Where are the Never Hillary Banners

[barn32]

There is a market here for a hard working entrepreneur. Buttons, banners, signs, flags etc., that say:

Benghazi!
Whitewater!
Libya!
E-Mails!
Iran!
Obama Clone!
Never Hillary!
Never-Ever-Hillary!
Never in a Million Years Hillary!

There should be (peaceful) protesters holding up and waving these signs at every rally and gathering she attends.

[delayjf]

Here is Bill and Hill's latest scandal - taking millions from the Mideast oil barons. And as a bonus this article also covers the story regrading missing emails from Hillary's top IT staffer who was responsible for setting up her private server / account - All his emails during Hillary's tenure as SOS have gone missing. The plot thickens.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillarys-latest-scandal-she-and-bill-siphoned-100-mil-from-persian-gulf-leaders/

[Track Collector]

From the linked article:

Clinton has far more serious problems than just getting elected. Her biggest problem may be staying out of prison.

These article writers are a riot! :lol:

Of course this type of statement is made not as an honest assessment, but rather to appeal to the "targeted" reading audiences.

Regarding this matter I have absolutely no faith that justice will be served. Our current political system is simply too corrupt, and IF she were to go down, she would be taking a lot of other folks with her. No worries though.....they "have her back" (and their own backs too).

[mostpost]

Here is Bill and Hill's latest scandal - taking millions from the Mideast oil barons. And as a bonus this article also covers the story regrading missing emails from Hillary's top IT staffer who was responsible for setting up her private server / account - All his emails during Hillary's tenure as SOS have gone missing. The plot thickens.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillarys-latest-scandal-she-and-bill-siphoned-100-mil-from-persian-gulf-leaders/
It's remarkable how words can be used to twist meanings or create emotions.
"Hillary siphoned $100M from Persian Gulf leaders" sounds like she stole the money. It turns out that the money was given freely to the Clinton Foundation.

Then there is the nonsense that the foundation should not have accepted the donations because the countries involved have a bad record on many of the conditions the Clinton Foundation is working to improve. I say if you can get the other guy to pay for something he is opposed to, you should do it.

Then there is this paragraph:
"Well, maybe not, given that Clinton, during her four-year tenure as secretary of state, used a clearly illegal private email server which is now under investigation by the FBI."
Except it was not illegal. The State Department itself says that use of a private email service was not recommended, during Clinton's tenure, it was also not prohibited. Even now, the use of a private server is not totally prohibited.

Another quote from the story says, "Her open e-mail system likely was hacked by Chinese, Russian and perhaps other spy agencies, say cyberespionage experts."
Likely and perhaps are two weasel words that mean nothing. Cyberespionage experts probably mean people working for crackpot conservative websites.

More from the article.
"In just the past three years, after her stint as the nation’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton spoke to dozens of deep-pocket firms on Wall Street, typically charging $250,000 a pop to hear her wit and wisdom — despite her bitter condemnations of Wall Street during her campaign."
Free Market. They are willing to pay; she is willing to provide.

Finally:
"Meanwhile, former U.S. Attorney Joseph E. diGenova told the Caller that he believes the FBI has launched a second, possibly more serious investigation into possible political corruption involving the Clinton Foundation."

diGenova is a shill for the Republican Party. He is famous for making unsubstantiated and false claims. He "Believes"-another weasel word-there is a second investigation. If there was, a reputable news organization would know about it.

[rastajenk]

Of course it was given freely. How else do you buy influence?

What was the whole uproar about Citizens United from your side, postie? It was big money buying into campaigns, right? (Aside from the fact that Koch money bad, union money good.) Campaigns to get donees elected so the donors could get favors returned. What's the difference here? Give a boring speech, get paid big bucks, return a favor, or in your words, willing to provide (there's nothing "free market" about it). Take oil money, adjust foreign policy accordingly, get rich doing it.

One is about free speech. The other is about taking bribes. You seem to be on the side of taking bribes.

[Tom]

No credibility for mostie.
Can't complain about the Koch Brothers on the one hand and condon Hillary on the other.

Unless you are twisted, biased democrat zombie taking orders on what to think from the Mothership of Fools. :lol:

Hey mostie, how about this - HILLARY claims to be the voice of women, in spite of the fact she has alway sided with her perverted, sex-crazed husband over every women he ever nailed. But now, she takes the voter-identified biggest issue of the campaign - the economy - and tells us not to worry, she have BILL handle that. :lol:

The big, powerful women has to have her man handle the tough jobs for her! :lol:
DwBirf4BWew

[davew]

It's remarkable how words can be used to twist meanings or create emotions.
"Hillary siphoned $100M from Persian Gulf leaders" sounds like she stole the money. It turns out that the money was given freely to the Clinton Foundation.

Then there is the nonsense that the foundation should not have accepted the donations because the countries involved have a bad record on many of the conditions the Clinton Foundation is working to improve. I say if you can get the other guy to pay for something he is opposed to, you should do it.

Then there is this paragraph:
"Well, maybe not, given that Clinton, during her four-year tenure as secretary of state, used a clearly illegal private email server which is now under investigation by the FBI."
Except it was not illegal. The State Department itself says that use of a private email service was not recommended, during Clinton's tenure, it was also not prohibited. Even now, the use of a private server is not totally prohibited.

Another quote from the story says, "Her open e-mail system likely was hacked by Chinese, Russian and perhaps other spy agencies, say cyberespionage experts."
Likely and perhaps are two weasel words that mean nothing. Cyberespionage experts probably mean people working for crackpot conservative websites.

More from the article.
"In just the past three years, after her stint as the nation’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton spoke to dozens of deep-pocket firms on Wall Street, typically charging $250,000 a pop to hear her wit and wisdom — despite her bitter condemnations of Wall Street during her campaign."
Free Market. They are willing to pay; she is willing to provide.

Finally:
"Meanwhile, former U.S. Attorney Joseph E. diGenova told the Caller that he believes the FBI has launched a second, possibly more serious investigation into possible political corruption involving the Clinton Foundation."

diGenova is a shill for the Republican Party. He is famous for making unsubstantiated and false claims. He "Believes"-another weasel word-there is a second investigation. If there was, a reputable news organization would know about it.

You do not understand corruption. Why does The Clinton Foundation need so many shell companies to funnel money around the world? Is supporting Clinton's lavish lifestyle and political ambitions a charity?

[reckless]

Well there are plenty of such banners -- except they are known as votes and voters.

So far, to date: Donald Trump has received 11.2 million votes; Bernie Sanders has received 10.1 million votes.

[mostpost]

You do not understand corruption. Why does The Clinton Foundation need so many shell companies to funnel money around the world? Is supporting Clinton's lavish lifestyle and political ambitions a charity?
Can you give me specific examples of so called shell companies the Clinton's have set up? Or at least a link to such.

[Clocker]

Can you give me specific examples of so called shell companies the Clinton's have set up? Or at least a link to such.


Gee, that was tough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation

Feel free to nit-pick the use of the word "companies". They are different buckets, and every time you pour the money from one bucket into another, there is ample opportunity for some of it to spill into some one's pocket.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Can you give me specific examples of so called shell companies the Clinton's have set up? Or at least a link to such.

I thought this article was interesting. Now you'll reflexively slam the source, no doubt.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/13/clinton-charity-arranged-2m-pledge-to-company-owned-by-bills-friend/

[mostpost]

Gee, that was tough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation

Feel free to nit-pick the use of the word "companies". They are different buckets, and every time you pour the money from one bucket into another, there is ample opportunity for some of it to spill into some one's pocket.
Damn right I am going to nitpick the use of the word "Companies." Especially when that word is accompanied by the modifier "Shell."

The Clinton Foundation is active in several spheres.
The Clinton Foundation encompasses a number of different efforts and entities, including the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI, spun off into a separate but related organization in 2010), the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI, split off after 2009 but reintegrated after 2013), Clinton Global Initiative University (CGI U), the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI), the Clinton Development Initiative (CDI), the Clinton Economic Opportunity Initiative, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, the Clinton Health Matters Initiative (CHMI), the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, and the No Ceilings Project.

Obviously it is more effective for each of these diverse initiatives to act independently. It's like General Motor having a Chevy division and a Buick division and a Cadillac division. The only reason you think money is being siphoned is because it is the Clintons. There is no objective proof. Just like there is no objective proof that contributions to the Clinton Foundation changed State Department policy.

The fact that one thing follows another does not mean they are connected. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

[JustCoolGene]

Here is a provacative "Never Hillary Banner" message from a young millennial girl.

https://youtu.be/oI08BKgT8MI

Gene

[Clocker]

The only reason you think money is being siphoned is because it is the Clintons. There is no objective proof. Just like there is no objective proof that contributions to the Clinton Foundation changed State Department policy.

The fact that one thing follows another does not mean they are connected. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

But when one thing follows another, and the Clintons consistently stonewall, it certainly defies reason to think otherwise.

Wiki:
In April 2015, the New York Times reported that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the State Department had approved a deal to sell American uranium to Russian state-owned enterprise Uranium One who had donated to the Clinton Foundation, and that Clinton had broken her promise to publicly identify such donations.

After more than a year of research, a Wall Street analyst is arguing the Clinton Foundation’s books are riddled with financial inconsistencies that rise to the level of “fraud.”

Charles Ortel, who gained recognition for correctly identifying problems with General Electric’s financial statements in 2008, has prepared 40 reports highlighting discrepancies that he said proves the Clinton Foundation has covered up cash flow since 1997.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/financial-analyst-alleges-major-holes-in-clinton-foundation-records/article/2591335

Or the latest:

The Wall Street Journal detailed a $2 million transaction by the Clinton Global Initiative, an arm of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, that funneled the charity’s money to an energy company owned by a group of their well-heeled friends, including Julie Tauber McMahon, daughter of Joel Tauber, wealthy Oakland County businessman and huge Democratic fundraiser.

