It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

$6 Billion Goes Missing at State Dept (under Hillary Clinton)

page: 4
59
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hmm, so you're saying sloppy not criminal? Then some of the contacts were run down but we're still out $6 billion? Even thought the IG said this exact behavior could lead to fraud. I don't think it's leading to fraud but highlighting it.




posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


Then some of the contacts were run down but we're still out $6 billion?
No. Nothing in the report says we're "out" six billion. In spite of what your title says.


I don't think it's leading to fraud but highlighting it.
Of course you do. But the available information just says that the State Department's management of contract documents is poor. This was not an accounting audit, it was a management audit.

edit on 4/4/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well I just used the title from the linked article and added the obvious (under Hillary.)

Fair enough as far as trusting some people (especially politicos and their departments.) I don't.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Bassago
reply to post by Phage
 


Well I just used the title from the linked article and added the obvious (under Hillary.)

Fair enough as far as trusting some people (especially politicos and their departments.) I don't.


Wise call because one of the things that our government excels at is creating accounting, and creative filing.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


Its gone to shadow gov , black ops



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


For what it is worth "Missing" makes for a sexy headline, but is not actually accurate.

The 6 Billion is attributed to incomplete and missing "contract files"...in a very bureaucratic contract system. they still know who got the money and what work was supposed to be done, they just didn't have all the proper paperwork. If you go to the boring (source) report they explain the same...

oig.state.gov...
edit on 4-4-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   

xuenchen
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge
 


Glad you see it that way.

Sue him.

I think it was part of Clinton's accounting tricks.

But why hasn't Obama cleared this whole thing up?

He's the Prez.



Since you believe Hillary accounting is responsible for the lost money,
Please provide us with a source that indicates Hillary is an accountant. Then we can examine her competency as an accountant and how this created a loss of 6 billion.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Poor project management. Not exactly new for government work. There's probably been way more lost and/or missappropriated that hasn't been identified.

Just using Iraq as an example, lots of companies were (probably still are) double and triple dipping, including things like when the government spends our money to guard private corporations who are also doing work for the government but have added a line item for security and a 200% uptick on cost for risk.

I'm glad they found this and hope they make them account for it. And I hope they find all of this kind of waste and sometimes outright idiocy and even criminality.

ETA: Adding the "(under Hillary Clinton") really necessary? Are you purposely trying to divide people more than they are already divided in this country? On what is pretty much an across the board problem? Think partisan anger is going to fix it faster than unity? I really don't get this compulsion.
edit on 4/4/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


ONLY 6 Billion?

I'd have thought that

she'd have thought that

THAT was the minimum she needed for one of her favorite past times . . . on the taxpayer . . . lesbian orgies at Camp David. Oh, right. Not her turf any more.

Seriously . . . I think she's arrogant enough that she'd consider that her minimum DUE pocket change from "the little people" in her words.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge
 


So what did any of that have to do with CLintons state department losing 6 billion dollars.

? ? ? ?

Intentionally ignore this post ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 4-4-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Yes I ignored that post because the information commits the fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority, since you wanna be strictly logical. My Video of Donald Rumsfeld is verbal testimony given by an expert of the subject mater in question.

And again, if the government did not recover 2.3 trillion dollars that Bush and dick lost, what makes you think they will find 6 billion?

If you'd ever answer my questions maybe you can increase your understanding because you'd be forced to think on some level.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge
 


I was referring to President Clinton in the 1990's (referencing the Pentagon accounting methods).

He used plenty of accounting tricks.

Politicians use accountants because most of them are lawyers.





posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Every department and agency has "off the books" spending. Apparently when things are wrong, maybe illegal, you can't be held accountable for it if it is unaccounted for.

Didn't Donald Rumsfeld have allegedly like a TRILLION missing at one point?



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   

ausername
Every department and agency has "off the books" spending. Apparently when things are wrong, maybe illegal, you can't be held accountable for it if it is unaccounted for.

Didn't Donald Rumsfeld have allegedly like a TRILLION missing at one point?


2.3 trillion.

He announced it on 9/10/2001 and the issue seems to have been forgotten.

I think I would be a better use of energy to find the trillions Bush misplaced because it is 380 times more money.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


Not surprised at all, how many times has money gone "missing"?

I just hope this blows up and hurts Hillary so much she won't run in 2016. Six billion is a small price to pay to get rid of her!

Hillary running in 2016......:shudder:

edit on 4-4-2014 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge
 


I wonder why Rumsfeld made the revelation ?

If he was hiding something (for Bush), why would HE bring it to attention ?

Unless..... he was threatened by ...... ?



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Classic political strategy, when you are aware that your corruption will be exposed, you go public first and you can control the narrative.

Hillary should have been advised to do the same here.

Rumsfeld should have said...We know where the money is, its in Iraq, and east, west, north and south, somewhat.

It's always amazing how gullible apathetic and ignorant people can be when their government leaders and officials speak to them.




posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


I read this earlier today online and was wondering to myself: how many houses could one buy with that kinda ching? If you built a $70,000 house labor included( not a mansion, but roof over ones head) it come out to be 85,714 houses (just making a point). Lost money, wasted money, misplaced records, we really shouldn't have poor people in this country. We really shouldn't have hungry people either. But here we are.
edit on 4-4-2014 by Tarzan the apeman. because: I felt like it.......so there!!!



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

xuenchen
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge
 


I wonder why Rumsfeld made the revelation ?

If he was hiding something (for Bush), why would HE bring it to attention ?

Unless..... he was threatened by ...... ?



Some would wonder why the revelation happened the day before the largest attack on American soil so that attention would be redirected to terrorism, not the missing trillions...



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 




ETA: Adding the "(under Hillary Clinton") really necessary? Are you purposely trying to divide people more than they are already divided in this country?


No, it came from my going to Wiki to verify who was running things at the State Dept. If it was one of Bush's buddies I wanted to make sure to list the correct Sec of State.

Other outlets have picked it up anyway with Hillary in the title. Must have been scoping ATS for their news.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Why isn't the government required to use the Sarbanes and Oxley rules that all Fortune 500 companies are required to use? I guess the laws aren't required to be used by government agencies.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join