The nature of Clinton Foundation tax return discrepancies is described by Reuters as a matter of over and under-reporting donations.
The Clintons did this to set up an escape door just in case it ever emerged that Hillary used her position as Secretary of State to funnel cash into the Clinton Foundation.
Here’s how it works.
Assume that in 2014, on the whole, the Clinton Foundation took in $100 million in donations. And that the foundation reported it as $15 million even for six particular donors with the remaining $10 million spread out among a bunch of other donors.
Presto, enter the excuse. Bill would have been better at delivering this – he had the quivering lip thing down as good as a six year old trying to cry his way out of time out. Chelsea’s already been tossed out there to take the fall for this so she’ll deadpan just like mom would have when she calls it all “an accounting shortfall” that can be blamed on an overly complex tax code “that favors the one percent”.
Then will follow an explanation that promises the aggregate reported amount was correct — and thus not tax fraud — but that the underlying cash amounts were erroneous. In other words, the tax returns were fine. That stupid accountant simply didn’t report each donor properly. Dirty one percenter!
Like always, nothing to see here, move along people. Fair share paid. Good to go. Just a 3 when the accountant should have typed a 7. That’s all.
(Speaking of Hillary scandals: Hey, Julian Assange, how about you and your Wikileaks people lay off the Sony emails and do something no one’s done? Something the US Congress couldn’t even do.
That’s right. Tell us about those Hillary emails. And the emails between the Clinton Foundation and people like GE’s Imelt.
NY Times, Reuters, and others are already hot on the trail. They are stumping you like a chump Julian.
Emails…let’s see ’em.)
Of all that’s remarkable about the mounting Hillary scandals, key is the fact that thus far she remains the lone and sole Democrat candidate for the Presidency in 2016.
A handful of possible contenders exist. Of them, Elizabeth Warren is most often cited in progressive circles as the preferred alternative to Hillary.
At the same time, a great many leading leftist pundits have suggested Warren isn’t viable. It’s not hard to find media clips from any number of progressive infotainment sources that repeat the narrative “Warren isn’t a national candidate”.
Warren. A babe — inference intended — in the woods. A newcomer on the scene. Wide eyed and a Washington outsider. Warren the usurper, running on raw populism and a desire for social justice.
Who was Barack Obama in 2007 when Hillary was poised to win it all? A babe in the woods and newcomer on the scene. He was wide eyed and the ultimate outsider. Barack Obama the populist usurper on a quest for social justice.
When observing the left, never lose sight of what the left hand is doing. Even when it’s Hillary’s right hand that’s about a hot minute from being hand-cuffed (sorry, Bill, not that kind of hand-cuffed). Warren’s media sycophants are preparing the way for her here-I-come-to-save-the-day moment.
Image: http://www.correntewire.com/hillary_clinton_gave_back_caroline_kennedy_money_after _obama_endorsement