An actual financial breakdown from a range of years that show how they spent their money. Not hack articles with an agenda. Show me something like this:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
Go to their page, and look at the breakdown. I want that level of specificity.
not for the pizzagate crew.. i guess they got tired of high fiving each other in the circle jerk thread aka her toeIs this nothingburger done yet?
Is that when Hackity comes on? I don't see anything about this story on other news sites or Fox news site eitehr.It will be on fox by 9:30.
Is that when Hackity comes on? I don't see anything about this story on other news sites or Fox news site eitehr.
The toe-gate circle jerk is still going?not for the pizzagate crew.. i guess they got tired of high fiving each other in the circle jerk thread aka her toe
speaking of taxes
I'm no psychic, but somehow I doubt anything will come of this. Some folks are untouchable. I suspect that these type of things are commonplace for Hillary and the D.C establishment.
LMAO. I used to listen to Rush and Michael Savage when I was in college to hear what the other half heard.
There was a lot of yelling, and a lot of hysterical laughter(from me). Especially with Savage. That guy is a legit nut.
yeah my bad,Nobody cares about his tax returns, see him being elected president without disclosing them as proof.
Furthermore, if there were something devastating in them, someone in the IRS would have leaked them.
Is that when Hackity comes on? I don't see anything about this story on other news sites or Fox news site eitehr.
Is that when Hackity comes on? I don't see anything about this story on other news sites or Fox news site eitehr.
This isn't even in the ball park of backing up your assertion of a 10% expenditure on all programs. It's trash.From Reuters, read the bold part. There's a reason you can't find a breakdown of numbers for the years in question.
WATCHDOG GROUP NOT SATISFIED
Meredith McGehee, the policy director of the non-profit watchdog group the Campaign Legal Center, said the foundation was “hiding behind technicalities.”
“These explanations do nothing but raise more questions,” she said of Bazbaz’s comments. “It gives the feeling that they’re not coming clean.”
Transparency watchdog groups and experts in charity law have said the issues with the foundation’s public financial records are not evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, but they make it more difficult to grasp how the charities raise and spend money.
“It’s clear that anyone wanting an accurate picture of the money flowing in and out of the Clinton Foundation using public records would fail miserably because the public records are both inaccurate and fairly opaque,” McGehee said.
The foundation declined to provide Reuters with the government grant break-outs that should have been disclosed on the foundation’s tax returns for 2010, 2011 and 2012. The foundation has said it is seeking an independent review of some of its financial records and plans to refile erroneous tax returns, a process it said may take some time.
This isn't even in the ball park of backing up your assertion of a 10% expenditure on all programs. It's trash.
What does direct aid mean? Where is their source?The first like I posted did break it down, you just don't like the source.
"The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
What does direct aid mean? Where is their source?
So this is about trolling and u-mad role playing for you?
Here's another charity rating org's breakdown:
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/clinton-foundation/478
Please actually read the page @bobgeese