DescentBB

...massive cuts in donations from countries and individuals.

Hmmm. I wonder why?

AUSTRALIA has finally ceased pouring millions of dollars into accounts linked to Hillary Clinton’s charities.
Which might make you wonder: Why were we donating to them in the first place?
The federal government confirmed to news.com.au it has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/ ... 8321234eba

And Norway:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-2 ... lout-dried

Things that make you go...hmmmm.

maybe because a bogus smear campaign affected donations?

callmeslick wrote:maybe because a bogus smear campaign affected donations?

Or they are afraid of getting pulled into a federal grand jury for pay to play. And Bogus? Still trying to protect crooked Hillary I see.

why do you CARE? Why don't you worry a bit about US cybersecurity? Notice that the new pick is running an archaic, leaky, easily hacked site?
Do you really think the rest of us are so stupid as to not see the deflection and smokescreeing in this post?





you can't go on trying to distract from utter incompetence, and clear conflicts of interest by going, "lookee! The evil Clintons" any more. Sorry.

So you dredge up some blogger and you want us to believe what he says is true. Go fish in another pond.

it's at least PERTINENT to reality. You tell me how the claim is wrong. Find what ever you need for sourcing, and tell us Guiliani is in ANY way fit to be handling cybersecurity. Cybersecurity guys I know are laughing at the choice, saying it's akin to your grandfather being in charge of understanding cell phone technology.

Stop acting like fake news is pertinent. Giuliani will have people around him that know the best way to handle cyber security. Problem is you're used to the idiot that handled the Dems cyber security so you think everyone is a idiot.

woodchip wrote:Stop acting like fake news is pertinent

quit calling unpleasant reality(Giuliani is, indeed the appointee, not fake, real) 'fake news'. That is a form of Gaslighting and was a core tactic of the Nazi regime and other totalitarian regimes through history. So were diversion 'news' stories, such as the one you floated in the OP. That has essentially a relevance value of 2 on a scale of 100. I'm sure the Clinton foundation will continue apace, and have ZERO impact on how the US is kept safe in the world. The Guiliani appointment? A bit more.

Yeah, the Foundation is so good that the feds are investigating it to see how the FBI can be improved

gee, not the first politically motivated witchhunt and not the last. Can we both agree this is of FAR less national import than finding out EVERYTHING around what the Russians and certain American citizens were up to during the last few year? Far, far less, to the point of why someone would distract from one, by raising the other, is sort of obvious and sort of sad........

Well I think you have to look at the Chinese while you are at it. And don't forget we are not virgins when it comes to cyber warfare against other countries.

woodchip wrote:Well I think you have to look at the Chinese while you are at it. And don't forget we are not virgins when it comes to cyber warfare against other countries.

Quick, Lookee There!! It's the Chinese, look at them, don't focus with the Orange Buffoon and his wannabe totalitarian buddies who the Russians cultivated for five years. No, look at the Chinese!! And, how about those Clintons, folks? Nothing to see here, move along.

No sense reply to you slick as you are now completely delusional.

Someone with no grasp on reality has absolutely no grounds to label someone else delusional. Or, in a sane world, vote.

So let me sum it up:

The Clinton Foundation is suddenly worthless because it is no longer a conduit to the most powerful people in the most powerful nation in the world.

Favors purchased from a powerless street urchin don't amount to a hill of beans, so why keep buying?

Powerful people using their power for good. BURN THEM!!!

Vander wrote:Powerful people using their power for good

BWAHAHAHA... If you believe that, I a bridge to sell ya.

Nightshade wrote:BWAHAHAHA... If you believe that, I a bridge to sell ya.

In such a hurry you forgot how to write English?

Also, would this be the same bridge you are jumping to conclusions off of?

Not to worry. Hillary will power through this.

The Foundation is feeling the pinch...dozens of staffers being laid off:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/c ... ffs-228443

who the ★■◆● cares? The incoming Pres elect is a Russian puppet, and proveably so by the day, and you're still on the Clinton Foundation?

Yeah because you were all for Hillary Clinton and she would of sold the country out big time...so don't be all sanctimonious.

Nightshade wrote:

Vander wrote:Powerful people using their power for good

BWAHAHAHA... If you believe that, I a bridge to sell ya.

I've yet to see any reporting where the Clinton Foundation has been caught self dealing. As far as I know, their self dealing basically amounts to the foundation being a warehouse to store useful people, giving them a paycheck to do decent work.

woodchip wrote:Yeah because you were all for Hillary Clinton and she would of sold the country out big time...so don't be all sanctimonious.

bull★■◆●, why the smokescreen? We are about to swear in a traitor. And, folks like you are working the diversion front real hard. Why?

this person is not on our side:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tru ... li=BBnb7Kz

great deals!! The best deals!! Who needs NATO?

