RE: Hillary Probed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Nnanji -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/17/2016 8:50:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Fuckin Sie A.
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/05/16/benghazi-committee-lawyer-confirms-panel-was-created-to-stop-hillary-clinton-in-2016/
^^^^^^^^^^This is the bankruptcy and propaganda of nutsuckerism.

Lol, a nutsucker blog, obviously thriving on licking Clinton (the rape shamer) sweaty exhaust holes talking about what some mythical person heard another mytical person say to a third mythical person.

Even for you this is delusional. But it is entertainment.




mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/17/2016 8:53:18 AM)

The deluded are delusional, a tautology. The nutsucker lawyer for the nutsucker committee has said this (one of many nutsuckers who have said it), so you are intimating the nutsuckers are imploding.

I wholly agree with the nutsuckers on that point.





bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/17/2016 4:23:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Fuckin Sie A.
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/05/16/benghazi-committee-lawyer-confirms-panel-was-created-to-stop-hillary-clinton-in-2016/
^^^^^^^^^^This is the bankruptcy and propaganda of nutsuckerism.

Lol, a nutsucker blog, obviously thriving on licking Clinton (the rape shamer) sweaty exhaust holes talking about what some mythical person heard another mytical person say to a third mythical person.

Even for you this is delusional. But it is entertainment.


and if he had any sense of academic propriety, itd be intellectually embarrassing too but as it is, its just more ineffectual flailing.




Nnanji -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/17/2016 4:25:12 PM)

I should have tried to get fetching in there.




bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/17/2016 4:29:11 PM)

"Oh My: Financial Analyst Says Clinton Foundation Books ‘Riddled' With ‘Inconsistencies,’ Rises 'To the Level Of Fraud'"

quote:

So, remember when Guy wrote about how people were saying that the Clinton Foundation is a “slush fund?” Do you remember when the Clinton Foundation had to re-file its taxes due to glaring mistakes, like claiming they had received zero donations from foreign and U.S. governments since 2010 when they indeed received tens of millions of dollars? Well, a Wall Street analyst that helped General Electric with their financial pickle in 2008 alleges that the Foundation’s books are fraught with so many errors that it could constitute fraud. Sarah Westwood of the Washington Examiner has the story:

quote:

After more than a year of research, a Wall Street analyst is arguing the Clinton Foundation's books are riddled with financial inconsistencies that rise to the level of "fraud."

Charles Ortel, who gained recognition for correctly identifying problems with General Electric's financial statements in 2008, has prepared 40 reports highlighting discrepancies that he said proves the Clinton Foundation has covered up cash flow since 1997.

The financial whistleblower said his 15 months of research revealed gaps in the amount of money donors claim to have given and the amount of money the foundation claims to have received.


[he must be a nutsucker right?]

With the Foundation, we have shoddy tax returns, over 1,000 foreign donors that weren’t disclosed, the largest individual donor to the Clinton Foundation has conducted business in Iran that could be in violation of U.S. sanctions—and Clinton Foundation donors lobbied the State Department when Hillary was our top diplomat. The Clinton Health Access Initiative never handed over foreign donor information, which was promised to assuage concerns about these types of donations.

We have serious ethical issues here, especially when Clinton has been known to do 180-degree turns on policy when dollars begin to flow into the Foundation. Just look at what happened with the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. More disconcertingly, look at the increase in arms sales to nations that gave millions to the Foundation. You cannot deny that there is a pattern here, one that should have everyone–Democratic and Republican–pondering the ethical ramifications of the power couple’s other ventures...

Even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews had a moment of clarity when he said that it’s clear that when you give money to the Clintons, you want something in return.


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/05/17/oh-my-financial-analyst-says-clinton-foundation-books-riddled-with-inconsistencies-rises-to-the-level-of-fraud-n2164233

maybe if someone throws enough nonsensical and incoherent vulgarities at all this, it'll all go away?




BamaD -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/17/2016 4:44:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

"Oh My: Financial Analyst Says Clinton Foundation Books ‘Riddled' With ‘Inconsistencies,’ Rises 'To the Level Of Fraud'"

quote:

So, remember when Guy wrote about how people were saying that the Clinton Foundation is a “slush fund?” Do you remember when the Clinton Foundation had to re-file its taxes due to glaring mistakes, like claiming they had received zero donations from foreign and U.S. governments since 2010 when they indeed received tens of millions of dollars? Well, a Wall Street analyst that helped General Electric with their financial pickle in 2008 alleges that the Foundation’s books are fraught with so many errors that it could constitute fraud. Sarah Westwood of the Washington Examiner has the story:

quote:

After more than a year of research, a Wall Street analyst is arguing the Clinton Foundation's books are riddled with financial inconsistencies that rise to the level of "fraud."

Charles Ortel, who gained recognition for correctly identifying problems with General Electric's financial statements in 2008, has prepared 40 reports highlighting discrepancies that he said proves the Clinton Foundation has covered up cash flow since 1997.

The financial whistleblower said his 15 months of research revealed gaps in the amount of money donors claim to have given and the amount of money the foundation claims to have received.


[he must be a nutsucker right?]

With the Foundation, we have shoddy tax returns, over 1,000 foreign donors that weren’t disclosed, the largest individual donor to the Clinton Foundation has conducted business in Iran that could be in violation of U.S. sanctions—and Clinton Foundation donors lobbied the State Department when Hillary was our top diplomat. The Clinton Health Access Initiative never handed over foreign donor information, which was promised to assuage concerns about these types of donations.

We have serious ethical issues here, especially when Clinton has been known to do 180-degree turns on policy when dollars begin to flow into the Foundation. Just look at what happened with the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. More disconcertingly, look at the increase in arms sales to nations that gave millions to the Foundation. You cannot deny that there is a pattern here, one that should have everyone–Democratic and Republican–pondering the ethical ramifications of the power couple’s other ventures...

Even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews had a moment of clarity when he said that it’s clear that when you give money to the Clintons, you want something in return.


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/05/17/oh-my-financial-analyst-says-clinton-foundation-books-riddled-with-inconsistencies-rises-to-the-level-of-fraud-n2164233

maybe if someone throws enough nonsensical and incoherent vulgarities at all this, it'll all go away?

Don't you know that nonsensical vulgarities are the sign of a brilliant mind?




lovmuffin -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/17/2016 4:51:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

"Oh My: Financial Analyst Says Clinton Foundation Books ‘Riddled' With ‘Inconsistencies,’ Rises 'To the Level Of Fraud'"

quote:

So, remember when Guy wrote about how people were saying that the Clinton Foundation is a “slush fund?” Do you remember when the Clinton Foundation had to re-file its taxes due to glaring mistakes, like claiming they had received zero donations from foreign and U.S. governments since 2010 when they indeed received tens of millions of dollars? Well, a Wall Street analyst that helped General Electric with their financial pickle in 2008 alleges that the Foundation’s books are fraught with so many errors that it could constitute fraud. Sarah Westwood of the Washington Examiner has the story:

quote:

After more than a year of research, a Wall Street analyst is arguing the Clinton Foundation's books are riddled with financial inconsistencies that rise to the level of "fraud."

Charles Ortel, who gained recognition for correctly identifying problems with General Electric's financial statements in 2008, has prepared 40 reports highlighting discrepancies that he said proves the Clinton Foundation has covered up cash flow since 1997.

The financial whistleblower said his 15 months of research revealed gaps in the amount of money donors claim to have given and the amount of money the foundation claims to have received.


[he must be a nutsucker right?]

With the Foundation, we have shoddy tax returns, over 1,000 foreign donors that weren’t disclosed, the largest individual donor to the Clinton Foundation has conducted business in Iran that could be in violation of U.S. sanctions—and Clinton Foundation donors lobbied the State Department when Hillary was our top diplomat. The Clinton Health Access Initiative never handed over foreign donor information, which was promised to assuage concerns about these types of donations.

We have serious ethical issues here, especially when Clinton has been known to do 180-degree turns on policy when dollars begin to flow into the Foundation. Just look at what happened with the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. More disconcertingly, look at the increase in arms sales to nations that gave millions to the Foundation. You cannot deny that there is a pattern here, one that should have everyone–Democratic and Republican–pondering the ethical ramifications of the power couple’s other ventures...

Even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews had a moment of clarity when he said that it’s clear that when you give money to the Clintons, you want something in return.


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/05/17/oh-my-financial-analyst-says-clinton-foundation-books-riddled-with-inconsistencies-rises-to-the-level-of-fraud-n2164233

maybe if someone throws enough nonsensical and incoherent vulgarities at all this, it'll all go away?


Don't let that get out. Hillary could hire him and her legal problems will disappear. [8D]




BamaD -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/17/2016 4:55:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

"Oh My: Financial Analyst Says Clinton Foundation Books ‘Riddled' With ‘Inconsistencies,’ Rises 'To the Level Of Fraud'"

quote:

So, remember when Guy wrote about how people were saying that the Clinton Foundation is a “slush fund?” Do you remember when the Clinton Foundation had to re-file its taxes due to glaring mistakes, like claiming they had received zero donations from foreign and U.S. governments since 2010 when they indeed received tens of millions of dollars? Well, a Wall Street analyst that helped General Electric with their financial pickle in 2008 alleges that the Foundation’s books are fraught with so many errors that it could constitute fraud. Sarah Westwood of the Washington Examiner has the story:

quote:

After more than a year of research, a Wall Street analyst is arguing the Clinton Foundation's books are riddled with financial inconsistencies that rise to the level of "fraud."

Charles Ortel, who gained recognition for correctly identifying problems with General Electric's financial statements in 2008, has prepared 40 reports highlighting discrepancies that he said proves the Clinton Foundation has covered up cash flow since 1997.

The financial whistleblower said his 15 months of research revealed gaps in the amount of money donors claim to have given and the amount of money the foundation claims to have received.


[he must be a nutsucker right?]

With the Foundation, we have shoddy tax returns, over 1,000 foreign donors that weren’t disclosed, the largest individual donor to the Clinton Foundation has conducted business in Iran that could be in violation of U.S. sanctions—and Clinton Foundation donors lobbied the State Department when Hillary was our top diplomat. The Clinton Health Access Initiative never handed over foreign donor information, which was promised to assuage concerns about these types of donations.

We have serious ethical issues here, especially when Clinton has been known to do 180-degree turns on policy when dollars begin to flow into the Foundation. Just look at what happened with the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. More disconcertingly, look at the increase in arms sales to nations that gave millions to the Foundation. You cannot deny that there is a pattern here, one that should have everyone–Democratic and Republican–pondering the ethical ramifications of the power couple’s other ventures...

Even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews had a moment of clarity when he said that it’s clear that when you give money to the Clintons, you want something in return.


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/05/17/oh-my-financial-analyst-says-clinton-foundation-books-riddled-with-inconsistencies-rises-to-the-level-of-fraud-n2164233

maybe if someone throws enough nonsensical and incoherent vulgarities at all this, it'll all go away?


Don't let that get out. Hillary could hire him and her legal problems will disappear. [8D]

You know they pay people to go online and spew pro clinton nonsense.
Mainly Soros people.




WickedsDesire -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/17/2016 5:06:49 PM)

58 pages of utter fake shoe going at it and not a man and women amongst you




bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/17/2016 6:10:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
Don't let that get out. Hillary could hire him and her legal problems will disappear. [8D]


or he could disappear...




bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/17/2016 6:11:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You know they pay people to go online and spew pro clinton nonsense.
Mainly Soros people.


I suspect joether is one of those people...




sloguy02246 -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/17/2016 6:36:16 PM)

In all fairness, I don't think Joether is paid to do it.




bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/18/2016 5:41:02 AM)

yes, I wouldn't go so far as to try to make that particular argument, but at the very least I would say he is one of those types.




Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/18/2016 6:04:00 AM)

You mean like your devotion to townhall for your information.

Are you being paid by them?
If so they need to up their standards a lot




WhoreMods -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/18/2016 6:06:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

You mean like your devotion to townhall for your information.

