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.

 

96 Percent Of Hillary’s Charitable Donations In 2015 Went To Clinton Foundation

page: 4
71
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Edumakated

It does not appear to be a slush fund. It appears they are a 'boots on the ground' foundation that does the charity work themselves and does not simply give money away and hope something gets done.



I have seen plenty of links and citations in this thread, but not one from you to support any statement you have made.
Why is that?




posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
All of my Charitable Spending is for my own non-profit.

This is quite normal.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ezramullins

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Edumakated

It does not appear to be a slush fund. It appears they are a 'boots on the ground' foundation that does the charity work themselves and does not simply give money away and hope something gets done.



I have seen plenty of links and citations in this thread, but not one from you to support any statement you have made.
Why is that?


If you prefer a link to peruse, here ya go:

www.factcheck.org...



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Sounds like they are trying to dodge taxes. Hell though, if I had a foundation and wanted to attribute funds to charity, I would probably use my own foundation. Now, will Trump release his tax info? Doubtful.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MrThortan

I don't know about his taxes, but apparently we do know a bit about his charity.


How miserly is The Donald?

From 1990 through 2009, Trump has personally donated a total of just $3.7 million to his foundation, which was incorporated in 1987. In fact, the billionaire is not even the largest contributor to his own charitable organization.

Tax returns show that World Wrestling Entertainment has given Trump’s foundation a total of $5 million in return for the developer’s assistance in working a couple of televised angles along with WWE boss Vince McMahon. The WWE gave Trump’s foundation $4 million in 2007 for his help in promoting that year’s WrestleMania festivities, and another $1 million in 2009, when Trump (pictured below with McMahon) pretended to purchase part of the WWE empire.

The real estate titan’s foundation has also banked $205,000 from media outlets and supermarket tabloids in return for exclusive photos (People magazine, for example, paid the foundation $150,000 in 2006 for the first shots of Trump’s newborn son Barron).

During the past two decades, the Trump foundation has made charitable contributions totaling a paltry $6.7 million.


newsexaminer.net...



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
So what? At least they released their tax returns so we could see that. So when will the orange messiah release his tax returns so we can see how much he donates to his own slush fund I mean Trump charities.



So all this time she and everyone were screaming for Trumps returns, hillary didn't have hers out?!!?

LOL!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

She use a short form?




posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ezramullins

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Edumakated

It does not appear to be a slush fund. It appears they are a 'boots on the ground' foundation that does the charity work themselves and does not simply give money away and hope something gets done.



I have seen plenty of links and citations in this thread, but not one from you to support any statement you have made.
Why is that?


If you prefer a link to peruse, here ya go:

www.factcheck.org...






Thank you. It makes for a better debate to have some sort of proof to back up ones claims.
However, upon a limited perusal factcheck.org does not seem to be judging facts from a neutral perspective.
I could be wrong. I only read a few pages of their archives.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
It appears they are a 'boots on the ground' foundation that does the charity work themselves and does not simply give money away and hope something gets done.


Boots on the ground eh?

Tell that to Haiti. Nothing got done...and no one to blame
except The Clinton's. Just one example of many....



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: introvert
It appears they are a 'boots on the ground' foundation that does the charity work themselves and does not simply give money away and hope something gets done.


Boots on the ground eh?

Tell that to Haiti. Nothing got done...and no one to blame
except The Clinton's. Just one example of many....





Yes, boots on the ground. They do not simply take money and then send it to people that will do the dirty work. They coordinate and employ the people needed to do the dirty work themselves.

As far as Haiti, I'll have to look as to what happened there. As always, I'm sure there is a lot more context involved than you are giving me.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ezramullins

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ezramullins

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Edumakated

It does not appear to be a slush fund. It appears they are a 'boots on the ground' foundation that does the charity work themselves and does not simply give money away and hope something gets done.



I have seen plenty of links and citations in this thread, but not one from you to support any statement you have made.
Why is that?


If you prefer a link to peruse, here ya go:

www.factcheck.org...






Thank you. It makes for a better debate to have some sort of proof to back up ones claims.
However, upon a limited perusal factcheck.org does not seem to be judging facts from a neutral perspective.
I could be wrong. I only read a few pages of their archives.


The perspective one comes from is often dictated by the facts they use. Can you refute the facts they have provided?



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
They do not simply take money and then send it to people that will do the dirty work.



According to their own records, they might send 10% for charity work...
They keep the rest to pay themselves, extravagant travel expenses, etc...


As far as Haiti, I'll have to look as to what happened there. As always, I'm sure there is a lot more context involved than you are giving me.


The Clinton Foundation Robbery of Haiti

Missed that thread did ya?
You posted in it?



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships



According to their own records, they might send 10% for charity work... They keep the rest to pay themselves, extravagant travel expenses, etc...


Because the CF does the dirty work. They pay to send people and resources to where they need to be.



Missed that thread did ya? You posted in it?


No, I did not. I will check it out though.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Because the CF does the dirty work


They sure do, everything they do is dirty.


They pay to send people and resources to where they need to be.


They did not send the collected funds to Haiti, so what did they
do with all of the money they took from other people who
donated to Haiti to rebuild after the earthquake?

A home in D.C perhaps?

Several of their close, very close money washing crony friends
are under FBI investigation, and some charged already.

Take your time, you can not help them, it is too late.





edit on 12-8-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships



They sure do, everything they do is dirty.


Hyperbole. If that was even remotely true, we would have some convictions in court.



They did not send the collected funds to Haiti


I still have to look in to that issue. Forgive me if I am not willing to knee-jerk and outrage about something I am not informed on.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

Hyperbole. If that was even remotely true, we would have some convictions in court.



FBI arrests Clinton associate

Corruption Conviction for
another Clinton Crony


And ..oh, dear what is this?

Clinton Top Rainmaker Snared in Fed Sting

Terry McAulliffe under FBI investigation, related to DNC fundraising.



I still have to look in to that issue.


Don't let the facts slow ya down LOL.


edit on 12-8-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

You said everything they do is dirty. Surely the Clintons could be found guilty of something, right?





Don't let the facts slow ya down LOL.


We do not share a common definition of the term 'facts'. Again, forgive me if I look in to it before I knee-jerk based on my personal political beliefs.

That's the honest thing to do.
edit on 12-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burntheships

You said everything they do is dirty. Surely the Clintons could be found guilty of something, right?



They day may come when they defend men who rape and beat
a 12 year old girl, they take money from well meaning folks
and buy a third home in D.C, ...purses that equal the annual
food budget of a family ...rather than help the ones donated to.

And when that day comes, and folks celebrate that they have
gotten off Scott Free...then that day is a day to be marked
in American history as a day of tragedy for justice for all.

We are not there yet, so you cant enjoy your one man party.




posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: xuenchen

Is there something illegal about that?

If I had my own charity organization where I knew what causes the money donated to it was being used for, I would donate my own money to that charity as well.

This seems very desperate.


You're kidding, right?

How her supporters are SO jaded is beyond me.

Appears that they are well skilled at money laundering. But that's just my opinion, lol.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck

So skilled at money laundering that lots of people on ATS say they see tons of evidence of it but the IRS doesn't?



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: lovebeck

So skilled at money laundering that lots of people on ATS say they see tons of evidence of it but the IRS doesn't?



"Legality" isn't the issue.

The issue is voter perception and ethics.




new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join