Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The REALLY sad part is, no matter how many new stories come out with things that she's done - people who've worked for her - things that were said or done - there are STILL idiots out there that will vote for her no matter what she's done...
And when they get done voting for her, they return home to sit on the couch, watch Jerry Springer, eat their bon-bons and collect their welfare checks... plural, not singular - while their many children wonder who their baby daddy is...
"The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends."
The New York Post printed incorrect information in this article of several months ago.
"Daniel Borochoff of Charity Watch noted that in 2014, 87.2% of the foundation's funding went to its programs, "which is really high." The foundation, he said, does "really important, valuable work that saves lives of lots of people."
"It's unfortunate that it's become this punching bag, this political punching bag," Borochoff said. "There's a lot of things that are said that are false. If Hillary Clinton wasn't running for president, the Clinton Foundation would be seen as one of the great humanitarian charities of our generation."
The New York Post printed incorrect information in this article of several months ago.
"Daniel Borochoff of Charity Watch noted that in 2014, 87.2% of the foundation's funding went to its programs, "which is really high." The foundation, he said, does "really important, valuable work that saves lives of lots of people."
"It's unfortunate that it's become this punching bag, this political punching bag," Borochoff said. "There's a lot of things that are said that are false. If Hillary Clinton wasn't running for president, the Clinton Foundation would be seen as one of the great humanitarian charities of our generation."
Charity Navigator said Tuesday it has removed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from its watch list, a red flag used by the charity watchdog to signal to donors that questions have been raised about a group’s operations.
Glanced at them, but you can't "investigate" anything without the actual email address they were sent from or the IP addresses. None of them contain that information. No way to know if they were being sent from a clintonmail domain, gmail, yahoo, clintonfoundation.com...who knows. And the dump is only of emails in Hillary's account, its not a dump of the "Diane Reynolds" account so who knows what other things could have been sent to and from that account of questionable nature.
Glanced at them, but you can't "investigate" anything without the actual email address they were sent from or the IP addresses. None of them contain that information. No way to know if they were being sent from a clintonmail domain, gmail, yahoo, clintonfoundation.com...who knows. And the dump is only of emails in Hillary's account, its not a dump of the "Diane Reynolds" account so who knows what other things could have been sent to and from that account of questionable nature.
And yet it's these 67 e-mails that you want investigated.
And yet it's these 67 e-mails that you want investigated.
Yes. Because you cant get the actual domain or ip tied to those emails from what I see in that dump.
Try and remove yourself from the politics of the situation and use common sense. Here is the scenario:
1. A person was investigated for mishandling sensitive information via email.
2. This same person has multiple email communications with a person using a fake name and email address to hide who they are.
The next logical step is to investigate that person using the fake name and email address to see if their emails were hiding anything. During the investigation this should have been a red flag. I'm sure that 99% of us that are on the up and up don't get emails from people using fake names at our daily jobs.
Its fishy and if you think that me, you, or anyone else can "investigate" this just from this dump of 67 emails, you are wrong because you need to know more about email address with the fake name, and you need to look to see if that fake name was coming from a Clinton owned domain or not and if so, what other emails were sent/received. If that was on a Clinton domain, were there other emails sent to people besides Hillary inside or more importantly outside of the SoS domain? If it was just some nonsense on a gmail or yahoo account that was strictly for Chelsae to communicate with friends and family, then who cares, but if it was attached to any official business, that is a problem.
Yes. Because you cant get the actual domain or ip tied to those emails from what I see in that dump.
Try and remove yourself from the politics of the situation and use common sense. Here is the scenario:
1. A person was investigated for mishandling sensitive information via email.
2. This same person has multiple email communications with a person using a fake name and email address to hide who they are.
The next logical step is to investigate that person using the fake name and email address to see if their emails were hiding anything. During the investigation this should have been a red flag. I'm sure that 99% of us that are on the up and up don't get emails from people using fake names at our daily jobs.
Its fishy and if you think that me, you, or anyone else can "investigate" this just from this dump of 67 emails, you are wrong because you need to know more about email address with the fake name, and you need to look to see if that fake name was coming from a Clinton owned domain or not and if so, what other emails were sent/received. If that was on a Clinton domain, were there other emails sent to people besides Hillary inside or more importantly outside of the SoS domain? If it was just some nonsense on a gmail or yahoo account that was strictly for Chelsae to communicate with friends and family, then who cares, but if it was attached to any official business, that is a problem.
Your scenario is flawed. #2 is bs. Chelsea Clinton wasn't hiding who she was in those e-mails. I have a niece. One of her e-mail addresses has her name as Louisa Alcott. She's not hiding her identity. She's a fan of the book Little Women. She knows I'm a fan, too, so it's a little joke between us. There's nothing suspicious about this.
Since your scenario is flawed, your next logical step is not, in fact, a logical step at all. That's why the FBI that has already reviewed these e-mails isn't going to do anything. Because your suspicions are stupid. And you know it, because I've asked you several times what it is that you think Chelsea is, a spy? a terrorist? and you keep on saying no, of course not. And yet you want to expend taxpayer money and resources to investigate 67 e-mails between a mother and a daughter, e-mails you can read because I've provided you with the link to them, you want to investigate them to see if they are hiding anything. Because naturally, they must be hiding something.
Your scenario is flawed. #2 is bs. Chelsea Clinton wasn't hiding who she was in those e-mails. I have a niece. One of her e-mail addresses has her name as Louisa Alcott. She's not hiding her identity. She's a fan of the book Little Women. She knows I'm a fan, too, so it's a little joke between us. There's nothing suspicious about this.
Since your scenario is flawed, your next logical step is not, in fact, a logical step at all. That's why the FBI that has already reviewed these e-mails isn't going to do anything. Because your suspicions are stupid. And you know it, because I've asked you several times what it is that you think Chelsea is, a spy? a terrorist? and you keep on saying no, of course not. And yet you want to expend taxpayer money and resources to investigate 67 e-mails between a mother and a daughter, e-mails you can read because I've provided you with the link to them, you want to investigate them to see if they are hiding anything. Because naturally, they must be hiding something.
Do you see how irrational this is?
So you believe that the woman who holds one of the top most sensitive positions in the wold should be held to the same standards for email communication as you and your niece talking about childrens literature? You should know that "little jokes" aren't SOP or even allowed in government work like this. There used to be a practice of including "easter eggs" or "little jokes" in many major software packages until the government required them to be removed for security reasons.
She absolutely is hiding who she is in those emails, maybe not from her mother, but from anyone else who is not intimately involved with their relationship and that name.
I've answered and said I don't think she is a spy, or a terrorist, yes. But what I do think is that her mom holds an incredibly important position in this world and our government, and if there is some secret email account out there being used to communicate with her, it should be further looked into. Especially now that all of this separation of State Dept. and Clinton Foundation work is being found to be unethical and in question of the "firewall" she said would exist between the two. You keep referencing these 67 emails, and I keep telling you to your deaf ears that you can't see the entire picture with those. Why is there a fake email address to begin with...is it a Clinton Foundation domain that they are coming from? If so why is this supposed "great charitable foundation" setting up fake email addresses? Was that fake email address used to communicate under the radar with other prominent figures outside of the Clinton circle, and if so, why? This is not some cute fun game that the Clintons get to play. They and their charity have massive impact to the world as they keep telling us, and since it also now has shown to be unethically tapping into resources at the State Dept, this issue of a fake email address is an issue.
The real problem here is that because Hillary cant even wake up in the morning without behaving unethically or lying about something, she needs to be treated like a child, and any even remotely suspicious activity should be checked into.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
