re: Uranium1 Informant Atty: Clintons Can Attack All They Want, But My Client has the Truth

He's right about program services as it relates to the CF and or CGI. I'm not a fan of the Clinton's, and think their charity work has other agendas. But if we're going to be fair, we can't make fun of the CT, and then buy into some hack's breakdown of the CF's tax return.

We will find out soon enough. The informant has a tape with cash being exchanged and talk of bribery to Clinton Foundation.

For someone who claims to be a CPA you don’t understand the point of financial statements very well...

I could higher a consultant for $500k, have him take-out the trash one time at a hospital and it would show up as a “program expense” and there isn’t diddly shite an audit or a charity watch group would ever know or question about it as long as there was a contract, invoice and internal controls were followed. That’s if you were even lucky enough to select that expense in testing.

There’s absolutely nothing about that scenario that would give me a negative audit opinion and unless you’ve actually seen their books and started questioning every transaction above and beyond what is required of a not-for-profit audit you DO NOT KNOW.

Business waste money all the time. It doesn’t give them negative audit reports or financial statements. The caveat though is that their job is to make money and the scenario isn’t feasible for several reasons. With a not-for-profit controlled by Hillary Clinton, her family and political cohorts...I’ll let you do the math.

Hell I’ve seen situations where a company buys a corvette and a house and lets the owner’s kid drive and live in it most of the time and its not even a concern for a clean audit opinion...

Bottom line, you don’t know what program expenses entail and it could EASILY be abused x10 times over and it wouldn’t even be very hard.

Are you trying to make a point other than you don’t have the basic comprehension to understand my comment? Or just be an internet grammar Nazi? YOU GOT ME!!!

Financial Statements would not prove that scenario didn’t happen. Why? Because a business or charity can do whatever they want with the money.

Audits don’t judge a companies effective use of resources. They make no statement that company Y wasted money doing X and it was a total bone head move.

Businesses are driven by money so the control is profitability...what if you didn’t have to be profitable and people just gave you money for nothing in return?

It would be, and I promise you it is, sooooo easy to abuse that and call it “program expenses” especially in a system where you’ve put into control your family, friends and political cohorts.