The Clinton Foundation: Hopelessly Corrupt Or Just A Lousy Charity?
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: The Clinton Foundation: Hopelessly Corrupt Or Just A Lousy Charity?

  1. #1

    The Clinton Foundation: Hopelessly Corrupt Or Just A Lousy Charity?

    The Clinton Foundation: Hopelessly Corrupt Or Just A Lousy Charity?

    Public Corruption: As the unseemly ties between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton's State Department become more glaring and disturbing, the rhetoric from the Democratic side is getting more desperate. Now Clinton hatchet man James Carville says critics of the foundation are going to hell.
    .
    Over the past two weeks, it has become painfully obvious to anyone but the most hard-core Clinton loyalist that the Clinton Foundation was little more than an influence-peddling operation designed to exchange cash for favors from Bill and Hillary Clinton.
    .
    We noted in this space yesterday that a fresh batch of emails showed how the foundation intervened to get a meeting arranged between Clinton and Crown Prince of Bahrain after attempts to work through normal channels failed. The prince's country was a major foundation donor.
    .
    Now there are reports that a senior foundation executive left 148 phone messages for Clinton's top aide at State from 2010 to 2012 -- more than any other caller.
    .
    The Associated Press reports that "more than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money -- either personally or through companies or groups -- to the Clinton Foundation."
    .
    This comes on top of a batch of emails released two weeks ago by Judicial Watch that showed foundation executives pushing the State Department for favors for big-time donors. It also follows news that the FBI has multiple ongoing public corruption investigations into the Clinton Foundation.
    .
    Evidence that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play operation has been around for more than a year, starting with Peter Schweizer's devastating book "Clinton Cash."
    .
    Since then, various oddities occasionally turned up in the news, such as the appointment of Chicago commodities trader Rajiv Fernando to a State Department arms control and nuclear security panel. Fernando had no experience in this area, but had donated more than $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
    .
    The New York Times previously reported how the Clinton Foundation lobbied State to shift American aid dollars from an HIV program to a foundation-designed training program for health care workers in Rwanda. That shift got approved, the Times reported, "over the objection of some State Department technical experts."
    .
    While these stories have come out in dribs and drabs, what they all point to is the extraordinarily cozy (and quite possibly illegal) relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department -- which was the very thing Clinton swore wouldn't happen before taking the job at State.
    .
    Now, as the evidentiary noose has tightened, Clinton loyalists are getting desperate to make excuses. The most ridiculous among them so far comes from longtime Clinton crony James Carville.
    .
    "The press has decided that we're going to go after this and shut it down," Carville complained on CNN Monday night. "You are probably going to be successful. There will be people that are going to die because of this."
    .
    Tuesday morning he added that "somebody is going to hell over this."
    .
    If that's the Clintons' defense, it's an unbelievably weak one. Despite what Carville might think, the Clinton Foundation is a lousy charity.
    .
    Charity Navigator won't give it a rating -- either good or bad -- because of the foundation's "atypical business model." In other words, it's set up is too unusually to compare with other charities.
    .
    The Better Business Bureau says the foundation fails on two of its accountability measures for charities: It hasn't done an effectiveness assessment of its programs and doesn't have a written policy to do so in the future.
    .
    Backers nevertheless argue that it's a solid charity because 79% of its expenses go to "program services." What they don't say is most of this money pays for salaries, travel expenses and meetings.
    .
    In 2014, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent $12.3 million holding "conferences, conventions and meetings" and $6 million on travel. More than $25 million went to employees of the foundation in wages and benefits.
    .
    These three categories alone make up 59% of the "program-services expenses."
    .
    In contrast, the foundation spent just over $5 million on grants and aid in 2014.
    .
    The trend in donations to the foundation also raise suspicions, since they appear to rise and fall along with Hillary Clinton's status. Tax filings show that donations dropped sharply in 2012 -- Clinton's last year at State -- totaling less than $50 million. In contrast, the Foundation got more than $126 million in her first year at State.
    .
    And as the 2016 election has drawn closer, donations once again ramped up, topping $172 million in 2014 -- the last year for which data are available. The foundation also raked in nearly $4 million in "speech revenue" in 2014. It made less than half that in 2012.
    .
    It's not within the realm of reasonableness to think that all of these things are mere coincidences.
    .
    Despite what Carville says, the demise of the Clinton Foundation won't be missed by anyone, except maybe those trying to buy influence with the irredeemably corrupt Clintons.
    .
    Read More: The Clinton Foundation: Hopelessly Corrupt Or Just A Lousy Charity? | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
    .
    My Thoughts:
    .
    If it looks like a slush fund, smells like a slush fund, itís a slush fund.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  2.   
  3. #2
    If you want to see how the Clinton Foundation stands up alongside other charity organizations check out Charity Navigator. They don’t recognize the Clinton Foundation as a legitimate charity group. Must be because they say the Clinton Foundation shows they only give 10% of their donations to charities and the other 90% goes to salaries, travel and unknown places or people.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  4. #3
    I'm going to go with Hopelessly Corrupt AND a lousy charity.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast