Posted on 06/10/2014 12:23:40 PM PDT by thetallguy24
oh whoa is me. sob sob.
All you need to do is become a Democrat politician and then you too can become rich like Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid.
Nothing pays like graft!
Here, let me help them with the title.:
“Morally Bankrupt” - The Story of Hillary Clinton
“The Sexual Predator who became President” - The story of Bill Clinton.
When she says they were broke, she means they were in debt due to legal bills.
What she doesn’t say is where those legal bills came from. Most of those legal bills were due to defending Bill against sexual harrassment lawsuits.
Where does Hillary stand in the war on women?
I’m waiting for the state of NY or Holder to release their investigation results of the skimming of funds from the Clintoon foundation and the $6 bill missing from the state department.
I can’t believe his legal bills came out of their pocket.
How the Clintons left the WH in 2001, a reminder:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070706200204AAn0EbT
Excerpts:
“
Excerpts from a newspaper article back in 2001....
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton say they’ll be happy to return the fancy sofas, rattan chairs and other furnishings they took from the White House if it turns out that the gifts were meant to dress up the executive mansion for future presidents too.
“All of these items were considered gifts to us,” Mrs. Clinton, now a Democratic senator from New York, said Monday in Rochester, New York. “That’s what the permanent record of the White House showed. ... But if there is a different intent, we will certainly honor the intention of the donor.”
The White House curator’s office is working with the Clintons to clarify any confusion about whether the items the Clintons took were personal gifts or items that were supposed to stay, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.
In a statement, the Clintons said each of the gifts they accepted were identified by the White House gift office as a present to them. They said none of the gifts they took, including some $23,000 worth of household furnishings in question, was on a curator’s list of official White House property.
“Gifts did not leave the White House without the approval of the White House usher’s and curator’s offices,” the Clintons said in the statement that addressed the latest sour note to follow the former president and his wife out of the executive mansion. “Of course, if the White House now determines that a cataloging error occurred ... any item in question will be returned.”
The Washington Post quoted two donors in Monday’s editions as saying the furnishings they gave were intended for the White House, not the Clintons. They were Steve Mittman of New York, whose donation was valued at $19,900; and Joy Ficks of Cincinnati, who gave $3,650 worth.
And in its editions Tuesday, the newspaper quoted a former furniture industry executive, Brad Noe, as saying a sofa worth nearly $3,000 that he was supposed to have given to the Clintons wasn’t meant for them, but for the White House collection. “I would never give a gift to the Clintons,” Noe said.
“Everyone involved, including the White House curator, believed that each item was a gift to the Clintons,” said Jim Kennedy, speaking for the Clintons. “Now you have a couple of people saying that they didn’t intend for them to go to the Clintons and, of course, we want their wishes to be honored.”
The day before they left the White House, the Clintons released a list of $190,000 in gifts they chose to take with them, many of which they could use for their two new homes in Washington and in Chappaqua, New York.
But after criticism erupted, they offered to pay $86,000 for about half the gifts.
Now it’s the other half at issue. Some items in this group were on a National Park Service list of donations for the 1993 White House redecoration project.
The gift flap is one of several problems dogging Clinton’s first weeks as an ex-president and his wife’s first weeks as a senator.
Critics also questioned Clinton’s decision to rent an office in New York City that would have cost taxpayers more than $600,000 a year. Last week, he said his foundation would pay half the cost.
2
Comments (0)
Akkita answered 7 years ago
The Truth:
The final, official report from the Government Accounting Office was released on June 11, 2002. The 220 page document says there was damage, although not as much as some of the early reports had suggested. The GAO says the damage included 62 missing computer keyboards, 26 cell phones, two cameras, ten antique doorknobs and several presidential medallions and office signs. The damage estimate was about $20,000. Clinton critics say the report proves that the departing Clinton staff members acted recklessly and disrespectfully. Clinton supporters say the report shows that the allegations of vandalism were exaggerated and that there were similar incidents when Clinton took over the White House from the staff of George Bush.
The GAO report concludes that even though damage was verified and that some of it appeared to have been intentional, there was not clear evidence of who was responsible for it.
This has been a subject of contention since President Bush took office. There were reports of vandalism, graffiti, and obscene messages in White House offices by outgoing Clinton staffers. Bush downplayed the reports saying he wanted to move on with the presidency. Clinton supporters, however, charged that the story was not true and that the Bush forces had made up the story to make Bush’s staff look better than Clinton’s. Former President Clinton offered to pay for any damage and his supporters called for an investigation.
Source(s):
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/t... “
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies
In 2013, when the struggling Clintons weren’t in their 2 mansions, they summered at this 100k per
06/09/2014 3:56:09 PM PDT · 17 of 26
givemELL to Nachum
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070706200204AAn0EbT
Old link on how the Clintons left the WH originally.
Excerpts:
“
Excerpts from a newspaper article back in 2001....
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton say they’ll be happy to return the fancy sofas, rattan chairs and other furnishings they took from the White House if it turns out that the gifts were meant to dress up the executive mansion for future presidents too.
“All of these items were considered gifts to us,” Mrs. Clinton, now a Democratic senator from New York, said Monday in Rochester, New York. “That’s what the permanent record of the White House showed. ... But if there is a different intent, we will certainly honor the intention of the donor.”
The White House curator’s office is working with the Clintons to clarify any confusion about whether the items the Clintons took were personal gifts or items that were supposed to stay, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.
In a statement, the Clintons said each of the gifts they accepted were identified by the White House gift office as a present to them. They said none of the gifts they took, including some $23,000 worth of household furnishings in question, was on a curator’s list of official White House property.
“Gifts did not leave the White House without the approval of the White House usher’s and curator’s offices,” the Clintons said in the statement that addressed the latest sour note to follow the former president and his wife out of the executive mansion. “Of course, if the White House now determines that a cataloging error occurred ... any item in question will be returned.”
The Washington Post quoted two donors in Monday’s editions as saying the furnishings they gave were intended for the White House, not the Clintons. They were Steve Mittman of New York, whose donation was valued at $19,900; and Joy Ficks of Cincinnati, who gave $3,650 worth.
And in its editions Tuesday, the newspaper quoted a former furniture industry executive, Brad Noe, as saying a sofa worth nearly $3,000 that he was supposed to have given to the Clintons wasn’t meant for them, but for the White House collection. “I would never give a gift to the Clintons,” Noe said.
“Everyone involved, including the White House curator, believed that each item was a gift to the Clintons,” said Jim Kennedy, speaking for the Clintons. “Now you have a couple of people saying that they didn’t intend for them to go to the Clintons and, of course, we want their wishes to be honored.”
The day before they left the White House, the Clintons released a list of $190,000 in gifts they chose to take with them, many of which they could use for their two new homes in Washington and in Chappaqua, New York.
But after criticism erupted, they offered to pay $86,000 for about half the gifts.
Now it’s the other half at issue. Some items in this group were on a National Park Service list of donations for the 1993 White House redecoration project.
The gift flap is one of several problems dogging Clinton’s first weeks as an ex-president and his wife’s first weeks as a senator.
Critics also questioned Clinton’s decision to rent an office in New York City that would have cost taxpayers more than $600,000 a year. Last week, he said his foundation would pay half the cost.
2
Comments (0)
Akkita answered 7 years ago
The Truth:
The final, official report from the Government Accounting Office was released on June 11, 2002. The 220 page document says there was damage, although not as much as some of the early reports had suggested. The GAO says the damage included 62 missing computer keyboards, 26 cell phones, two cameras, ten antique doorknobs and several presidential medallions and office signs. The damage estimate was about $20,000. Clinton critics say the report proves that the departing Clinton staff members acted recklessly and disrespectfully. Clinton supporters say the report shows that the allegations of vandalism were exaggerated and that there were similar incidents when Clinton took over the White House from the staff of George Bush.
The GAO report concludes that even though damage was verified and that some of it appeared to have been intentional, there was not clear evidence of who was responsible for it.
This has been a subject of contention since President Bush took office. There were reports of vandalism, graffiti, and obscene messages in White House offices by outgoing Clinton staffers. Bush downplayed the reports saying he wanted to move on with the presidency. Clinton supporters, however, charged that the story was not true and that the Bush forces had made up the story to make Bush’s staff look better than Clinton’s. Former President Clinton offered to pay for any damage and his supporters called for an investigation.
Source(s):
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/t... “
I wish Rush would do a telethon.
For someone so good at cattle futures, I’m shocked she had such hard times.
Yeah, they were SO broke they had to write off their used underwear.
Yet, they still had $1,000 suits!
So ridiculous.
And this will make her qualified to be the president,,,
don’t laugh..
“I can’t believe his legal bills came out of their pocket.”
My memory is that substantial portions of the legal bills were either written off, or paid for by supporters. (I recall wondering why the Clintons didn’t have to pay tax of these sizable “gifts”; maybe Lois Lerner can tell us...). Those gifts, the outrageous speaking fees, and both Clinton’s sweetheart book deals smell of bribery and exploitation of public office.
Broke, immoral, devious and ugly is no way to go through life, bitch.
Did not Harry Truman drive himself back to Missouri after he left the White House? I know he and Bess took a trip in their car which would be unheard of today for an ex-President. Now that was a humble man. I would not call him broke but I think he lived off his pensions.
As to Hillary she is in stark contrast to Harry. Harry was more like the common man and served his country for the right reasons. Hillary is just the opposite. All about power and money. Just what we don’t need.
I just wish they were dead.
Shouldn’t it be “Hard Knock Life”? lol she was broke after all.
Also HST could be seen on the street most days taking a walk in his home town.
"The personal investments of President and Ms. Rodham Clinton were not placed into a blind trust until July 4, 1993. [They took office in Jan. 1993.] Consequently, prior to that date Ms. Rodham Clinton received regular reports from Smith Capital, including specifically a minimum of six reports in 1992 and the first half of 1993, detailing the short sale positions of ValuePartners I.\1\ Ms. Rodham Clinton was, therefore, actually and constructively in receipt of information showing she had a direct and personal financial interest in short sales of pharmaceutical and health care stocks. Indeed, a list of these short sales prepared by Smith Capital was attached to the Executive Branch Public Financial Disclosure Reports, Forms 278, filed by candidate William J. Clinton on November 7, 1991, and May 19, 1992, and by President Clinton on May 14, 1993."
"Ms. Rodham Clinton . . . had a direct and personal financial interest in short sales of pharmaceutical and health care stocks." All the while the Clinton White House was emphasizing how Hillarycare would end pharmaceutical and health care companies' abuses of the citizens. IIRC the stock plumped but later recovered after Hillarycare was quickly defeated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.