Trump daddy
- Thread starter GeorgiePorgie
- Start date
NQ1965
PR Elite
Absolutely!
It worked for long time Clinton friend and crime partner Jeffrey Epstein in luring in 12-15 year old little girls for his Lolita Express orgies. They needed money, and he had plenty to give. And it also worked in getting him immunity to a lifetime in prison.
Funny how some of the deeds performed in our political practices resemble prostitution. Anything for a donation.
And of course it's always a Hoot to see all of the "Pardons" the outgoing President will issue in his final hours before he is evicted from the White House.
God.... I think I'm going to be sick! (as I'm exiting stage left)
Last edited:
GeorgiePorgie
PR Founding Father
They should only allow pardons three days before the presidential REELECTION.
hershey
PR Elite
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...hecking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/
Sturd, Id say this speaks for itself as far as the speeches go.
Fact-checking 'Clinton Cash' author on claim about Bill Clinton's speaking fees
By Lauren Carroll on Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 6:42 p.m.
John Heilemann weighs in on the publishing strategy for Pete Schweizer’s “Clinton Cash” and the Hillary Clinton operation’s reaction to the controversy.
'Clinton Cash' author Peter Schweizer.
Did foreign interests curry favor with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by paying huge speaking fees to her husband?
That’s the question raised in the forthcoming book Clinton Cash by author and political consultant Peter Schweizer. On the Sunday shows, Schweizer said that while his research uncovered no proof of a quid pro quo between foreign interests and the 2016 Democratic frontrunner, the evidence does suggest a troubling trend.
In an April 26 interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace highlighted a claim from Schweizer’s book.
"You have an interesting point that I want to put up on the screen that seems to demonstrate exactly the point you're making," Wallace said. "Between 2001 and 2012, Bill Clinton made 13 speeches, 13, for which he was paid $500,000 or more. Eleven of those 13 speeches were at least eight years after he left the presidency while his wife was secretary of state."
Schweizer responded, noting that Bill Clinton’s speaking fees "dramatically" went up when Hillary Clinton, now a presidential candidate, took office in 2009.
"When you have one or two examples, it's a coincidence," he said. "When you have this many, to me it's a trend."
We aren’t going to dig into the truthfulness of Schweizer’s overall thesis here. But we are interested in Bill Clinton’s speaking fees while Hillary Clinton was at the State Department. His book says,"Of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state,"according to the New York Times, which has an advance copy.
By the millions
In 2014, before Clinton Cash was in the public eye, the Washington Post analyzedClinton’s speaking fees and found he made at least $104 million in speaking fees between 2001 through 2012 -- more than half of that income came from speeches in foreign countries (though he gave more speeches within the United States).
To find out more about Clinton’s speaking fees, we turned to Hillary Clinton’sfederal financial disclosure forms, made available by the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group that tracks money in politics. Because Hillary Clinton held federal positions from the time they left the White House in 2001 through 2012, her financial information as well as Bill Clinton’s is available for all those years.
Schweizer didn’t respond to our requests for comment, but income information on the financial disclosure forms supports his claim.
Here’s a list of all the speeches for which Clinton received a fee of $500,000 or higher, including the year, location, host and actual fee:
Schweizer suggests that Clinton’s speaking fees went up in 2009 in part because companies wanted leverage within Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
For example, New York Times reporters -- building off of Schweizer’s work -- foundthat while the State Department was involved in securing a uranium mining deal with Russia, investors in the company involved in the deal, Uranium One, gave millions to the Clinton Foundation.
Additionally, "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."
The article’s talking about speech No. 3 on the list above, the 2010 speech paid for by Renaissance Capital.
ABC News also examined Clinton’s speaking records and found many instances in which he took in money from groups with pending interests at the State Department. State Department ethics officials had to sign off on these speaking engagements, but rarely did they say Clinton could not accept payment for a particular speech.
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has staunchly denied the implication that there was some sort of quid pro quo for entities that contributed to the Clintons’ wealth, arguing that Schweizer’s book does not have firm evidence of any such deal making.
Our ruling
Schweizer said, "Of the 13 (Bill) Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state."
We're not checking Schweizer's suggestion that the increased speaking fees were part of a plan to curry favor in his wife's State Department. But on the specific numbers, Schweitzer is correct.
Hillary Clinton’s financial disclosure forms from 2001 through the end of 2012 confirm Schweizer’s claim. We rate it True.
Sturd, Id say this speaks for itself as far as the speeches go.
Fact-checking 'Clinton Cash' author on claim about Bill Clinton's speaking fees
By Lauren Carroll on Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 6:42 p.m.
John Heilemann weighs in on the publishing strategy for Pete Schweizer’s “Clinton Cash” and the Hillary Clinton operation’s reaction to the controversy.