The CGI gave the money to Energy Pioneer Services to weatherize the homes of low-income families. Clinton also personally intervened with former Energy Secretary Steven Chu to secure an $812,000 grant for the company.

The Journal suggests the commitment from CGI is crosswise with IRS rules, which prohibit charities from operating for the benefit of private interests.



http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/nolan-finley/2016/05/19/finley-skeletons-will-greet-clintons/84576912/

This kind of crap has been going on since Bill was Governor of Arkansas. And the hits just keep on coming.

[rastajenk]

What!?! :eek: You're putting Charles Ortel up against MostiePostie? Gird your loins for a most severe beatdown, Clockerfool.

:D

[davew]

Can you give me specific examples of so called shell companies the Clinton's have set up? Or at least a link to such.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-clinton-has-a-mysterious-shell-company-2015-5

http://theweek.com/speedreads/617761/clintons-are-using-5-shell-companies-save-taxes-delaware

http://nypost.com/2015/04/23/bills-free-latin-american-jet-rides-put-heat-on-hillarys-trade-deals/

The ones they have in different countries (like Canada) are harder to find.

[mostpost]

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-clinton-has-a-mysterious-shell-company-2015-5
This article says that Clinton had a company in Delaware called WJC LLC Its purpose was to funnel payments to Clinton from companies for which he did consulting work. It was set up to take advantage of Delaware's low tax rates and easy reporting requirements. Clinton was just doing what more than 280,000 other companies and individuals have done. By the way, all the consulting jobs Clinton undertook during Hillary's term as Secretary of State were approved by the State Department-as were his speeches. This is all perfectly legal under the laws of the state of Delaware.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/617761/clintons-are-using-5-shell-companies-save-taxes-delaware
Again these are companies set up to reduce tax liability, all perfectly legal.


[URL=http://nypost.com/2015/04/23/bills-free-latin-american-jet-rides-put-heat-on-hillarys-trade-deals/]http://nypost.com/2015/04/23/bills-free-latin-american-jet-rides-put-heat-on-hillarys-trade-deals
Wonderful!!! We have an article based on book-"Clinton Cash" by a thoroughly discredited author.

As far as I am concerned, the above are not examples of shell companies. They are merely corporations set up in the state of Delaware for the purpose of legally reducing a tax burden.

Furthermore, I see no hypocrisy in Hillary Clinton calling for an end to tax shelters, while taking advantage of those that currently exist. In fact, I find it rather noble that she would call for change that will cost her greatly if enacted.

[Clocker]

"Hillary Clinton's Fifteen Biggest Scandals"

And that's only those that happened while she was Secy of State.

Here's one:

Boeing gave generously to the Clinton Foundation after Hillary Clinton personally intervened on its behalf to secure a lucrative contract with the Russian government.

The secretary of state made what she called a "shameless pitch" to the state-owned Russian carrier Rosavia in October 2009.

Russia struck a multi-billion dollar deal with Boeing in June 2010, after which the aerospace conglomerate cut a $900,000 check to the Clinton Foundation.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clintons-fifteen-biggest-scandals/article/2566193

[davew]

Wonderful!!! We have an article based on book-"Clinton Cash" by a thoroughly discredited author.

As far as I am concerned, the above are not examples of shell companies. They are merely corporations set up in the state of Delaware for the purpose of legally reducing a tax burden.

Furthermore, I see no hypocrisy in Hillary Clinton calling for an end to tax shelters, while taking advantage of those that currently exist. In fact, I find it rather noble that she would call for change that will cost her greatly if enacted.


I also see no hypocrisy in trying to get women voters by saying women should get equal pay. What I do not understand is why she is only paying women 65% as men NOW. When will she change? after she makes a law? She has already shown how well she respects laws....


What kind of tax burden does a 501c have - their 'income' is all tax deductible to donators? Or do you mean they ALL could pay the Clintons as members of the boards and ALL cover expenses so 'paid' multiple times leaving extra cash...

[delayjf]

including Julie Tauber McMahon

AKA - the energizer, Billdo's girl friend.

[PaceAdvantage]

You do not understand corruption. Why does The Clinton Foundation need so many shell companies to funnel money around the world? Is supporting Clinton's lavish lifestyle and political ambitions a charity?Imagine if Mitt Romney had done something shady like this...oh wait...he had that offshore thing...media made a big deal about it...

This kind of stuff doesn't apply to Hillary though...oh well... :bang:

[delayjf]

Imagine if Mitt Romney had done something shady like this

Or George Bush

As far as I am concerned,
When it comes to corruption or the abuse of power by democrats, liberals are not concerned - the end always justifies the means.

[Clocker]

This kind of stuff doesn't apply to Hillary though...oh well... :bang:

Of course not, because the Clinton Foundation is a "non-profit"! :D