Clinton Global Initiative closing it's doors....

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-clinton-foundation-is-dead-but-the-case-against-hillary-isnt/

 

 

"In a tax filing, the Clinton Global Initiative said it's firing 22 staffers and closing its offices, a result of the gusher of foreign money that kept the foundation afloat suddenly drying up after Hillary Clinton failed to win the presidency."

 

 

 

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Somehow, I highly doubt that quote from her tax filings is accurate.

[Sho Nuff 719]

This has been in the works since the campaign...and it's just one arm of the foundation as a whole.

Saying it's because she didn't win is beyond an ignorant comment.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

This has been in the works since the campaign...and it's just one arm of the foundation as a whole.

Saying it's because she didn't win is beyond an ignorant comment.

 

Did you read the article or just what I quoted here?

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Did you read the article or just what I quoted here?

I read about it several days ago and wondered what hack would bring it up here.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-19/clinton-global-initiative-ends-run-with-some-of-shine-worn-off

 

There were plans to close this whether elected or not (to you know...actually divest of what conflicts of interest there could be). In addition...there are reasons for closing this arm of the foundation.

 

With Hillary Clinton running for president, the foundation has come under attack from Republicans, who have criticized it for accepting foreign donations and accused her of giving donors special access to her office while she was Secretary of State.

In the wake of the criticism, Bill Clinton announced the foundation would stop accepting foreign and corporate donations if his wife is elected president and then later said the Clinton Global Initiative would shut down.

 

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/10/clinton_global_initiative_to_lay_off_74_at_new_york_office.html

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

I read about it several days ago and wondered what hack would bring it up here.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-19/clinton-global-initiative-ends-run-with-some-of-shine-worn-off

 

There were plans to close this whether elected or not (to you know...actually divest of what conflicts of interest there could be). In addition...there are reasons for closing this arm of the foundation.

 

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/10/clinton_global_initiative_to_lay_off_74_at_new_york_office.html

 

But did you read the article I posted? Instead of insinuating I'm a hack for posting about it, how about you break tradition and read something with an open mind?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

If Hillary never ran for office the CGI would be up and running. That is a fact.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

But did you read the article I posted? Instead of insinuating I'm a hack for posting about it, how about you break tradition and read something with an open mind?

 

I read the highly slanted BS you posted...yes.

And Im not insinuating you are a hack...you are most assuredly a gigantic hack of epic proportions.

Your article does not refute a damn thing I said or linked to with the facts of what happened with CGI.

 

Open mind...yeah...you posted an article that agreed with your opinions of the initiative and then posted it here. Open mind...holy fock what a joke.

[Sho Nuff 719]

If Hillary never ran for office the CGI would be up and running. That is a fact.

 

If she never ran...probably so.

She would not hav ehae had a reason to divest from possible conflicts...nor would it have been trashed by political opponents.

[IGotWorms 3,300]

Newsflash fellas: election's over. Your guy won.

 

If you're having difficulty coming to terms with that, join the club.

[drobeski 3,061]

You mean nobody wants to donate to this great charitable cause now that she cant sell out the country?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

Indictments to follow. Stay tuned.

[IGotWorms 3,300]

This would probably all be relevant if she had won.

 

We'd be asking ourselves "does she have any conflicts of interest she needs to divest from?"

 

You know, like how Trump refuses to remove himself from his business interests that will clearly present conflicts.

 

But she didn't win. Your guy did.

 

What she does has no relevancy anymore.

 

You'll sink or swim with your guy now and that's all you've got. Best of luck on that

[NorthernVike 2,079]

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

If Hillary never ran for office the CGI would be up and running. That is a fact.

 

I'd say that the release of all the emails Wikileaks published showing just how corrupt the Clinton Foundation was is the reason it's dead in the water. Whether or not they would have released those had Hillary not run or had a fair Democratic Nomination process taken place (cheating Bernie out) is a subject of debate although we only know of the cheating by HRC because of the email leak.

 

One of the emails showed Hillary's aide Huma Abedin, had given "special expedited access to the secretary of state" for those who gave $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

 

All that money leaves a trail.

[RLLD 3,455]

I would read ANY article posted about ANYONE with the highest level of criticism, and always question the motivations of the author and the outlet in question. Toward that end, regardless of level of veracity, I question the content of the article in every aspect.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

This would probably all be relevant if she had won.

 

We'd be asking ourselves "does she have any conflicts of interest she needs to divest from?"

 

You know, like how Trump refuses to remove himself from his business interests that will clearly present conflicts.

 

But she didn't win. Your guy did.

 

What she does has no relevancy anymore.

 

You'll sink or swim with your guy now and that's all you've got. Best of luck on that

The thread is about the Clinton money machine. And how it is closing despite her not winning. Wonder why?

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

I'd say that the release of all the emails Wikileaks published showing just how corrupt the Clinton Foundation was is the reason it's dead in the water. Whether or not they would have released those had Hillary not run or had a fair Democratic Nomination process taken place (cheating Bernie out) is a subject of debate although we only know of the cheating by HRC because of the email leak.

 

One of the emails showed Hillary's aide Huma Abedin, had given "special expedited access to the secretary of state" for those who gave $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

 

All that money leaves a trail.

 

You keep saying the foundation is dead in the water...Im betting you are quite wrong about that.

[Sho Nuff 719]

The thread is about the Clinton money machine. And how it is closing despite her not winning. Wonder why?

 

Clinton Global Initiative is closing...not the foundation. Read the links I posted...why is in there.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

I'd say that the release of all the emails Wikileaks published showing just how corrupt the Clinton Foundation was is the reason it's dead in the water. Whether or not they would have released those had Hillary not run or had a fair Democratic Nomination process taken place (cheating Bernie out) is a subject of debate although we only know of the cheating by HRC because of the email leak.

 

"it's dead" is referring back to the CGI and the closing of it's doors (title of the thread).

 

 

You keep saying the foundation is dead in the water...Im betting you are quite wrong about that.

 

And more proof you don't read or comprehend worth a sh!t. In the title I posted CGI closing it's doors. Where I referred to "it's dead" (highlighted above in bold) is referring back to CGI.

 

Jesus Fried Chicken............

[Big Guy 1,400]

Say it isn't so!!!

 

But they do so much good

 

 

 

 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

 

Clinton Global Initiative is closing...not the foundation. Read the links I posted...why is in there.

The CGI was the sketchy money maker.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

 

Clinton foundation going to bat for the Russians to gain control of Uranium mining in America. This was while HRC was at State Dept. but was that just a coincidence? Did Putin hack this too?

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

"it's dead" is referring back to the CGI and the closing of it's doors (title of the thread).

 

 

And more proof you don't read or comprehend worth a sh!t. In the title I posted CGI closing it's doors. Where I referred to "it's dead" (highlighted above in bold) is referring back to CGI.

 

Jesus Fried Chicken............

 

I read just fine. Your statement said how corrupt the Clinton Foundation was is the reason its dead in the water. That reads that the Foundation is dead in the water. Perhaps you should learn how to structure your statements a bit better. Its dead, in the sentence you bolded...refers to the Clinton foundation. Its not my fault you suck at writing.

And the reason it (CGI) is dead is numerous...as laid out in the links I put out there.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Say it isn't so!!!

 

But they do so much good

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, I'm sure that 6% that went directly to charity did benefit someone other than the Clintons.

 

Also, Charity Navigator put the Clinton foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. Clinton Foundation joins the list alongside Al Sharpton's National Action Network which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

[Sho Nuff 719]

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

 

Clinton foundation going to bat for the Russians to gain control of Uranium mining in America. This was while HRC was at State Dept. but was that just a coincidence? Did Putin hack this too?

 

You claim you don't believe in conpspiracy theories...but posted an article from 2015 (which referred to another in 2013)...the stuff about the Uranium deal has been debunked many times over.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Hey, I'm sure that 6% that went directly to charity did benefit someone other than the Clintons.

 

Also, Charity Navigator put the Clinton foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. Clinton Foundation joins the list alongside Al Sharpton's National Action Network which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

Gave it a 94.74 out of 100

 

And it spent 86.9% on the programs and services it delivered. Quit reading from bogus sources if you really want to educate yourself.

 

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Gives it an A

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

I read just fine. Your statement said how corrupt the Clinton Foundation was is the reason its dead in the water. That reads that the Foundation is dead in the water. Perhaps you should learn how to structure your statements a bit better. Its dead, in the sentence you bolded...refers to the Clinton foundation. Its not my fault you suck at writing.

And the reason it (CGI) is dead is numerous...as laid out in the links I put out there.

 

You suck at comprehending is the reason it's not understood by you.

 

So, Slo Nutt.........the example I just wrote, it's refers to what? It refers back to my posting yet is not specifically mentioned because it's the topic under discussion. To understand this concept would be reading comprehension.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

You suck at comprehending is the reason it's not understood by you.

 

So, Slo Nutt.........the example I just wrote, it's refers to what? It refers back to my posting yet is not specifically mentioned because it's the topic under discussion. To understand this concept would be reading comprehension.

 

Or I just English better than a jackass like you.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

You claim you don't believe in conpspiracy theories...but posted an article from 2015 (which referred to another in 2013)...the stuff about the Uranium deal has been debunked many times over.

 

The liberal mouthpiece Snopes listed it as 'Unproven'. If they can't debunk it, that's saying a lot. Care to point me to another site that debunked it (out of the many times over?)? The only thing I see to indicate that it's in question is that HRC didn't have veto power of the deal. Doesn't explain away all the cash that flowed through the Clinton Foundation.

 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

Gave it a 94.74 out of 100

 

And it spent 86.9% on the programs and services it delivered. Quit reading from bogus sources if you really want to educate yourself.

 

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Gives it an A

 

This was AFTER they refiled their paperwork. Charity Navigator did place them on their watch list because of their shady filings and apparently reevaluated them afterwards.

 

And there's plenty of evidence showing they don't give much of the monies donated directly. A huge portion goes to salaries and operating expenses.

 

 

Or I just English better than a jackass like you.

 

Apparently not. You're the only one having issues snowflake. Maybe it's just the content that confusing or the impending swearing in of Trump.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

The liberal mouthpiece Snopes listed it as 'Unproven'. If they can't debunk it, that's saying a lot. Care to point me to another site that debunked it (out of the many times over?)? The only thing I see to indicate that it's in question is that HRC didn't have veto power of the deal. Doesn't explain away all the cash that flowed through the Clinton Foundation.

 

 

This was AFTER they refiled their paperwork. Charity Navigator did place them on their watch list because of their shady filings and apparently reevaluated them afterwards.

 

And there's plenty of evidence showing they don't give much of the monies donated directly. A huge portion goes to salaries and operating expenses.

 

 

Apparently not. You're the only one having issues snowflake. Maybe it's just the content that confusing or the impending swearing in of Trump.

 

Because they perform services. Its not about whether they give money directly...which is why I didn't claim that.

Operating expenses is in those charts dumbass.

 

You keep calling everyone snowflake...yet you are one of the most thin skinned people here, like Trump. Its really quite hilarious.

 

And yes...the Uranium crap has been destroyed by facts multiple times. You should educate yourself...but you won't. Because you like believing such crap about those "Libs".

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

And yes...the Uranium crap has been destroyed by facts multiple times. You should educate yourself...but you won't. Because you like believing such crap about those "Libs".

 

I'm asking for assistance educating myself. Link? Is this all just some vast right wing conspiracy again?

 

Psstttt.................hurry up and turn on your T.V. Trump is about to make America great again.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

I'm asking for assistance educating myself. Link? Is this all just some vast right wing conspiracy again?

 

Psstttt.................hurry up and turn on your T.V. Trump is about to make America great again.

America is already great.

Ive got it recording...in the car now. But I will provide links about the uranium deal showing that Clinton couldn't have acted on it and Obama only could stop it as a matter of national security.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

America is already great.

Ive got it recording...in the car now. But I will provide links about the uranium deal showing that Clinton couldn't have acted on it and Obama only could stop it as a matter of national security.

 

No................I never claimed Clinton could have veto'd it. Only the President could and the State Dept WAS involved in approving the deal. Keeping with you saying what I posted was debunked: Post a link where it was debunked that the Clinton Foundation received millions from Uranium investors.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

No................I never claimed Clinton could have veto'd it. Only the President could and the State Dept WAS involved in approving the deal. Keeping with you saying what I posted was debunked: Post a link where it was debunked that the Clinton Foundation received millions from Uranium investors.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/26/the-facts-behind-trumps-repeated-claim-about-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.61703aa2beb2

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/

 

And while Snopes calls it unproven (because it is)...it debunks your cries about the donations and timing of them. As well as what power she would have had to change such a deal (which is the crux of the issue anyway)

 

 

Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion's share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company's founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

 

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

 

Im sure you will whine about sources...but its all there sourced out in each of those links...with links to other sources corroborating the information.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

Shonuff lost this thread

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/26/the-facts-behind-trumps-repeated-claim-about-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.61703aa2beb2

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/

 

And while Snopes calls it unproven (because it is)...it debunks your cries about the donations and timing of them. As well as what power she would have had to change such a deal (which is the crux of the issue anyway)

 

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

 

Im sure you will whine about sources...but its all there sourced out in each of those links...with links to other sources corroborating the information.

 

A retort:

 

"The story starts with Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier and donor to the Clinton Foundation; Giustra’s company, UrAsia; and Uranium One, a uranium mining company headquartered in Toronto.

In 2007, Giustra sold UrAsia to Uranium One, which was based in South Africa and chaired by his friend, Ian Telfer. Giustra said he sold his personal stake in the deal in fall 2007, shortly after the merger with Uranium One, in the midst of Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and before Clinton realized Barack Obama would win the nomination and she would become his secretary of state."

 

 

"In 2006, in the months after Clinton's visit had helped secure Giustra's company the right to mine uranium in Kazakhstan, Giustra donated US $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation [New York Times, 31 January 2008, op cit] (It should be noted that this figure is at variance with one released by the William J. Clinton Foundation (on the 18 December 2008), as part of an arrangement with President-elect Barack Obama, which reports Frank Giustra as giving between US$10–25 million at the time)."

 

 

"In Vancouver, Canada, billionaire financier Frank Giustra was planning to stake his claim in the increasingly popular uranium game. He found out that Kazakhstan had a huge reserve of uranium, and decided to get it. With ex-President Bill Clinton negotiating on his behalf, Giustra grabbed stakes in huge Kazakh state-owned deposits, and put them into his new company, UrAsia Energy...UrAsia listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange in September 2005, with a $300 million financing.

"Only 16 months later, UrAsia and sxr Uranium One were merged in a blockbuster deal.

"In the summer of 2004 in America, a team of geologists started acquiring a massive number of uranium properties all over the western states of Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, South Dakota, Arizona and Oregon, forming Energy Metals Corp, In less than three years, the company amassed a portfolio with dozens of properties in seven states, and over 250 million pounds of estimated uranium resources. This package proved too tempting for SXR’s insatiable appetite for growth. After having their deal to purchase Rio Tinto’s US uranium portfolio unceremoniously cancelled, SXR went after Energy Metals Corp in June 2007 for $1.9 billion (Canadian dollars). The company changed its name to Uranium One.

"After the summer of 2007, the acquisition spree slowed right down, and the uranium price, which had skyrocketed from less than $20 per pound in 2004 to over $135 in 2007, was correcting swiftly.

 

http://moneytometal.org/index.php/Frank_Giustra

 

So the chief contributor worked with Bill (not Hillary) Clinton during the mid 2000s to get into the uranium market, merged his company with Uranium One and sold before the market corrected. Uranium One eventually was taken over by the Russian government over a period of a few years.

 

 

"Due to confidentiality laws, there are few details made public about the deal or about Clinton’s role in it. The Clinton campaign said Clinton herself was not involved in the State Department’s review and did not direct the department to take any position on the sale of Uranium One. Matters of the CFIUS did not rise to the level of the secretary, the campaign said."

 

Why on Earth would we ever question whether the Clinton campaign would lie.

 

Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership remains part of the Clinton Foundation as an Initiative however it's 1,100 donors remain a mystery. So Giustra gave the majority (installment payments for Bill helping get Uranium rights abroad or for future help) but it's not all accounted for. Is some of the money Russia channeling monies to the Clinton Foundation? Chances are we won't find out.

 

"In disclosing its contributors, the Clinton Foundation says only that the Canadian partnership gave more than $25 million — making it among the foundation’s biggest donors. Canadian tax records show that the partnership took in $33.3 million between 2008 and 2013. About half the $33.3 million was given by other charities, which, like the partnership, must file financial reports with the Canadian Revenue Agency. The reports list donations made by the charities — but not donations received — making it possible in some instances to identify donors to the partnership. Searching the records in this way found that in addition to the $2.35 million from Mr. Telfer’s foundation, a charity controlled by Mr. Giustra, the Radcliffe Foundation, gave $10.5 million to the partnership that bears his name. That leaves about $20 million from donors whose identities remain a mystery, at least for now."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/1100-donors-to-a-canadian-charity-tied-to-clinton-foundation-remain-secret/2015/04/28/c3c0f374-edbc-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html?utm_term=.88d6d156e1d5

 

Seems like quite a rat's nest there. I'm sure Hillary and Bill's hands are uranium free.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Holy man...you seriously are an idiot.

Just a focking idiot.

Your BS about her involvement proved wrong...you still just can't stop.

Its just mindnumbing trying to reason with fools like you.

[BunnysBastatrds 1,909]

Newsflash fellas: election's over. Your guy won.

 

If you're having difficulty coming to terms with that, join the club.

 

As long as i'm alive, I will remind those of you of how horrible a person and piece of fawking excrement Hillary Rodahm Clinton is.

-BunnysBastartds

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Holy ###### man...you seriously are an idiot.

Just a focking idiot.

Your BS about her involvement proved wrong...you still just can't stop.

Its just mindnumbing trying to reason with fools like you.

 

Typical tilt response from you. I read through the stuff you posted, and offered a retort. You snap, lose it and start name calling.