More Clinton Foundation controversy
 

http://scaredmonkeys.com/wp-content/...lary_Nixon.jpg

Judicial Watch, which released the documents Monday, said in a statement that the messages show Clinton aide Huma Abedin “provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the secretary of state.” The documents include exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department.

The exchange involving the crown prince of Bahrain occurred in June 2009. It started with top foundation official Doug Band notifying Abedin that the crown prince was coming to the U.S. and seeking a meeting. He noted he is a “good friend of ours.” :ohdear:

Abedin wrote back that the crown prince had asked to see Clinton through “normal channels.”

She added: “I asked and she said she doesn’t want to commit to anything for thurs or fri until she knows how she will feel. Also she says that she may want to go to ny and doesn’t want to be committed to stuff in ny.”

Two days later, Abedin wrote to Band saying they were offering up a morning meeting between Clinton and the crown prince.

As noted by Judicial Watch, the foundation website says the crown prince committed to an international scholarship program in 2005, through the Clinton Global Initiative. According to the site, this commitment was worth $32 million, in addition to other reported donations from the Kingdom of Bahrain.

The Clinton campaign, though, pushed back on the Judicial Watch claims, pointing to the original Abedin email that said the crown prince went through “normal channels.”

In its statement on Monday, Judicial Watch highlighted several other exchanges that it claimed showed Abedin helping provide access to donors who had given anywhere from $25,000 to $10 million to the foundation.

The release Monday follows another email release earlier this month by Judicial Watch. One of those exchanges showed Band trying to put a wealthy foundation donor in touch with the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon.

Such emails have fueled accusations from Republicans of a “pay-to-play” operation. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump – Hillary Clinton’s rival in the 2016 race – on Monday called for the foundation to be shut down,

“It is now clear that the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt enterprise in political history. What they were doing during Crooked Hillary’s time as Secretary of State was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It must be shut down immediately,” he said in a statement.

The Clinton campaign touted the foundation's contingency plans in hitting back at Trump’s call Monday.

More emails, meanwhile, are in the pipeline for release. A federal judge in a Judicial Watch case earlier Monday ordered the State Department to expedite its review of some 14,900 emails uncovered by the FBI over the course of its investigation into Clinton's private email practices.

Those emails are part of the larger cache of documents not previously disclosed by Clinton, and are in addition to the roughly 55,000 emails turned over to federal investigators.

:boom:

State Department Mark Toner has been very clear today while being attacked by the Right Wing Media :

" NOTHING TO SEE HERE . NO NEED FOR ANY DISCUSSION " .

The Clintons are scumbag leaches, and yet the left only had two choices. Either a perverted old socialist or a scumbag, pathological liar and thief. So, they decided to nominate the crooked scumbag. How any AMerican could possibly vote for such a scumbag criminal just shows you how immoral our country has become.

We vote for a stage production
 

it is all done in the backrooms and that has always been so.
Why can Soros and Buffet run the democratic party-HINT MONEY.
The republicans are not innocent either for them it is the Hunts.
We have political packs anonymously running ads and others planting stories. We have BOUGHT PEOPLE letting politicians get away with crimes you would go to jail for.
THE FAULT? THE AMERICAN VOTER IS THE FAULT. WE HAVE ACCESS TO FAR MORE INFORMATION FOR AND AGAINST THE CHOICE IT IS YOUR DUTY TO MAKE AND YET WE RELISH INFORMATION DAMNING THE OTHER SIDE AND GIVE OUR PRE-MADE CHOICE A PASS.
PERHAPS, WE GET WHAT WE DESERVE.

:shocked:How does this differ from the many, many lobbyists on Capital Hill that pay a lot of money for votes and access to High Ranking Officials on a daily basis? One big one NRA!!!!

Rule number 1 - Do not use all caps
 

Using all capital letters in electronic communication is not unlike shouting at someone in person. It is a common technique used by HUSTLERS to get attention AND THOSE WITH VISION PROBLEMS.

It does not matter what form of internet communication you are using, shouting is not acceptable. There are caveats and exceptions. Subject lines, headings, and advertisements are often in all capital letters for readability reasons.

No one likes to be yelled at, but every once in a while you have to shout at someone to get their attention. Therefore, using all caps is bad netiquette because it's shouting, but is acceptable for certain reasons.

Does anyone have information that would indicate anything criminal ?

Thus far, in reading all I can see is a definitive appearance problem.

Open to hear the criminal aspect

I'll keep looking.

Certainly the indication is there and the wilful destruction of more potential evidence is yet another indicator. The inevitable is around the corner, hopefully before election day.

When President Clinton left the White House in 2001, he knew he wanted to spend his life as a private citizen working in the areas he cared about most and where he could make a measurable difference. His vision: a nongovernmental organization that could leverage the unique capacities of governments, partner organizations, and other individuals to address rising inequalities and deliver tangible results that improve people’s lives.

he did he scammed a hundred million in his pocket

total BS

Clinton is a common criminal. His wife is also. His/their only goal was power and wealth. They are scumbags that have blind and ignorant followers. Blind because anyone can see their criminal corruption and ignorant because they believe the corruption is perfectly acceptable.

I suppose you were interrupted while typing your litany right before you contributed any kind of criminal activities that you could even supply a hint of.

It is very popular to talk like this, you know, simply go after with no facts at all, and make it personal.

Never supply facts or proof..just talk nasty about them..never mind facts.

Clintons certainly help this with their actions but this sounds like the candidate who just demeans people with no facts...what was his name again...

Just ask the Haitians, I did, in person. It's unanimous. They say the money was stolen.

You have ways to back that up or are we just to take your word for it.

Did you record your conversation, tape it ?

You sound like Trump...no facts, just accusations. Is this you Donald ?

What did the Chicago Police department say ? That was one of the last sources Trump used and they called him a liar.

Or, did you check with a British politician as Trump uses.

Did you personally interview every Chicago cop? I believe trump and mayor Giuliani, the greatest crime fighting mayor EVER. Trump never said he spoke to the Democratic machine Chicago cops. Who would want to get advice from those losers.

The Democratics turned chigago into a shooting range....

O sorry, it's the guns, they jump up and shoot themselves, right?

Face it, it's trump time, in a landslide. The decent person is sick and tired and not going to take it anymore.

Why Is Illinois So Corrupt? |
Chicago magazine
| December 2010


LOL,

No, I listened to Trump tell this lie on OReilly show. Sounded impressive....so I checked the Chicago newspapers right away. Nothing there.

Then NBC in Chicago broadcast a statement from the police calling Trump a liar. Then I read it in the Chicago Tribune, with quotes calling it "misinformation".

Trump lies, each and every day. He is totally immoral, and without any standards at all. He is an extremely mean spirited person and very uninformed.

He is pulling a con job on folks who choose to believe anything anybody says that is anti Clinton.

Nobody in their right mind could support this person...not a man...men do not treat women, especially their wives like he has done.

He got your attention with immigration, which he is going back on, agreeing with Bush and Rubio, and he simply is a loud mouthed celebrity who plays people for a fool daily

This has what to do with a cold calculated lie told by a candidate. Not an overstatement, a LIE.

Start another thread if you wish for Chicago PD

:boom:


:BigApplause:




:wave:

CNM

So trump named the cop/s he spoke to and that person denied it? You writing lots of words does not make it so.

In addition, the issues you bring up are tiny distractions from the Clintons tragedy

Do you read AT ALL ?

You sound like this Trumpers who have such a hate for Clinton, they ignore what this deceitful, ill informed person will do to our country.

By the way, just noticed lots of links to read about the Chicago police lie he told

But it appears, his biggest lie was what he told you about immigration. Now mouthing Bush, Rubio, and actually Kasih.

I asked you a question? Duh please answer it

I will accept the word of the Chicago police dept over that of a validated pathological liar.

Police Respond to Donald Trump's Claim That Chicago's Violence Can Be Stopped In A Week | NBC Chicago

Trump suggests Chicago could solve crime problem 'in a week' if cops got tougher - Chicago Tribune

As a village person to a village person, I am a slow reader , can you please answer my simple question.

can't folks stay on topic please

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

on topic

The Clinton Foundation yesterday announced that it filed amended tax returns for the years 2010 through 2013 and also filed its most recent Form 990 for the Fiscal Year ending 2014.

The foundation has come under increased scrutiny since former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced her run for Democratic presidential nomination this past spring. It was announced in April that tax forms for 2010 through 2012 would be re-filed because of possible errors in reporting contributions from foreign governments, in addition to amended returns for the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) for 2012 and 2013.

In a three-page letter to friends of the Clinton Foundation, President Donna Shalala emphasized that the errors did not require amended returns; there is no change to the assets, liabilities or net assets of the foundation; and, the foundation does not owe any tax. “Despite that, we decided to refile. Our decision was based in large part on the role the Form 990 serves as a public disclosure document for our friends, supporters, partners, and the general public,” she wrote.

The foundation reported total revenue of $177 million for 2014 but consolidated financial statements, which would combined the assorted Clinton initiatives, reported almost $338 million in revenue.

The amendments generally were found in four categories:

Government grants and contributions;
Revenue from speeches;
Changes to Schedule B; and,
Listing of related entities.

For 2010, 2011, and 2012, government grants were included in “All other contributions” but were not separately broken out, with the line for government grants left blank.

Revenue from speeches by Hillary Clinton, as well as former President Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea Clinton, was listed under the statement of revenue as part of other charitable contributions for 2010, 2011 and 2012. The 2013 return classified the fees as “miscellaneous revenue,” which has been amended to break out on a separate line for “speech revenue.” The speeches were a fee-for-service rather than a donation. Hillary Clinton resigned from the foundation’s board in April before announcing her run for president. Her husband and daughter remain on the board.

Errors in the amount of donations and some omissions were found after a review of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors. Some changes led to the listing of additional donors or because speech fees were moved from contributions to other income, decreasing the 2-percent threshold for reporting on Schedule B. Donors now added to Schedule B previously had been disclosed on the foundation’s website.

To serve transparency and disclosure, relationships with related entities should have been included on the initial Forms 990s. When a foundation has activities in certain countries, it is required to work through an entity established in that country. In some cases, the foundation created social enterprises to help fill the gaps in supply and distribution changes and reinvest profits in enterprises.

The amended returns “reflect a commitment to disclosure and thoroughness,” Shalala said. Kathy Keneally, chair of the civil and criminal tax litigation in DLA Piper’s global tax group and the former assistant attorney general for the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, reviewed the returns. She, in turn, engaged a CPA firm, CohnReznick, which previously had not worked with the foundation.

Keneally advised the foundation that it had no legal obligation to file amended returns but if it did, those amended returns should correct any and all errors.

“We found nothing to suggest that the foundation intended to conceal the receipt of government grants, which the foundation reports on its website. Because foundations, like people, make mistakes, and because return preparers may differ on how best to present information, the review identified other items that the foundation has decided to clarify or to correct,” Keneally said.

BKD prepared the original and amended returns for 2010-13 and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) prepared the original and amended returns for 2013 and 2014. PwC also performed the audit of consolidated financial statements for 2014, which includes accounts and activities of the CHAI. The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) was an initiative of the foundation from 2005 to 2009. As part of an agreement between the foundation and Obama Administration, CGI operated as a separate, affiliated nonprofit from 2010 to 2013. It resumed operating as an initiative of the foundation in 2013.

Formerly the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative, CHAI has been incorporated as a separate but affiliate nonprofit since 2010. The foundation is required to consolidate CHAI finances into the audited financial reporting.

The Foundation's Shadiness Shows No Signs Of Slowing Down

TOP TAKEAWAYS

Today, the annual Clinton Global Initiative America will convene in Atlanta.
The Clinton Foundation has already proven to be a big problem for Clinton's 2016 run, posing never-ending ethical and legal questions about the celebrity-infused family charity that Bill and Hillary Clinton started.
Just last week, we learned that the Clinton State Department appointed a Clinton Foundation donor, with no qualifications, to a top government intelligence board.
Team Clinton has been forced to confront questions from her tenure as Secretary of State about inappropriate use of funds, conflicts of interest and transparency gaps that have sent the campaign off message.
As questions swirl, the Clintons refuse to explain what role Bill Clinton would play should she be elected, and if any meaningful safeguards will exist to create a multi-billion dollar slush fund for one of the most ethically challenged duos in American politics.

Today, The Clinton Global Initiative America Meeting Will Convene In Atlanta, GA. "The sixth annual Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) America meeting will be held June 12-14, 2016 in Atlanta, Georgia. CGI is pleased to announce new programming and participants in this year's meeting, including President Jimmy Carter who will join President Bill Clinton in a special one-on-one conversation." (Clinton Global Initiative America, Accessed 6/9/16)
CGI, Specifically, Has Become A "Particularly Thorny Subject For The Clintons"

The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), Which Seeks Commitments From Corporations, "Has Become A Particularly Thorny Subject For The Clintons." "CGI, which seeks commitments from corporations, other non-profits and governments around the world to tackle problems ranging from childhood obesity to Ebola, has become a particularly thorny subject for the Clintons." (Ken Vogel, "Clinton Foundation Of Collision Course With Campaign," Politico, 1/28/16)

CGI Has Come Under Attack For "Accepting Huge Donations From Foreign Governments And Other Entities That Had Business Before The State Department During Hillary Clinton's Tenure As Secretary Of State." "It became a target of GOP attacks for accepting huge donations from foreign governments and other entities that had business before the State Department during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State." (Ken Vogel, "Clinton Foundation Of Collision Course With Campaign," Politico, 1/28/16)

"One Of The Reasons That The Clinton Foundation Has Become Such A Formidable Fund-Raising Machine Is That Donors Appear To Hope To Gain Access To The Corridors Of Political Power With Their Gifts." ("Why The Clinton Foundation Is So Controversial," The Economist, 2/7/16)

The Problem With The Clinton Foundation Is It Appears "Vulnerable To Conflicts Of Interest." "The problem is that a foundation, which is led by an ex-president and someone who hopes to be elected president by the end of the year, can appear vulnerable to conflicts of interest." ("Why The Clinton Foundation Is So Controversial," The Economist, 2/7/16)

THE FOUNDATION HAS ALREADY CAUSED MAJOR HEADACHES FOR CLINTON'S 2016 RUN

The Associated Press Headline: "Hillary Clinton's Family Foundation May Pose Significant Campaign Risks" (Ken Thomas, "Hillary Clinton's Family Foundation May Pose Significant Campaign Risks," The Associated Press , 2/22/15)

The Calculus At The Clinton Foundation "Has Started To Change," As Clinton's Presidential Campaign Moved Forward And GCI "Became Embroiled In Political Controversy." " The calculus has started to change, foundation sources say, as the foundation raised a $250-million endowment to sustain itself during Hillary Clinton's campaign and potential presidency, and as CGI became embroiled in political controversy." (Ken Vogel, "Clinton Foundation Of Collision Course With Campaign," Politico, 1/28/16)
Dragging Her Painfully Off-Message, Clinton Has Repeatedly Been Forced To Answer Questions About Controversies Surrounding The Foundation

In March, Clinton Was Pressed On Whether Or Not The Foundation Should Be "Wound Down" While She Runs For President For "Ethical" Reasons. MSNBC'S RACHEL MADDOW: "Let me ask you one-- last question. Which I'm asking in part because we're here in New York. Which is-- the headquarters of The Clinton Foundation, and The Clinton Global Initiative. Is there a case to be made, an ethical case to be made that The Clinton Foundation and the Global Initiative should essentially be wound down as a family foundation while you run for president? I ask that because I think about the-- the good works, the good charitable works that The Clinton Foundation has done. But the way that some of that work gets done is by soliciting donations from people in this country, from people around the world, from organizations around the world. I think it is not unreasonable to suspect that people may give donations to The Clinton Foundation hoping that they will favorably influence your opinion toward them, as a presidential candidate, or eventually as president if you're elected. Is there an ethical concern there that there should be essentially-- a split between you and your family, (COUGH) and-- and-- and this foundation, that has done good work? But now you're in a different position-- with regard to potential donors." CLINTON: "Well, look, I-- I think that-- the work that it's done has been extraordinary. And I give the credit to my husband and my daughter, because I haven't been involved-- for that long. And, you know, when I look at what they've accomplished, and what they've been able to amplify in terms of saving lives-- by getting the price of drugs for HIV/AIDS down in sub-Saharan Africa. It's quite astonishing. And I would hate to lose that creativity, that imagination, that-- extraordinary flexibility. So, I think the answer is transparency. And there is no doubt that there will be-- complete transparency about-- donations. But when you have hundreds of thousands of people who are donating-- as they do-- I think that-- the best-- answer for that is what we have been doing for the last several years. And that is-- to be transparent about it. And let-- you know, let voters and others make their judgment." (MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show," 3/30/16)

So it doesn't look so squeaky clean

Charity Navigator says on its website that not rating the Clinton Foundation is neither a "condemnation nor an endorsement." It's hardly the only charity not rated by the watchdog. For example, Charity Navigator says it does not rate the Rockefeller or Gates Foundations, because those organizations get their primary funding from the families that started them.

The Clinton Foundation does receive ratings from other charity evaluators. For example, Charity Watch rates the Clinton Foundation an "A" while Guidestar gives it a gold-level rating for transparency.

Charity Navigator put the Clinton Foundation on its "watchlist" in March 2015, after press reports raised questions about foreign donations to the Foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. It removed the Clinton Foundation from the watchlist 9 months later, after the Foundation refiled four years of tax information and pledged other transparency measures.

Whether a Charity Navigator rating is significant is an open question. Professor Brian Mittendorf, Professor of Accounting at Ohio State University and an expert in philanthropy, puts it this way:

"A Charity Navigator rating would be something that supporters and/or critics would fixate on to support their pre-existing views of the organization or its founders, but wouldn't really provide new information."

Clinton Foundation takes steps to be rated by charity watchdog - May. 12, 2016

As required by US copyright law, and TOTV rules, please give credit for your cut and paste, and I believe TOTV requires a bit more from the poster than a complete cut and paste

:agree:...:thumbup:

You must know by now that our resident Clinton defenders, have no defense for her multiple violations of the law so their only recourse is to attack Trump for little things like his hair, or his wife. Changing the subject of the whole thread is their M.O.

I wonder how they are going to feel when Trump wins by a landslide in Nov.

Please permit me to reply for that poster in a manner more suited to your standard of intelligence:

Why nobody could make this stuff up.

you question something take a piece of the article and search google.

that's your homework for today

We do contribute to Judicial Watch. They really are getting into the corruption that other liberals will not investigate, they are a real blessing to the USA.

:thumbup: