Jump to content

Clinton Foundation investigation

bernorange

By bernorange
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

bernorange

bernorange 8359

Posted
Posted
Quote

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said Tuesday that House Republicans plan to hear testimony on Dec. 5 from the prosecutor appointed by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to probe alleged wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation.

Meadows, who is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations, told Hill.TV’s “Rising” that it’s time to “circle back” to U.S. Attorney John Huber’s investigation with the Justice Department into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged any improper activities.

“Mr. Huber with the Department of Justice and FBI has been having an investigation — at least part of his task was to look at the Clinton Foundation and what may or may not have happened as it relates to improper activity with that charitable foundation, so we’ve set a hearing date for December the 5th,” he told Hill.TV during an interview on Wednesday.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/417761-house-gop-to-hold-hearing-into-dojs-probe-of-clinton-foundation

Quote

Feds received whistleblower evidence in 2017 alleging Clinton Foundation wrongdoing

...

More (long):  https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/420131-feds-received-whistleblower-evidence-in-2017-alleging-clinton-foundation

I'm seeing a lot of reports about a Dec. 5th hearing, but I'm not seeing any reports indicating that the hearing actually took place or what transpired there.

 

Also found this while looking for news about the hearing:

Quote

Seven documented examples of when payments to the Clintons and their foundation coincided with political favors

...

https://m.theepochtimes.com/clinton-foundation-pay-to-play-model-under-investigation-infographic_2730887.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

We are nearly 2 years into the dotard admin, with the R’s controlling the oval, house, and senate.  If there was a provable case against Clinton, it would’ve been made some time ago.

First time watching Republicans in charge of anything?  Republicans in charge of government is like Don Beebe in charge of the selection committee for the NCAA basketball tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 37774

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, Longhorn94 said:

i guess the obsession with the clintons continues because they cant find anything on the obamas to feed to their base and distract the public.

Exactly this.

They really need Obama to break out his unpresidential tan suit again. 

At least Trump respects the office enough to go on tv and lie to us in a sharp navy suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89648

Posted
Posted
On 12/7/2018 at 10:27 AM, Longhorn94 said:

i guess the obsession with the clintons continues because they cant find anything on the obamas to feed to their base and distract the public.

Cheeto-in-Chief was stymied by the birther stuff ultimately resulting in nothing and nobody that mattered really caring.

Maybe that's why he thought his folks could engage in all kinds of shenanigans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28776

Posted
Posted

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton Foundation all make their tax returns public. Donald Trump refuses to. 

If you conclude that Trump is clean but the Clintons are dirty then you are seriously one dumb motherfucker. 

They'll never investigate the Clinton Foundation because they know there's nothing there. If they did investigate, they'd come up empty, and it would remove the power of the threat of an investigation as a means to rile up their base of ignorant rubes. They know that. If you don't then you're a sucker.

You probably also thought N. Korea would denuclearize or that there was ever a chance we'd go to war. Try to recognize political theater when you see it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29660

Posted
Posted

https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/donations-to-clinton-foundation-fell-57.8-percent-in-2017

Quote

 

Donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation dropped sharply in 2017, the third consecutive year of declining revenues for the foundation, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports.

According to its 2017 990 tax form, which the foundation provided to the Democrat-Gazette, contributions to the foundation totaled $26.6 million in 2017, down from $62.9 million in 2016, $108.9 million in 2015, and $172.6 million in 2014. The foundation's endowment, which stood at $267,491 at the beginning of 2013 — when the foundation launched a three-year endowment campaign — topped $207 million in 2017, up from $187.2 million in 2016, with most of that increase, $20.4 million, coming from investment gains. The foundation received $3 million in endowment gifts in 2017, and classified $3.7 million in previously committed pledges as uncollectable. It also listed overall revenues of $38.4 million and expenses of $54.6 million, a gap of $16.1 million.

Foundation officials had previously attributed the 2016 drop in revenues to the "closing out" of the endowment campaign, which wrapped up in 2015, as well as fundraising restrictions voluntarily adopted at the start of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign for the presidency.

Indeed, the latest declines were foreseeable, foundation CEO Kevin Thurm said in a letter to donors. With the cancellation of the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting, "we anticipated a decline in both revenue and expenses for 2017, largely attributable to the absence of sponsorship and membership contributions for CGI." 

The foundation also trimmed its headcount from 578 in 2016 to 398 in 2017, its international offices from ten to four, and its spending on overseas activities from $21.5 million to $15.5 million. 

Leslie Lenkowsky, an emeritus professor at Indiana University, said he was "not in the least surprised" by declining revenues at the foundation. Before the 2016 election, "Mrs. Clinton had a chance at becoming president. Since then, she lost. She's likely out of public life. [Bill Clinton's] reputation has been damaged by the fallout of the #MeToo movement, so the organization's not as attractive as it once was," said Lenkowsky. "Success isn't going to be with you all the time, and the endowment will at least give you a bit of a cushion."

At the same time, it's important for the foundation to begin thinking about the long term, said Lenkowsky. "Nonprofits over the years are usually started by people who feel passionate about what they're doing, who are deeply committed to doing it. But such people really need to find a way of institutionalizing their passion and enthusiasm so that when they leave the scene, for whatever reason, there are other people that can pick up and run the foundation efficiently."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deech

deech 2274

Posted
Posted

I guess I'm in the minority in that I am as anti-Dotard as everyone, but also firmly convinced based on the track record of the Clinton's that they without a doubt traded favors for political contributions and likely used the Foundation to do it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89648

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, deech said:

I guess I'm in the minority in that I am as anti-Dotard as everyone, but also firmly convinced based on the track record of the Clinton's that they without a doubt traded favors for political contributions and likely used the Foundation to do it. 

They’re Arkies.  You know they were doing shit under the table and not using some fancy-schmancy foundation. 

Plus, if there was even a whiff of any illegalities hitting the foundation, the Republican Congress would have dived right in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28776

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, deech said:

I guess I'm in the minority in that I am as anti-Dotard as everyone, but also firmly convinced based on the track record of the Clinton's that they without a doubt traded favors for political contributions and likely used the Foundation to do it. 

Obama was president. Not Bill. Not Hillary. What political favors were the Clintons in a position to trade? Why would anyone use a donation to the Clinton Foundation, a transaction that would be public, as a means to influence them anyway? Thanks to Citizens United they could make a donation to a Clinton-aligned Super PAC in complete secrecy to help her get elected as president and then she'd actually be in a position to return the favor. The scenario you describe makes no sense. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, deech said:

I guess I'm in the minority in that I am as anti-Dotard as everyone, but also firmly convinced based on the track record of the Clinton's that they without a doubt traded favors for political contributions and likely used the Foundation to do it. 

If they did, we'd know about it by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mole

Mole 4330

Posted
Posted
On 12/8/2018 at 8:57 AM, EMAWesome said:

First time watching Republicans in charge of anything?  Republicans in charge of government is like Don Beebe in charge of the selection committee for the NCAA basketball tournament.

4fd031e22c59b.image.jpg?resize=400,302

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Obama was president. Not Bill. Not Hillary. What political favors were the Clintons in a position to trade? Why would anyone use a donation to the Clinton Foundation, a transaction that would be public, as a means to influence them anyway? Thanks to Citizens United they could make a donation to a Clinton-aligned Super PAC in complete secrecy to help her get elected as president and then she'd actually be in a position to return the favor. The scenario you describe makes no sense. 

You think the Saudis were donating to the foundation out of the kindness of their hearts?  lol

Edited by Fozzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
happyfunball

happyfunball 481

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

You think the Saudis were donating to the foundation out of the kindness of their hearts?  lol

 

26 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

So are campaign donations.  Just because it's out in the open doesn't mean that it's not meant to (and doesn't in fact) influence.   

So are donations free speech or influence peddling?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

So are campaign donations.  Just because it's out in the open doesn't mean that it's not meant to (and doesn't in fact) influence.   

Which is precisely the problem with the Trump organization. It's the exact opposite of the Clinton organization in terms of transparency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10403

Posted
Posted
We are nearly 2 years into the dotard admin, with the R’s controlling the oval, house, and senate.  If there was a provable case against Clinton, it would’ve been made some time ago.


Most likely true, considering there have been multiple previous investigations of Bill and/or Hillary. But I’m all in favor of an investigation. Just keep taking away arguments from the Trumpkins. Heard enough of them say “I don’t give a damn what the Mueller report says unless it also shows Hillary’s crimes.” Setting aside the idiocy of that, and the clear lack of understanding how prosecutions are conducted, at least its somewhat of a response to those types.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
So are campaign donations.  Just because it's out in the open doesn't mean that it's not meant to (and doesn't in fact) influence.   

Of course it’s intended to influence. Now go read up on the the former Virginia governor’s overturned bribery conviction, and tell me what specific allegation you think could possibly be considered illegal. Buying access is not illegal and has not been for some time. The McDonnell case raised the bar even higher.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UT_EX_82

UT_EX_82 2

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Obama was president. Not Bill. Not Hillary. What political favors were the Clintons in a position to trade? Why would anyone use a donation to the Clinton Foundation, a transaction that would be public, as a means to influence them anyway? Thanks to Citizens United they could make a donation to a Clinton-aligned Super PAC in complete secrecy to help her get elected as president and then she'd actually be in a position to return the favor. The scenario you describe makes no sense. 

It’s called on the “come” in craps terms

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustBecause

JustBecause 112

Posted
Posted
On 12/8/2018 at 8:51 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

DAElB2DVoAAfHCq?format=jpg&name=small

 

The girl in the center is fresh out of law school and helping the House Judiciary draw up articles of impeachment for a criminal president.

Didn’t the girl in the center fresh out of law school also get fired from the House Judicary impeachment committee?

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...