'Clinton Cash' author Peter Schweizer.
Did foreign interests curry favor with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by paying huge speaking fees to her husband?
That’s the question raised in the forthcoming book Clinton Cash by author and political consultant Peter Schweizer. On the Sunday shows, Schweizer said that while his research uncovered no proof of a quid pro quo between foreign interests and the 2016 Democratic frontrunner, the evidence does suggest a troubling trend.
In an April 26 interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace highlighted a claim from Schweizer’s book.
"You have an interesting point that I want to put up on the screen that seems to demonstrate exactly the point you're making," Wallace said. "Between 2001 and 2012, Bill Clinton made 13 speeches, 13, for which he was paid $500,000 or more. Eleven of those 13 speeches were at least eight years after he left the presidency while his wife was secretary of state."
Schweizer responded, noting that Bill Clinton’s speaking fees "dramatically" went up when Hillary Clinton, now a presidential candidate, took office in 2009.
"When you have one or two examples, it's a coincidence," he said. "When you have this many, to me it's a trend."
We aren’t going to dig into the truthfulness of Schweizer’s overall thesis here. But we are interested in Bill Clinton’s speaking fees while Hillary Clinton was at the State Department. His book says,"Of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state,"according to the New York Times, which has an advance copy.
By the millions
In 2014, before Clinton Cash was in the public eye, the Washington Post analyzedClinton’s speaking fees and found he made at least $104 million in speaking fees between 2001 through 2012 -- more than half of that income came from speeches in foreign countries (though he gave more speeches within the United States).
To find out more about Clinton’s speaking fees, we turned to Hillary Clinton’sfederal financial disclosure forms, made available by the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group that tracks money in politics. Because Hillary Clinton held federal positions from the time they left the White House in 2001 through 2012, her financial information as well as Bill Clinton’s is available for all those years.
Schweizer didn’t respond to our requests for comment, but income information on the financial disclosure forms supports his claim.
Here’s a list of all the speeches for which Clinton received a fee of $500,000 or higher, including the year, location, host and actual fee:
- 2003 -- Japan, $500,000 Sakura Asset Management (Japanese finance corporation) (A note: This speech was canceled, but the fee went to Clinton’s presidential library foundation);
- 2008 -- California, $500,000, Power Within (life coach Anthony Robbins’ brand);
- 2010 -- Russia, $500,000, Renaissance Capital (Russian finance corporation);
- 2010 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Novo Nordisk (Danish pharmaceutical company);
- 2011 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);
- 2011 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation(Austrian nongovernmental organization);
- 2011 -- Netherlands, $600,000, Achmea (Dutch finance corporation);
- 2011 -- China, $550,000, Huatuo CEO Forum (business conference);
- 2011 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (international environmental information organization);
- 2011 -- Hong Kong, $750,000, Ericsson (Swedish multinational communications technology company);
- 2012 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);
- 2012 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation(Austrian nongovernmental organization);
- 2012 -- Italy, $500,000, Technogym (fitness equipment manufacturer).
Schweizer suggests that Clinton’s speaking fees went up in 2009 in part because companies wanted leverage within Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
For example, New York Times reporters -- building off of Schweizer’s work -- foundthat while the State Department was involved in securing a uranium mining deal with Russia, investors in the company involved in the deal, Uranium One, gave millions to the Clinton Foundation.
Additionally, "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."
The article’s talking about speech No. 3 on the list above, the 2010 speech paid for by Renaissance Capital.
ABC News also examined Clinton’s speaking records and found many instances in which he took in money from groups with pending interests at the State Department. State Department ethics officials had to sign off on these speaking engagements, but rarely did they say Clinton could not accept payment for a particular speech.
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has staunchly denied the implication that there was some sort of quid pro quo for entities that contributed to the Clintons’ wealth, arguing that Schweizer’s book does not have firm evidence of any such deal making.
Our ruling
Schweizer said, "Of the 13 (Bill) Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state."
We're not checking Schweizer's suggestion that the increased speaking fees were part of a plan to curry favor in his wife's State Department. But on the specific numbers, Schweitzer is correct.
Hillary Clinton’s financial disclosure forms from 2001 through the end of 2012 confirm Schweizer’s claim. We rate it True.
hershey
PR Elite
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...on-cash-films-ericsson-revelations-ceo-steps/
Ericsson sure received a Pay for Play benefit
Pre Bill Clinton speech gov finding on telecoms role in Iran and its suppression of its people.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11706r.pdf
A list post Bill Clinton speech of sanctioned Items lists technology but doesnt single out telecom now....
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/11/177609.htm
Funny how that works. And Ericsson never stopped selling their "technology" to Iran.
