The Right Baits the Left to Turn Against Hillary Clinton

[delrem]

56. I'm fascinated by the absurd claim that the Clintons gave their entire income to charity!

Nothing I read suggests such a thing.
On the contrary, this WSJ article
http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-clinton-fees-to-be-disclosed-1431993044
flatly states the exact opposite:
"On Friday, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign released her personal financial disclosure form for 2014 through the present, which reported that she and her husband had earned $25 million delivering paid speeches. Not included on that disclosure were payments for at least five speeches that Mrs. Clinton directed to her family’s foundation."

So that gives the lie to ng's claim.
A small range of fees went directly to the Clinton Foundation, but those fees *weren't listed* in the $25million of personal income.

Here's an amazing number from another article that went back more than a year in time
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/16/hillary-and-bill-clinton-earn-more-than-25m-for-giving-100-speeches
"A recent Associated Press review of the Clintons’ disclosures and State Department records found that Bill Clinton had been paid at least $50m for his appearances between 2009 and 2012, the four years that Hillary Clinton served as the nation’s top diplomat."

Holy crap! What an amazing country, where that kind of blatant political bribery is legal!

Then in this article
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/16/hillary-and-bill-clinton-earn-more-than-25m-for-giving-100-speeches
"Earlier this month, Bill Clinton told NBC News that he would continue giving paid speeches during his wife's presidential run because he has "got to pay our bills." The comment was widely panned."

Charity, eh? hehehe, the stuff people just make up! Then they say, prove my lie wrong! But nothing counts as proof, of course, even though it all pops to the front of simple google searches, since it's so incredibly controversial, and audacious! And everybody knows! Has any political family ever been so up front about it before, AND got away with it?

How can someone defend that, by just making up a line that it all went to charity, when it's declared as *personal income*, distinct from the "charitable" Clinton Foundation created for that specific purpose?