Posted on 04/27/2015 7:03:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Office supplies. Hmmm.
Does that include cigars?
Looks like they consulted with the CEO of Wounded Warriors Project for advise.
10% isn’t that bad, hell Bon Jovi only spent 3% on his charity
What does Bill do with the money he gets from tax payers every year to pay for Office and Staff ?
RE: 10% isnt that bad, hell Bon Jovi only spent 3% on his charity
Ahhh, but is Bon Jovi a charity with donations for charity?
And as a charitable organization all that income is tax free. What a scam.
YES it was, he expensed 97% of the 15 Million or so that he received.
How should I put this without getting banned.
All those Cigars need a “humidor” and that can be expensive.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that is for consulting fees for the Clintons themselves to keep it hidden from the salary line.
Surprise, surprise, surprise, surprise!!!!
Who didn’t see that one coming?
Right up there with Red Cross and many others. Huge overhead. Itty bitty distributions to charity.
A money laundering enterprise if there ever was one.
You're exactly right. And it includes an amazing number of FOC*'s, who seem to be fighting over the $$ too ...
* friends of Bill, Hillary and Chelsea ...
Other Expenses?
like ice..
and head bandages.
The largest category (34%) is “other expenses.” I wonder what’s in that category, since it excludes salaries, benefits, travel, IT, supplies, and rent?
The only bad thing about all this Clinton bad news is that if Hillary’s campaign gets shot down too soon, some other Democrat will have time to get an organization started up as an alternative to Hillary.
Bon Jovi must have taken lessons from his good buddy Bill.
It won't get shot down. This is just the process of clearing out the many, many scandals and crimes so next year they will all be "old news". Not that it matters, because the GOP candidate won't be allowed to ask about any of this stuff anyway.
Bump
Every explanation this two give for their illegal and shady behavior is always couched in legalese meant to bamboozle, dazzle and obfuscate the questioner.
Notice that even in response the the current scandals with the foundation donations, that there never is a flat out denial? Their answer is, "There is not evidence of that." Not a flat out statement that it didn't happen, but that there is no evidence of it, so prove it. A non-denial, denial.
Reminds me of of Gore's, "There is no controlling legal authority."
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.