The Clinton Scam

The Clinton Scam


This is a textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and repackage it to be used for your own purposes. All tax free. Here's how it works:

1. You create a separate foreign "charity". In this case one in Canada.

2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, many sworn enemies of the United States, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did, contributing mega millions. I'm sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin's buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).

3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.

4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors. (As the article indicates. this is not true.)

5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.

6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these "clerical errors" and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.

7. Net result - foreign money, much of it from enemies of the US, goes into the Clinton's pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.

The linkage between these foreign donations, and favors done by the Clintons (including Hillary as Secretary of State) will be the subject of a future note from your humble correspondent. This will extend money laundering into bribery and treason.

Oh, by the way, the Canadian "charity" includes as a principal one Frank Giustra. Google him. He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive US uranium interests and then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia and Putin. This transaction required US State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the approval was granted. Nothing to see here. And much of this uranium will eventually be sold to Iran, undoubtedly for peaceful purposes as Obama will of course never let Iran build a bomb.

As an aside, imagine how former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell feels. That poor schlub is in jail because he and his wife took $165,000 in gifts and loans for doing minor favors for a guy promoting a vitamin company. Not legal but not exactly putting US security at risk.

Sarcasm aside, if you're still not persuaded this was a cleverly structured way to get unidentified foreign money to the Clintons, ask yourself this: Why did these foreign interests funnel money through a Canadian charity? Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation? Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations and countries in need?

This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling. Now you know why Hillary's destruction of 30,000 e-mails was a risk she was willing to take. One "smoking gun" e-mail would land her in jail.

Anyway, please read and weep. These grifters could someday be back in the White House.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/the_clinton_foundation_as_a_moneylaundering_scheme.html

That's funny. The "The Clinton Foundation only spends 15% of its funds on charity!" argument has since been proven false. Now it appears to be back again, only this time it's 10%!

It's not scandalicious, but here's a pretty damn good piece of journalism regarding the Clinton Foundation ....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-inside-story-of-how-the-clintons-built-a-2-billion-global-empire/2015/06/02/b6eab638-0957-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html

This time seaoat has it right. I'll have to stay on the fence with this one. And for the usual reason. The analysis of this is all partisan, from both sides.

What's amusing is seeing people who loudly decry the influence peddling of the "MIC" but when the "MIC" in this country and heavy hitting corporations around the world make "donations" to the CGF these same people insist the motivation is pure and innocent.

The Clinton's don't care about perceptions of their antics and are too slick to let anything stick to THEM.

"Voters were asked whether they viewed her (HRC) as honest and trustworthy."

"An ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52 percent of people answering “no” to that question, compared to 41 percent who expressed trust in Clinton.
A CNN poll made even grimmer reading for the former secretary of State. It found 57 percent of adults asserting that Clinton is not honest or trustworthy, and only 42 percent saying that she is."

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/243844-hillary-clintons-honesty-problem

ROFLMAO!!!

gatorfan wrote:What's amusing is seeing people who loudly decry the influence peddling of the "MIC" but when the "MIC" in this country and heavy hitting corporations around the world make "donations" to the CGF these same people insist the motivation is pure and innocent.

Can you get me up to speed on the specifics of those military contractor donations,  gatorfan?

This google search doesn't seem to be retrieving any results...

https://www.google.com/search?q=mic+contributions+to+clinton+fund&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Sal wrote:What you are so worried may be clandestinely happening through the Clinton Foundation, is in fact happening openly and publicly with every single campaign.

Can you see the insanity here?

I see insanity everywhere I look with the political celebrity class.

boards of FL wrote:That's funny.  The "The Clinton Foundation only spends 15% of its funds on charity!" argument has since been proven false.  Now it appears to be back again, only this time it's 10%!

PLEASE give us a reliable source and link that the 10% or 15% spent on charities has been proven false. Reliable would be someone other than the Clintons.

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:That's funny.  The "The Clinton Foundation only spends 15% of its funds on charity!" argument has since been proven false.  Now it appears to be back again, only this time it's 10%!

PLEASE give us a reliable source and link that the 10% or 15% spent on charities has been proven false.  Reliable would be someone other than the Clintons.

We have already been through this, or don't you remember? Here is the link again:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/


The last time we went through this, you first began repeatedly asking rhetorical questions:

Markle wrote:Cute, if not feeble attempt, to divert attention from the Clinton Foundation.

What percentage of their collections go to actual charities?  Careful now, turns out it is not what they are saying.

How much does Hillary Clinton plan to spend in her effort to buy the Oval Office?

I then answered those very questions in this thread:

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t19648-markle-and-his-rhetorical-questions



Your response to that was to pretend as if you couldn't understand what the PolitiFact link that I cited in the thread above actually said:

Markle wrote:From our misinformed good friend BoardsofFL own source.  Which, as you know is questionable at best.  PolitoFact or whatever it is called, is owned and operated by the far left Tampa Bay Times.  Same editors, same writers.

Here is what appeared in BoardsofFL source:

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.

I then went on to read the link for you:

boards of FL wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Here is what appeared in BoardsofFL source:

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.

Here is the very next sentence that follows the passage that Markle posted.  This phrase gets overused, but you really can't make this up:

The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

Here is why the 15% figure that Markle cites is mostly false:

As we noted earlier, many foundations carry out charitable works by giving money to other organizations that, in turn, do the ground-level charity work, whereas the Clinton foundation’s charitable works are mostly done by people on the foundation’s payroll. "We are an implementing organization rather than a grantmaking organization," said the foundation’s Minassian. That’s why the Clinton Foundation’s 990s show a relatively small amount of money categorized as "grants" -- only about 10 percent of all expenses in 2013.

Here is the correct amount that the Clinton Foundation spends on charitable activities:

The correct number for the Clinton Foundation alone -- which owned the account the tweet was sent from -- was just over 80 percent in 2013, not 88 percent.

Do you have a response to this, Markle, or are you going to run away as usual?

You again pretended as if you simply can't understand what the PolitiFact link is saying:

Markle wrote:From YOUR source, once again.

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.

I then explained the content of the link to you again:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:It looks like Boards just blew away Markle's PROPAGANDA again...

Great job, Boards!!

Living with those butterflies and unicorns again I see.  Especially even when their own sources support my facts.

Keep up the good work guys.

So...no response?  You're going to simply pretend as if you can't see what I'm actually posting here?  

From YOUR source, once again.

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.

Even you have to see the humor.  "There's a grain of truth here"?  Grain?

Markle, I just pointed out to you that in the very next sentence that follows the passage that you quoted above, PolitiFact states that your claim is "Mostly False".   I also gave you the reasoning behind why your claim is "Mostly False".   Are you going to muster a response to that, or has your incompetence rendered you unable to do anything but either 1) run away or 2) pretend that you can't see what I am typing here?  I mean, you realize that everyone can read this thread, right?  

Here is my response to your quote one more time, Markle, just in case you somehow missed it:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Mistakes in comprehension can be excused.....but lying.....nothing honorable about that conduct.

From our misinformed good friend BoardsofFL own source.  Which, as you know is questionable at best.  PolitoFact or whatever it is called, is owned and operated by the far left Tampa Bay Times.  Same editors, same writers.

Here is what appeared in BoardsofFL source:

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.

Here is the very next sentence that follows the passage that Markle posted.  This phrase gets overused, but you really can't make this up:

The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

Here is why the 15% figure that Markle cites is mostly false:

As we noted earlier, many foundations carry out charitable works by giving money to other organizations that, in turn, do the ground-level charity work, whereas the Clinton foundation’s charitable works are mostly done by people on the foundation’s payroll. "We are an implementing organization rather than a grantmaking organization," said the foundation’s Minassian. That’s why the Clinton Foundation’s 990s show a relatively small amount of money categorized as "grants" -- only about 10 percent of all expenses in 2013.

Here is the correct amount that the Clinton Foundation spends on charitable activities:

The correct number for the Clinton Foundation alone -- which owned the account the tweet was sent from -- was just over 80 percent in 2013, not 88 percent.

Do you have a response to this, Markle, or are you going to run away as usual?

