The Next Clinton Scandal

[delayjf]

Clintons try to hide the real source of their speaking fees.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/mystery-surrounds-sources-many-bill-clinton-speaking-fees/

[mostpost]

Clintons try to hide the real source of their speaking fees.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/mystery-surrounds-sources-many-bill-clinton-speaking-fees/
Nobody cares. Charity events are frequently underwritten by generous donors. That way more of the money raised at the event can be used to benefit the charity. The speakers, or the caterers or the cost of the hall are paid by the organizers of the event. That's why their name is on the check.

The organizers are then reimbursed by the underwriter. Clinton was paid by the Lady Taveners. That is all he has to declare. If there was such a great conspiracy, how was the Free Beacon able to so easily find the ultimate source.

I think it is disgusting that some people, in their irrational hate for the Clinton's, take potshots at folks who are just trying to support a charity.

[Greyfox]

Nobody cares.

If nobody cares, why do the Clintons lie about who funds their speeches?

[fast4522]

If nobody cares, why do the Clintons lie about who funds their speeches?

Because it is the most natural thing that they do.

[davew]

nobody cares .. corruption and money laundering run deep in democrat history

[Clocker]

If nobody cares, why do the Clintons lie about who funds their speeches?

They are Clintons. That's what Clinton's do. :p

[mostpost]

If nobody cares, why do the Clintons lie about who funds their speeches?
They don't. They report who pays them. It is not their concern who pays the person who pays them.

Let's look at the case of Robert Whitton who underwrote Bill Clinton's speech to the Lady Taverner's. Robert Whitton is a British businessman who reportedly had dealing with UNESCO, which the United States is a member of. According to the conspiracy theorists, Whitton was building an exclusive resort in an area which included a UNESCO World Heritage site. He needed Unesco to sign off on the project. So he bribed Bill Clinton so Hillary Clinton's State Department would give the OK.

One thing wrong with that theory; actually twenty things. There are twenty one sovereign nations which are members of UNESCO. No way does the U.S. State Department unilaterally approve anything.

Maybe Whitton contributed to Clinton's fee-or paid the whole thing-because he believed in the work of the Lady Taverners. Maybe he did it as a tax shelter. Remember one thing; post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

[Greyfox]

They don't. They report who pays them. It is not their concern who pays the person who pays them.



Naive? Chris Christie should sell you a bridge. :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

They don't. They report who pays them. It is not their concern who pays the person who pays them.

Let's look at the case of Robert Whitton who underwrote Bill Clinton's speech to the Lady Taverner's. Robert Whitton is a British businessman who reportedly had dealing with UNESCO, which the United States is a member of. According to the conspiracy theorists, Whitton was building an exclusive resort in an area which included a UNESCO World Heritage site. He needed Unesco to sign off on the project. So he bribed Bill Clinton so Hillary Clinton's State Department would give the OK.

One thing wrong with that theory; actually twenty things. There are twenty one sovereign nations which are members of UNESCO. No way does the U.S. State Department unilaterally approve anything.

Maybe Whitton contributed to Clinton's fee-or paid the whole thing-because he believed in the work of the Lady Taverners. Maybe he did it as a tax shelter. Remember one thing; post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.
you're trying too hard. looks obvious.

[horses4courses]

Clintons try to hide the real source of their speaking fees.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/mystery-surrounds-sources-many-bill-clinton-speaking-fees/

What else can you drum up?
That's all it is.
One fricking witch hunt after the next.

You'll have to do better than that....... :ThmbDown:

[Clocker]

Remember one thing; post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

Very impressive. :p

Now the next step is applying that concept to your own claims, like the one about ObamaCare and the increase in health care costs. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

One fricking witch hunt after the next.



So many witches, so little time. :(

[horses4courses]

So many witches, so little time. :(

So many taxpayer dollars to squander. :ThmbDown:
The champions of financial restraint, my azz.............

[Clocker]

So many taxpayer dollars to squander. :ThmbDown:
The champions of financial restraint, my azz.............

Wow, a lib worried about wasting taxpayer money! :eek:

Moonbats better report this guy to Nancy Pelosi for re-education.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
They don't. They report who pays them. It is not their concern who pays the person who pays them.

That's how the mob works.
It's called laundering.

And it is very appropriate if it involves the Clinton Crime Family.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by horses4courses
So many taxpayer dollars to squander. :ThmbDown:

That is sooo true.
Why, it is almost as much as one day of Michelle's vacation budget.:eek:

[rastajenk]

So many taxpayer dollars to squander. :ThmbDown:
The champions of financial restraint, my azz.............
The Washington Free Beacon is wasting my tax dollars? I had no idea. :confused:

[davew]

That is sooo true.
Why, it is almost as much as one day of Michelle's vacation budget.:eek:


BUDGET? she don't need no dang budget...

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Sorry, there is no more room to add another to the long list of Clinton crimes. Clinton has done so many bad things recently, nobody has time to return to the infamous days of yesteryear.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/

[JustRalph]

They are untouchable. The Justice Dept has already signaled that.

[PaceAdvantage]

What else can you drum up?
That's all it is.
One fricking witch hunt after the next.

You'll have to do better than that....... :ThmbDown:It's tough to make things stick when you have the media lapping at Mrs. Clinton's feet.

I mean, how can the MM devote time to shedding national light on the many Clinton scandals when they spend all that time talking about a few words Melania may have lifted from Michelle O's speech...that's important stuff man...Melania's speech... :lol:

[Clocker]

they spend all that time talking about a few words Melania may have lifted from Michelle O's speech

That Michelle lifted from a book. :D

[delayjf]

Nobody Cares

Well, least of all, the Dems. I've highlighted the pertinent part of the article you seemed to have glossed over. I wonder if it against the law to falsify public disclose forms. It would be interesting to see the checks that were written and where they came from.



It was bankrolled by a wealthy British businessman named Robert Whitton—a name you won’t find included in the Clintons’ public disclosure forms.

A review by the Washington Free Beacon found that Hillary Clinton often listed small foreign speaking firms as the sources of her husband’s lecture payments in her Senate and State Department disclosures, even though the actual paychecks came from undisclosed third parties.

In certain cases, these funders had interests that intersected with the U.S. State Department. Whitton, a real estate mogul, had business pending before UNESCO, an international agency that received a quarter of its funding from the State Department.

Government watchdogs say the practice is troubling from a transparency perspective, because it obscures the actual source of Clinton’s hefty payments. While the Free Beacon was able to track down information on the likely funders of several of these speeches, at least 30 of them remain a mystery.

Spokespersons for the Clinton campaign and Bill Clinton’s office declined to provide the names of any actual payment sources when contacted for this article.

Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group, said the way the Clintons have handled these paid speaking engagements “suggests secrecy and non-transparency.”

[Tom]

The released emails PROVE what we have said all along, the media is run by the DNC, only even worse that we suspected.

How anyone could possible support the DNC is beyond me.
A good litmus test for mental illness.