Donald Trump Will Win!

He owns 2 private jets and 3 helicopters. Do you have any idea how much it cost to buy those type of jets and how much the maintenance cost annually? Do you know how much it cost to fly those plans per hour?

Obviously, you don't. It is extremely expensive. If he didn't have a lot of money, there is no way he could own those aircraft.
So that's what you're going with? His helicopters? Look, I'm pretty sure he's rich. The only question is why he doesn't show his tax returns so that we can see how the numbers stack up against his claims. Meanwhile, you just eat it all up with your eyes closed. Endless investigations about Hillary, but no worries about Trump, he has a helicopter.

Bernie Madoff was also rich before he wasn't. Would you have pointed to his helicopters, too? Due diligence.
 
or she prefers to save the embarrassment.
You are welcome to illustrate yourself...



EXCLUSIVE: IRS Launches Investigation Of Clinton Foundation

RICHARD POLLOCK

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton speaks during the 107th NAACP National Convention in Cincinnati, Ohio, July 18, 2016. REUTERS/William Philpott

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen referred congressional charges of corrupt Clinton Foundation “pay-to-play” activities to his tax agency’s exempt operations office for investigation, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.

The request to investigate the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation on charges of “public corruption” was made in a July 15 letter by 64 House Republicans to the IRS, FBI and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). They charged the foundation is “lawless.”

The initiative is being led by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican who serves as the vice chairwoman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which oversees FTC. The FTC regulates public charities alongside the IRS.

The lawmakers charged the Clinton Foundation is a “lawless ‘pay-to-play’ enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years and should be investigated.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/26/e...tigation-of-clinton-foundation/#ixzz4Fp7XROjM



Scandal Without End: Is The Clinton Foundation A Fraud?


Have former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used their charitable foundation for fraudulent purposes? Some in Congress think so. (AP)
Corruption: The Clinton Foundation's questionable money dealings have raised eyebrows for years. Now, a letter circulating in Congress alleges that the Clinton family's supposed do-gooder foundation is in fact a "lawless, 'pay-to-play' enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years."

Those are pretty tough words for a former president and his wife, who happens to be the leading candidate to be our next president. But the congressional letter, which the Daily Caller News Foundation got its hands on, was written by Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who plans on asking the FBI, IRS and Federal Trade Commission to launch a "public corruption" investigation.

Is it warranted, or just politics? It sure looks like the former. As Blackburn's letter says, there is a "pattern of dealing that personally enriched the Clintons at the expense of American foreign policy."

Blackburn cites the for-profit education business Laureate Education, which paid Bill Clinton some $16.5 million to serve part-time as "honorary chancellor" starting in 2010, a year after Hillary became secretary of state. Laureate, for its part, gave the Clinton Foundation some $1 million to $5 million. Nothing illegal about that, per se.

However, the Daily Tennesseean reports that Blackburn's letter also details how "the International Youth Fund, whose board members include Laureate's founder, Douglas Baker, received more than $55 million in grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state." AID is a part of the State Department.

Then there's Uranium One. Hillary Clinton, the Daily Tennesseean notes, "was one of several Obama administration officials who approved the sale of uranium to the Russian-operated company, whose chairman also has donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation." A number of other people involved in the deal also gave money to the Clintons.

"The appearance of 'pay-to-play' transactions involving Laureate and Uranium One also raises serious allegations of criminal conduct requiring further examination," Blackburn's letter says.

That's not all of the questionable activities.

As we noted back in May, the Clinton Foundation took in some $100 million in donations from a variety of Gulf sheikhs and billionaires who no doubt expected to reap political benefits from a future Hillary Clinton presidency, with Bill serving not just as first gentleman in the White House but also possibly as bagman. Among donors dumping bags of cash on the Clintons include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Lost in the shuffle is Bill Clinton's special "business partnership" from 2003 to 2008 with Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the strongman ruler of Dubai. That deal netted Clinton some $15 million in "guaranteed payments," tax records show. And then there's the $30 million delivered to the Clintons by two Mideast foundations and four billionaire Saudis. For the betterment of humankind, no doubt.

As national security analyst and writer Patrick Poole said in May, "These regimes are buying access. ... There are massive conflicts of interest. It's beyond comprehension."

It took Wall Street financial analyst and investment advisor Charles Ortel -- whom the Sunday Times of London once described as "one of the finest analysts of financial statements on the planet" -- to untangle the mess in a series of ongoing reports. Ortel alleges that contribution disclosures by the foundation often don't fit with what donors' own records say -- big red flag.

"This," Ortel summed up, "is a charity fraud."

As a reminder, this isn't just some political vendetta. As far back as 2013, an alarmed New York Times warned that the foundation had become "a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest."

It turns out that's a gross understatement.

Testifying last week to Congress, FBI chief James Comey called Hillary Clinton "extremely careless" about her use of a private email server while secretary of state. But, curiously, he refused additional comment "on the existence or nonexistence of any other ongoing investigations." This needs to be disclosed. Americans deserve to know whether the person they're likely to put into the White House this November is merely a misunderstood career public servant -- or a pocket-lining career criminal.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/scandal-without-end-is-the-clinton-foundation-a-fraud/
Be sure to let me know when they find something.
 
He is being audited and has been audited in the past. I assume there is nothing illegal or wrong whatsoever with his tax returns. However, libtards will make up all sorts of shit and completely lie implying there are issues. Plus they will focus on the effective tax rate with no understanding of the effective tax and why it is what it is. You very well know that the libtards want them released to be able the make up lies about his tax returns. Libtards will try to make that the entire focus and that is all they will talk about.

If the IRS signs off on them, why does it matter?

There is no requirement to do it so why do it? Just because libtards want him to?

Libtards were successful wrt implying that Romney was an immoral disgusting human being when he did nothing wrong whatsoever and paid all of his owed taxes.
I never suggested there was anything illegal about them. Those are the kinds of leaps that you guys make. I just want to see if the numbers are consistent with his bombast.

And you got it backwards. All kinds of claims can be made by imaginative souls before he shows the returns, not after. Just like with, say, birth certificates.
 
Be sure to let me know when they find something.
The fact that Hillary did not even mention de Foundation in her acceptance speech, is more than enough proof that she has something to hide. Please read the information I linked, I think there is pretty clear evidence to form a guilty verdict.

But wait, it's the FBI, IRS..who have to start the investigations...hummm
 
The fact that Hillary did not even mention de Foundation in her acceptance speech, is more than enough proof that she has something to hide. Please read the information I linked, I think there is pretty clear evidence to form a guilty verdict.

But wait, it's the FBI, IRS..who have to start the investigations...hummm
So you're relying on mere supposition when it comes to Hillary, but you'll swallow it whole and with your eyes closed when it comes to Trump. Got it.

Clinton's detractors have tried to generate all kinds of smoke signals when there is yet to be any real and meaningful evidence of actual fire. There has been no lack of investigations initiated and conducted by, and at the behest of, the Right, but there has been very little to show for their efforts thus far. Had Trump been subjected to anything remotely resembling that kind of scrutiny, he would have already melted into soft cheese.
 
Last edited:
So you're relying on mere supposition when it comes to Hillary, but you'll swallow it whole and with your eyes closed when it comes to Trump. Got it.

.

You've got it backwards. Even the FBI has confirmed that Hillary broke all kinds of rules.
You, on the other hand, are overly concerned with Donald Trump's tax returns, and you have nothing but conjecture and supposition to rely on.
 
Trump prevails over Clinton in convention speech ratings race
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/29/media/democratic-convention-night-four-ratings/index.html

Who won the convention ratings race, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?
Trump, by a margin of two million viewers, according to Nielsen, the TV ratings firm.

Clinton's Thursday night acceptance speech at the DNC averaged 29.8 million viewers across ten broadcast and cable channels.

Trump's speech at the RNC one week earlier averaged 32.2 million viewers across the same channels.

Nielsen's totals did not include PBS. With the public broadcaster's coverage added, Trump's speech had 34.9 million viewers and Clinton had 33.8 million.

For Trump, the victory is even sweeter because while the first three nights of the Democratic convention out-rated the same nights of the Republican convention, his speech spurred more live viewership than Clinton's on the fourth night.

"We beat her by millions," Trump said at a Friday afternoon rally.

When asked about the ratings for Clinton's speech, Trump communications director Jason Miller quipped, "That's the downside in running for Obama's third term -- nobody watches repeats in the summer."

The ten channels included here are CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Univision, CNBC, Fox Business, and NBC Universo.

Nielsen's total does not incorporate live streaming views or web video clips that are viewed later.

A live stream of Clinton's speech had more than 200,000 simultaneous viewers on YouTube Thursday night.

But the vast majority of convention viewing still happens the traditional way -- live, on TV sets, through channels like CNN and NBC.

CNN was by far the highest-rated channel on Thursday, averaging 7.5 million viewers during Clinton's speech. MSNBC was #2 with 5.3 million viewers. NBC was #3 with 4.5 million.

While Trump's speech was slightly higher-rated on TV, the results were reversed on Facebook, which measured the volume of conversation about each convention.

Facebook said the final day of the DNC generated "46.5 million likes, posts, comments and shares" from 12.6 million American users, slightly ahead of the final day of the RNC, when the site had 45.1 million interactions from 12.2 million users.

Trump, a former reality TV star, is a student of both social media and TV ratings; he frequently comments on his attention-grabbing abilities.

That's why some of Trump's critics celebrated when the Democrats' gathering in Philadelphia turned out to be higher-rated than the Republican convention in Cleveland through Wednesday.

Monday night's DNC speeches were seen by 26 million viewers across seven channels, versus 23 million for night one of the RNC.

Tuesday night's DNC coverage averaged 24 million, versus 19 million for night two of the RNC.

And Wednesday night attracted 24.4 million viewers, versus 23.4 million viewers for the RNC.

Thursday was the highest-rated night of the week for both parties, but Trump had bigger gains, giving him the bragging rights at the end of the convention period.

Nielsen's total for Clinton's speech, 29.8 million, does not include the noncommercial networks C-SPAN and PBS.

C-SPAN is not rated.

PBS said it averaged 3.98 million viewers during the 10 p.m. hour on Thursday, when Clinton's speech began, and 2.75 million viewers during the same hour last week.
 
Back
Top