Gold Star mom denounces Obama, endorses Trump

Karen Vaughn, mother of a Navy SEAL who was killed in Afghanistan, blasts President Obama for using military caskets as a photo op

Goldstar Mom Says Obama Used Son's Casket as Photo Op When She Asked Him Not To - YouTube

Pat Smith

"WE HAVE A ROTTEN GOVERNMENT! HILLARY CLINTON KILLS PEOPLE!" Gold Star Mom - YouTube

Originally Posted by Guest

Gold Star mom denounces Obama, endorses Trump

Karen Vaughn, mother of a Navy SEAL who was killed in Afghanistan, blasts President Obama for using military caskets as a photo op

Goldstar Mom Says Obama Used Son's Casket as Photo Op When She Asked Him Not To - YouTube

Pat Smith

"WE HAVE A ROTTEN GOVERNMENT! HILLARY CLINTON KILLS PEOPLE!" Gold Star Mom - YouTube

The other side weighs in. Vote Hillary in 2016.

Originally Posted by Guest

The other side weighs in. Vote Hillary in 2016.

The minority vote is hereby acknowledged!!
Get it....the minority vote....

Why choose a record of failure? Clinton has no history of success, other than getting away with felonies.
My vote will go to Trump.

Wrong you forgot the Clinton foundation, that made them rich, and since most of the cash is outside the US we'll never know how rich.

So as crooks they are success in that also.

Originally Posted by Guest

Wrong you forgot the Clinton foundation, that made them rich, and since most of the cash is outside the US we'll never know how rich.

So as crooks they are success in that also.

IT IS A FAMILY AFFAIR.
I've read that Chelsey is on the payroll for a cool MILLION BUCKS A YEAR.
I've also read that eighty cents of every dollar given to the Clinton Foundation goes to expenses.
FORGIVE ME but I've not just lost faith in our government BUT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. McCaine said in his run against Obama, we have a lot of hard work to do BUT, AMERICANS ARE UP TO THE TASK. He clearly is wrong about Americans 56% of americans voted for the candyman. RESULT-we have even more hard work to do.
FIFTY SIX PERCENT OF AMERICANS HAVE PROVED THEY ARE NOT UP TO THE TASK and now to make it even more difficult OBAMA IS LEAVING A TEN TRILLION DOLLAR OVERDRAFT FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENT TO DEAL WITH AND A FAR MORE DIVIDED, ALONG RACE AND SUCCESS ENVY THEN WHEN HE ARRIVED.

Originally Posted by Guest

IT IS A FAMILY AFFAIR.
I've read that Chelsey is on the payroll for a cool MILLION BUCKS A YEAR.
I've also read that eighty cents of every dollar given to the Clinton Foundation goes to expenses.
.

Agree

Except, I read it's 90-94 %

All the money filter thru non traceable Canadian banks

Originally Posted by Guest

I've also read that eighty cents of every dollar given to the Clinton Foundation goes to expenses.

You have it backwards, 12% goes to expenses.

The charity was given an A rating by an independent agency that rates charities. Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

2015 State Department Subpoena

In February 2016, The Washington Post reported that the United States Department of State issued a subpoena to the foundation in fall of 2015. According to the report, the subpoena focused on "documents about the charity's projects that may have required approval from federal government during Hillary Clinton's term as secretary of state" and "also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton's personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons

Criticism of financial practices

Questions have been raised about the foundation's financial practices, about its fundraising from foreign governments and corporations, about the transparency of its reporting of its donors, and about possible conflicts of interest between donations to the foundation and the actions of Hillary Clinton when she was U.S. Secretary of State during 2009–13 and in connection with her subsequent 2016 presidential campaign.[2][66][75][76][77]

In August 2013, The New York Times reported on the foundation's recent developments, including financial losses, staff conflicts, and spending excesses.[2] In response, Bill Clinton published an open letter saying the deficits described by the paper were misleading and a consequence of the unique accounting and tax reporting requirements placed upon foundations.[78]

In Clinton Cash, a May 2015 book regarding the Foundation, author Peter Schweizer asserts that there is a "pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds."[77] Fact-checkers find considerable shortcomings in Schweizer's accusations.[79][80][81][82] Clinton's campaign has denied any impropriety, and called the book part of the Republicans’ coordinated attack strategy on Mrs. Clinton "twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories".[76][83][84][85]

Through 2016 the foundation had raised an estimated $2 billion from U.S. corporations, foreign governments and corporations, political donors, and various other groups and individuals."[3] The foundation "has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs,"[3] and much of its work has been "widely praised."[6] At the same time, the "overlap between the Clintons' political network and their charitable work" (mostly in the form of donors who contribute to both the Clintons' political campaigns and to the foundation),[3] and the foundation's acceptance of funds from wealthy interests, has been controversial.[3][6] Some ethics experts, such as Stephen Gillers of the New York University School of Law and philanthropy expert Joel Fleishman, suggest that an appearance of a conflict of interest (although not an actual conflict of interest) would be raised if Hillary Clinton serves as president while the Clintons continue to raise money for the Foundation, with Gillers saying that "If Bill [Clinton] seeks to raise large sums of money from donors who also have an interest in U.S. policy, the public will rightly question whether the grants affected United States foreign policy.

Transparency

Around 2007, the Clinton Foundation was criticized for a lack of transparency. Although U.S. law did not require nonprofit charities — including presidential foundations — to disclose the identities of their contributors, critics said that the names of donors should be disclosed because Hillary Rodham Clinton was running to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. Commentator Matthew Yglesias wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that the Clintons should make public the names of foundation donors to avoid any appearance of impropriety.[64]

A lengthy donors list was then released by the Foundation in December 2008,[16] which included several politically sensitive donors, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Blackwater Worldwide.[17] The Foundation insisted that the disclosures would ensure that "not even the appearance of a conflict of interest" would exist once Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.[17]

The ethics agreement between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation that was put into force at the beginning of the Secretary of State Clinton's tenure came under scrutiny from the news media during February 2015. A Wall Street Journal report found that the Clinton Foundation had resumed accepting donations from foreign governments once Secretary Clinton's tenure had ended.[65] Contributions from foreign donors who are prohibited by law from contributing to political candidates in the U.S. constitute a major portion of the foundation's income. The foundation's chief communications officer Craig Minassian explained that it is a "false choice to suggest that people who may be interested in supporting political causes wouldn’t also support philanthropic work."[3] A Washington Post inquiry into donations by foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation during the secretary's tenure found six cases where such governments continued making donations at the same level they had before Clinton became secretary, which was permissible under the agreement, but also one instance of a new donation, $500,000 from Algeria for earthquake relief in Haiti, that was outside the bounds of the continuation provision and should have received a special ethics review, but did not.[66] Foundation officials said that if the former secretary decided to run for president in 2016, they would again consider what steps to take in reference to foreign donations.[66] But in general, they stressed that, "As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way. When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives."[66] State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki attested that the foundation's commitment to the ethics agreement in question "has been over and above the letter of the law".[67]

In March 2015, Reuters reported that the Clinton Foundation had broken its promise to publish all of its donors, as well as its promise to let the State Department review all of its donations from foreign governments.[68] In April 2015, the New York Times reported that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the State Department had approved a deal to sell American uranium to a Russian state-owned enterprise Uranium One whose chairman had donated to the Clinton Foundation, and that Clinton had broken her promise to publicly identify such donations.[69] The State Department "was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal."[70] FactCheck.org notes that there "no evidence" that that the donations influenced Clinton’s official actions or that she was involved in the State Department's decision to approve the deal,[71] and PolitiFact concluded that any "suggestion of a quid pro quo is unsubstantiated."[70]

After her January 2009 appointment as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton proposed hiring long-time Clinton friend and confidant Sidney Blumenthal as an advisor, however, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, blocked Blumenthal's appointment at the State Department.[72] Blumenthal was subsequently hired by the Clinton Foundation and after the 2011 uprising in Libya against Muammar Gaddafi, Blumenthal prepared, from public and other sources, about 25 memos which he sent as emails to Clinton in 2011 and 2012 with advice regarding Libyan matters

However, The Clinton Foundation accepted at least $25.5 million from eight nations that imprison and murder homosexuals.

The most incriminating donor, Saudi Arabia, was one of only 17 donors who gave The Clinton Foundation between $10 million and $25 million. In Saudi Arabia, the penalty for homosexual behavior is anywhere from 100 lashes and year of banishment, to death by stoning, according to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association’s report on State Sponsored Homophobia.

the above

Source: The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, The Clinton Foundation, CNN, and The Free Beacon.

On Facebook, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump called Clinton out for her double standard.

a lot is explained here

Originally Posted by Guest

You have it backwards,

No it's how they showed it all



Charles Krauthammer: The Clinton Foundation is Organized Crime-Truth! & Fiction!

Summary of eRumor:

An essay attributed to Charles Krauthammer calls the Clinton Foundation “organized crime at its finest.”

The Truth:

Charles Krauthammer didn’t write this essay about the Clinton Foundation, but some of the essay’s claims are on point.

The name of Charles Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist and FOX News contributor, was first attached to an essay that accused the Clinton Foundation of money laundering, tax evasion and organized crime in early November 2015. The essay was widely forwarded in emails and posted at online discussion forums under Krauthammer’s name.

One of the earliest versions of the essay appeared on a blog site called True News U.S.A on October 28, 2015, under the headline “Charles Krauthammer on Hillary Clinton.” In that version, Charles Krauthammer’s name is briefly mentioned in the opening, but the article was not attributed to him:

Recently, Charles Krauthammer alluded that he had no doubt some of the 30k emails Hillary deleted from her private email server very likely had references to the Clinton Foundation, which would be illegal and a conflict of interest.

The opening reference to Krauthammer refers to remarks that he made on FOX News in July 2015 about Hilary Clinton’s use of private email servers while secretary of state, and allegations that she erased some of them. Krauthammer said, “The real crime, so to speak — at least the political crime — is the fact that she unilaterally erased 30,000 of these (emails).”

Charles Krauthammer didn’t make any reference to the Clinton Foundation or conflicts of interest, as the essay claims, but he did say that the most damaging emails had likely already been deleted.

Krauthammer’s name may have been added to the byline to lend the essay credibility, he is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, after all. Or Krauthammer’s name may have been added by mistake, too. His name was in the original headline, and it’s not immediately clear where the essay transitions from Krauthammer’s views on the Clinton email scandal to the (unknown) author’s views on the Clinton Foundation.

But regardless of how it happened, this essay on the Clinton Foundation has been incorrectly attributed to Charles Krauthammer.

Still, because there’s been plenty of reader interest, we’ll take a look at the money laundering and “organized crime” allegations that the essay makes about the Clinton Foundation.

The essay claims that individual donors or foreign governments can set up a charitable organization in a country, like Canada. Then, they can bundle anonymous individual donations into one “massive donation” that is given to the Clinton Foundation through the charitable organization.

This allegation is mostly true.

The Clinton Foundation stopped accepting donations from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. But the Wall Street Journal reported in March 2015 that individual donors with direct ties to foreign governments had made millions in donations while Clinton was in office:

All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show. Some donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million.

In April 2015, the Washington Post and Reuters revealed that a Canadian charity affiliated with the Clinton Foundation had failed to reveal the identities of 1,100 donors, the claim directly referenced in the essay:

The number of undisclosed contributors to the charity, the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, signals a larger zone of secrecy around foundation donors than was previously known.

Details of the organization’s fundraising were disclosed this week by a spokeswoman for the Canadian group’s founder, mining magnate Frank Giustra.

The Canadian group has received attention in recent days as a potential avenue for anonymous Clinton Foundation donations from foreign business executives, including some who had interests before the U.S. government while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state.

So, it’s true that the Clinton Foundation has come under fire for the disclosure of foreign donors while Clinton served as secretary of state.

But then the essay goes on to claim that the Clinton Foundation gives “no more than 15% of the donations to charitable causes” and spent $8 million on travel in one year alone. This is misleading, and borderline false.

For example, it’s true that the Clinton Foundation spent $8.4 million on travel in 2013. But, according to tax filings, 77% of those travel expenses were directed toward program services, and about 20% toward fundraising. So, just because expenditures are itemized as “travel” or “conferences” doesn’t mean they don’t directly support programming.

The B.S. meter is pegged to the max.