Reply With Quote
What nation do you think Trump will start a nuclear war with?
You're a ridiculous human being
What nation do you think Trump will start a nuclear war with?
My guess is Pakistan
You're a naive human being.
Ok. So in all seriousness, why hasn't Barry put the screws to the IRS to wrap up that Trump audit?
Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, whoever he gets butthurt at at any point really.
Ask him to explain the conspiracy. It's a good time.
There is no conspiracy, the administration isn't even trying to hide it anymore.Ask him to explain the conspiracy. It's a good time.
http://www.thompsontimeline.com/cate...on-foundation/Ask him to explain the conspiracy. It's a good time.
You ignored the Politico article like the pussy you are, maybe Huffington Post is more your thing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b087a29a5486fd
Goodman: What is the Clinton Foundation controversy in Haiti about?Ortel: The simple answer is that billions of dollars in “aid” supposedly were raised to help the desperately poor people of Haiti, yet Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation refuse to account, in granular and verified fashion, for any of this aid. If Haiti (before the latest storm) had obviously been better off, perhaps this controversy would not now be swirling with hurricane force winds. But accounts from multiple parties suggest that Haiti has little to show in the parts of the nation that were devastated in January 2010.So Haitians are more than upset over what happened to their missing aid.Goodman: What role did the Clinton Foundation have in bringing multinational companies into Haiti?Ortel: The simple answer is that no one really knows precisely because auditors have never checked any part of the Clinton Foundation properly since it was formed on 23 October 1997. Crucial do ents concerning the period when Bill was Special UN Envoy forward are omitted from the Clinton Foundation website but available on State Regulatory websites, including here:https://www.charitiesnys.com/Registr..._charities.jspPunch in “Clinton-Bush Haiti” and you should get their IRS application, and 990s for 2010 forward—but key information therein does not square with these Clinton Foundation disclosures in 2009 and 2010:https://www.clintonfoundation.org/fi...rt_cf_2009.pdfMuch of the multinational work seems to have been done through the Clinton Global Initiative. When you punch in “Haiti” to this searchable database of CGI “Commitments to Action”, you may find numerous examples worth studying carefully to see whether anything concrete and positive ever happened.Goodman: What were some major problems with the Clinton Foundation’s efforts in Haiti?Ortel: The Clinton Foundation began operating in Haiti around 2003 and 2004 and many have written about their activities. One excellent resource is a biology professor named Dady Chery. The first issue with Clinton Foundation efforts is that the main Foundation was NEVER validly authorized by the IRS to do anything outside the US, to provide international disaster relief, or to “fight HIV/AIDS” internationally. Though required by state, federal, and foreign laws to make truthful, granular disclosures concerning its key initiatives, the Clinton Foundation (meaning all of its related en ies) has never done so.Goodman: After the earthquake, did the Haitian government ask the Clinton Foundation for assistance?Ortel: Prior to the Earthquake, Bill Clinton had been appointed UN Special Envoy to Haiti early in 2009. But they also did something quite curious in Florida related to Haiti—they set up an en y called William J. Clinton Foundation Corporation. Ordinarily, the Foundation might simply have registered its AR parent as licensed to do charity work inside FL, but instead Cheryl Mills et al seem to have established a brand new domestic FL en y with a similar sounding name as the main en y. This practice is frowned upon, and deemed by many to be a warning sign for charity fraud.Goodman: How did the Clinton Foundation benefit from the disaster in Haiti?Ortel: In the beginning, the Foundation received lots of positive publicity. This disaster created an opportunity for the Clinton Foundation and its allies to raise substantial funds, especially over the internet. With lax to non-existent financial controls and no real audits, the possibility to divert funds from incoming streams of donations presented itself.Goodman: How much money did the Clinton Foundation raise for Haiti and how much of that money went to the Haitian people?Ortel: The books of the Clinton Foundation and of Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund suggest that around $100 million or so may have been raised—but the truth is that no one really knows. One major warning sign is that the Clinton Fondation 990 for 2010 (and the amended return for 2010 filed in November 2015) show the largest single expenditure as being a $37 million grant to the CBHF—the trouble is that both declarations list a PO Box address in Baltimore, MD as that of the CBHF, whereas other declarations made under penalties of perjury state that the CBHF had one office only and that was in Washington, DC.Another problem is that the CBHF claims in its 990s to the IRS that it had no foreign bank accounts—-but Haiti does not use the US Dollar, so how, in fact, did CBHF function turning donated sums into local Haitian currency? And how did they manage millions of dollars inside Haiti? All told, high end estimates of how much money may have been sent towards Haiti exceed $10 billion—this amount is about equal to the total incomes earned by all Haitians during 2010, so it is a mammoth sum, considered in the context of Haiti.Very little, trifling amounts, seem to have actually helped. So where did all these missing billions go?Goodman: Are there other examples similar to Haiti, where the Clinton Foundation utilized a tragedy in a similar manner?Ortel: The Clintons seem to be “merchants around misery”, operating as a kind of “Robin Hood in Reverse”—-there are many disasters that they seem to have exploited. In brief, the Clinton Foundation solicited massive sums to “fight HIV/AIDS” but did not check carefully enough to ensure that these drugs were supplied in intact form, and neither adulterated nor watered-down.A key supplier, Ranbaxy, subsequently paid a $500 million economic penalty and plead guilty to numerous felonies—we may never know how many of the HIV/AIDS drugs that the Clinton Foundation claims credit for having distributed from July 2002 forward internationally may have been “dirty” and dangerous. Around the world, the Clinton Foundation seems to seek out desperate nations with limited infrastructure, or disasters, and then insert itself in front of incoming aid flows. They did this in Mozambique, in Papua New Guinea, in Haiti, and with Katrina in New Orleans, and in many other places.Goodman: In terms of the money and the issue of the Clinton Foundation being a charity, are there any red flags in terms of the financial aspect of the controversy?Ortel: Absolutely—-Americans and others in wealthy nations are generous. There is no global regulator for charities that operate internationally, while State regulators typically are stretched thin cover the estimated 1.2 million or more tax-exempt organizations that exist inside the U.S. alone. The easiest “red flag” to see is that there are no compliant audits of the financial statements of any Clinton Foundation en y from 23 October 1997 forward.There is no information provided concerning the international HIV/AIDS fighting activities from July 2002 through 23 March 2004. The application to authorize Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative, Inc. (the en y was formed 24 March 2004 in Little Rock, AR) is omitted from the Clinton Foundation website, as in any determination letter that may have been issued (if one was issued) by the IRS.The Annual Reports for this en y on IRS Form 990 for 2004 and 2005 are omitted from the website—-I have these and they show that the en y and the Clinton Foundation failed, numerous ways, to register appropriately and to solicit in many legal jurisdictions. Financial information for 2000 through 2004 concerning the Clinton Foundation is omitted from the website, but available online—-this information shows that accounting during this key period, when the Clinton Foundation complex was being built was performed using accounting principles that are not allowed inside the U.S.The final area that raises red flags arises when you check disclosures made by key donors to the Clinton Foundation (UNITAID (the largest ulative donor at $650 million, and a collection of governments/Gates), other governments and Gates Foundation, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK), and others)—amounts these donors believe they gave are much larger than amounts Clinton Foundation en ies appear to claim they received.Goodman: How much money in aggregate did the country of Haiti receive and how much money did the citizens of Haiti receive?Ortel: The math is staggering—-if we count all estimated donations $10,000,000,000 or more as the base, and use $100 million as the approximate amount declared, we arrive at 1%.But then look here at how much benefit one donor, involved in Haiti, may have derived from the World Bank, potentially through intercession of the Clinton network, spread throughout many government and multi-lateral organizations:When you click on each link and then add up the totals you will be amazed.
Let me know when the red flags turn into hard evidence.
ask and you shall receive
http://charlesortel.com/
Maybe you'd prefer the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us...ton-haiti.html
Brietbart contributor. Nice! And you said you never linked Brietbart.
Excellent rebuttal. You really decimated his work.
Linking a Brietbart contributor through a Huffington Post article still falls short of what you hoped for, unless Huff is now also the alt-right. Hard to keep track off all things labeled alt-right these days after the whole cartoon frog and white racist black sucking sexual fiasco.
All I know is Trump is going to win the debate on Sunday. He's going to excel in the townhall format better than any of you can imagine. Trump is essentially in the hospitality business. He knows how to charm when he needs to and Hillary does not.
In fact, I bet he wins the Drudge poll of who won the debate by at least a 50 point margin!!! Amazing!
does he really calim that horse now?
more cir stantial speculation. Do you understand what hard evidence means?
"......While there is no evidence that Mr. Rodham got preferential treatment, his ventures were quickly inflated into rumors, heard often on the streets and airwaves, that the Clintons had been busy buying land in Haiti for profit........."
whats the verdict?
is she arrogant?
http://charlesortel.com/
here is your hard evidence.
Nope. More cir stantial.
A failed state, a terrorist haven, four dead Americans – this is the Hillary Clinton record in Libya we know about.
But new evidence -- and a review of the public record -- reveals that Hillary Clinton’s actions in Libya were not just disastrous policy, but a violation of U.S. anti-terrorism law.
A recent report to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British House of Commons concluded that Western intervention in Libya was based on "inaccurate intelligence" and "erroneous assumptions." Advocates failed to recognize that “the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element," and the failure to plan for a post-Qaddafi Libya led to the "growth of ISIL" in North Africa.
However, “inaccurate intelligence” doesn’t fully describe the whole story. A closer examination of the run-up to the Libya debacle on September 11, 2012 leads to the irrefutable conclusion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly armed radical Islamist terrorists in Libya.
False pretenses
The American public was told that the intervention in Libya was necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis. But just as Hillary Clinton would describe the attack on our Benghazi diplomats as a spontaneous protest over a video, the military intervention that led inexorably to the debacle in Benghazi was sold on false pretenses: to prevent an imminent massacre of civilians engaged in a pro-democracy uprising.
Hillary Clinton described the 2011 Arab Spring rebellion in eastern Libya as a spontaneous pro-democracy uprising, but the Libyan connection to radical Islamic extremist groups was well known long before 2011.
The region where the rebellion began was a fervid recruiting ground for jihadis who killed American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The leaders of the “civilian uprising” that Hillary Clinton supported were members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who had pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. They refused to take orders from non-Islamist commanders and assassinated the then leader of the rebel army, Abdel Fattah Younes.
The LIFG had been jailed under Qaddafi until hundreds of their members were released through a de-radicalization program. That program was spearheaded by an exiled Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Libyan cleric based in Qatar named Ali al-Sallabi. The jihadis pledged they would never use violence against Gaddafi again.
But nearly as soon as the LIFG was released they took up arms against the Qaddafi regime.
Just as there was ample evidence that Hillary’s “pro-democracy protestors” were radical Islamists, there was no truth to the assertion a civilian massacre was imminent.
Libyan doctors told United Nations investigators that, of the more than 200 corpses in Tripoli’s morgues following fighting in late February 2011, only two were female. This indicates Qaddafi’s forces targeted male combatants and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. Nor had Qaddafi forces attacked civilians after retaking towns from the rebels in early February 2011.
While Muammar Qaddafi had a 40-year record of appalling human rights violations, his abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians. We restored full diplomatic relations with Qaddafi in 2007 and he was a key partner in counter-terrorism efforts.
LIFG and affiliated jihadis received at least 18 shipments of arms from Qatar with the blessing of the U.S., the Wall Street Journal reports. The arms shipments were funneled through none other than Ali al-Sallabi, the Qatar cleric who brokered their release from prison.
The Islamists were able to pay for the weapons because Clinton had convinced Obama to grant full diplomatic recognition to the rebels, against the advice of State Department lawyers and the Secretary of Defense.
As the Washington Post reported, this move “allowed the Libyans access to billions of dollars from Qaddafi’s frozen accounts.”
These arms shipments are significant for several reasons. It led to the indictment of American arms dealer Marc Turi who was charged with selling weapons to Islamist militants in Libya through Qatar. The charges were dropped this week after Turi threatened to reveal emails showing Clinton had approved the sales.
Here’s where it gets very sticky for Secretary Clinton. The rebel leaders were on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list. It is a direct violation of the law to provide material support for terrorist organizations under 18 U.S. Code 2339A & 2339B. Penalties for providing or attempting to provide material support to terrorism include imprisonment from 15 years to life.
Nor is the Qatar connection insignificant. Qatar has donated anywhere from $1 to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, and emails reveal members of the Qatari royal family were privileged with back channel meetings with Secretary Clinton at the State Department. While whipping up support for the Libya military campaign, Clinton told Arab leaders, “it’s important to me personally,” the Washington Post reported.
Hillary Clinton’s prosecution of foreign policy in Libya crossed several lines: she showed extremely bad judgment by ignoring military and intelligence officials, she let personal interests conflict with U.S. foreign policy and, most importantly, she may have broken the law -- again.
Any one of these transgressions should disqualify her from holding any kind of leadership role in our government, let alone president of the United States. The last one qualifies Hillary Clinton for government housing, though not in the White House.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/...han-think.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions