CROOK

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/23/only-capitalism-can-save-the-planet.html

Want to get something done? Make sure there is incentive along with purpose. Whether you agree with the “science” that says we, the human race, is now the significant driver of weather and climate change or not you probably will not disagree with the notion that better and cleaner technology is always preferable to old technology that is dirtier and has more negative health implications for all concerned.

Is Elanor Clift that rare liberal squirrel who finds a nut?

Below 25% ?
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

12% ?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/who-needs-the-clinton-foundation-1429281258

6% ? We probably will never really know, but what can be said is that this “charitable” foundation has one hell of a lot of “overhead”.

I listened to an interview between Chris Wallis and Lanny Davis the Clinton’s fixer, spinner and smoother for the past 20 plus years. Mr. Wallis asks about the millions of dollars that was funneled to the Clinton Foundation through a Canadian subsidiary involved in the uranium mine transfer to the Russians (you know the Russian “reset”). I think the number was reported as 2.3 million dollars. Mr. Davis’s answered without hesitation and smooth as silk, he said “Chris, (like Chris Wallis was insane for even asking such a question) the Clinton Foundation is worth about 2 billion dollars, in the big picture 2.3 million really means nothing”. WOW!

Skipping right over the core question and creating a ridiculous equivalency where in comparison to 2 billion 2.3 million is meaningless. And of course as we all hear the Clinton’s do such good work for people around the world to boot as a capping thought .

Mr. Davis unflinchingly earns his pay and he is good at it. I took a shower after I heard the interview and thought of the first rule of politics: Attaining and retaining power at any cost.

R.I.C.O.

I am always open to a correction. I had seen this information in one news report, but never saw a revision or correction. I will do some research, but if you have any sources or references please let me know.

Update: Here is an article documenting the 6% number. Web searches however have not turned up any refutation. If you have one, please provide. Otherwise, the number stands.

By the way, this 6% number is completely believable considering what I have seen from the Clintons for the past three decades. They are corrupt, and dishonest, and this only provides more evidence of that.

Robert, I think you need to look a little deeper into this before making such a statement. I don’t remember the details but it was brought up in a discussion on Fox news a couple of weeks ago and it was said the 6% number was inaccurate. There’s a lot more going to charitable causes that weren’t accounted for. I know this is very vague but it needs to be looked into rather than repeating a bad number.

Nick