Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING! Clinton debt LARGER than reported! (275 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not listed in itemized debts (18+ / 0-)

    Schedule D clearly shows the following:

    Hillary Clinton 4420 N Fairfax Drive
    Arlington, Virginia 22203 12  10879.89 Interest

    That's just the month's interest she owes. That's not the original $5,000,000.00 loan.

    And Schedule D adds up precisely to the reported $10,321,561.00

    You only find the $5,000,000 in Schedule C and nowhere else. This is also the case with the filings for February and March.

    Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:08:10 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I guess. . . (0+ / 0-)

      I still don't see how this is a big deal.  It wasn't listed on the itemized list, but it was clear as day on the summary.  I spent ten minutes looking over the figures -- it couldn't be missed.  (I actually was going looking for the loan totals first, because I wanted to see if she had lent her self more money.)

      Perhpas, at worst, she filed it on the wrong form, accidentally on purpose, so that the media reports would be more kind.  But whatever.  Any media who bothered spending more than two minutes researching a story would have seen the loan listed elsewhere.  

      •  I've filed these forms for years (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dolphin777, galaxy33, seattlegirl

        It ain't that hard, and it is clear enough that one shouldn't be making this kind of error. The numbers on the forms won't "foot" otherwise.

        Oh, he don't score at bowlarama Still you gotta thank his mama Lets hear it for the boy Hear it for my man Let's hear it for my baby

        by RudiB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:14:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I will bet you that at least half of new money (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nancelot, jinok, wa ma, dolphin777, Jeff Y

      is coming from Republicans. Any takers?

      fouls, excesses and immoderate behavior are scored ZERO at Over the Line, Smokey!

      by seesdifferent on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:35:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and how much for GE? nt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nancelot, dolphin777
      •  I tend not to support that, but.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aufklaerer

        if true, it would mean GOP dollars that aren't going to be available for the RNC to use in their desperate efforts to try and defend normally safe seats.  And if you look at what has been happening, it gives real hope for the fall.  I mean we came within inches of taking a seat in Mississippi outright this week and may well take it in the runoff and the GOP has shelled out something like 300,000 it didn't have and now has to do it again, just to defend...not gain.

        Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

        by dweb8231 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:23:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  HRC is accruing "interest" on the $5M "loan"!!! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Spoc42, dolphin777

      You have got to be kidding me...Hillary Clinton is accruing "interest" on the "loan" she made to her campaign.  A couple that made $109M in the last 6 years is making $11K off the little people each month.  Well, maybe that is part of the reason she does not want to quit.  She is literally profiting off of hurting Obama through the mud-slinging.  This is truly despicable IMHO!  

      I cannot fathom why anyone would be contributing to HRC's campaign when she not only has not donated any of her own money to the campaign but actually expects other people to pay her interest for continuing the debacle.  Spread the word about this to HRC supporters (that she is charging interest on her $5M "loan" and that the $5M "loan" is not part of the $10M in debts at the end of March).  

      I can only imagine that this will not sit too well with them.  I know it would not sit well with me...I would be really mad.

      •  Today I had a brilliant flash, while I (0+ / 0-)

        contemplated the very large amounts of money pouring into candidate coffers.

        Ever altruistic, I envisioned legislation that would impose a novel contribution towards needy social causes. For every $5 contributed by fatcat donors giving over $1,500, a dollar (one measly dollar!) mandatorily (sic?) goes into S-CHIP, wounded vet organization, or like such!

        I haven't worked out all the details in my head just yet. BUT something shure needs to be considered, IMHO!!

        Aloha   ..  ..  ..

        •  Compared to the sums Americans pour (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dolphin777

          into lottery tickets and gaming tables, what's being spent on campaigns is peanuts.

          Besides, peanuts are good for the economy.  Most of the vendors are not headquartered in the Cayman islands to avoid paying into our health and retirement systems.

          How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

          by hannah on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:52:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  If she didn't charge a market interest rate (0+ / 0-)

        it would be counted as a donation to the campaign. The IRS an or the FEC can get sticky about stuff like that.

        You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia".

        by yellowdog on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:06:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site