CORRUPTION KNOWS NO LIMITS: Are there any honest people left in government?
AUSTRIANS CAN TELL US WHY: REGRETTABLY the solution has been kicked down the road.
MUNIS IN JEAPHORDY?:This happens when you mess with the currency all the time.
WHOA!:WHAT's hard to believe is that it's come to this point. The Muslim faith, ideology, belief system is antithetical to what's left of our western civilization. The liberals have won and the result is not pretty.
THE CORRUPTION IS DEEP-SEATED AND PERMEATES EVERYWHERE:
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is joining the attack against Wells Fargo, which was fined $185 million by the federal government for opening new accounts for customers without their consent, and then charging them fees.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is leading the charge, but Clinton is trying to use the issue to her advantage, writing an open letter to Wells Fargo customers promising to take action.
However, the Clinton Foundation has taken large sums from Wells Fargo.
Last year, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the Wells Fargo Foundation had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. The Huffington Post adds:
Wells Fargo, both the bank and its foundation, have given generously to the Clinton Foundation over the years. The bank has given between $10,001 and $25,000, and the foundation has given between $100,001 To $250,000. In 2011, former President Bill Clinton gave a speech to Wells Fargo for $200,000.“This is classic Hillary Clinton: publicly criticizing a company because it’s good politics while the Clinton Foundation quietly accepts hundreds of thousands of dollars from that same company,” said Jeff Bechdel, communications director of the conservative America Rising PAC. “If Clinton truly meant what she wrote, her letter would have been accompanied by a check from her family foundation returning the money from the company she is hypocritically complaining about.”
Thus far, there is no indication that the Clintons intend to return the money to Wells Fargo.
Clinton’s rival during the primary campaign, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), pressed her to release the transcripts of her speeches to other Wall Street banks. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has reiterated that call. Clinton has not complied.
Since all charitable organizations exists at the sufferance of we the people's representative governmental policy (tax exemption) they should be required to make public all solicitations of large prospective donors, provide a public record of their actual presentation, to whom given, etc, and in turn the company being solicited should provide a public record of what was proposed to them and the deliberations concerning the decision of those individuals to whom the presentation was made and the reasons why the solicitation was or was not accepted. Companies must provide the amounts they contribute and how that amount is justified in terms of the mission of the charitable foundation they represent. The public is also entitled to know what stipulations are mandated to ensure accountability for the contributions.
WHY I DISBELIEVE EVERYTHING SEEN AND HEARD ON CNN: NARRATIVE UBER ALLES: CNN writer contradicts himself on Trump profiling comments.
Yeah, they hope you won’t notice that.
The extent to which “journalists” have pulled out all the stops to misrepresent Trump and his positions — and in some cases are even bragging about it and encouraging others to do the same — kind of illustrates why Trump’s here to begin with.
WHY I DISBELIEVE EVERYTHING SEEN AND HEARD ON CNN: NARRATIVE UBER ALLES: CNN writer contradicts himself on Trump profiling comments.
Adding the word “racial” to a chyron about GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s comment on profiling wasn’t the only blatant mistake the CNN made.
In an article about Trump’s comments, the network’s Theodore Schleifer contradicted himself in his first and third paragraphs.
“Donald Trump on Monday reiterated his support for the controversial practice of racial profiling by police amid increasing threats to the homeland,” Schleifer wrote in the first paragraph.
But in his second paragraph, Schleifer states that “Trump did not say on what attributes he would encourage police to profile possible suspects” and that “it’s illegal for police to subject U.S. persons to disparate treatment based on their race or other protected status.”
How can Trump “support … racial profiling” yet not have outlined the attributes police should use to profile?
Yeah, they hope you won’t notice that.
The extent to which “journalists” have pulled out all the stops to misrepresent Trump and his positions — and in some cases are even bragging about it and encouraging others to do the same — kind of illustrates why Trump’s here to begin with.
