The Clinton's Shake Down, No Limit To Their Money Grubbing

As the old Limbo song asked......"how low can you go"?

Apparently, the Clintons don't know, because once you think they have reached a new low, they go lower.

http://nypost.com/2015/05/29/clinton...odels-charity/

Just read the link. It's not that long.

Of course, we all know, it's just "the Clintons being the Clintons"

That's what he charges to give a speech. You begrudging him the money, now? Capitalism at its finest.

Yes. While Hillary is giving speeches condemning heads of corporations for making multitude of times more than the average worker, she and Bill get a quarter million dollars+ for doing nothing but showing up.

While in the meantime hiding behind that bogus Clinton Foundation that gives a whopping 12 percent of every dollar taken in to a true charitable cause.

But then, that is what lyin, sacks of shit Demagogus do best.

The chrome is starting to peel off of the bumper of the "clinton machine". The instant "Pocahontas" decides the time is right, Hillary will be dropped like a turd headed to the septic tank.

Yes. While Hillary is giving speeches condemning heads of corporations for making multitude of times more than the average worker, she and Bill get a quarter million dollars+ for doing nothing but showing up.

While in the meantime hiding behind that bogus Clinton Foundation that gives a whopping 12 percent of every dollar taken in to a true charitable cause.

But then, that is what lyin, sacks of shit Demagogus do best.

The chrome is starting to peel off of the bumper of the "clinton machine". The instant "Pocahontas" decides the time is right, Hillary will be dropped like a turd headed to the septic tank. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I've seen that number and it bears some clarification. I'm not denying her cuntiness, but let's get it right at least. This article explains how that number is not true.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...-spends-just-/

I've seen that number and it bears some clarification. I'm not denying her cuntiness, but let's get it right at least. This article explains how that number is not true.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...-spends-just-/ Originally Posted by WombRaider

Wombat Raper.. did you read your own citation?

Did you miss this?
"Of course, Parsons’ interpretation depends on trusting the Clinton foundation’s characterization of its expenditures. As with any institution that files tax forms, the Clinton foundation has to characterize on its own what counts as "management" and what counts as spending on front-line charity work"

And we should believe the CLINTON CHARACTERIZATION why? Any guesses when they will "redo the paperwork" like they've done once.. and are currently "reviewing" the filings in 2010, 2011, and 2012. Whoops.. they got caught. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0NE0CA20150423

That's what he charges to give a speech. You begrudging him the money, now? Capitalism at its finest. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You missed the part about the other Nemcova's Happy Hearts organization being a CHARITY. They rebuild schools in areas hit by disasters.

Typically, charities trade favors for free. And someone who makes a speech for a charity generally foregoes their fee. They know they are there to raise money, not take it.

I don't begrudge him his $500K fee if he is making a speech to Sony or Google at some big corporate shindig.

But it is a different thing if you are addressing the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation or something similar.

Bill and Hill are sleazy hucksters. Always have been.

Wombat Raper.. did you read your own citation?

Did you miss this?
"Of course, Parsons’ interpretation depends on trusting the Clinton foundation’s characterization of its expenditures. As with any institution that files tax forms, the Clinton foundation has to characterize on its own what counts as "management" and what counts as spending on front-line charity work"

And we should believe the CLINTON CHARACTERIZATION why? Any guesses when they will "redo the paperwork" like they've done once.. and are currently "reviewing" the filings in 2010, 2011, and 2012. Whoops.. they got caught. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0NE0CA20150423 Originally Posted by RedLeg505

Between you and Rush Limbaugh, I'd believe the Clintons first.

And did you read YOUR link? They're refiling due to how donations from other governments were reported, not what percentage of their money goes to actually helping people.

So they got caught influence peddling and now have to change how they report the bribes.