Charles Ortel Lobs the First of 40 Bombs at the Clinton Foundation

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

when the guy calls a charity 'rouge' he is hardly gonna be impartial.

a reply to: Indigo5

Nice dodge, I'll take that as a yes, you know how
they have implicated themselves as guilty.

originally posted by: Tempter

Secondly, how much are you paid to defend her? I'm serious. I want to know.

Lame.

This is what you get when they have nothing.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: SentientCentenarian

when the guy calls a charity 'rouge' he is hardly gonna be impartial.

Now there's a POINT!

I try to always research the author of an article (or opinion).

I really can't find anything on this guy to give him unbiased credibility.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian
So he will take the government down by exposing this then the government justice department will take the government down? Not going to happen. The only way the government is going down is through the use of force. Then the vaccum will be filled by another greedy power hungry gruop. That is how it works. It sucks but deal with it.

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
Here's the Clinton Foundation tax return from 2014 if anyone has the right kind of brain to scrutinize it - I sure as hell don't.

CF taxes 2014

The Clintons are notorious for filing their returns, conveniently leaving important things out, failing to divulge something, then going back three years later, after the heat is off, and filing an amended return. They're sneaky like that. So, no matter what the return shows...or more accurately, doesn't show..., you can bet it will be amended in a couple of years.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
Here's the Clinton Foundation tax return from 2014 if anyone has the right kind of brain to scrutinize it - I sure as hell don't.

CF taxes 2014

The Clintons are notorious for filing their returns, conveniently leaving important things out, failing to divulge something, then going back three years later, after the heat is off, and filing an amended return. They're sneaky like that. So, no matter what the return shows...or more accurately, doesn't show..., you can bet it will be amended in a couple of years.

Notorious.

OK, you got 2014. That's one year.

Somehow I don't think they are an isolated case.

a reply to: Annee

Research it, Annee. Notorious.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... the accusation is enough for conviction?

No one wants to vet or review the information for accuracy?

Oh, that's right, it's what the right-wing sheep have been led to believe already.

My baaaad.

Jeez this isn't a one off event with the Clintons.

That's right!

They have been accused of all kinds of things by the right so they MUST be guilty.

It is insane logic...Attack someone and then explain the very fact they got attacked must mean there is a good reason.

How about you just admit the OP is silly, stupid, unproven bunk? Or is the plan to continue to go all Birther where facts don't matter?

..No need to answer..I know the answer...the Right Wing doesn't care about facts.

Sorry but when it comes to facts Liberals are the ones who cant deal with facts and resort to polarized attacks.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Annee

Research it, Annee. Notorious.

That really didn't look right to me. Notorious. Guess it is spelled right. Definition: well-known or famous especially for something bad.

FACTS would be good.

You are extremely Right Wing. I don't consider your opinion valid.

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... the accusation is enough for conviction?

No one wants to vet or review the information for accuracy?

Oh, that's right, it's what the right-wing sheep have been led to believe already.

My baaaad.

Jeez this isn't a one off event with the Clintons.

That's right!

They have been accused of all kinds of things by the right so they MUST be guilty.

It is insane logic...Attack someone and then explain the very fact they got attacked must mean there is a good reason.

How about you just admit the OP is silly, stupid, unproven bunk? Or is the plan to continue to go all Birther where facts don't matter?

..No need to answer..I know the answer...the Right Wing doesn't care about facts.

Sorry but when it comes to facts Liberals are the ones who cant deal with facts and resort to polarized attacks.

Right Wingers love to say this.

But, 20+ years ago when I was still a Republican I was a member of a political discussion group.

Seriously. I went in as a George Bush supporter.

I COMPLETELY disagree with you. IMO, from my experience - - - the Right Winger Conservatives are just plain crazy. They wouldn't know truth or fact if it bit them.

YES, I went in on the Right - - - but, because of their behavior and negative verbal gymnastics - - - I left in opposition.

Outstanding thread !!!

Watching the Clintonites trying to defend the undefendable from harm.

For those that are outside of the intelligence loop, this is just getting started.

Give it two or three more weeks.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hilldawg is that you?

I love how hard the Left Wing are trying to excuse this or snuff it out as a "right wing conspiracy". Continue to bow down and sniff Hillary butt while you can

originally posted by: Kalixi
I love how hard the Left Wing are trying to excuse this or snuff it out as a "right wing conspiracy". Continue to bow down and sniff Hillary butt while you can

NO.

It IS a Right Wing Conspiracy.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: SentientCentenarian

when the guy calls a charity 'rouge' he is hardly gonna be impartial.

Sorry to pick on you, but it's 'rogue'. Rouge is that stuff you put on your cheeks.

There was a great parody book out a while back where Sarah Palin's book 'Going Rogue' was parodied as 'Going Rouge'.

Only self appointed spelling mavens like me got the joke, though.

No word yet from Charles Ortel on the promised 'late September 7' first report. I hope he's in an undisclosed location with a bodyguard.

If he ever does get these going, I think I'll start a new thread for every one of them. This one has already deteriorated into the usual shouting match quagmire between partisans.

I really want this to be a bit of a scholarly, insightful, educated and researcher's thread. Take his conclusions apart all you want, but with the realization and awareness that he's already 15 months ahead of us.

I suppose that's too much to ask, huh?

originally posted by: Kalixi
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hilldawg is that you?

Really? So, that's your response?

Har. Har. Har.

Next time, why don't you try, you know, just for the sake of appearances, to say something at least slightly cogent and on topic, or at least related to what another poster actually says,

Did you have any evidence you wanted to share that contradicts anything I've stated here in regard to the topic?

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

You wish the discussion to be "scholarly and insightful" but you're willing to overlook that in Ortel's first "introductory summary" his presentation is not only laughably biased but also absolutely incorrect on several key claims?

You want to give him the "benefit of the doubt" because you accept that he's been researching for 15 months?

ETA: Could it be that, rather than some purely factually-based analysis that his production is just another in a long line of manufactured attacks on the Clintons and the Clinton foundation? Also, your own "partisan" stripe is showing fairly clearly here ... are you pretending that you don't already have a negative perspective on the Clinton Foundation? I find that rather questionable, given your responses in the thread thus far.

I guess we will see as we go along, but so far, his average of accuracy is fairly much near zero.

/shrug

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: Gryphon66
(PS, the discussion is about the Clinton FOUNDATION not Hillary.)

This is like saying the discussion is about Watergate not Nixon.
You do realize her being a Clinton makes the discussion about her right?

Your mental gymnastics won't get you out of this one.

If you really can't parse the difference between Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation (at least as two distinct legal entities) there's nothing I can do to help you.

No gymnastics required: simple facts, easily discernable.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: intrptr

"Give now and lives will be saved."

'Give now and our wallets will get fatter. Hillary and I are poor.'

They can't even keep a straight face., neither of them.