Vander wrote:

Nightshade wrote:

Vander wrote:Powerful people using their power for good

BWAHAHAHA... If you believe that, I a bridge to sell ya.

I've yet to see any reporting where the Clinton Foundation has been caught self dealing. As far as I know, their self dealing basically amounts to the foundation being a warehouse to store useful people, giving them a paycheck to do decent work.

Lets wait until the Feds complete their investigation before you make such statements.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Yeah because you were all for Hillary Clinton and she would of sold the country out big time...so don't be all sanctimonious.

bull★■◆●, why the smokescreen? We are about to swear in a traitor. And, folks like you are working the diversion front real hard. Why?

The liberal program of de-legitimizing Trump is strong in this one. Trump is not even sworn in and you are calling him a traitor. Try waiting at least until he performs a traitorous act.

where are the taxes? Did the Orange Buffoon promise them after the election? I can see how you tolerate lies better than I but still, don't you wonder a wee bit?

woodchip wrote:Lets wait until the Feds complete their investigation before you make such statements.

wtf? How about lets wait until the feds complete their investigation before screaming "malfeasance" and crying out "lock her up."

I don't remember you questioning the lies Obama told.

callmeslick wrote:it's at least PERTINENT to reality. You tell me how the claim is wrong. Find what ever you need for sourcing, and tell us Guiliani is in ANY way fit to be handling cybersecurity. Cybersecurity guys I know are laughing at the choice, saying it's akin to your grandfather being in charge of understanding cell phone technology.

So once again you post before you know anything. Must be tough no longer having a inside ear as to what's going on:

Jan. 05, 2017 - 4:41 - Fmr. NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Blackberry CEO John Chen talk about their partnership to combat cyber threats during the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

Are your out of the loop friends still laughing?

Rudy Giuliani only knows how to say "a noun, a verb and 9/11" in every damn sentence. He's so fixated on security that the man would infringe upon everyone's freedoms in this country in order to protect us like a hovering father, just like he did to New Yorker's with the New York Police Department. I've got a perfect job for him. He can oversee security for Trump Tower. It's in New York and it's his bailiwick. He can stay there.

woodchip wrote:I don't remember you questioning the lies Obama told.

Yeah, and I don't hear you questioning Trump's lies and I think Trump has far exceeded Obama in the lying race.

I can only imagine why a country would give money to a charity, when they already have the infrastructure in place to use the money more efficiently.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:I don't remember you questioning the lies Obama told.

Yeah, and I don't hear you questioning Trump's lies and I think Trump has far exceeded Obama in the lying race.

no competition. Within 5 minutes of Inauguration, Trump will have violated more ethics laws than the entire Obama administation in 8 years.

Spidey wrote:I can only imagine why a country would give money to a charity, when they already have the infrastructure in place to use the money more efficiently.

maybe so, maybe not. Imagine away.

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:I don't remember you questioning the lies Obama told.

Yeah, and I don't hear you questioning Trump's lies and I think Trump has far exceeded Obama in the lying race.

no competition. Within 5 minutes of Inauguration, Trump will have violated more ethics laws than the entire Obama administation in 8 years.

I bet each night you look under your bed to see if Trump is under there.

Vander wrote:

Nightshade wrote:

Vander wrote:Powerful people using their power for good

BWAHAHAHA... If you believe that, I a bridge to sell ya.

I've yet to see any reporting where the Clinton Foundation has been caught self dealing. As far as I know, their self dealing basically amounts to the foundation being a warehouse to store useful people, giving them a paycheck to do decent work.

And lets throw this in the mix:

Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:I don't remember you questioning the lies Obama told.

Yeah, and I don't hear you questioning Trump's lies and I think Trump has far exceeded Obama in the lying race.

no competition. Within 5 minutes of Inauguration, Trump will have violated more ethics laws than the entire Obama administation in 8 years.

Why not? Trump is already violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. He's got a head start. And yes woody, Clinton would have been in the same boat with her Foundation.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the- ... d-j-trump/

woodchip wrote:And lets throw this in the mix:

Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”

As one might expect from an organization that is actually doing the work themselves? They're not taking in donations and turning around a donating it to some other organization that fights malaria, for example. They're taking in donations, and hiring people to go out and fight malaria! How suspicious!

Riddle me this, Batman: How much have the Clinton's profited from their Foundation? Have they used Foundation money for any personal expenses? Paying off the mortgage perhaps? Is there any recorded occurrence of something like this happening?