Are you being paid by them?
If so they need to up their standards a lot

You think they should be asking for a refund?
[:D]




Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/18/2016 6:09:57 AM)

To start with
[sm=smoking.gif]




mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/18/2016 8:43:25 AM)

So the Nutsuckerii (nutsucker ineffectual imbeciles) continue their nonsensical vulgar circular felching and refelching.




Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/18/2016 8:45:44 AM)

WASHINGTON — There was nothing the military could have done on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, to stop the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, but the special House committee investigating the terrorist incident will continue to probe the Pentagon’s actions that night, the committee's chairman said Tuesday.

“Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don’t think there is any issue with respect to that. They couldn’t," Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., told Fox News.

That concurs with previous congressional investigations that concluded the military could not have responded quickly enough to stop the 2012 attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
But the issue of the military’s response, one of the few Benghazi-related controversies that appeared to be settled, has resurfaced as a key investigative point for Gowdy's special House committee, formed two years ago.

Gowdy and the panel's other GOP members have requested documents and witnesses for months about the military response. Most recently, they've sought info about a handful of military servicemembers who stated — sometimes anonymously — that resources could have been deployed effectively, but weren’t.

Those allegations, which have not been verified by Gowdy’s investigators, would contradict testimony from multiple civilian and military leaders who for years have said proper personnel and equipment could not have arrived fast enough to change the outcome of the attacks.

In a recent clash with the Pentagon over locating such witnesses, Gowdy said there was still more to uncover about how the Pentagon responded that night.

“Talking to the generals and the admirals is important. So too is talking to the service members actually on the ground making preparations to carry out orders," Gowdy wrote to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter on May 6. "I would rather risk interviewing a witness in good faith, who ultimately produces little probative information than risk not interviewing one who does.”

Democrats, who have labeled the special investigation a politically motivated waste of taxpayer money, said Gowdy’s comment Tuesday echoes those made by his former chief counsel during closed-door witness interviews in January.

“Chairman Gowdy has finally admitted what we have all known for years: the central Republican allegation that the military was told to withhold assets that could have saved lives in Benghazi for political reasons is wrong,” Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/17/benghazi-committee-renews-focus-militarys-response/84507742/


From the military times
on the night of the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, according to leaked testimony from a retired, three-star Army general who served as chief lawyer for Republicans on the House committee investigating the attacks.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman "repeatedly commended the military's actions on the night of the attacks during closed interviews with Defense Department officials," including a Jan. 8 interview with former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Democrats on the committee say.

Chipman, a former judge advocate general for the Army, served as chief counsel for Republicans on the House Benghazi panel from August 2014 until January.


Top Democrats on the committee — Reps. Elijah Cummings of Maryland and Adam Smith of Washington — released the testimony Sunday in a letter to the panel's chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. The letter is the latest volley in an escalating, election-year fight over the House Benghazi investigation, which has lasted more than two years.

Democrats have called for panel to disband and say it is a thinly veiled excuse for Republicans to undermine Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the attacks.

Republicans say the Obama administration has dragged its feet, failing to produce needed documents or interview subjects, delaying a final report in the twin assaults on Sept. 11, 2012, that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

The Democrats' letter quotes Chipman as telling Panetta: "I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or Tripoli or elsewhere in the region. And, sir, I don't disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made and the decisions you directed."

Chipman later told Panetta that he was "worried" that U.S. officials were caught by surprise during the Benghazi raids, which occurred on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Still, Chipman told Panetta: "Nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi," the letter said.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2016/05/16/former-gop-lawyer-military-acted-properly-benghazi/84460670/




Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/18/2016 9:06:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

So the Nutsuckerii (nutsucker ineffectual imbeciles) continue their nonsensical vulgar circular felching and refelching.


of course, they only put up the bullshit, they cant argue with it, they dont have to ....apparently





mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/18/2016 9:31:11 AM)

Re your post #1178, additionally, during several of the however many investigations by the nutsucker Gowdy et al, the Joint Chiefs said there was nothing that could be done in the time frame, and SoS did nothing wrong.

The couple or 4 guys whatever that were told to stand down were for cause, and they are, already got 4 people dying, why have 4 more, (cuz they wouldn't have got it done) and start a war to boot that neither government had intended.









Page: <<   < prev  57 58 [59] 60 61   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.882813E-02