13

New Yellow Times ignores the largest, as yet unprosecuted fraud and corruption scandal in American history

Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 7 months ago to Politics
15 comments | Share | Flag

"Ever since 1998, the Clintons have violated legions of laws that might protect New Yorkers from charity and tax frauds. For example, a public charity must further specific, tax-exempt purposes. If it wishes to alter its geographic focus, it ordinarily must secure IRS approval, in advance, before making such a change. And, states including New York legally require charities to make prompt, publicly available notification of such changes.

The Clinton "charities" never have complied with crucial charity laws and did not even bother to file independent certified audits of their financial results for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003 in New York, as is specifically required. Thereafter, purported audits for 2004 forward are each materially false and incomplete. Without effective audits, no outsider can know what actually happened to donations sent towards a charity.

Ask people in India, Asia or Haiti, what happened to billions of dollars raised and, in theory, sent for natural disaster relief efforts overseen by the Clintons. To this day there has never been an honest accounting of these activities.

By what authority and in what guise was all this money solicited, raised and spent?"


All Comments

  • Posted by mia767ca 4 years, 6 months ago
    ...don't look at the man behind the screen while the screen has been pulled back look at the fake news over here...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 4 years, 6 months ago
    Too bad you can't go hunting Washington Swamp Creatures as they do Pythons in Florida Everglades, bag them and tag them and dispose of them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ben_C 4 years, 6 months ago
    We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton told Sawyer. “We had no money when we got there and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.”
    Right. So poor she had to take some of the White House China dinner ware.
    These people lie through their teeth and not bat an eye.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 4 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Laser-focused welfare.

    I really do love that Hunter Biden gets all the discussion about potential mis-deeds in the Ukraine, but no one asks how a guy who got kicked out of the Navy for cocaine charges gets a board job in the Ukraine.

    I've been a successful executive for 15 years, and a board member for about 8. Can I get one?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 4 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    when asked what she would do if indicted while she was a presidential candidate, she LAUGHED and said "it will never happen"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 4 years, 6 months ago
    The clintons are crooks, plain and simple. They engineered the 2nd biggest and most effective scam ever- with social security being the biggest by far.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Turfprint 4 years, 6 months ago
    I heard a quickly question from a reporter or blogger to Hillary a couple of years ago, 'What do you think about charges you are going to jail?' (Paraphrased). Hillary gave knee-jerk answer "If I go a lot of people are going with me." (Not paraphrased)
    I have not been able to find it again on the web or I would be posting it everywhere. That's what I love about drain the swamp.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It sure was a case of "charity" to give her the job where she's making multiple six figures...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 4 years, 6 months ago
    I wonder if Chelsea's $10m apartment is included in the Charities' assets list?????
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 4 years, 7 months ago
    From that I assume the Clinton publicly available 6% -the proportion of money going to charity compared with total money raised, is even lower.
    What would it be for a proper charity, eg Salvos, about 60%?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo