meaning it stays within the family.

OMG< corporations are so bad, that using that form for charity is bad.

personal pay check, including one last year at Corning.

I mean, in my googling I learned about $750,000 to Bill, for ONE SPEECH, during the period of HRC's tenure as SoS.
So nobody doubts that there've been fat pay days.

Nance claims the pay went to charity. She's insistent on that, and suggests that I'm somehow deficient, in the way that some people do, for not agreeing without proof that her claim is true.

Since the claim is now "out there" on DU, and it's being used to severely chastise critics of the Clintons in this regard, I'm asking for someone, ANYONE, to provide substantiation for the claim.
Specifically, I would like any of Hillary Clinton's supporters who can do it, to show me some kind of proof of the claim.

is post this story which links to her financial disclosure form.

eta: the claim is that the money declared WAS THEN DONATED TO CHARITY.

And that I'm dumb as a rock to not know how taxes work!

I'm asking ANY HRC supporter to show me some substantiation of that claim. Any substantiation at all.
And as pointed out in my OP, the fact that she did direct fees from speaking at colleges and universities to her foundation is not included, since not included in her declaration of personal income.

That's what I pointed out, too (even in this OP).

That's why I'll looking for Hillary Clinton supporters to come up with some kind of proof, any proof at all, that NanceGregg's claim is correct. So far nothing.

... to where I said that Bill's speaking fees went to charity?

The discussion you and I engaged in was about HRC's speaking fees - not Bills', or anyone else's.

Why do you find it necessary to attribute statements to me that I never made?

requires seeing the woman as a full human being rather than a mere extension of her husband.

You are doing it again!

Now, provide some bloody proof!

Surely one of you can? For something so important, that you're so certain of?

Our exchange begins at Reply #13 in http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026819265#, where you describe the Clintons’ speaking fees as “take home” pay.

At Reply #34, I ask you to provide links showing that HRC’s speaking fees were not donated. You never do.

At Reply #56, you claim to be “fascinated by the absurd claim that the Clintons gave their entire income to charity!”- despite the fact that no one claimed that the Clintons (plural) donated their “entire income” to charity – well, no one other than you.

No one in that thread – or elsewhere – ever claimed that the Clintons “gave their entire income to charity”. That was YOUR assertion – no one else’s.

Reply #62 stated: “Perhaps if you had something to say that people would pay to hear, you could show us all the proper way to handle that good fortune!”. Your response at Reply #65 was, “So you also claim that the Clintons give all payments from speaking fees to charity?” A fascinating non-sequitar, given that the reply you responded to said nothing about “claiming the Clintons give all speaking fees to charity”.

In Reply #106, you deliver your “theory” about “private income”. Apparently you have come up with an idea that the IRS itself has never heard of. “Her (HRC’s) speaking fees were private income. Not ‘charity’ ”.

As anyone who has ever filed an income tax return can tell you, ALL income must be declared as income, regardless of where it winds up. Charitable donation credits are assessed – and credits given as a result thereof – which result in a reduction of taxes owing. There is no such animal as “private income”.

At Reply #111 you claim that “THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, ANYWHERE, THAT HILLARY CLINTON DONATED ALL HER INCOME FROM SPEAKING FEES TO CHARITY.” (In all CAPS, no less!)

I suppose the IRS’s acceptance of HRC’s charitable donations aren’t enough evidence for you.

I again urge you to contact the media and spill the beans about the blatant LIE that Hillary’s speaking fees were never donated to charity – and she should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for any claims that she did so.

Why waste valuable time posting on DU, when you have the “proof” that she duped the IRS – along with millions of voters – into believing she “donated” speaking fees that she actually didn’t?

I’ll be watching the Sunday news media tomorrow for your “late breaking story” – it’s going to be HUGH!!! I’m series!!!

I can play this game all night long, sweetums. If Hillary has falsely claimed to have donated her speaking fees to charity, the "librul media" would be all over her ass - as would the IRS. Apparently they are waiting for a concerned citizen such as yourself to come forward with "the truth" - so give it 'em. And don't forget to post those links to her malfeasance - ya know, the ones you couldn't "find" to post here.

You claim that Hillary Clinton donated all her income for speaking fees, as reported in her statement of personal income for the recent year, to charity.
You NOW claim that IRS accepted Hillary Clinton's charitable donations, or what?
I quote:
"I suppose the IRS’s acceptance of HRC’s charitable donations aren’t enough evidence for you."

You give NO LINK.

You just make the "fact" up, whole cloth.

If you can't link to this IRS statement, that HRC gave her entire income from speaking fees (as reported in her statement of personal income) to charity, then you're just making it up. Telling a false story.

In other words, you simply EMBELLISH YOUR STORY, but you don't provide any actual evidence beyond the fact that you, NanceGreggs, make this claim at DU.

Then you call me "sweetums".

I say:

You have not provided any evidence, any source at all. Neither has anyone else.
So I say that your claim is flat out false. You know it's false, yet you persist in making the claim.
That makes you a certain kind of person.

eta:
NanceGreggs: "If Hillary has falsely claimed to have donated her speaking fees to charity"
This is YOUR claim, NanceGreggs:
""I suppose it is of no consequence to you ...
... that Hillary's speaking fees are donated to charity - which hardly constitutes "take home" pay.
But let's not let facts get in the way ..."

That's not Hillary's claim, it's YOURS.
I've pointed out, several times, that as HRC explained, fees for speaking at colleges and universities were directed to The Clinton Foundation, the Clinton family charitable institution. Those moneys ARE NOT PART of the personal income she (and Bill - they're a family) declared as personal income for speaking fees.

Now, I'm not responding again unless you, or someone, provides a link to some evidence, ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, that Hillary Clinton donated her entire personal income from speaking fees over the time period of her disclosure.
Because I don't like dealing with flat out liars.

You tell it to the WORLD!!!

Go TELL it to the MSM, TELL IT to FOX-News!

They pay BIG for these kinds of stories!

Why are you procrastinating? Why are you not sharing your earth-shattering story with the world?

"HILLARY LIED ABOUT HER CHARITABLE DONATIONS! She lied to the IRS! She lied to her supporters! She lied to the world!!!!!!"

What "kind of person" has the info that can prove a presidential hopeful has LIED all along - and only posts about it on a political website?

TELL IT, BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!

I'll be watching the Sunday news programs, breathlessly awaiting your late-breaking news story!!!!

This is SO EXCITING! "DU poster uncovers the HRC scam of the Century!!!!"

So what time will you be on? I want to set my alarm clock - wouldn't want to miss a word!

You still haven't provided any proof for your assertions.

HRC said she donates her speaking fees. If someone wants to disprove that, it's up to them to do so.

to read any more of your posts....

She did. I accept her at her word. I am not the one questioning the truth of that statement.

If you think she's lying, you can dig up the facts to prove it.

The ASCII forest you save may be your own.

You claimed that Hillary's fees went to charity.

You stated: "in my googling I learned about $750,000 to Bill, for ONE SPEECH, during the period of HRC's tenure as SoS. So nobody doubts that there've been fat pay days. Nance claims the pay went to charity."

Please post the link to WHERE I SAID any such thing.

Do it.

I apologize. You only claimed that all Hillary's pay from speeches went to charity.

And that's the issue declared in my OP.

would not satisfy Nance.

You can't find a full accounting so you assume it went to her income?

not that she didn't have the right to do so.
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money

... talks about how much money the Clintons earned from their speeches. It says nothing about how much they "personally profited" - because if the money went to charity, that would mean ZERO "personal profit", wouldn't it?

If you have evidence to the contrary, I suggest you contact the IRS immediately - along with alerting the media!

She distinguished from fees for speaking to colleges and universities, which WERE NOT declared as personal income because directed to the Clinton Foundation.

Now, do you have *any* proof that all of the fees that she collected for speaking went to charity?
If not, you aren't answering my question - you're just reiterating NanceGregg's so far unsubstantiated claim.

as personal income. It DOES include funds later given to charity. That's how the tax code works. You can check for yourself on the IRS site.

Proof, please. ANY KIND OF PROOF!

Also, Hillary Clinton's fees WHEN DIRECTED TO CHARITY are directed to The Clinton Foundation, and are no part of her declaration of personal income from speaking fees.

Now, proof. Don't just repeat the unsubstantiated claim, try to prove it. Show some evidence.
After all, if true it would be rather important for Hillary's campaign that the information be widely distributed, along with the proof.

In other words, you can't just make shit like this up because it sounds good, okasha.

I'll repeat it. All earned income has to be declared as just that, including money subsequently given to charity.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Obviously you want to make some kind of accusation against one or both Clinton's, but damned if I can make out what it is.

... has absolutely no idea how the tax code works. As he pointed out in another thread, there is a difference between "private income" and "charitable income" when you file your tax returns.

I'm sure this is news to the IRS - but apparently a poster on DU is much more aware of tax code regulations than the department that handles such things.

No doubt the OP will be breaking this incredible story in the MSM immediately: "IRS Totally Ignorant of "Private Income v Charitable Income Rules! US Tax Dep't Baffled!"

The original post is pretty confusing.

OGE Form 450 Financial Disclosure Report a lot of federal employees at a certain level (including myself) have to complete each year. I have to complete it every year.

OGE Form 450: Confidential Financial Disclosure Report

This form is used by executive branch employees who are less senior than public filers to report their financial interests as well as other interests outside the Government. The purpose of this report is to assist employees and their agencies in avoiding conflicts between duties and private financial interests or affiliations.

As you stated Okasha, all income has to be reported (except for your government salary and certain income like interest on bank accounts) on this form here whether or not it is later donated to charity.

It is going to be down right ugly, indeed.

The Rebubs and people here speak of the CF as if it was their personal property. They don't care that there is a difference.

It's about Hillary Clinton's declared personal income from speaking fees.
Read the OP again, please, and reply to the actual question, please.

So far there's been NO proof, no link, NOTHING in the way of substantiation, for the claim that Hillary Clinton's speaking fees, declared as personal income (so distinct from those fees directed to the CF - as explained in my OP, which you didn't read) went to charity. NONE.

