FBI, DHS release report on Russia hacking

[Tassman]

That's a false dichotomy.

No, there are in fact only two choices available in this instance, even if you consider both to be bad choices.

Essentially you are saying that you must either affirm a claim that is negative for Trump, or you are supporting Trump. And you are implying that one ought to affirm the claim because Trump is awful and it's a claim that is negative for Trump. What about seeking and supporting the truth, whatever it might be regardless of who finds it favorable? Trump is awful, but I'm not going to embrace claims because they are negative for Trump, but based only on whether I think they are true.

And (again) being skeptical of a claim is not the same as affirming its contrary.

[Tassman]

I've never trusted what the government says. As a wise man once said, governments are a necessary evil at best, and an intolerable evil at worst.

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except

[JimL]

Because none of those "donations" were used to buy influence or otherwise made its way into the pockets of Bill and Hillary, right? Nevermind that some of the Clinton Foundation's biggest donors got sweetheart deals and special access to the White House while Hillary was Secretary of State.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ap-many-...-her-at-state/

You're the Democrat party's favorite kind of person: ignorant, uninformed, and gullible. I bet you didn't even know that a mere 10% from donations to the Clinton Foundation were actually spent on charitable work.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/...itable-grants/
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity...-a-slush-fund/

Well the unbiased charitable watchdog group, Charitable Navigator, disagrees with your info and in fact gives the Clinton Foundation its highest rating based on their evaluation of the tax returns. There is no evidence, even in your link that the Clintons benefited personally from their charitable foundation.
http://www.charitablenavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=2284"

Now compare that with the rating given to the Trumps slush fund, I mean Foundation, by The Americon Conservative
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-scam-charity/

Funny MM how you totally ignore the actual known facts when it comes to Trumps Foundation and his personal benefit from it, but have no problem attacking the Clintons with no actual evidence of personal gain. Why is that I wonder?

[Bill the Cat]

Well the unbiased charitable watchdog group, Charitable Navigator, disagrees with your info and in fact gives the Clinton Foundation its highest rating based on their evaluation of the tax returns. There is no evidence, even in your link that the Clintons benefited personally from their charitable foundation.
http://www.charitablenavigator.org/i...ry&orgid=16680

The Clinton Foundation received four out of four stars -- the highest rating that Charity Navigator gives after a close look at a charity's finances. The rating is based on annual federal tax documents. It was not intended to reflect whether Hillary Clinton kept donors to her family's foundation at appropriate arm's length or provided favored access as secretary of state.

[JimL]

The Clinton Foundation received four out of four stars -- the highest rating that Charity Navigator gives after a close look at a charity's finances. The rating is based on annual federal tax documents. It was not intended to reflect whether Hillary Clinton kept donors to her family's foundation at appropriate arm's length or provided favored access as secretary of state.

Perhaps, but the evidence is that the Clinton Foundation raises huge amounts of money and does enormous good around the world, and there is no actual evidence that the Clintons personally benefit at all from the Charity. On the other hand, as has been well publicized, Trumps Foundation is nothing more than a personal slush fund.

[rogue06]

Perhaps, but the evidence is that the Clinton Foundation raises huge amounts of money and does enormous good around the world, and there is no actual evidence that the Clintons personally benefit at all from the Charity. On the other hand, as has been well publicized, Trumps Foundation is nothing more than a personal slush fund.

0000000000000hm.jpg

And from WikiLeaks, an email from Douglas J. Band, who was IIRC, the President of the Clinton Foundation and who was upset that money had been diverted for Chelsea's "wedding and life for a decade" including paying some of her taxes^[1.].

0000000000000hm2.jpg

Money donated to the Clinton Foundation to help Haitians was diverted to pay for Chelsea's $20-25,000 wedding gown and help pay for her estimated +$2.8 million wedding.

Further, according to the National Legal and Policy Center:

Source: What Happened to $20 Million in Clinton Haiti Fund?

Isabel Vincent reports today in the New York PostPost could only find evidence of one project that received funding.

The Fund was run by a Jean Marc Villain, who appears to be an American citizen or green card holder of Haitian descent. At the time he supposedly managed the Fund, he was in bankruptcy. He conveniently failed to report his $100,000 salary to the bankruptcy court. From the story:

Also from the story:

The PostMiami Herald:
another murky entity in Colombia established by the Clinton Foundation purportedly to assist entrepreneurs. Slim and Giustra were investors and questions have been raised about what actually happened to the money. In both cases, the Clinton Foundation failed to file the required disclosures.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

1. There is no love loss between Chelsea and Band in that in 2011 she accused him of having conflicts of interest between his work at the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Consulting

[Sparko]

The Fund was run by a Jean Marc Villain, who appears to be an American citizen or green card holder of Haitian descent. At the time he supposedly managed the Fund, he was in bankruptcy. He conveniently failed to report his $100,000 salary to the bankruptcy court.

They literally gave money to a Villain who ripped off the government.

