FBI raids office of Michael Cohen, personal attorney to Donald Trump

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Applying Occam's razor: Putin probably preferred Trump to Clinton primarily because the former made warm overtures during the campaign while the latter used extensive anti-Putin rhetoric.

Also, many people are performing huge logical leapsin asserting confidently that the Russia government stole DNC e-mails and deliberately released them to harm the Clinton campaign.

The mental gymnastics required here is amazing

 

[Jack V Savage]

Applying Occam's razor: Putin probably preferred Trump to Clinton primarily because the former made warm overtures during the campaign while the latter used extensive anti-Putin rhetoric.

Also, many people are performing huge logical leapsin asserting confidently that the Russia government stole DNC e-mails and deliberately released them to harm the Clinton campaign.

There's no logical leap. That's a simple observation.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Impeachment proceedings would begin on day 1 of Dems taking the house as well they should

Jumping the gun , can't impeach because you don't like the guy, have to let the investigation play out

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Jumping the gun , can't impeach because you don't like the guy, have to let the investigation play out

If you have the votes you could. Sure it says misdemeanors and high crimes but when does the HOR really follow rules. The Senate would (hopefully) just toss it aside unanimously if a case like that ever took place.

 

[bobgeese]

Bob, we already did this and you quit because you got exposed. Just because you have the memory of an aquarium fish doesn't mean that didn't happen.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/c...estigation-v-14.3716441/page-5#post-138937237

Oh cake, you talk a big one. Back it up. Let’s start here.

Ian Telfer

The Times story noted that between 2009 and 2013, Telfer donated US$2.35 million to Clinton’s foundation. This coincided directly with the period in which Rosatom gradually took control of Uranium One. Telfer was Uranium One’s chairman at the time.


Explain why this gentleman “donated” millions to the Clintons sham charity.


And please realize posting his claim of “I had already promised to donate” holds zero weight. Also, as reported below by the nyt, the tax break excuse is BS.



This is just one of many, so let’s begin.


.....


Aides to former President Bill Clinton helped start a Canadian charity that effectively shielded the identities of donors who gave more than $33 million that went to his foundation, despite a pledge of transparency when Hillary Rodham Clinton became secretary of state.

the foundation said that the partnership was created to allow Canadian donors to get a tax benefit.

However, interviews with tax lawyers and officials in Canada cast doubt on assertions that the partnership was necessary to confer a tax benefit; an examination shows that for many donors it was not needed, and in any event, since 2010, Canadians could have donated to the foundation directly and received the same tax break. Also, it is not at all clear that privacy laws prohibit the partnership from disclosing its donors, the tax lawyers and officials in Canada said.

The partnership, established in 2007, effectively shielded the identities of its donors — and the amount they gave — by allowing them to bundle their money together in the offshoot Canadian partnership before it was passed along to Clinton Foundation programs. The foundation, in turn, names only the partnership as the source of those funds.

In response to questions about the tax-break rationale for the formation of the offshoot charity, the Canadian tax experts pointed out that donations to the partnership from other charities and foundations would not have been eligible for tax breaks. That is because the donors who gave money to those other charities had already received their tax benefit. Records show that those nonprofit groups accounted for about half of the donations to the Canadian partnership.

For example, the Uranium One chairman, Ian Telfer, used his family charity, the Fernwood Foundation, to make his donations to the partnership. Mr. Telfer would have received a tax benefit when he first put his money into Fernwood, not when Fernwood donated to the partnership.

“There would only be one tax benefit no matter how many charities it passes through,” said Mark Blumberg, a tax lawyer in Toronto.

The partnership might have been necessary to provide a tax benefit to early individual donors, but not since 2010. That year, the Clinton Foundation was specially designated by the Canadian government, allowing Canadians to write off donations given directly to it.

“It makes no tax difference,” Mr. Blumberg said, “whether a donor gives the money to a Canadian charity or the Clinton Foundation.”


Six days earlier, in response to questions from The Times, the foundation turned over records that by law must be made public and that made clear that the Clinton Foundation had attracted a $31.3 million donor. The records contradicted the foundation’s repeated assertions that a $31.3 million line item on its tax return was an aggregate of small contributions. It initially refused to identify the donor. But with the foundation’s activities drawing scrutiny amid Mrs. Clinton’s first run for president, the foundation reversed course

That leaves about $20 million from donors whose identities remain a mystery, at least for now.

 

[Limbo Pete]

The mental gymnastics required here is amazing

I lold at "warm overtures"

 

[Limbo Pete]

Jumping the gun , can't impeach because you don't like the guy, have to let the investigation play out

He's not getting impeached barring an iron clad scandal of biblical proportions coupled with the dems getting control.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Oh cake, you talk a big one. Back it up. Let’s start here.

Ian Telfer

The Times story noted that between 2009 and 2013, Telfer donated US$2.35 million to Clinton’s foundation. This coincided directly with the period in which Rosatom gradually took control of Uranium One. Telfer was Uranium One’s chairman at the time.


Explain why this gentleman “donated” millions to the Clintons sham charity.


And please realize posting his claim of “I had already promised to donate” holds zero weight. Also, as reported below by the nyt, the tax break excuse is BS.



This is just one of many, so let’s begin.


.....


Aides to former President Bill Clinton helped start a Canadian charity that effectively shielded the identities of donors who gave more than $33 million that went to his foundation, despite a pledge of transparency when Hillary Rodham Clinton became secretary of state.

the foundation said that the partnership was created to allow Canadian donors to get a tax benefit.

However, interviews with tax lawyers and officials in Canada cast doubt on assertions that the partnership was necessary to confer a tax benefit; an examination shows that for many donors it was not needed, and in any event, since 2010, Canadians could have donated to the foundation directly and received the same tax break. Also, it is not at all clear that privacy laws prohibit the partnership from disclosing its donors, the tax lawyers and officials in Canada said.

The partnership, established in 2007, effectively shielded the identities of its donors — and the amount they gave — by allowing them to bundle their money together in the offshoot Canadian partnership before it was passed along to Clinton Foundation programs. The foundation, in turn, names only the partnership as the source of those funds.

In response to questions about the tax-break rationale for the formation of the offshoot charity, the Canadian tax experts pointed out that donations to the partnership from other charities and foundations would not have been eligible for tax breaks. That is because the donors who gave money to those other charities had already received their tax benefit. Records show that those nonprofit groups accounted for about half of the donations to the Canadian partnership.

For example, the Uranium One chairman, Ian Telfer, used his family charity, the Fernwood Foundation, to make his donations to the partnership. Mr. Telfer would have received a tax benefit when he first put his money into Fernwood, not when Fernwood donated to the partnership.

“There would only be one tax benefit no matter how many charities it passes through,” said Mark Blumberg, a tax lawyer in Toronto.

The partnership might have been necessary to provide a tax benefit to early individual donors, but not since 2010. That year, the Clinton Foundation was specially designated by the Canadian government, allowing Canadians to write off donations given directly to it.

“It makes no tax difference,” Mr. Blumberg said, “whether a donor gives the money to a Canadian charity or the Clinton Foundation.”


Six days earlier, in response to questions from The Times, the foundation turned over records that by law must be made public and that made clear that the Clinton Foundation had attracted a $31.3 million donor. The records contradicted the foundation’s repeated assertions that a $31.3 million line item on its tax return was an aggregate of small contributions. It initially refused to identify the donor. But with the foundation’s activities drawing scrutiny amid Mrs. Clinton’s first run for president, the foundation reversed course

That leaves about $20 million from donors whose identities remain a mystery, at least for now.

By what objective measure is the Clinton foundation a " sham " charity?

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

He's not getting impeached barring an iron clad scandal of biblical proportions coupled with the dems getting control.

Too early to say that too , I could see the R's cutting their losses .

 

[heloder]

He's not getting impeached barring an iron clad scandal of biblical proportions coupled with the dems getting control.

Yeah but even if that were true, he's probably still going to get impeached at the rate he's going. lol

 

[bobgeese]

By what objective measure is the Clinton foundation a " sham " charity?

How about the fact it was on many charity watchdog lists?


To the best of my knowledge, they only got off some of those lists in 15 when they cleaned up their books because the charity was drawing increased criticism as she was expected to run for President.


Because of the dubz I can’t edit the post, and if I switch screens it will erase what I type. So if you want these exact numbers, do a search. Long story short, the last year (or one of) they disclosed before cleaning up the books (which is likely what landed them on the watchdog lists). They spent like 80+ million dollars. Less than 7% went to charity.


That is a grotesque abuse of the label charity.

 

[bobgeese]

By what objective measure is the Clinton foundation a " sham " charity?

Here you are, pretty disgusting if you ask me.

....

The Clinton Foundation spent less than 6 percent of its budget on charitable grants in 2014, according to documents the organization filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2015.

During the 2014 tax year, the tax-exempt foundation spent a total of $91.2 million, but less than $5.2 million of that money, or 5.7 percent, was granted to charitable organizations, the group’s tax filings show. The Clinton Foundation raised nearly $178 million in 2014. The organization’s charitable grants also declined significantly when compared to its donations in 2013. Compared to its 2013 charitable grants of $8.8 million, the Clinton Foundation’s grants in 2014 declined by more than 40 percent, even as its revenue over the same period increased by 20 percent. According to the tax filings, the Clinton Foundation is currently sitting on $354 million in assets, including $125 million in cash or cash equivalents and $108 million in property or equipment.

The tax records, which were filed with the IRS in November of 2015, show that the Clinton Foundation spent far more on overhead expenses like travel ($7.9 million) than it did on charitable grants in 2014. The group also spent more on rent and office supplies (a total of $6.6 million) than it did on charitable grants. The Clinton Foundation’s IRS forms show that even its depreciation expense ($5.3 million) — an accounting classification that takes into account the wear and tear of an organization’s assets — exceeded the tax-exempt organization’s charitable grant outlays.

Supplemental tables within the Form 990 filed with the IRS show that the Clinton Foundation’s largest charitable grant was a $2 million payment to the Alliance for a Healthier Generation (AHG), a joint project founded by the Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association. Bruce Lindsey, the board chairman for the Clinton Foundation in 2014, also served on AHG’s board that year, according to the organization’s 2014 tax filings. Of the $16.3 million AHG organization spent in 2014, only $349,022, or 2.1 percent, was spent on charitable grants, the group’s tax filings show.

The Clinton Foundation’s largest single charitable grant to an organization not founded by the Clinton Foundation or managed by one of its board members was a $700,000 check to the J/P Haitian Relief Organization, a non-profit founded by actor Sean Penn. That organization reportedly spent more than $126,000 on first-class flights for the actor. Other charitable grants from the Clinton Foundation included $200,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation and $37,500 for the Sesame Workshop in New York City.

Clinton Foundation defenders say the total amount of its charitable grants is irrelevant and argue that the bulk of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is done by salaried employees. A review of the organization’s tax filings and statements from its own executives about the group’s “commercial proposition,” however, suggests that this may not be the case.

The Clinton Foundation’s three largest charitable “program service accomplishments,” according to its tax reports, are the Clinton Global Initiative ($23.2 million), the Clinton Presidential Library ($12.3 million), and the Clinton Climate Initiative ($8.3 million). The Clinton Global Initiative, which exists to organize and produce a lavish annual meeting headlined by former president Bill Clinton, was characterized by the New York Times as a “glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities,” hardly a portrait of the kind of charitable work that directly impacts the lives of the needy.

Ira Magaziner, a top former Clinton Foundation executive, also explicitly rejected that the group’s climate change activities were charitable in nature. “This is not charity,” Magaziner told The Atlantic in 2007. “The whole thing is bankable. It’s a commercial proposition.”

In fact, the bulk of the charitable work lauded by the Clinton Foundation’s boosters — the distribution of drugs to impoverished people in developing countries — is no longer even performed by the Clinton Foundation. Those activities were spun off in 2010 and are now managed by the Clinton Health Access Initiative, a completely separate non-profit organization.

 

[Joe]

!!! Lordy there might be tapes!

 

[Limbo Pete]

Too early to say that too , I could see the R's cutting their losses .

I'm not saying that isn't theoretically possible, but impeachment is just a massively huge deal. It needs a ton of force behind it.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

How about the fact it was on many charity watchdog lists?


To the best of my knowledge, they only got off some of those lists in 15 when they cleaned up their books because the charity was drawing increased criticism as she was expected to run for President.


Because of the dubz I can’t edit the post, and if I switch screens it will erase what I type. So if you want these exact numbers, do a search. Long story short, the last year (or one of) they disclosed before cleaning up the books (which is likely what landed them on the watchdog lists). They spent like 80+ million dollars. Less than 7% went to charity.


That is a grotesque abuse of the label charity.

Source ?

 

[HomerThompson]

Source ?

Take it to the lounge, bud.

 

[bobgeese]

Source ?

The source is their own tax filings, I posted it above. No need to continue, the numbers speak for themselves. Take care.






Btw, credit to some liberals here being rational enough to understand you don’t just impeach over being butthurt. It would set off a precedent that would result in a president being impeached anytime the other party has the majority.

 

[Quequeg]

The source is their own tax filings, I posted it above. No need to continue, the numbers speak for themselves. Take care.






Btw, credit to some liberals here being rational enough to understand you don’t just impeach over being butthurt. It would set off a precedent that would result in a president being impeached anytime the other party has the majority.

At least they released their taxes unlike your moron god king. The Clinton foundation is highly rated by charity rating organizations so you are dead wrong as usual.

 

[bobgeese]

At least they released their taxes unlike your moron god king. The Clinton foundation is highly rated by charity rating organizations so you are dead wrong as usual.

Again read my post carefully. The same organizations that rate them good now, had them on the watchdog lists until they cleaned up the books in 15 as she was about to run.


As noted above, if you want to continue, bring it to the lounge. I only posted it in direct response to a question.



PS. “Muh trumps taxes”

LOLOLOLOLOLLLLL


FTR, the god king shit is cringeworthy.

 

[Fawlty]

I lold at "warm overtures"

90% of internet posts using the term "Occam's Razor" are utter dogshit.