People will believe what they want. They won't accept truth if it's not what they want to hear.

The truth matters.

That's why I posted my OP. I asked for links, a link, some evidence, that Hillary Clinton donated her personal income from speaking fees, as recorded in her statement of personal income, to charity. This is DISTINCT from any fees directed to the Clinton Foundation. I made that clear in my OP where I pointed out that Hillary Clinton directed fees from speaking at colleges and universities to the CF.

You say distinctions like that don't matter? Do you really think that truth doesn't matter?

What you want to be the truth.

So far nobody has substantiated the assertion that Hillary Clinton gave all her speaking fees (the ~$25million recently declared) to charity.

You would google it yourself. Why do you expect everyone here to wait on you? Her tax returns are online you know. You can easily find them. Of course then you couldn't call out a widow who just lost her husband, which clearly is the point of this thread.

Not even an attempt at a proof.

But you resort to ad hominem.

I am still waiting for your proof.

Last edited Sun Jun 14, 2015, 01:54 AM - Edit history (1)

If you have arrived at the philosophical place where you can justify the payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a one hour (less?) speech to a person who already is worth tens of millions, I honestly believe that you are not in the correct party.

If you want to vote Democrat, fine, but I will never consider myself to be even close to the same political position as you and will never miss the opportunity to remind you of the fact that we are, at best, merely voting on the same side out of inconvenience forced upon us by a corrupt two-party system.

ON EDIT: Changed billions to tens of millions

Billions, with a b?

Maybe you'd better tell them because I don't think they know that.

But down here, those differences seem to mean little.

Still you are 100% right and I am 100% wrong.

but apparently you think the fact she has the nerve to support a Democrat means you do anything you want to her.
If you had wanted to converse with her, you would have done so in the original thread or by PM. Instead you take this approach to callout and bully someone still grieving from the loss of her husband, also a long term DUer.
You could have made this same post without calling her out, if you actually cared about the issue rather than bullying someone for daring to make their own political choices rather doing your bidding.

Once again we see that people who claim to resent Wall Street and the 1 percent devote much of their time to targeting ordinary Democratic voters.

It is wicked ad hominem.

well yeah i guess i can believe it after reading the other stuff she posts. smh

The issue here is whether HRC donated her speaking fees to charity.

The OP and I did engage in another thread. I said it was my understanding that HRC had donated all of her speaking fees to charity - but specified that I stood to be corrected, if he had any links to evidence that proved otherwise.

He has not produced a single link. Instead, he rambled on and on about "private income" versus "charitable income" - as though there were such a thing. He also changed the subject from HRC's speaking fees to Bill's speaking fees, which had nothing to do with the original discussion.

It would seem obvious that if the claims that Hillary had donated her speaking fees to charity were false, links proving that falsehood would be plentiful. But I repeat: The OP has not produced a single link.

So I suppose it's left to people like you and I to simply assume that THE news story of this campaign - "HRC LIED about her donations to charity!!!" - was somehow "missed" by the MSM, overlooked by FOX-News, and ignored by the IRS.

I have suggested to the OP that he sell this "HRC-campaign shattering story" to FOX-News - I guess we'll have to wait for tomorrow's FOX guests to see if he actually shows up to tell his incredible tale.

I can't imagine that FOX-News would pass up such an opportunity.

... to where "Hillary has explained that fees from speaking engagements at colleges and universities has been directed to The Clinton Foundation, so this charitable work is *not* part of the $25million declared."

I know you have "a problem" providing links to back up anything you post. But maybe if you tried - really, really HARD! - you could provide us with the link to where Hillary said anything of the sort, or made that "explanation" to anyone.

But no.

I asked for a link to where "Hillary has explained that fees from speaking engagements at colleges and universities has been directed to The Clinton Foundation, so this charitable work is *not* part of the $25million declared."

Neither of your links provide any "explanation" from HRC as to how "fees from speaking engagements at colleges and universities has been directed to The Clinton Foundation, so this charitable work is *not* part of the $25million declared."

But thanks for playing - and I still don't understand why this incredible story about HRC having lied about donating her speaking fees to charity isn't ALL OVER THE MSM!!! Imagine FOX-News NOT being on top of this!?!

Again, I URGE you to share this story with the world, Bro.

It's just until we meet again.

I'll be watching the MSM all week - waiting to see which network gets the exclusive interview with DUer "delrem", who's got all the info on Hillary's "lies" about her charitable donations - and how the IRS allowed her to get away with 'em!

The money from the colleges and universities goes directly to the charity, not Hillary. Hillary is donating her time to speak on behalf of the foundation, but not a paycheck to give to the foundation.

So either she lied on those forms, or your story isn't correct.

If she performs a service for which she is usually remunerated, but accepts no money, the value of those services is a donation.

Bookmarked in anticipation of responses to post #43 and #53.

She earned it. I have no doubt she and Bill are very charitable. Geez.

Yeah, that's it.

if someone was willing to pay me 6 figures to give one, I'd take it. And so would you. What Hillary has or hasn't earned isn't important. What's important is what she plans to do for the country if elected.