Ericsson sure received a Pay for Play benefit
Pre Bill Clinton speech gov finding on telecoms role in Iran and its suppression of its people.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11706r.pdf
A list post Bill Clinton speech of sanctioned Items lists technology but doesnt single out telecom now....
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/11/177609.htm
Funny how that works. And Ericsson never stopped selling their "technology" to Iran.
I am shocked, SHOCKED!
Talk to me about Clarence "my dick hangs right" Thomas's lobbyist wife. Or the late Steve "Mr. Family Values" LaTourette's lobbyist wife he dumped his family for.
You think this makes Hillary worse than them? I think it means they are all swimming in the same cesspool.
GeorgiePorgie
PR Founding Father
Dont worry Sturd, you can rest easy knowing Karma must have got back at Steve...
Tell me more why Hillary would be a great president....?
Tell me more why Hillary would be a great president....?
k01
PR Elite
OK then, put simply, that graph is fairly meaningless. Per capita GDP is used to compare different countries. To compare year to year in a single country, the GDP growth rate is appropriate. And those numbers under the current administration are abysmal.
hershey
PR Elite
I will tell you both Trump and Hillary are terrible. Johnson gives interviews while high and I havent a clue about the other lady. But Im not wasting a vote on an independent anyway.
I will say that as much as Trump is an idiot, says some really stupid stuff and has made some mistakes in the past....I trust him 100x more than Hillary. She has a proven track record of lying about everything, flipping her position ( even since the primaries) regularly, corrupt to the core and would sell her mother for $. The FBI implicated her in the Email scandal and yet did nothing. Just to put it into perspective..... Comey said she sent classified info on her personal server. She has claimed many times she didnt. She lied about how she handled classified info. Do you want a person who is already known to handle that type of stuff wrong and lies about it running the country? And for her not to be indited doesnt prove she is innocent, it proves how much power she has over people.
Anyone who cant put 2 and 2 together and see she is corrupt has blinders on. I'll take Trump's idiocy over that any day of the week and on weekends too.
NQ1965
PR Elite
Where we (the American general public) have flunked up is that we have allowed two extremely screwed up and corrupt political parties to manipulate our political system and render it dysfunctional and broken.
As voters and taxpayers, we should protest and absolutely reject this whole mess, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, BEFORE IT GOES ANY FURTHER. With unity we should insist on better representation than what is being shoved down our throats. Throw them both out!
As voters and taxpayers, we should protest and absolutely reject this whole mess, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, BEFORE IT GOES ANY FURTHER. With unity we should insist on better representation than what is being shoved down our throats. Throw them both out!
GeorgiePorgie
PR Founding Father
The Clinton foundation is like their own personal endowment fund.
GeorgiePorgie
PR Founding Father
Don't be silly the Olympics are on tv, the kardashian season just started and the Indians are in 1st place.,..
NQ1965
PR Elite
Georgie, You nailed it down!
------------------------------------------------------------------
George Carlin said:
Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. That’s right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting f****ed by a system that threw them overboard 30 f**kin’ years ago. They don’t want that.
You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and not they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your f***in’ retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it. The’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this f***in’ place. It’s a big club and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in The Big Club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy.
The table has tilted, folks. The game is rigged. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-working people – white collar, blue collar, it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue – these are the people of modest means – Continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don’t give a f**k about you. They don’t give a f**k about you. They don’t give a f**k about you. They don’t care about you at all. At all. At all. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care.
That’s what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white, and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes every day, because the owners of this country know the truth: It’s call the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”
RIP George Carlin. May 12, 1937 – June 22, 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------
George Carlin said:
Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. That’s right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting f****ed by a system that threw them overboard 30 f**kin’ years ago. They don’t want that.
You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and not they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your f***in’ retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it. The’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this f***in’ place. It’s a big club and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in The Big Club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy.
The table has tilted, folks. The game is rigged. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-working people – white collar, blue collar, it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue – these are the people of modest means – Continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don’t give a f**k about you. They don’t give a f**k about you. They don’t give a f**k about you. They don’t care about you at all. At all. At all. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care.
That’s what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white, and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes every day, because the owners of this country know the truth: It’s call the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”
RIP George Carlin. May 12, 1937 – June 22, 2008
It means GDP in the USA, per person, is growing and has been. You can find all the data, it's easy. And graph it with excel, easy also.
GDP growth rate tells you if you're in a recession when it goes negative but doesn't tell you about productivity (per capita) or even the exact level of GDP. Per capita is great for comparing countries but is useful for much more than that.
Who said that? If I was choosing I'd have chosen you before her.
k01
PR Elite
Incorrigible once more...
Ok, try this, Obama has the forth worst rate of growth in US history. The data is available. Graph it! Lol!
This economist should make you happy. Curl up with his little progressive video selling the ever elusive utopian dream.