Do you have anything to say in response to that, Markle?  

You then stopped responding and essentially ran away, as you do every time:

boards of FL wrote:So you're going to pretend that you can't see my posts?

A new low for our resident copy-and-paster!

Markle,

Get back on your feet, son. Yes, you did just suffer a knockdown, but not a knockout. 10...9...8...7...6...5 four seconds to go, Markle.

Sal wrote:What you are so worried may be clandestinely happening through the Clinton Foundation, is in fact happening openly and publicly with every single campaign.

Can you see the insanity here?

Why would you intentionally lie?

Dang, markle. I'm afraid it now officially is a knockout.

So, apparently the ONLY federal personnel records we can be certain weren't compromised by Chinese hackers are Hillary Clintons.

Private data server is looking pretty good NOW, ain't it?

If the Clintons were plumbers, the crazies would talk about how they have pipe in a warehouse.

2seaoat wrote:If the Clintons were plumbers, the crazies would talk about how they have pipe in a warehouse.

True.  And if the other crazies had their way,  the Clintons would be appointed King and Queen and be given immunity from anything.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:That's funny.  The "The Clinton Foundation only spends 15% of its funds on charity!" argument has since been proven false.  Now it appears to be back again, only this time it's 10%!

PLEASE give us a reliable source and link that the 10% or 15% spent on charities has been proven false.  Reliable would be someone other than the Clintons.

We have already been through this, or don't you remember?   Here is the link again:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/


The last time we went through this, you first began repeatedly asking rhetorical questions:

Markle wrote:Cute, if not feeble attempt, to divert attention from the Clinton Foundation.

What percentage of their collections go to actual charities?  Careful now, turns out it is not what they are saying.

How much does Hillary Clinton plan to spend in her effort to buy the Oval Office?

I then answered those very questions in this thread:

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t19648-markle-and-his-rhetorical-questions



Your response to that was to pretend as if you couldn't understand what the PolitiFact link that I cited in the thread above actually said:

Markle wrote:From our misinformed good friend BoardsofFL own source.  Which, as you know is questionable at best.  PolitoFact or whatever it is called, is owned and operated by the far left Tampa Bay Times.  Same editors, same writers.

Here is what appeared in BoardsofFL source:

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.

I then went on to read the link for you:

boards of FL wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Here is what appeared in BoardsofFL source:

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.

Here is the very next sentence that follows the passage that Markle posted.  This phrase gets overused, but you really can't make this up:

The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

Here is why the 15% figure that Markle cites is mostly false:

As we noted earlier, many foundations carry out charitable works by giving money to other organizations that, in turn, do the ground-level charity work, whereas the Clinton foundation’s charitable works are mostly done by people on the foundation’s payroll. "We are an implementing organization rather than a grantmaking organization," said the foundation’s Minassian. That’s why the Clinton Foundation’s 990s show a relatively small amount of money categorized as "grants" -- only about 10 percent of all expenses in 2013.

Here is the correct amount that the Clinton Foundation spends on charitable activities:

The correct number for the Clinton Foundation alone -- which owned the account the tweet was sent from -- was just over 80 percent in 2013, not 88 percent.

Do you have a response to this, Markle, or are you going to run away as usual?

You again pretended as if you simply can't understand what the PolitiFact link is saying:

Markle wrote:From YOUR source, once again.

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.

I then explained the content of the link to you again:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:It looks like Boards just blew away Markle's PROPAGANDA again...

Great job, Boards!!

Living with those butterflies and unicorns again I see.  Especially even when their own sources support my facts.

Keep up the good work guys.

So...no response?  You're going to simply pretend as if you can't see what I'm actually posting here?  

From YOUR source, once again.

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.

Even you have to see the humor.  "There's a grain of truth here"?  Grain?

Markle, I just pointed out to you that in the very next sentence that follows the passage that you quoted above, PolitiFact states that your claim is "Mostly False".   I also gave you the reasoning behind why your claim is "Mostly False".   Are you going to muster a response to that, or has your incompetence rendered you unable to do anything but either 1) run away or 2) pretend that you can't see what I am typing here?  I mean, you realize that everyone can read this thread, right?  

Here is my response to your quote one more time, Markle, just in case you somehow missed it:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Mistakes in comprehension can be excused.....but lying.....nothing honorable about that conduct.

From our misinformed good friend BoardsofFL own source.  Which, as you know is questionable at best.  PolitoFact or whatever it is called, is owned and operated by the far left Tampa Bay Times.  Same editors, same writers.

Here is what appeared in BoardsofFL source:

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.

Here is the very next sentence that follows the passage that Markle posted.  This phrase gets overused, but you really can't make this up:

The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

Here is why the 15% figure that Markle cites is mostly false:

As we noted earlier, many foundations carry out charitable works by giving money to other organizations that, in turn, do the ground-level charity work, whereas the Clinton foundation’s charitable works are mostly done by people on the foundation’s payroll. "We are an implementing organization rather than a grantmaking organization," said the foundation’s Minassian. That’s why the Clinton Foundation’s 990s show a relatively small amount of money categorized as "grants" -- only about 10 percent of all expenses in 2013.

Here is the correct amount that the Clinton Foundation spends on charitable activities:

The correct number for the Clinton Foundation alone -- which owned the account the tweet was sent from -- was just over 80 percent in 2013, not 88 percent.

Do you have a response to this, Markle, or are you going to run away as usual?

Do you have anything to say in response to that, Markle?  

You then stopped responding and essentially ran away, as you do every time:

boards of FL wrote:So you're going to pretend that you can't see my posts?

A new low for our resident copy-and-paster!

Politifact is totally unreliable.  Owned and published by the Tampa Tribune, a far left newspaper.  Same editor and writers.

Once again for your information from your own, unreliable source.

From our misinformed good friend BoardsofFL own source. Which, as you know is questionable at best. PolitoFact or whatever it is called, is owned and operated by the far left Tampa Bay Times. Same editors, same writers.

Here is what appeared in BoardsofFL source:

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits.

Please, what part of "OTHER THAN CHARITABLE GRANTS TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, AND A LARGE CHUNK OF THIS 85 PERCENT DID GO TO CLINTON FOUNDATION STAFF FOR TRAVE, SALARIES AND BENEFITS" is not clear to you?

Now you've gone from just another knockout to a career ending defeat.  lol

Bob wrote:Now you've gone from just another knockout to a career ending defeat.  lol

Even that inept site says they spend over 85% of the money collected on...themselves.

An unbiased site that evaluates and rates charities, WON'T EVEN RATE THE CLINTON FOUNDATION because of their "unique" bookkeeping and business model.

Markle, do you actually think it's even plausible that the Clintons would spend 85% of the donations on themselves?
Come on.

You believe that only because you hate these people so much. No different than those who hate Bush are ready to believe he blew up the world trade center. You're two of a kind.

Read this,  markle.  This person says "almost none" of the money donated to Sean Hannity's Freedom Concerts went to the wounded warriors.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/

While I can easily believe both Clinton and Hannity are living large off these things,  it's equally implausible to suggest that Hannity would use "most all" the money on himself.

Bob wrote:Markle,  do you actually think it's even plausible that the Clintons would spend 85% of the donations on themselves?
Come on.

You believe that only because you hate these people so much.  No different than those who hate Bush are ready to believe he blew up the world trade center.   You're two of a kind.

You seem to be lacking powers of discernment. I'm frankly tired of your comparisons, which are insulting.

Bush blew up the world trade center. And Clinton spent 85% of the money on himself.

Bush and Clinton sure are some brazen sons of bitches. lol

Bob wrote:Markle,  do you actually think it's even plausible that the Clintons would spend 85% of the donations on themselves?
Come on.

You believe that only because you hate these people so much.  No different than those who hate Bush are ready to believe he blew up the world trade center.   You're two of a kind.

I believe it because it is the truth and has been revealed from a number of sources. Doesn't have to be only on themselves, it is salary for all their employees, travel for everyone, hotels, meals, transportation for everyone. They have learned to be brilliant scam artists.

To compare the well known facts of the Clinton Foundation with no planes being involved in the 9/11 attack is just goofy.