smaller donations.

If you know of a charity you personally like, yeah you are better off donating directly to them. But if you're not sure exactly where you want your money to go, but know a general cause, you may be better off giving to a larger foundation that could have a better idea of where money should go to.

Let's say I support getting people as many purple pogo sticks as possible. My local purple pogo stick charity does a really good job of getting purple pogo sticks to people in need. If I'm concerned primarily with the people around me, then that's great donate to them. But if I'm concerned with the wider pogo stick availability, maybe I would get more bang for my buck elsewhere. If there's an International Purple Pogo Stick Foundation that can look at all the local pogo stick charities, and say an extra $1 here will be able to get 3 purple pogo sticks to people because that will help them get a larger truck to more easily deliver pogo sticks, but an extra $1 there only will only get 1 pogo stick to people because they already have a big truck. My money can be better spent by giving it to the IPPSF than my local charity even if the IPPSF takes 5 cents of every dollar.

That all assumes, of course, a well run foundation that does a good job at allocating funds.
Click to expand...

I'd never give money to a charity without first finding out how much of my money goes to the cause and how much goes to things like wages, not to mention researching what the charity actually does and how much I agree with that. I'd definitely not give it to an organisation that will donate it for me in the hope that it'll happen to end up going to a charity that I'd approve of.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I won't pretend to know what Sessions is thinking, but removing him would be step 1 towards removing Mueller. It's possible Sessions have enough decency to want to help protect Mueller by remaining at his post as long as possible.
Click to expand...

Ehh... maybe. Personally, I think that I don't care much. I would definitely want him gone under normal circumstances for the crap that he's been doing, especially in relation to the border, but for all his faults, he has recused himself with regards to the Mueller investigation and it would be a huge surprise for Trump to choose an actually decent replacement anyways on that front.
 
Last edited:
Cross-posting as I put it in the general Trump thread by mistake:

Meanwhile, and thanks to Liverpoolmiss on badscience for the heads-up

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ate-sam-patten-is-charged-with-fara-violation

Meanwhile, for those who follow the minor characters in the series, another indictment. Sam Patten. An associate of Manafort who lobbied for Ukraine but didn't do the FARA disclosures. A technical charge, probably dealt with via a fine. Case started by Mueller & Co, but handed off to another team at some stage.

The usual set of interesting links:

- Patten worked for our old friend, Cambridge Analytica
- Patten is associated with Konstantin Kilimnik - who has ties to Russian intelligence (probably another GRU agent) and who has been linked by Mueller in court filings with 2016 meddling. Kilimnik is also the intermediary who acts for Oleg Deripaska

Unclear at this stage whether Patten squealed and this FARA charge is part of his agreement, or whether this is all Mueller & Co could get on him. He's up in court later, presumably to plead guilty.
Click to expand...
Patten pleaded guilty. Squealing and/or has already squealed. No news yet on how good his manners are.
Click to expand...

Interesting article here

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/31/17805310/sam-patten-mueller-plea-manafort
 
Craig4 said:
No, you dishonestly want it to be a scam so you chose not to see evidence that it is a scam.
Click to expand...

I want it to be a scam, so I choose not to see evidence that it is a scam?

Truth be told, I could care less. I only brought it up because some of you here seem to think Hillary etal are so virtuous. They aren't, and that's part of why she lost the election.

It seems that agreeing to disagree is an endangered species here on this forum.

I'm not a rabid Trump supporter. I agree that he should shut his trap and be more compassionate about certain things. I agree that he often opens his mouth and inserts his foot too often. But I don't care about Stormy Daniels and Avenatti, I don't care about the minutia that people are clamoring about,

But this forum (in general) displays so much hatred for the man that I wonder if some of you aren't kicking your dog, punching your computer screens and jumping up and down ranting around in your house with steam pouring out of your nostrils while posting here.

:cool:

That said, have a nice labor day weekend.
 
Last edited:
Joecool said:
I want it to be a scam, so I choose not to see evidence that it is a scam?

Truth be told, I could care less. I only brought it up because some of you here seem to think Hillary etal are so virtuous. They aren't, and that's part of why she lost the election.

It seems that agreeing to disagree is an endangered species here on this forum.

I'm not a rabid Trump supporter. I agree that he should shut his trap and be more compassionate about certain things. I agree that he often opens his mouth and inserts his foot too often. But I don't care about Stormy Daniels and Avenatti, I don't care about the minutia that people are clamoring about,

But this forum (in general) displays so much hatred for the man that I wonder if some of you aren't kicking your dog, punching your computer screens and jumping up and down ranting around in your house with steam pouring out of your nostrils while posting here.

:cool:

That said, have a nice labor day weekend.
Click to expand...
Locking children in cages vs. Saying mean things about someone who locks children in cages.

Good to know what you find objectionable.
 
Ziggurat said:
2014 Clinton Foundation IRS Return:
https://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf

2014 revenue: $177.8 million
2014 charitable grant spending: $5.16 million

That's about 3% of revenue. It's closer to 6% of spending, if that makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

Why do we have to go over this again and again? Do you all just forget how you were wrong and start over?

Grants, sure, but the Foundation implements the charity directly, not through grants. That's why they have an A+ rating from recognized charity assessment organizations.

I bet I can go back into the Clinton thread and find where you were participating when that issue was addressed.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Why do we have to go over this again and again? Do you all just forget how you were wrong and start over?
Click to expand...

We call that a "fringe reset".

Forget how you have been proved wrong over and over, how you have been handed your ass in debate; pretend none of that ever happened, and start again as if it was the first time you have ever discussed it.

This technique is right out of The Conspiracy Theorist Playbook.
 
smartcooky said:
We call that a "fringe reset".

Forget how you have been proved wrong over and over, how you have been handed your ass in debate; pretend none of that ever happened, and start again as if it was the first time you have ever discussed it.

This technique is right out of The Conspiracy Theorist Playbook.
Click to expand...

The important thing to remember is that there were lots of criticisms of both of their charities. So, it's basically a draw.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom