Clinton Charity Aided Clinton Friends

[Halliburton]

Source: Wall Street Journal

HASTINGS, Neb.—The Clinton Global Initiative, which arranges donations to help solve the world’s problems, set up a financial commitment that benefited a for-profit company part-owned by people with ties to the Clintons, including a current and a former Democratic official and a close friend of former President Bill Clinton.

....(continued)...

The Clinton Global Initiative’s help for a for-profit company part-owned by Clinton friends poses a different issue. Under federal law, tax-exempt charitable organizations aren’t supposed to act in anyone’s private interest but instead in the public interest, on broad issues such as education or poverty.

“The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests,” the Internal Revenue Service says on its website.

Energy Pioneer Solutions was founded in 2009 by Scott Kleeb, a Democrat who twice ran for Congress from Nebraska. An internal document from that year showed it as owned 29% by Mr. Kleeb; 29% by Jane Eckert, the owner of an art gallery in Pine Plains, N.Y.; and 29% by Julie Tauber McMahon of Chappaqua, N.Y., a close friend of Mr. Clinton, who also lives in Chappaqua.




Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-aided-clinton-friends-1463086383

---

[msongs]

1. bernie votes for lockheed funding because it gets bennies for his friends in vermont nt

[penndragon69]

3. Because he is a Senator from VERMONT !

It's his JOB to bring JOBS to
his state..that's why they elected him !

[TheBlackAdder]

103. The F-35, as abortive as it is, was a done deal regardless. Returns some MIC taxes back to state.

.


It's probably easier to list states that DO NOT have a Lockheed presence in them than do.


.

[AtomicKitten]

4. And that has what to do with the Clinton charity?

A charity that, you know, is supposed to help people in need/good causes, not Clinton cronies.

Your first response one-liners are devolving into ridiculous, unhinged outbursts.

[roguevalley]

21. they don't understand that there are rules for charities that cannot be transgressed.

is there really anything out there that they haven't turned toward profit?

[Beowulf]

106. That's Neoliberalism 101.

[beastie boy]

101. More than the OP has to do with a Clinton charity.

CGI is NOT a charity organization. Nor is it a grant-giving organization.

I can't believe the people who call themselves progressive still taking Rupert's right wing rag seriously.

[AtomicKitten]

102. It's a tangled web of money laundering.

The point is a shitload of money comes in and very little goes out in the form of grants or charitable contributions, 9% in fact according to 2013 filings, the most recent data available.

They have cronies on bloated salaries and spend lavishly on everything but actual good works. Analysts have called the web of charities, foundation, and CGI a virtual slush fund.

Open your eyes.

[beastie boy]

108. And you base this generality on the article quoted?

Seriously, I don't mind you basing your general conclusion if you give a shitload of evidence to support it, but you seem to use this article as an excuse to rant and moan against Hillary.

Frankly, I see nothing in this right wing rag article to suggest the described transaction was not legitimate. And to call CGI a "charity" is an outright lie designed to add a little extra red meat for the consumption of the right wingers.

Too bad you Bernie supporters are only too happy to take the bait.

[AtomicKitten]

109. Shhhh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1949900

[beastie boy]

111. That's a very mature response.

I guess this conversation is over.

[ThirdWayToTheHighway]

105. Really?

What on Earth else can a "Nonprofit Humanatarian Organization" be?

[beastie boy]

110. Really.

A "Nonprofit Humanatarian Organization" is by definition is not a "charity organization".

Does American Federation of Teachers, or Fulbright Exchange Programs, or the Rockefeller Foundation sound like a charity organization to you?

[Luminous Animal]

114. CGI is a program administered by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation which is a charitible

organization.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204

[beastie boy]

115. You are aware that a charity organization can have non-charitable units, no?

Like Doctors Without Borders having a mass media unit that doesn't donate a penny's worth of goods or services to anyone. A subsidiary whose sole purpose is to provide goods, services or support to its parent organization.

