[RealJustme]

Talk about a slush fund filled with corruption. The Happy Hearts Fund is a charity the Clinton Foundation lists as one their money goes to, which in turn returns the money in "honorarium" to the Clintons. The former head of the charity exposed the money laundering and now is being sued by the Clintons (through the charity) claiming she had breached a confidentiality agreement. Where is the DOJ?

EXCLUSIVE: A former charity executive who helped expose a questionable $500,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation is now being threatened by her old bosses with a lawsuit seeking tens of thousands of dollars, FoxNews.com has learned.

Sue Veres Royal, former executive director at the Happy Hearts Fund, was initially quoted in a May 29 New York Times article that said the charity lured Bill Clinton to a 2014 gala only after offering a $500,000 donation to The Clinton Foundation. His office previously had turned down the charity's invitations, but this time he accepted; the accompanying donation amounted to almost a quarter of the gala's net proceeds.

Veres Royal, who spoke to FoxNews.com about the fallout from that report, is now embroiled in a legal battle with the charity. She filed a formal complaint June 4 with the New York attorney general's Charities Bureau, as the charity itself threatened her with legal action for allegedly breaking her confidentiality agreement.

The Times report gave several behind-the-scenes details, including that founder Petra Nemcova explicitly told Veres Royal to offer the $500,000 "honorarium"

[johnforbes]

Clearly, the Clinton Foundation was a shakedown operation.

The FBI should have seized Hillary's server long ago, which surely had secret info on it because a Sec of State deals daily with classified material.

Also, the server could have shed light on the lies told about Benghazi.

But...the DoJ under Holder, and probably under Lynch as well, doesn't seem to care about potential lawbreaking by Democrats.

[sillydaddy]

Petra asked Bubba to speak at the Happy Heart fundraiser for free.....

I'm thinking Bubba then asked Petra if she could "sweeten" the deal.....

Petra said no and so Bubba figured he was going to fuck her one way or another.

He told her he wouldn't do it free but would for $500K ..

and so she would say yes...he told her he would return it as donation.

He took the money put in his pocket and taught her a lesson...

and that lesson being....bitches don't say no to Bubba.


That's the way I figure it went down......or not !

[snakeoil]

"Schweizer: Clinton Foundation Keeps 90 Percent Of Foundation Money "For Themselves" Peter Schweizer, whose book Clinton Cash has been criticized for numerous errors and for reading "like a hatchet job," is now claiming the Clinton Foundation gives just "10 percent" of its budget "to other charitable organizations, the rest they keep for themselves." But Schweizer's cherry-picked statistic is so deceptive that even Fox News called it "incredibly misleading."

During a recent appearance with radio host Bill Bennett, Schweizer attacked the Clinton Foundation for giving the impression that they do "hands-on" work in developing countries when "they only give about 10 percent of their income to other charitable groups." Bennett replied with shock, asking Schweizer: "You're telling me 10 percent goes to the recipients?" Schweizer replied: "Yeah, 10 percent is what they give to other charitable organizations, the rest they keep for themselves."

http://politicalconundrum.lefora.com/re ... arity-Rest" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Intrepid]

When Schweizer was exposing Republican malfeasance be was the darling of the left. Now that he's turned his attention on the Clinton outfit he'd better watch his six.
Dead men tell no tales, but serve as a warning to others.

[RealJustme]

Clinton Foundation Keeps 90 Percent Of Foundation Money "For Themselves"

When you have Bubba charging 500K to speak at a charity he supports I'm surprised even 10% of the money donated actually makes it to people it was intended for.

[johnforbes]

Years ago, maybe 15 years ago, there was an article exposing United Way.

The head of that "charity" got a total compensation package of about 600k, and the article showed that enormous percentages of "charity" money doesn't go to the purported recipients, but is spent on advertising, salary, new computers, nice offices, etc.

[RealJustme]

the article showed that enormous percentages of "charity" money doesn't go to the purported recipients, but is spent on advertising, salary, new computers, nice offices, etc.

The Clintons topped that, Chelsea Clinton, Vice Chair of the Clinton Foundation, who's 'job" is to drive the vision and work of the foundation (???) moved into a $10 million dollar NYC apartment paid for by the foundation since they felt it essential that the vision and work driver lived close to the foundation's HQ's. Where's the DOJ?

Oh were you aware Chelsea Clinton gave a tear jerking interview on MSNBC where she declared she works to help others and money means nothing to her, after which she went back to her $10 million dollar donor paid apartment where their chef made dinner for her and her Wall Street hedge fund manager husband.

[Malcolm]

How Bill Clinton slashed social welfare

Bill Clinton and his right wing Democratic allies launched a major attack on social welfare in the mid-1990s. Here are some of the results:

Center on Budget & Policy Priorities As conservative policymakers advocate for changes in the nation's safety net in the coming years, they may tout the "success" of the 1996 welfare reform. The reality, however, is that welfare reform is not the success that some proclaim. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, which was the cornerstone of the 1996 reforms, provides a temporary safety net to few families who are poor and may have no other means to meet their family's basic needs. This is a weaker safety net: welfare reform has put poor families -- and especially their children -- at risk of much greater hardship with the potential for long-term negative consequences, and TANF does little to connect families to work.

In 2013, for every 100 families in poverty, only 26 received cash benefits from TANF. This is down from the 68 families for every 100 in poverty that received cash assistance when TANF was first enacted in 1996. This ratio, which we call the TANF-to-poverty ratio, has declined nearly every year since 1996 and reached its low point of 25 in 2012.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/family-inc ... safety-net

[johnforbes]

Didn't Obama weaken the work requirement for welfare?

What concerns me is the big picture, with California about to provide medical care to illegal immigrants along with driving licenses and in-state tuition.

So illegals have the main benefits of citizenship without having to pay taxes or obey the law.

[Clownkicker]

"So illegals have the main benefits of citizenship without having to pay taxes..."-johnforbes

So what taxes don't they pay, johnny?
If they pay rent, they're paying property taxes.
If the buy clothes, they pay sales taxes.
If they drive, they pay gas taxes.
Yada, yada, yada, dimwit. I haven't heard of this "law abiding citizen tax" that they are supposedly avoiding.

"Death and taxes" johnny.
How does someone with an Ivy League education produce such a stupid comment?

[johnforbes]

Even by the low standards of Clowndumber's 82 years on this forum, his latest offering is awful.

Illegal immigrants are not "undocumented." They have many documents -- fake and stolen ones.

Illegal immigrants don't, by and large, file income tax returns unless they are cheating on tax credits.

Sure, some taxes are embedded in the prices of food, gas, clothing, and rent, so illegals inadvertently pay those.

Which, of course, doesn't make ILLEGAL immigrants legal.

But which does make Clownslacker dumb.

[Clownkicker]

"Illegal immigrants are not "undocumented." They have many documents -- fake and stolen ones.'-johnforbes
"Which, of course, doesn't make ILLEGAL immigrants legal"-johnforbes

Nobody argued it did, dimwit. Get your panties out of you ass crack and talk about something relevant here.
Why are you so upset about this "undocumented" red herring that I didn't even mention?
It's called a knee-jerk reaction, johnny. That's exactly what makes you a reactionary.
It's an automatic droning that you turn on in order to avoid actual thought. You can't argue against what I actually say so you set up a straw man that has nothing to do with my point.

"Sure, some taxes are embedded in the prices of food, gas, clothing, and rent, so illegals inadvertently pay those."-johnforbes

So now you admit that they DO pay taxes and your comment was just plain stupid. Well, that's a rare bit of honesty on your part.
But "some taxes"? "inadvertantly"?
Even when you're being honest you still have to be dishonest about it. MOST taxes most people pay are automatic and unavoidable.
As if you go down to the store in order to "intentionally" pay some taxes?
Like you bought your house in order to "intentionally" pay property taxes?
Is there no limit to your intellectual dishonesty, johnny? "inadvertantly" :lol:

So what really puts the burr in your sock is that they don't universally pay Federal income tax? Is that it, johnny?
And what would it take to make that a reality? You're against the very thing that would get them to pay Federal income tax. And then you whine about the unavoidable implications of your position.
(They already pay many Federal taxes like with their phone bills and internet service.)

You were talking about all the "benefits" they will get that just piss you off, like a "driving license" (that's a "benefit"? It's a requirement that has nothing to do with Federal taxes, except that it allows them to drive and pay the Federal gas tax. Having a drivers license doesn't benefit ME, dummy, it benefits everyone else.) Or "in-state tuition" which has nothing to do with the Federal taxes either.

So other than Federal income tax, what taxes don't they pay that has you so upset that you would come out with such an idiotic statement that they don't have to pay taxes? There must be more than just one.

[RealJustme]

"Sure, some taxes are embedded in the prices of food, gas, clothing, and rent, so illegals inadvertently pay those."-

That's where 100% of our taxes should be raised, that way EVERYONE inadvertently pays their fair share. The system now has over 75,000 pages of how to avoid taxes and then there are those who just make up their own tax rules like Sharpton and simply refuse to pay. If taxes were based upon consumption, the Sharptons in the world would either be forced to pay their fair share of taxes or starve.

[johnforbes]

A driving license is, of course, a document used to identify and render legitimate a person.

It is, of course, insane to issue a driving license to an ILLEGAL immigrant.