Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)

[CNS]

I read yesterday that Trump hasn't donated to his own foundation since 2008. 

[sonofdaxjones]

Of course now comes the political targeting.   The FBI field offices try to investigate the CF 3 times, and the highly partisan Justice Department squashes every investigation.   When the FBI or AG investigations come at Trump, they won't be stopped, of course.

[ChiComCat]

Speaking of partisan, the Republicans investigated Benghazi 8 times and came up with nothing.  This includes bipartisan groups and Republican groups doing the investigating.  I'm sorry if I don't take these investigations seriously.

[sonofdaxjones]

Speaking of partisan, the Republicans investigated Benghazi 8 times and came up with nothing.  This includes bipartisan groups and Republican groups doing the investigating.  I'm sorry if I don't take these investigations seriously.

If there's one thing we've learned about Congressional investigations historically is that hey are great tests of whether any malfeasance, impropriety or negligence took place.   

Political entities are going to do everything they can to protect themselves when they were engaged in arms smuggling operations, and it's particularly bad when they overthrow a government and then shipped their arms to other bad guys. 

[MakeItRain]

I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.

??? Isn't the Trump Foundation older than that

Hillary Clinton has essentially been running for president for 10 years, the CF just produced enough information to be rated in the last year.

Right, I get that. What I'm asking you is why the Trump Foundation hasn't done the same and why don't you seem to care. Unless you think all charities should work in the shadows until their CEO has a decade long presidential campaign, your criticism here seems to be hypocritical.

[sonofdaxjones]

I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.

??? Isn't the Trump Foundation older than that

Hillary Clinton has essentially been running for president for 10 years, the CF just produced enough information to be rated in the last year.

Right, I get that. What I'm asking you is why the Trump Foundation hasn't done the same and why don't you seem to care. Unless you think all charities should work in the shadows until their CEO has a decade long presidential campaign, your criticism here seems to be hypocritical.

Trump should, if there's impropriety, bust the guy.   It's also a bit hypocritical to make these demands, when by and large Hilbots either completely ignore or simply don't care that the CF reeks of impropriety.    I'll have to find the article, but they were talking with Charity Navigator about why they hadn't rated CF (until recently) and the reasons given would even have dimwitted Hilbots thinking money laundering and ponzi scheme (and the writer went out of the way to make it clear the Charity Navigator was remaining neutral and passing no judgement on the structure, where Charity Navigator dinged the CF was for lack of full financial disclosure, for years). 

[MakeItRain]

I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.

??? Isn't the Trump Foundation older than that

Hillary Clinton has essentially been running for president for 10 years, the CF just produced enough information to be rated in the last year.

Right, I get that. What I'm asking you is why the Trump Foundation hasn't done the same and why don't you seem to care. Unless you think all charities should work in the shadows until their CEO has a decade long presidential campaign, your criticism here seems to be hypocritical.

Trump should, if there's impropriety, bust the guy.   It's also a bit hypocritical to make these demands, when by and large Hilbots either completely ignore or simply don't care that the CF reeks of impropriety.    I'll have to find the article, but they were talking with Charity Navigator about why they hadn't rated CF (until recently) and the reasons given would even have dimwitted Hilbots thinking money laundering and ponzi scheme (and the writer went out of the way to make it clear the Charity Navigator was remaining neutral and passing no judgement on the structure, where Charity Navigator dinged the CF was for lack of full financial disclosure, for years).

I don't think anyone on here is rushing to give cash to the Clinton Foundation. We are having this conversation because it seemed as if you were using past shadiness by the CF to justify current shadiness by the TF.

[sonofdaxjones]

I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.

??? Isn't the Trump Foundation older than that

Hillary Clinton has essentially been running for president for 10 years, the CF just produced enough information to be rated in the last year.

Right, I get that. What I'm asking you is why the Trump Foundation hasn't done the same and why don't you seem to care. Unless you think all charities should work in the shadows until their CEO has a decade long presidential campaign, your criticism here seems to be hypocritical.

Trump should, if there's impropriety, bust the guy.   It's also a bit hypocritical to make these demands, when by and large Hilbots either completely ignore or simply don't care that the CF reeks of impropriety.    I'll have to find the article, but they were talking with Charity Navigator about why they hadn't rated CF (until recently) and the reasons given would even have dimwitted Hilbots thinking money laundering and ponzi scheme (and the writer went out of the way to make it clear the Charity Navigator was remaining neutral and passing no judgement on the structure, where Charity Navigator dinged the CF was for lack of full financial disclosure, for years).

I don't think anyone on here is rushing to give cash to the Clinton Foundation. We are having this conversation because it seemed as if you were using past shadiness by the CF to justify current shadiness by the TF.

What does that have to do with anything?  Yet you always say stuff like that.   It's just weird.

[MakeItRain]

I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.

??? Isn't the Trump Foundation older than that

Hillary Clinton has essentially been running for president for 10 years, the CF just produced enough information to be rated in the last year.

Right, I get that. What I'm asking you is why the Trump Foundation hasn't done the same and why don't you seem to care. Unless you think all charities should work in the shadows until their CEO has a decade long presidential campaign, your criticism here seems to be hypocritical.

Trump should, if there's impropriety, bust the guy.   It's also a bit hypocritical to make these demands, when by and large Hilbots either completely ignore or simply don't care that the CF reeks of impropriety.    I'll have to find the article, but they were talking with Charity Navigator about why they hadn't rated CF (until recently) and the reasons given would even have dimwitted Hilbots thinking money laundering and ponzi scheme (and the writer went out of the way to make it clear the Charity Navigator was remaining neutral and passing no judgement on the structure, where Charity Navigator dinged the CF was for lack of full financial disclosure, for years).

I don't think anyone on here is rushing to give cash to the Clinton Foundation. We are having this conversation because it seemed as if you were using past shadiness by the CF to justify current shadiness by the TF.

What does that have to do with anything?  Yet you always say stuff like that.   It's just weird.

Because you're preaching to us about the CF as if someone here is about to turn over our kid's college fund to them. The conversation was about the TF and you started ranting about the Clintons. You always say stuff like that. It's just weird.

[sonofdaxjones]

I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.

??? Isn't the Trump Foundation older than that

Hillary Clinton has essentially been running for president for 10 years, the CF just produced enough information to be rated in the last year.

Right, I get that. What I'm asking you is why the Trump Foundation hasn't done the same and why don't you seem to care. Unless you think all charities should work in the shadows until their CEO has a decade long presidential campaign, your criticism here seems to be hypocritical.

Trump should, if there's impropriety, bust the guy.   It's also a bit hypocritical to make these demands, when by and large Hilbots either completely ignore or simply don't care that the CF reeks of impropriety.    I'll have to find the article, but they were talking with Charity Navigator about why they hadn't rated CF (until recently) and the reasons given would even have dimwitted Hilbots thinking money laundering and ponzi scheme (and the writer went out of the way to make it clear the Charity Navigator was remaining neutral and passing no judgement on the structure, where Charity Navigator dinged the CF was for lack of full financial disclosure, for years).

I don't think anyone on here is rushing to give cash to the Clinton Foundation. We are having this conversation because it seemed as if you were using past shadiness by the CF to justify current shadiness by the TF.

What does that have to do with anything?  Yet you always say stuff like that.   It's just weird.

Because you're preaching to us about the CF as if someone here is about to turn over our kid's college fund to them. The conversation was about the TF and you started ranting about the Clintons. You always say stuff like that. It's just weird.

Preaching?      To you guys?   

[stunted]

facts

[steve dave]

Milton R. Wolf (born 1971) is an American physician. He is a Tea Party movement-aligned activist who ran against incumbent Kansas U.S. Senator Pat Roberts for the Republican Party nomination in the 2014 United States Senate election. On August 5, 2014, Wolf was defeated by Roberts, but held him under fifty percent.[1] The final percentages were Roberts 48% and Wolf 41%.[2]

ok dr

[catastrophe]

But is he wrong??!!

[Rage Against the McKee]

Milton R. Wolf (born 1971) is an American physician. He is a Tea Party movement-aligned activist who ran against incumbent Kansas U.S. Senator Pat Roberts for the Republican Party nomination in the 2014 United States Senate election. On August 5, 2014, Wolf was defeated by Roberts, but held him under fifty percent.[1] The final percentages were Roberts 48% and Wolf 41%.[2]

ok dr

  Nice moral victory there.

[sonofdaxjones]

https://www.yelp.com/biz/metrocare-home-services-new-york

 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Is this parody of real? Says Team Clinton is committing systemic credit card fraud against its donors. http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.

The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

“We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department told the Observer. The source claims that the Clinton campaign has been pulling this stunt since Spring of this year. The Hillary for America campaign will overcharge small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. However, the Clinton campaign strategically doesn’t overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud.

“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we don’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they’ll stop the charges just below $100. We’ll see her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.” The source, who has worked for Wells Fargo for over 10 years, said that the total amount they refund customers on a daily basis who have been overcharged by Clinton’s campaign “varies” but the bank usually issues refunds that total between $700 and $1200 per day.

But Trump said mean things about illegal immigrants, so I guess he's just as bad as Clinton deliberately stealing from her supporters.

[CNS]

Garbage human being

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

One of the true Despicables.

SMDH


Sad

[Kat Kid]

Let's wait for some actual reporting on the Clinton thing instead of a single anonymous source.  If it is true, it will be an enormous scandal, but it is an unsourced allegation.

In the meantime...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/exclusive-trump-didn-post-9-11-funds-helping-people-article-1.2786879

[sonofdaxjones]

Now a shot of the Haitian protesters at CF HDQTRS.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

At this point, Camp Clinton's credibility is such crap that she could host a press conference declaring the sky is blue, and public opinion concerning the color of the sky would plummit 60%.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Zomg I should have read further into the article. I missed the best part!

The source said that pornography companies often deploy a similar arrangement pull. “We see this same scheme with a lot of seedy porn companies,” the source said. The source also notes that the dozens of phone calls his department receives daily are from people who notice the fraudulent charges on their statements. “The people who call us are just the ones who catch the fraudulent charges. I can’t imagine how many more people are getting overcharged by Hillary’s campaign and they have no idea.”

Clinton Fundraising = Seedy Porn Company

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://www.kare11.com/mb/news/investigations/kare-11-investigates-unauthorized-charges-by-clinton-campaign/229158541

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/15/clinton_talks_to_press_after_illness_asked_what_she_watched_while_she_was_on_bedrest_for_pneumonia.html

Talk about a hard-hitting press conference. They're so pathetically sycophantic, we're going to need a new word that hasn't been invented yet to describe the MSM's adoration for Hillary Clinton.

[star seed 7]

Chill out dude