[Luminous Animal]

116. From the foundations own documents

In addition, in 2013 the Foundation reconsolidated the Clinton Global Initiative into its operations.
As such, the 990 tax document shows a corresponding increase in both revenue and expenses.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf

[beastie boy]

117. And?... A non-charitable unit operting as part of the foundation. What does this prove?

My analogy of a media unit within Doctors Without Borders still stands.

A subsidiary of a charitable organization that is not engaged in charity.

[Luminous Animal]

118. You can't do that. A noncharitable wing cannot combine assets with a charitable wing.

The IRS designation is different, and reporting requirements are different. For instance, Planned Parenthood is a 501 3 (c) org which makes it a charitable organization. Planned Parenthood Political Action Fund is registered as a 501 4 (c) and not designated as a charity.

[beastie boy]

119. Of course they can. They are not a wing, they are a subsidiary.

A subsidiary that has nothing to do with charitable giving. A subsidiary whose function it is to oversee certain non-charitable aspects of a charitable organization.

For all intents and purposes, the Clinton Foundation can incorporate its custodial services into a separate unit, and that unit will not be a charitable organization or have anything to do with the Clinton Foundation charities, while the Clinton Foundation would still be able to claim the unit as its asset.

That's not a difficult concept to grasp, is it?

[Luminous Animal]

123. I've done non-profit bookkeeping & accounting for 30 years. A not for profit "wing" of a charitable

org MUST be registered and organized under different IRS rules. Otherwise, someone who donates would not have a clue which portion of their donation is tax-deductible and which portion is not. And neither would the IRS.

[beastie boy]

124. Boy, am I glad you are not my accountant!

Anyone donating to the Clinton Foundation is entitled to full tax deduction allowable by law. Whether this money goes to charities or operational expenses (as in operating CGI, or any other subsidiary, or hiring an outside vendor) is entirely up to the Clinton Foundation, as long as they fully account for their expenses. The only limitation is if someone donates to CGI (it's a non-profit). In this case, the Clinton foundation is not entitled to a single penny of that donation, but the donation itself is still 100% tax deductible. CGI is not a "wing" for financial or administrative purposes. They are a subsidiary. In fact, there is no unit that has an IRS "wing" designation . There are no legal or administrative rules governing "wings" unless specifically defined and described in the bylaws of an organization.

[frylock]

5. Constituents is the word I believe you were looking for.

I'm not surprised you'd use the word friends, what with the obsession with personality politics over in your camp.

[Plucketeer]

16. Oh c'mon now!

Surely Bernie has a few constituents who are friends - no? So there's #1's rationale.

Envisioning Bernie on the phone: "Yeah, my pal Bennie - he's an expert riveter. Wouldja see if you get him a gig? And then, let's see.... Oh yeah, my friend Flora. I've heard she's really good at laying up layers of composites. I think she'd be great with some of this money we're handing out. Yeah Hey - see what you can do for them. They are, after all, constituents of mine, so's we gotta keep up appearances."

[roguevalley]

22. I so hear his voice. LOL! Love this, Plucketeer

[dchill]

76. Thanks for the chuckle!

[tymorial]

6. I'm done with the pissing contest

I will come back when the adults stop acting like adolescents. If I can't because this comment is offensive and causes me a perm ban. So be it. There is far too much childish hate on this site anyway. Peace.

[LW1977]

63. Be careful

Someone might alert you to the jury for calling it a pissing contest

[tymorial]

125. Let them

My comment may violate tos but it doesnt make it any less true.

[LiberalArkie]

81. Acting like adolescents is what keeps us feeling young

[Nihil]

113. And *that* is the goal of that particular hit and run poster ...

Up pops a thread mentioning "Clinton" and there in the first couple of replies
(frequently the first one) is the trolling hit & run disruption to give the rest
of the usual suspects chance to re-group and bury the unwanted subject
matter beneath the standard issue whitewash ...

Another disenchanted Democrat is merely one fewer source of embarrassing questions
in their eyes.

[thesquanderer]

9. Every representative tries to get funding for things that will help his/her state.

It's part of their job.

A non-profit charity is not supposed to funnel business to their friends' for-profit companies. Like the quote in the OP says, “The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests."

Without making any judgement here about whether this particular Clinton Foundation transaction was or was not permissible, at least conceptually, I assume you see the difference between what all politicians are (in part) supposed to be doing, and what a non-profit charity isn't supposed to be doing.

[truedelphi]

12. But, but, but

I thought the Clinton Foundation was about The Children?

[Yo_Mama]

50. Really a totally different issue than possible misuse of charitable funds.

The reason there are strict rules is that otherwise all the rich people/families would not be paying any taxes at all! If you can push charitable funds to for-profit corporations or specific people, then they become just a tax dodge.

[Red Knight]

82. Only Republican corruption appears to bother many Clinton suppoorters

Sad.

They will gladly look away at anything related to her--and that is a shame.

I hope, after they election these same voices won't decry all the corrupt garbage coming from the right.

You can't enable something and then condemn it.

[CarrieLynne]

89. lol THATS your response?

No attempt at spin or defense or denial...just....'look over there!'

[Attorney in Texas]

122. "Bennies?" I think Julie Tauber McMahon was getting something entirely different

[BootinUp]

2. Gee, thanks for bringing us more rw nonsense...

[840high]

17. Hillary brought this to us.

[truedelphi]

26. Thank you for supporting a RW candidate,

Whose main positive quality would be her being the first Woman President of the USA.

[SammyWinstonJack]

65. +1000000

[Omaha Steve]

53. I donated to Scott Kleeb & voted for US Senate, his wife runs a liberal NE group

I'm not happy to see this. He ran for the House and Senate each once.

From the OP: Scott Kleeb, a Democrat who twice ran for Congress from Nebraska

[CoffeeCat]

8. The media really is turning on her

Has anyone else noticed this?

I think someone has lost some major leverage.

And this article is not surprising, to say the least. The Clinton Foundation is a slush fund. So many examples of quid-pro-quo arrangements through their Foundation.

It's time the truth comes out. The Clintons have abused their power in perverted ways. Time for both of them to retire from politics (and fundraising).

[truedelphi]

13. At some type of Univ of Chicago event, Jon Stewart came out against Hillary!

Really took up against her. Claimed she lacks the courage of her convictions, and then Jon added, words to the effect of "But who even knows what her convictions are, or if she has any?"

[840high]

20. He's right.

[roguevalley]

24. I heard him say that if one looked inside her it was debatable that a real person would be inside

[tularetom]

42. Just wait, she may have a "conviction" pretty soon.

[truedelphi]

48. Bwahahah! A priceless remark! n/t

[NJCher]

54. from your mouth to God's ears

It is long overdue.



Cher

[MissDeeds]

59. DUzy!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

67. Hehe.

[CrispyQ]

120. The idea of Slick Willy back in the White House negotiating trade agreements,

almost makes me retch.

And so much for the claim that HRC will have her own administration & govern to the left of Bill & Obama. Like any of us ever believed that.

[CoffeeCat]

121. HA! Who is saying that?

Hillary Clinton is to the right of Obama, for sure.

Furthermore, I anticipate that nearly everything she's said in this primary, will not happen.

I really don't trust anything she says.

What's more is what she doesn't say. So far, silent on Libya, Syria and Iran. You know that she can't wait to get her grubby paws on those countries, so that her neocon buddies can further destroy, destabilize and then move in to further their sick business interests.

There's a reason that she tapped Robert Kagan, the founder of the neocon movement, to be one of her advisers--while she was Secretary of State.

[Cryptoad]

10. Thanks for the update on the RWNJ attack on HRC

so u dont think a private org can work for the benefit of the public? Why am I not surprised

[grasswire]

15. but..

...this "private organization" has only spent ten percent of its revenue on charity. The rest is slush and payola.

[Cryptoad]

19. How much must they spent to be legal?

[roguevalley]

27. they can't work as a non profit with for profit. Seriously. Its the only really big rule and

they can't follow it.

[840high]

23. Clintons put Nixon to shame.

[GoneOffShore]

64. It's WJC-HRC, Inc with the subsidiary of CVC-Mezvinsky, LLC

They're keeping the grift in the family.

[840high]

69. Yes . I posted

some news about Mezinsky and of course it's called right wing smear. lol

[Kittycat]

130. Didn't his hedge company just go under, too?

[RiverNoord]

57. The really troubling part of it all...

is that the article is about the 'Clinton Global Initiative,' which was 'spun off' from the Clinton Foundation in 2009, but was brought back into the Foundation 3 years ago.

There are so many 'Clinton'-named 'initiatives,' some within the Foundation and some that have spun off, that the entire enterprise is very, very difficult to audit or assess.

The Global Initiative has major sponsors like Blackstone (international capital/hedge funds/private equity) and 'Consolidated Contractors Company' (an international construction company). Why do organizations like that pump money into a 'non profit,' seemingly altruistic organization? It's all business. The Clintons have simply become international business facilitators, under the auspices of charity, and have been very successful at it.

Basically, someone comes up with a 'let's promote business development among X people of the X part of the world,' then the 'members' end up getting in touch with all manner of business persons in that part of the world, and then they land some contracts. Or maybe just make the right contacts, then land contracts a couple of years later.

I just don't understand why all of it is worth the work and manipulation. What is it they're really after?

[grasswire]

62. and don't forget that they added a Canadian "charity"...

....and laundered huge fortunes through that too, and claimed that Canada law would not allow the revealing of the names of the donors (which Canada says is not true).

What is it they are after? They've raised three billion dollars, and they have run a rogue foreign policy out of Obama's WH under his nose.

It seems that they intend to garner enough power to rule the world, in de facto ways, using the world's greatest military to get what they want.

[Kittycat]

131. Canada is where his friend and board member Giustra is from.

I'll go out on a limb and say Oil, mining, natural resources, and cheap/repressed labor markets in easy to manipulate developing countries?

[grasswire]

132. yes nt

[senz]

91. Opacity?

[truedelphi]

18. Isn't there not more than a smidge of irony in how

the accusation is supposed to sting us who are true progressives, that we are guilty of making "RW attacks!"

So what if you consider the attacks right wing? Your candidate is as much of a neo con and Right Winger as any other war-supporting, Big Bank Enabling, Sell Out.

And it almost hurts to hear her compared to Nixon, as Nixon rolled back prices and did what he could to hold the banks in check. As much as I hated Nixon at the time, under his administration, great strides were made to protect the environment. Meanwhile the TPP that Clinton supports will disable most environmental regulations we still have here, as it will destroy our sovereignty.

[Cryptoad]

25. u have yet to prove

that a "sting" even existed,,,,,, just make it up as u go?

[truedelphi]

32. First of all, you are mis-using the word "sting"

NO one is suggesting that Sid Blumenthal went in under the direction of the FBI and enticed Ms Clinton to do the things she did. Both Blumenthal and Clinton were acting under their own authority, with no "sting" involved.

Secondly, I don't have to prove anything. That is what we have the various watchdog agencies for. (Including the FBI.) I didn't start following this tragic unfolding of events until weeks after the FBI was involved.

[Cryptoad]

33. Thats why it was in quotes

I didn't use it,,,, geeez

[roguevalley]

28. I hear ya, truedelphi. He created the EPA

[Cassiopeia]

55. Nixon also had just enough integrity to resign

From office and politics when he was caught. A Clinton will never have that.

[left-of-center2012]

11. Imagine what her Wall Street speeches would reveal

[thereismore]

14. Hey, what's a charity for? nt

[LiberalFighter]

29. WSJ is not a reliable source. This article explains-- Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

FactCheck

Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.

Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly.

Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.

[truedelphi]

34. Yet even if this is true,

Doesn't any thinking person have to wonder what the heck Blumenthal and Giustra have to offer the "Charity" known as the Clinton Foundation.

Also, I think Factcheck tries to figure things out, but they are rather naive. Sort of like a ten year old kid back in the 1880's who when asking his grade school teacher if the settlers weren't mean to the Indians, gets told, "Oh but the settlers and US Cavalry were nice to the Indians, giving them warm blankets to help them survive the winter storms." And then the kid accepts that as the whole truth.

[LiberalFighter]

43. It may be FactCheck but sources were from Charity Navigator and Center for Effective Philanthropy

[panader0]

93. Charity Navigator has dropped the Clinton Foundation because of their odd "business model".

[AtomicKitten]

44. It's not true. On 2013 filings, the most recent available ...

Government Watchdog Calls Clinton Foundation A "Slush Fund"

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group once run by leading progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, 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.

<snip>

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/17/1516678/-Government-Watchdog-Calls-Clinton-Foundation-A-Slush-Fund

[Divernan]

104. "Clinton Foundation-veritable clearinghouse for cronyism masquerading as a charity."

If you looked at the U.S. economy under a microscope, what you’d see is a gigantic cancerous blob of cronyism surrounded by tech startups and huge prisons. If you zeroed in on the cancerous tumor, at the nucleus you’d see a network of crony institutions like the Federal Reserve, intelligence agencies, TBTF Wall Street banks and defense contractors. Pretty close to that, you’d probably find the Clinton Foundation. A veritable clearinghouse for cronyism masquerading as a charity.[/blockquote]

We saw it was pay to play triangulation between Hillary's state department, Bill's Clinton Foundation and purchasers (like Saudi Arabia/cluster bombs) of military hardware.

Well, now imagine Bill as President Hillary Clinton's go-to guy for international trade pacts. Baby, we ain't seen nothing yet!

[Divernan]

96. "Facilitating" industrial parks/commercial infrastructure/luxury hotels

is not spending on "charity" in my book. Look at Haiti - it's a classic Clinton playbook. Take one natural disaster in a 3rd world country, approach corporate donors with a plan to exploit slave labor wages from desperate work force, have said corporations make tax deductible donations with promise said $$$ will be used to build up corporate infrastructure including industrial parks, necessary roads & commercial shipping harbor facilities, adequate supply of utilities to said parks, and a luxury, 5 star hotel in which visiting corporate folks can stay while overseeing business operations, including hiring folks for $3.50 per day wages! Oh, and skim a healthy percentage off the top to pay Bill back for "facilitating". Six years later, several hundred thousand Haitians are still living in hovels with no water, electricity or sewage.

You've heard of "Disaster Capitalism"? Well Bill has turned "Disaster Exploitation" into an art form.

[bkkyosemite]

30. Everyday there is something like laundering and other discrepancies going on..with

said candidate.

[truedelphi]

36. And today at Facebook page "Election Fraud: 2016" -- there is the headline that

The vote count for HRC in Baltimore is being de-certified!

[bkkyosemite]

37. de-certified hmmm

[Cryptoad]

35. Big Q is,,,,

why does DU allow right wing attacks of the most likely Democratic Nominee????

[bkkyosemite]

38. She is NOT the nominee!

[Cryptoad]

39. I didnt say she was the nominee ,,,,,

Critical Reading is Critically Fundamental ,,,,,

an RWNJ attack should not be allowed on any likely nominee !

[bkkyosemite]

40. I know what you said but it's been said over and over by HRC supporters here and you

are one of them with that bright red arrow pointing to the right....eww bad Feng Shui.

[truedelphi]

41. Famous Old Wives' Proverb

"Don't Catch Your Chickens Before They are Hatched."

Your "presumptive" candidate is get de-presumpted every minute of the day.

[Cryptoad]

45. I didn't say "presumptive",,,,,

u just making it up as u type...

even older proverb... "never curse the Tide for Coming in"

[Yo_Mama]

52. She isn't the nominee yet, and certainly it is better for negative info/allegations to

be publicized BEFORE she becomes the nominee, rather than after.

[FailureToCommunicate]

58. "Why does DU allow right wing attacks"? Hmmm I wonder. They also allow

you and other Clinton supporters to post any unreasoned or parroting response you may want to post. It's, oh what is it called, an Internet forum.

[Cryptoad]

80. When one has to resort to personal attacks

means they have nothing to say! Its a Democratic Forum,,,,,, nobody should be allowed to post RWNJ attacks of any possible nominee of the Party, much less any likely nominee.

[FailureToCommunicate]

87. Your response is ironic considering you have so many "hides" due to personal attacks!

But hey, I guess I could put you on ignore when I get tired of seeing the same sort of personal attacks you perport to decry.

[Scootaloo]

77. Why is every criticism of Clinton "right wing"

Why can the Clintons not bear any responsibility for themselves or their organizations?

[Hoyt]

46. Were the companies qualified and do quality work? Anything else is BS.

[RiverNoord]

47. No Way!

That is so... well, kind of like saying water is wet.

The entire 'Global Initiative' is a front group for the influence peddling of the Clintons and Frank Giustra.

They do just enough altrustic-seeming things to look legit.

What I don't get is the extent to which the Clintons have shown they are willing to go to make all of this stuff happen. Soliciting all that money for so many years, organizing both their 'Foundation' and the 'Global Initiative,' the absurd amount of money they raked in from 'speeches' in 2014... What's it really about? There's no doubt that they've worked their asses off building all of this up - is it just unfettered ambition for power and influence?

If that's not it, I wish someone could explain it to me...

[GoneOffShore]

66. You'd have to get an invite to Davos to find out.

[RiverNoord]

86. Ah, yes.

Davos, where the world's charities frugally gather to carefully squeeze every penny, euro cent, fen, halala, and yen out of their perennially tight budgets to serve the poor, sick and helpless around the world.

Or... throw gala bashes where their donors can see their hard-spent mega-donations put to good use humoring themselves.

Maybe not so much the first one.

[creeksneakers2]

98. They want to go good for the world

That's the only logical explanation.

[OwlinAZ]

128. They want oodles of money

They want to hang with the jet set.
Bill want's to have fun.
Hillary must have attention and admiration 24/7.

[Cassiopeia]

49. In other news, water is still wet.

[RiverNoord]

61. Hm... we both might be really bad builders of metaphors :-)

Or geniuses - I could go that way too.

See my post # 47

[Cassiopeia]

70. I saw that.

I posted first, then read through the comments.

I wonder how the Clinton supporters would answer if this were about any Republican and their "charity"?

[RiverNoord]

90. Crying out for holy vengeance?

But the thing is - I certainly remember being dedicated to people, not all that terribly long ago, to the extent that I absolutely would not entertain any notions that they might not be as good or right as I believed them to be.

It's a human thing.

Now, rather a good deal older and, I hope, a bit wiser, I see people a lot more as they are as compared to how I would like to imagine them to be.

I can't say I blame people for thinking and acting in a predictably human way. The best we can do is try to see things clearly as well as we can and maybe help others see a little less blur around the edges from time to time...

[George II]

51. Faux Clinton bashing.....

[greiner3]

60. I don't understand your choice of singers

Sonny was a mean sob who abused Cher and was as 'right' as they come

[Art_from_Ark]

73. Sonny ended up being a right-wing Congressman from Palm Springs

I was shocked when that happened, because I had always assumed that he was liberal-minded.

[George II]

75. You guys can find something negative about anyone. I guess you didn't see Cher in that video?

[stupidicus]

71. that you can neither dispute nor refute

except with a stupid vid that has nothing to do with the material you're dodging

[George II]

74. Dispute or refute fiction?

[stupidicus]

88. you declaring it fiction fits your MO of extensive hollow declaration use

which appears to be your ONLY discernable strong suit that the laughing/rolling emoticon defense only validates

[Uncle Joe]

56. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Halliburton.

[MsInformed]

78. A GOP contract?

Seems like is sowed some nice rancor.

[GoneOffShore]

68. Can't get behind the paywall.

Kind of like reading HRC's speech transcripts.

[stupidicus]

72. wholly unsurprising, like this

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-abandoned-secure-line-to-use-home-phone-new-email-shows/ar-BBsZumZ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=SL5ADHP

[Thinkingabout]

79. Does this mean Sanders should return the $10,000 contribution Hillary raised and donated to

Sanders campaign when he ran for Senator?

[silvershadow]

83. k&R nt

[MsInformed]

84. It really seems like they ( Energy Pioneer Solutions Inc.) were doing good stuff

The company, whose business plan was to insulate people’s homes and let them pay via their utility bills, received an $812,000 Energy Department grant.

Many folks want to upgrade and never would be able to finance it. I think it's a good thing to facilitate this sort of endeavor even if someone is making a profit.

[leveymg]

85. bookmarked

[warrprayer]

92. Kick

Rec

[Amimnoch]

94. And in other news..

Planned Parenthood purchases medical supplies and medications from big Pharma!

The Jimmy Carter Habitat for Humanity purchases building supplies, and probably from people they know and are somehow connected with that makes a profit!

The cancer research institute purchases medical supplies and medications from big Pharma as well!

Oh, we're not actually using right wing talking points to attack progressive charities now?

Produce something that shows the foundation paid outside the standard range of charges for supplies/services.. You have a point. Otherwise this is ridiculous at the least.

What has the Bernie Sanders foundation done to help make the world a better place again?

[IdaBriggs]

95. $140M in - $9M out -- sign me up for that scam (um, "charity"), please! nt

[Divernan]

97. Private jets/5star hotels/posh international soirees

It's a hard knock life (not!) for Bill & his corporate donor buddies.

And speaking of private jets, no doubt the GOP has chapter and verse, plus photos, documenting Bill's 12 trips on the Lolita Express.

[fleabiscuit]

99. Perhaps we can see 30 years of tax form from all the candidates.

Lets check the charitable contributions and income that way. Wouldn't want to lie to Uncle Sam, voters good though.

[beastie boy]

100. The Clinton Global Initiative is NOT a charity organization.

Nor is it a grant giving organization.

Trust Rupert Murdoch to not intentionally misrepresent stuff.

[nc4bo]

107. Saw this on the network news this morning... oh dear!

Surprised it managed to bubble up out of the bog of baggage

Drippity Drip Drip.

Good news.....it's not too late to change course

[GoneOffShore]

112. And a kick for this.

[xloadiex]

126. Wow interesting

info on Julie Tauber McMahon.

[forest444]

127. She's every Republican's dream Democratic nominee.

Her only hope is a third-party right-wing run by someone like Robmey or Ben Sasse.

Without that the Rethugs could nominate Larry Craig, and he'd probably beat her.

[trudyco]

129. One degree of separation?

So Clinton Foundation is a Charity and supposedly spends 88% of its funding on in-house projects. But I'm reading the number one project is the clinton library and number two is giving money to CGI?

CGI is a non-profit that isn't a charity. It spends money throwing glitzy events and conventions where rich people talk about helping the poor. They don't do, they just talk. Clintons and friends get free trips going around the world do this. Then CGI decides to give first 2 million but then ultimately 500K to the energizer's company. Not only is Clinton's purported mistress 29% owner, 5% is owned by Huma Abedin's husband, Mr. Weiner (of the selfie daddy parts fame?). And the Clintons persuaded the energy department to also give the fledgling company a nearly million dollar grant? They first listed the person they had donate the 500K as a donor to CGI or the Clinton Foundation but later took it off the books - maybe because they knew it was illegal?

Yipes. I feel like Alice in Wonderland.