- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Uranium1 Informant Atty: Clintons Can Attack All They Want, But My Client has the Truth
Posted on 2/13/18 at 1:12 pm to Rex
Posted on 2/13/18 at 1:12 pm to Rex
quote:
- There's nothing particularly wrong with taking $3 million from Russians to give to charity. There's never been any evidence that the Clintons personally benefited from Uranium One.
quote:
- A Russian "expectation" of influence doesn't necessary equate to actual influence. Hillary Clinton had a very small voice in the matter, and there was nothing wrong with the sale in the first place.
Based upon your attempts to justify the traitor Clinton's behavior, I can now see how you justify your lifestyle of poodle rape.
0
Posted on 2/13/18 at 1:16 pm to Rex
Really Rex you must have a hell of a benefit package 
You be going down with them
You be going down with them
Posted on 2/13/18 at 1:30 pm to Rex
quote:
One meeting? LOL. There were several meetings.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 2:17 pm to Rex
quote:
There's nothing particularly wrong with taking $3 million from Russians to give to charity. There's never been any evidence that the Clintons personally benefited from Uranium One.
- A Russian "expectation" of influence doesn't necessary equate to actual influence. Hillary Clinton had a very small voice in the matter, and there was nothing wrong with the sale in the first place.
Quoting for posterity and future use. Please tell me you realized WTF you were typing while doing so and that no one can be this obtuse and unintentionally ironic.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 2:48 pm to RazorBroncs
Everything I posted is correct.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 2:51 pm to Rex
quote:
Everything I posted is correct.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 3:09 pm to Jbird
quote:
- There's nothing particularly wrong with taking $3 million from Russians to give to charity. There's never been any evidence that the Clintons personally benefited from Uranium One.
As a former not-for-profit auditor I can promise you that you have no idea where the money went, how it went there and if it was effective in its use.
I could make Bernie Madoff look like a McDonalds register clerk if given complete control and no fear of oversight of a charitable organization.
Matter of fact, I encountered fraud in a non not-for-profit audit only once and even that's considered very rare. I've seen it in not-for-profit audits maybe 5-6 times and the way it got caught was basically someone tripping over their own shoe lace.
This post was edited on 2/13/18 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 2/13/18 at 5:03 pm to berrycajun
I'm still waiting for the pictures of the bags full of cash he said he had that the Russians used to pay off Clinton.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 5:18 pm to Rex
So Hillary gets off on not having an expectation of influence ? You people are loons. Absolutel fools.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 5:43 pm to TOPAL
quote:
You have to be trolling; It must suck to be you.
Many have long theorized that Rex is not the village idiot he comes across as, but is actually the best troll on the site.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 6:21 pm to BaylorTiger
No oversight? WTF are you babbling about?
The Clinton Foundation's financials and activities are voluntarily subjected to public auditing and charity monitoring organizations, the former which regularly issues opinions that operating results represent activities and results fairly in every material respect and the latter which give the Foundation their highest ratings.
Here, by the way, are the Foundation financials for 2016 and 2015, which show that their charity expenses accounted for 90% and 85% of receipts:
LINK
The Clinton Foundation's financials and activities are voluntarily subjected to public auditing and charity monitoring organizations, the former which regularly issues opinions that operating results represent activities and results fairly in every material respect and the latter which give the Foundation their highest ratings.
Here, by the way, are the Foundation financials for 2016 and 2015, which show that their charity expenses accounted for 90% and 85% of receipts:
LINK
This post was edited on 2/13/18 at 6:22 pm
Posted on 2/13/18 at 6:35 pm to Rex
You just linked a proven fraudulent foundation’s self reported financials as fact. This is why no one takes you fools seriously
Posted on 2/13/18 at 6:36 pm to Rex
quote:
Here, by the way, are the Foundation financials for 2016 and 2015, which show that their charity expenses accounted for 90% and 85% of receipts
Are you referring to "program services"??? Because that's not charity expenses! Look at pages 21 and 22.
And as I explained to you before (and you ignored) these are CONSOLIDATED statements that include all of the other Clinton entities, including the Clinton global initiative, etc.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 6:38 pm to Rex
quote:
Giustra divested himself of any interest in Uranium One THREE YEARS before the sale you are so desperate to disparage.
Do yourself a favor and at least read what I linked. You won't look so dumb.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 6:39 pm to Rekrul
quote:
You just linked a proven fraudulent foundation’s self reported financials as fact.
Are you saying the independent public auditors are liars?
Posted on 2/13/18 at 6:41 pm to Rex
Yes
Posted on 2/13/18 at 6:42 pm to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
Do yourself a favor and at least read what I linked. You won't look so dumb.
You got caught in a lie.
Before that you posted a right wing hack's assessment of the Clinton Foundation as though it was gospel... a hack who obviously can't read a financial statement nor trust independent auditors or the country's two most respected charity watch institutions.
Snopes and Politifact both have very good summaries of the Uranium One deal, but I seriously doubt that you're interested in truth.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 6:43 pm to Rex
Isn’t she supposed to already in jail by now?
Posted on 2/13/18 at 6:43 pm to Rekrul
quote:
Yes
Well, I guess that's what you're OBLIGATED to say when you first decide to be a dishonest nitwit.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 6:44 pm to Rex
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News