Posted on 04/05/2008 9:51:28 AM PDT by kingattax
Those of us old enough to recall the 1990s can remember presidential half-brother and pardon recipient Roger Clinton, as well as presidential brothers-in-law Tony and Hugh Rodham -- all of whom were caught up in the pardon-gate controversy.
None of them has been seen much (or at all) during Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, not without good reason. I don't want to be too harsh, but let's just say they all firmly seem to fall into the Bill Carter mold of presidential siblings.
The reason I bring them up is because according to Bill and Hillary's just-released tax returns from 2000-2006, the Clintons paid interest on loans to family members every year from 2001-2006. (The Clintons applied for an extension on their 2007 filing.)
Who were these loans to and how much are they for? Were Roger, Tony and Hugh among the recipients?
Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson politely says that's none of our bee's wax.
"The Clintons made interest-free loans to some of their family members," Carson says. "The amount reported is imputed interest on those loans. The IRS requires that an amount of interest be assigned to interest-free loans; it then taxes the loan giver as if he or she actually received that 'imputed' interest. Thus, imputed interest is not actually paid by the loan recipient nor received by the loan giver. The loans to family members are personal; the Clintons are going to respect their family members’ privacy."
Roger Clinton received a presidential pardon from his brother; Tony and Hugh were involved in that pardon controversy. Is it really none of the public's business if Sen. Hillary Clinton and her husband "loaned" any of them money?
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
. But the reason Ms. Clinton is so unappealing has nothing to do with her face, but rather the arrogance and dishonesty reflected upon her by her parents.
In the same way as Paris Hilton reflects the values of her mother and father, Chelsea is a reflection of Bill and Hillary Clinton. In the great scheme of things neither Chelsea nor Paris contribute much of anything to our society.
“They are probably paying their family members off so they stay out of the news. It would be a good place to be........unless you should disappear or something.”
Hey, what’s the point of paying hush money if nobody stays hushed?
Chelsea may look hot, but she is still ugly.
What????
Right you are... And borrowing her mother’s stupid “head-bob” doesn’t help... Thankfully, I’ve never seen her do the lip-bite.
Hmmmmm....typical with the Clintons. Deducting used underwear, and “imputing” interest on interest free loans to family members. They try to deduct the income or at least show some kind of expense (you can bet your ass the loan money came out of some business they have set up), yet I bet if you check the “family members’” returns you won’t see any of that loan interest shown as “imputed income!” What a bunch of damn shysters!
The investigation and findings will probably originate and be released on this site because it seems the best collection of intrepid investigators are members of FreeRepublic.
The Clintons are NOT deducting imputed interest, they are reporting it as INCOME. It just so happens, this is the law. I dislike the Clintons as much as anyone, but please don’t make uninformed comments. You just blow any credibility you might have.
If Hillary loses this election, Chelsea and Bill had better hide out real good. Hillary will become paranoid about tell-all books on her craziness and pinache for faking the truth.
The smartest woman in the world has become the most dangerous nag in the world.
Looks like a pared down nose and a chin added.
***********************************************
Yep ,, got rid of the Hubble chin and nose..
As Dan Rather and Mary Mapes might attest!
I can’t stand the Clintons... but to put Chelsea’s name in the same sentence with Paris isn’t fair. Considering her parents, I think Chelsea has turned out better than could have been expected...waaaaaay better than Paris! No comparison!!!!
Maybe so, but for someone who takes a deduction on used underwear donations, making interest free loans and then claiming the imputed interest as income as required is atypical for them even if it is required.
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.