Obama Goes Full Clinton Foundation With Series Of $400,000 Wall Street Speeches

[gwb-trading]

You've got a copy of that contract? What was your role there exactly, and what was the company? In case you can't tell, I'm calling bullshit on you. We can all make things up or post what we heard from someone who heard from the CEO's admin assistant behind an anonymous account on the internet. Not a lot of credibility attached to that my friend.

You can either believe it or not. That is your prerogative. One can easily search the Internet to find other examples of the costs of hosting Bill Clinton and others political figures including information about the necessary "donations" to foundations and PACs.

Cisco paid up to $5.535 million to the Clintons
http://www.bradreese.com/blog/5-20-2015.htm

Then earlier this week, Cisco's Senior Director of Corporate Communications, David McCulloch, participated in a stunning Washington Post article that revealed Cisco paid up to $5.535 million to the Clintons.

According to the Washington Post, Cisco directly paid to the Clinton Foundation up to $5 million.

 

[Sig]

You can either believe it or not. That is your prerogative. One can easily search the Internet to find other examples of the costs of hosting Bill Clinton and others political figures including information about the necessary "donations" to foundations and PACs.

Cisco paid up to $5.535 million to the Clintons
http://www.bradreese.com/blog/5-20-2015.htm

Then earlier this week, Cisco's Senior Director of Corporate Communications, David McCulloch, participated in a stunning Washington Post article that revealed Cisco paid up to $5.535 million to the Clintons.

According to the Washington Post, Cisco directly paid to the Clinton Foundation up to $5 million.

The fact that you're avoiding answering my questions says everything.

 

[Sig]

GS ran the place under Obama. Wake up.

WAIT! Are Banks Way More Profitable Under Obama Than They Were ...
www.businessinsider.com/bank-profitability-under-obama-and-bush-2011-11
Nov 6, 2011 - They've made more profit in the first 21 / 2 years of the Obama administration than theydid during the entire Bush administration, industry data ...

At this point I'm doing this only out of kind of morbid curiosity on how a mind like yours works. It's really fascinating stuff to see the mental gymnastics you go through, and I'm sure you won't dissapoint with this. Here's a quote from you, right here on ET

The Obama administration is pressuring banks that have received tarp funds to accept 15 cents on the dollar for some 7 billion in Chrysler bonds they own. It's estimated that the banks could get 30 to 50 cents on the dollar in a bankruptcy of the auto company.

Now, why would the administration do this? The answer is to pay back their union buddies in the UAW. If the company enters bankruptcy, the union contracts will almost certainly be torn up, and Obama's supporters won't be happy goons and thugs.

It's been reported that certain banks wanting to pay back their tarp funds have been denied that option by the administration. Not hard to connect the dots here. Obama wants to retain "working control" of the banks so as to use them as part of his efforts to socialize the economy and pay back his supporters. A billion or two of under the table money.

Disgraceful.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ntial/Have-I-got-a-deal-for-you-43176797.html

So, which is it. "GS ran the place under Obama" or Obama retained "working control" of the banks to pay off his union buddies and to socialize the economy. In case you're not aware of it, those are opposites. Normal rational people can't hold those directly conflicting quotes to both be true at the same time.

Let me pop some popcorn, this gymnastics display will certainly be entertaining, in a Jackass the Movie kind of way! My vote is for the ad hominem strategy next, what do you say fhl?

 

[gwb-trading]

The fact that you're avoiding answering my questions says everything.

You expect people to disclosing the in-depth details of corporate contracts on the Internet - beyond what is publicly available. Enjoy your fantasy world.

Once again you can either believe what I stated - along with reams of media information on the Internet - or not. That is your prerogative. Others can feel free to read up on the links I provided.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Does anyone on the right stop to think about what the Clinton Foundation actually did with the money donated? Just as an aside.

I know there is this right conspiracy theory B.S. that the Clinton Foundation was keeping all the money but..

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/

The US spends only about 1% on foreign aid. Most Americans think its 10-15%.

This money is given to almost every country on Earth so spread very thin except for a few pets. This is designed to show US friendship, but it is just P.R.

The Carter Center and Clinton Foundations have done enormous work to beef up the global public image of the US. You don't want people to actually look at whether the US is parasitical, Putin got in trouble for saying that.

Not to mention Christians, brought massive numbers of people out of misery. I'm not a big Clinton fan but it is strange this is just ignored.

 

[gwb-trading]

Does anyone on the right stop to think about what the Clinton Foundation actually did with the money donated? Just as an aside.

I know there is this right conspiracy theory B.S. that the Clinton Foundation was keeping all the money but..

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/

The US spends only about 1% on foreign aid. Most Americans think its 10-15%.

This money is given to almost every country on Earth so spread very thin except for a few pets. This is designed to show US friendship, but it is just P.R.

The Carter Center and Clinton Foundations have done enormous work to beef up the global public image of the US.

Not to mention Christians, brought massive numbers of people out of misery.

From your politifact link -

"We’ll use the Clinton Foundation’s most recent IRS tax form, for 2014, as an example. (It starts on Page 28 of this document.) The foundation reported total expenses in 2014 of a little over $91 million but grants of just $5.1 million. That’s close to 6 percent of the foundation’s money being spent on grants.

Over a five-year period from 2009-12, the foundation raised over $500 million, the conservative website The Federalist reported, but only 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went toward grants."

It simply declares the claim "false" on the basis that what is not spent on grants is not considered overhead.

The reality is that the Clinton Foundation is a slush fund used to fund the Clinton's travel and the majority of the spending each year is used to host a gala where the Clinton's meet other world leaders rather than any type of charity efforts.

Let's take a look again at what Haitians think about Hillary and the Clinton Foundation.

High Hopes for Hillary Clinton, Then Disappointment in Haiti
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/hillary-clinton-haiti.html?mcubz=0

What really happened with the Clintons in Haiti?
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098

"The Clinton family, they are crooks, they are thieves, they are liars," says Haitian activist Dahoud Andre.

He has been leading protests outside the Clinton Foundation headquarters in Manhattan and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign base in Brooklyn for the last two years.

 

[Slartibartfast]

From your politifact link -

"We’ll use the Clinton Foundation’s most recent IRS tax form, for 2014, as an example. (It starts on Page 28 of this document.) The foundation reported total expenses in 2014 of a little over $91 million but grants of just $5.1 million. That’s close to 6 percent of the foundation’s money being spent on grants.

Over a five-year period from 2009-12, the foundation raised over $500 million, the conservative website The Federalist reported, but only 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went toward grants."

It simply declares the claim "false" on the basis that what is not spent on grants is not considered overhead.

The reality is that the Clinton Foundation is a slush fund used to fund the Clinton's travel and the majority of the spending each year is used to host a gala where the Clinton's meet other world leader rather than any type of charity efforts.

Let's take a look again at what Haitians think about Hillary and the Clinton Foundation.

High Hopes for Hillary Clinton, Then Disappointment in Haiti
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/hillary-clinton-haiti.html?mcubz=0

What really happened with the Clintons in Haiti?
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098

"The Clinton family, they are crooks, they are thieves, they are liars," says Haitian activist Dahoud Andre.

He has been leading protests outside the Clinton Foundation headquarters in Manhattan and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign base in Brooklyn for the last two years.

So if you continue the link :
"But that doesn’t mean everything else is overhead, people who monitor charities and their practices say.

"Although it has ‘foundation’ in its name, the Clinton Foundation is actually a public charity," Brian Mittendorf, a professor of accounting at Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business, wrote in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. "In practical terms, this means both that it relies heavily on donations from the public and that it achieves its mission primarily by using those donations to conduct direct charitable activities, as opposed to providing grants from an endowment.

"Failure to understand the difference led to the widespread claim (covered by the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and others) that only a small portion of Clinton Foundation spending goes toward charity. While measuring charitable endeavors by the amount of grants awarded may be appropriate for many private foundations, it is not for an organization that acts as a direct service provider like the Clinton Foundation."
"
So your just assuming & spinning a lot because of usual reasons?

The BBC link you kindly gave stated that only $30 million was donated by the foundation to Haiti that went to pay for direct aid they say. I would not be quick to trust the guy in Haiti mouthing off as being legit. Just a feeling... Without looking in detail hard to say what was slush and what was fair expenditure. Haiti was screwed up but that was a different mess and local corruption played a large part.

I have personal reasons for distrusting the pair of them intensely since 1994 but I have paid some attention and they spend money and get stuff done.

Living outside the US, Bill showed up many many times of various TV shows and he always talked about foundation projects.

 

[gwb-trading]

So if you continue the link :
"But that doesn’t mean everything else is overhead, people who monitor charities and their practices say.

"Although it has ‘foundation’ in its name, the Clinton Foundation is actually a public charity," Brian Mittendorf, a professor of accounting at Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business, wrote in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. "In practical terms, this means both that it relies heavily on donations from the public and that it achieves its mission primarily by using those donations to conduct direct charitable activities, as opposed to providing grants from an endowment.

"Failure to understand the difference led to the widespread claim (covered by the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and others) that only a small portion of Clinton Foundation spending goes toward charity. While measuring charitable endeavors by the amount of grants awarded may be appropriate for many private foundations, it is not for an organization that acts as a direct service provider like the Clinton Foundation."
"
So your just assuming & spinning a lot because of usual reasons?

The BBC link you kindly gave stated that only $30 million was donated by the foundation to Haiti that went to pay for direct aid they say. I would not be quick to trust the guy in Haiti mouthing off as being legit. Just a feeling... Without looking in detail hard to say what was slush and what was fair expenditure. Haiti was screwed up but that was a different mess and local corruption played a large part.

I have personal reasons for distrusting the pair of them intensely since 1994 but I have paid some attention and they spend money and get stuff done.

Living outside the US, Bill showed up many many times of various TV shows and he always talked about foundation projects.

So answer one simple question - What percentage of the donations does the Clinton Foundation use for its annual gala of world leaders?

 

[Slartibartfast]

So answer one simple question - What percentage of the donations does the Clinton Foundation use for its annual gala of world leaders?

I'm not a frog jumping from lilly-pads so you can say gotach I'd assume a gala is really a fundraiser? So if they are losing money that would be odd.

I'm browsing https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

Of course I need to check charitynavigator's reputation itself but as the CF is a public charity it is probably all pretty transparent in the IRS.

 

[Sig]

So answer one simple question - What percentage of the donations does the Clinton Foundation use for its annual gala of world leaders?

I think you must have little to no experience in the non-profit world? Pretty much every foundation has an annual "gala" of some sort, from the local Ducks Unlimited oyster roast and awards ceremony to the Gates Foundation annual gala which is very similar to the Clinton Foundation's. In fact I just helped out in putting one on last week (closer to the local Ducks Unlimited than the Clinton Foundation), and it raised a good bit of money and visibility for the organization. You may want to actually participate in the world of non-profits before pontificating on them, lest you sound ignorant.