You can't make this stuff up!

[Mountain Man]

Well the unbiased charitable watchdog group, Charitable Navigator, disagrees with your info and in fact gives the Clinton Foundation its highest rating based on their evaluation of the tax returns. There is no evidence, even in your link that the Clintons benefited personally from their charitable foundation.
http://www.charitablenavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=2284"

You're right, the link I gave doesn't prove that that the Clintons benefited personally from the Clinton Foundation. That was simply a reasonable supposition. The claim it does prove, however, is that "some of the Clinton Foundation's biggest donors got sweetheart deals and special access to the White House while Hillary was Secretary of State". There was a rather obvious -- and potentially treasonous -- conflict of interest between Secretary of State Clinton and her "charitable" foundation.

Oh, and check your link. It's not "Charitable Navigator" but "Charity Navigator".

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ind...ry&orgid=16680

And it's rather light on actual information. It seems they just take the organization at its word and don't do any sort of verification. That's where journalism comes in.

Source: The Federalist

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/...itable-grants/

© Copyright Original Source

Source: New York Post

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity...-a-slush-fund/

© Copyright Original Source

Now compare that with the rating given to the Trumps slush fund, I mean Foundation, by The Americon Conservative
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-scam-charity/

Funny MM how you totally ignore the actual known facts when it comes to Trumps Foundation and his personal benefit from it, but have no problem attacking the Clintons with no actual evidence of personal gain. Why is that I wonder?

It's deliciously ironic that in a post trying to defend the Clinton Foundation, you link to an article where the first sentence reads, "We know how crooked the relationship between Secretary of State Clinton and the Clinton Foundation was."

As for Trump's charity, having read various reports, it's not entirely clear who is being accused, or what they're being accused of doing -- a lot of it looks like insinuation and supposition -- but I do concede that not everything looks above board.

[Sparko]

Just saw this. It scares me how much we think alike at times.

You say the same thing when we post nearly identical things.

Wait.


That means if we think alike and you and Sparko think alike then [*Ominous music starts in the background*] that means... Sparko and I must think alike!



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!1!!!eleventy-one!!!1!

[Joel]

That's a false dichotomy.
Essentially you are saying that you must either affirm a claim that is negative for Trump, or you are supporting Trump. And you are implying that one ought to affirm the claim because Trump is awful and it's a claim that is negative for Trump. What about seeking and supporting the truth, whatever it might be regardless of who finds it favorable? Trump is awful, but I'm not going to embrace claims because they are negative for Trump, but based only on whether I think they are true.

And (again) being skeptical of a claim is not the same as affirming its contrary.

You've done nothing here to address my argument.
In this matter, I am not relying on the say-so of any source, Trump or otherwise.
Do you deny that suspension of judgement is possible? Do you really think that being skeptical of a claim is the same as affirming its contrary?

[rogue06]

Just saw this. It scares me how much we think alike at times.

You say the same thing when we post nearly identical things.

Wait.


That means if we think alike and you and Sparko think alike then [*Ominous music starts in the background*] that means... Sparko and I must think alike!



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!1!!!eleventy-one!!!1!

[Tassman]

You've done nothing here to address my argument.
In this matter, I am not relying on the say-so of any source, Trump or otherwise.
Do you deny that suspension of judgement is possible? Do you really think that being skeptical of a claim is the same as affirming its contrary?

[Tassman]

The Clinton Foundation received four out of four stars -- the highest rating that Charity Navigator gives after a close look at a charity's finances. The rating is based on annual federal tax documents. It was not intended to reflect whether Hillary Clinton kept donors to her family's foundation at appropriate arm's length or provided favored access as secretary of state.

The Clinton Foundation has received the highest possible rating and does a great deal of good, the rest is partisan scuttlebutt. OTOH the Trump Foundation has been fined for making political contributions and admitted engaging in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. And the less said about the short-lived, self-serving Eric Trump Foundation the better.

[Bill the Cat]

The Clinton Foundation has received the highest possible rating and does a great deal of good, the rest is partisan scuttlebutt.

giphy.gif

OTOH the Trump Foundation

Apples and oranges.

https://trust.guidestar.org/notes-on...mp-foundations

has been fined for making political contributions

Fined ONCE for $2,500. Wow. That's quite an indictment...

and admitted engaging in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses.

And Hillary lied through her teeth about her self-dealing, pay for play speeches, etc. At least Trump was honest about his foundation's mistakes.

And the less said about the short-lived, self-serving Eric Trump Foundation the better.

Yeah, because the $16 Million they gave to St. Jude's was just turr'bul... and the Eric Trump Foundation Surgery & ICU Center that was built from foundation donations shouldn't be mentioned.

[MaxVel]

People are saying that the real reason you live in Thailand is that you're on the run from the authorities. They say you sold a whole bunch of Australian uranium to the North Koreans... pretty serious stuff... Lots of people saying this... "Where there's smoke there's fire"

You should probably be in jail...