Jump to content

Clinton Foundation Is Charity Fraud Of Epic Proportions


Recommended Posts

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-07/clinton-foundation-charity-fraud-epic-proportions-analyst-charges-stunning-takedown

 

"Clinton Foundation Is Charity Fraud Of Epic Proportions", Analyst Charges In Stunning Takedown

 

In early May, we introduced readers to Charles Ortel, a Wall Street analyst who uncovered financial discrepancies at General Electric before its stock crashed in 2008, and whom the Sunday Times of London described as "one of the finest analysts of financial statements on the planet" in a 2009 story detailing the troubles at AIG. Having moved on beyond simple corporate fraud, Ortel spent the past year and a half digging into something more relevant to the current US situation:"charities", and specifically the Clinton Foundations public records, federal and state-level tax filings, and donor disclosures.

 

Four months ago, Ortel began releasing his preliminary findings in the first of a series of up to 40 planned reports on his website. His allegation was simple: this is a charity fraud.

 

To learn more about the Clinton Foundation, Ortel decided to "take it apart and see how it worked" and he has been doing that ever since February 2015.

 

I decided, as I did with GE, lets pick one thats complicated, said Ortel. The Clinton Foundation is complicated, but its really very small compared to GE.

 

When Ortel tried to match up the Clinton Foundations tax filings with the disclosure reports from its major donors, he said he started to find problems. That includes records from the foundations many offshootsincluding the Clinton Health Access Initiative and the Clinton Global Initiativeas well as its foreign subsidiaries.

 

"I decided it would be fun to cross-check what their donors thought they did when they donated to the Clinton Foundation, and thats when I got really irritated, he said. There are massive discrepancies between what some of the major donors say they gave to the Clinton Foundation to do, and what the Clinton Foundation said what they got from the donors and what they did with it."

 

As previously reported, last year the Clinton Foundation was forced to issue corrected tax filings for several years to correct donation errors. But Ortel said many of the discrepancies remain. Im against charity fraud. I think people in both parties are against charity fraud, and this is a charity fraud, he said.

 

To be sure, Ortel's efforts were to be commended: digging through the foundation's numbers can not have been easy, considering that the nations most influential charity watchdog put the Clinton Foundation on its watch list of problematic nonprofits in 2015. Furthermore, the Clinton familys mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. That's because the organization spent the vast bulk of its windfall on "administration, travel, salaries and bonuses", with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

 

It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons, said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

 

* * *

 

Overnight, on his website, Ortel released the long-awaited executive summary of his numerous, and at time confusing, findings: "Beginning today, and regularly thereafter, numerous detailed Exhibits will examine the known public record of the Clinton Charity Network within the context of applicable state, federal, and foreign laws."

 

And while we await the upcoming exhibits to his summary, here are the main highlights from the executive summary, which we urge all visitors - who have an even passing interest in the effort that has consumed the Clintons' time and energy for the two decades, and brought them substantial wealth - to read.

 

* * *

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Understanding the Clinton Foundation Public Record in Proper Context: 1997 to Present

 

To informed analysts, the Clinton Foundation appears to be a rogue charity that has neither been organized nor operated lawfully from inception in October 1997 to date--as you will grow to realize, it is a case study in international charity fraud, of mammoth proportions.

 

In particular, the Clinton Foundation has never been validly authorized to pursue tax-exempt purposes other than as a presidential archive and research facility based in Little Rock, Arkansas. Moreover, its operations have never been controlled by independent trustees and its financial results have never been properly audited by independent accountants.

 

In contrast to this stark reality, Bill Clinton recently continued a long pattern of dissembling, likening himself to Robin Hood and dismissing critics of his philanthropic post-presidency, despite mounting concerns over perceived conflicts of interest and irregularities.

 

Normally, evaluating the efficacy of a charity objectively is performed looking closely into hard facts only -specifically, determining whether monies spent upon program service expenditures actually have furthered the limited, authorized tax-exempt purposes of entities such as the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, its subsidiaries, its joint ventures, and its affiliates (together, the Clinton Charity Network).

 

But, popular former presidents of the United States retain bully pulpits from which they certainly can spin sweet-sounding themes to a general audience and media that is not sufficiently acquainted with the strict laws and regulations that do, in fact , tether trustees of a tax-exempt organization to following only a mission that has been validly pre-approved by the Internal Revenue Service, on the basis of a complete and truthful application.

 

This Executive Summary carries forward a process of demonstrating that the Clinton Foundation illegally veered from its IRS-authorized mission within days of Bill Clintons departure from the White House in January 2001, using publicly available information which, in certain cases, has been purposefully omitted or obscured in disclosures offered through the Clinton Foundation website, its principal public portal.

 

Getting to Reality

 

The question of whether a federally authorized nonprofit corporation has been validly organized and operated is a question of fact, best answered through close review of the record.

 

Without having access to helpful corroborative materials (including board minutes, donor solicitation presentations, after-action reports to donors, management representation letters to accountants, internal memoranda, and communications with key counterparties), this Executive Summary previews 40 detailed Exhibits that dissect portions of the public record concerning activities of the Clinton Charity Network.

 

Determined review of these 40 Exhibits that deal primarily with the period 23 October 1997 (when the Clinton Foundation was organized) through 2011 (when attempts to re-organize the Clinton Foundation were most active) demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the Clinton Charity Network was neither organized nor operated lawfully.

 

As the following IRS publication states clearly, a nonprofit corporation must pass both an organizational test and an operational test to be legitimately exempt from federal income taxes.

 

The Dual Test: Organized and Operated

 

1. IRC 501( c )(3) requires an organization to be both "organized" and "operated" exclusively for one or more IRC 501( c )(3) purposes. If the organization fails either the organizational test or the operational test, it is not exempt. Reg. 1.501( c )(3)1(a)(1).

 

2. The organizational test concerns the organizations articles of organization or comparable governing document. The operational test concerns the organizations activities. A deficiency in an organizations governing document cannot be cured by the organizations actual operations. Likewise, an organization whose activities are not within the statute will not qualify for exemption by virtue of a well written charter. Reg. 1.501( c )(3)1( b )(1)(iv).

The Clinton Foundation and each part of the Clinton Charity Network fails either the organizational test, the operational test, or both of these tests. The consequences for failing to meet either the organizational test or the operational test are severe. In normal circumstances, a charity would have its tax-exempt status revoked retroactively.

 

The charity would then have to refile its tax returns and pay corporate income taxes upon any profits earned from the date its authorization is revoked, forward to the present.

 

Donors who took tax deductions in the relevant time periods would owe personal income taxes on contributions they had made.

 

And, a raft of criminal as well as civil sanctions would likely ensue, whose financial consequences might, or might not be mitigated by insurance.

 

What the Public Record Reveals about Clinton Foundation Entities

 

To understand the full extent of illegal activities involving Clinton Foundation entities and personnel, you must resist unvetted words and numbers published in press releases, marketing brochures, and filings to state, federal, and foreign governments, the latter having been submitted under penalties of perjury.

 

Instead, you must concentrate upon stubborn facts--information whose veracity you can confirm, for yourself.

 

Though allies of the Clinton family, and some extended family members believe otherwise, in truth: ...whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, you cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

 

What does available evidence reveal about the scale and scope of frauds committed and ongoing by the Clinton Foundation Charity Network?

 

* * *

 

At this point, Ortel previews the 40 detailed Exhibits which will be published starting September 7 on www.charlesortel.com. As a preview of the extensive analysis contained in these Exhibits, "these Exhibits document an escalating pattern of lawlessness and suggest that trustees of entities in the Clinton Charity Network exhibited gross negligence and reckless disregard in performance of their solemn duties."

 

The exhibits can be read in their entirety in the pdf attached at the bottom of this post.

 

Instead, we fast forward to Ortel's conclusion:

 

The scope and scale of illegal activities carried out by trustees, executives, significant donors, and professional advisors in the names of Clinton Foundation entities are only evident when you consider abundant information in the public domain and then read the body of laws that serves as a framework for regulating charities and their solicitation efforts.

 

All told, declared donations to Clinton Foundation entities from 1997 through 2014 are greater than $2 billion; but this vast amount is likely a pittance when compared to sums sent to affiliated charities and relief efforts around the world. Though required by strict laws, no part of the Clinton Charity Network (including affiliates and joint ventures) has ever procured a comprehensive, independent, and compliant audit of its financial results.

 

No part of the Clinton Charity Network is controlled by experienced and independent trustees who can defend against conflicts of interest--in consequence Clinton charities regularly are used illegally to create substantial private gain, and to advance the political interests of the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party.

 

Unless and until an independent conservator is appointed by the Arkansas State Attorney General, the public will not know the true dimensions of a fraud that started in Bill Clintons home state and in Washington, D.C., then metastasized, and spread around the world.

His stunning summary: "An educated guess, based upon ongoing analysis of the public record begun in February 2015, is that the Clinton Foundation entities are part of a network that has defrauded donors and created illegal private gains of approximately $100 billion in combined magnitude, and possibly more, since 23 October 1997."

 

* * *

 

Ortel leaves us with some critical questions:

  • Why was the Clinton Charity Network allowed to expand the scope of its illegal activities between 20 January 2001 and 20 January 2009, when George W. Bush served as president?
  • Why has the administration of Barack Obama allowed the Clinton Charity Fraud Network to grow even more, in bold violation of state, federal, and foreign laws from 20 January 2009 to present?
  • Why did Valerie Jarrett and the Obama Administration bother with the pretense of signing a legal document, late in 2008, purporting to regulate potential conflicts of interest between Hillary Clinton in her role as Secretary of State , and the Clinton Foundation, when this document was false, misleading, incomplete, and manifestly unenforceable?
  • Why is the IRS still resisting full-scale audits of the Clinton Charity Network?
The answer is surprising and simple--once again, Americans and regulators around the world appear to have fallen victim to the Big Lie strategy.

 

* * *

 

Ortel's appeal to readers is simple:

 

Charity fraud on international scale, led by persons who must know better, should not stand unprosecuted. Will it?

 

You can make the crucial difference. Raise your voice.

 

Contact government officials now who have not yet done enough to regulate the rogue Clinton Charity Network.

* * *

 

Ortel's full executive summary is below (pdf link), and those who wish to follow the release of the detailed exhibits can do so at Ortel's website.

 

Time to apply RICO. Trump is probably the last chance to save America from these people. And God help us if he's one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/sep/01/hilary-rosen/democrat-pundit-clintons-get-no-personal-benefit-f/

 

Some Republicans have presented the embattled Clinton Foundation as serving one purpose: "lining the pockets of Bill and Hillary Clinton," as GOP Chair Reince Priebus put it.

Responding to such criticisms, Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen said the Clintons "take no personal benefit" from the foundation. She also pointed out the legitimate charitable work the foundation carries out, such as its programs addressing AIDS in Africa and storm recovery in Haiti.

"The Clinton Foundation is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it," Rosen said on NPR’s The Diane Rehm Show Aug. 24.

That’s a pretty wide gulf between the assertion that the foundation is just a front for the Clintons to make oodles of money and claims that they don’t get any personal benefit. It made us wonder: What exactly do the Clintons get out of the foundation?

Bill Clinton is currently a member of the foundation’s board of directors, while Chelsea Clinton is vice chair. Hillary Clinton was a board member between leaving the State Department in 2013 through the launch of her presidential campaign in 2015. In the most recent year for which tax forms are available, 2014, the foundation reported that Chelsea Clinton worked 35 hours per week for the foundation and other related organizations, Bill Clinton worked 25 hours per work, and Hillary Clinton worked 20 hours per week.

The Clintons don’t take a salary from this work, and they don’t receive any other direct monetary benefit. Other Clinton Foundation leaders take home six-figure salaries, according to tax documents.

The Clinton Foundation is a public charity that, as we have reported, allocates about 80-90 percent of its expenditures to charitable programs, while the rest goes to fundraising and overhead.

(A quick aside: There’s some confusion over how much the Clinton Foundation spends on charitable programming primarily because the word "foundation" is in the name. Typically, a private foundation’s primary activity is grantmaking, giving money to charities who actually do the work. But the Clinton Foundation operates as a public charity in that they run many of their programs themselves. The Clintons also have a traditional private foundation, the Clinton Family Foundation.)

So the Clintons don’t receive compensation from the foundation. However, you can make a case that they have received some indirect personal benefits.

This is not to say that any of these benefits are unethical or improper. Experts on nonprofit ethics told us these are pretty standard, and they haven’t seen anything reported about the Clinton Foundation that proves corruption.

Still, it’s worth reviewing the limited types of benefits that the Clintons do get.

Public relations

The most obvious, outward-facing benefit for the Clintons is notoriety and media attention. The organization got off the ground in 2001, the year Bill Clinton left the White House. During the periods when he or Hillary were not in or running for office, the foundation kept the family in the public eye — and more often for good reasons, rather than scandalous ones (at least up until the past year or so, when Clinton launched her 2016 campaign and the foundation faced more intense scrutiny).

Throughout its existence, the Clinton Foundation has received attention for its work to make AIDS medication more accessible in Africa, efforts to combat climate change, establishing a business mentoring program, writing school food guidelines, and more. Every fall, Bill Clinton and his family receive a spate of press as the stars of the annual Clinton Global Initiative, a networking conference for wealthy philanthropic donors. Chelsea Clinton has embraced her role as a public face of the organization.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I provided proof that the Clintons aren't making any bank from their own charity and you ignored it. I guess your bias against the truth is showing again.

your proof was a lib rag website

Link to post
Share on other sites

I provided proof that the Clintons aren't making any bank from their own charity and you ignored it.

You're an IDIOT if you think the Clintons derive no benefit from the Foundation.

 

First, the Foundation allows Bill to draw huge fees from outside groups to talk about the foundation. It acts as a publicist for at the Clintons’ “wonderfulness”. For example, Goldman Sachs which donated about half a million to the Foundation, paid Hillary $675,000 and Bill $1.55 million in speaking fees to hear them talk about it. Those speeches have earned the Clintons upwards of 200 million dollars since 2000. And bought Goldman Sachs influence. It’s all about connections and influence, and the Foundation provided those connections and influence. The Foundation also directly backed outside projects such as Bill’s 2007 book “Giving,” which earned him another $6.3 million. Truth is, SM, without the Foundation, the Clintons wouldn’t have nearly the fortune they have now amassed. They could only keep talking about their 90s presidency and that would get old ... and certainly not justify $500,000-$1,000,000 a pop speeches.

 

The Foundation was also the vehicle the Clintons used to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for Hillary’s run for presidency. That’s one of the things that Ortel’s report, which you obviously didn’t bother to read because you NEVER read anything that might disillusion you where the Clintons are concerned, shows. He even notes that because of the mafia like bookkeeping, it’s impossible to tell whether or not many of dollars raised in the Foundation’s name even end up in Foundation accounts. They could just as easily have gone directly to the Clintons (Vince Foster wasn’t making one-day trips to Switzerland for his own benefit). Now wonder they look so happy.

 

Then there are the perks that the Foundation provides for the Clintons. You know ... things like travel, good meals, the best in hotels, etc. Chelsea, for example, has taken advantage of them. For example, she vacationed at the Amanyara Resort on Providenciales Island … where rooms cost $34,000 a night during their busy season. All on Foundation *business* at Foundation expense. It's such a hardship. She’s also brought her husband Marc Mezvinsky, who admitted to running a ponzi scheme that bilked folks out of $10 million and recently ran a hedge fund that lost 90% of the millions of dollars it’s clients gave him, into the Foundation work. Pro bono, of course. :rolleyes:

 

The Foundation is also (and very importantly) used to pay off all the people who have ever helped the Clintons commit crimes or who have lied for the Clintons in order to help keep them out of jail over the years. You know, the folks who know where the bodies are buried. They can't do away with all of them, you know. Those are all dollars that the Clintons would otherwise have had to pay out of pocket … to buy their continued silence and *loyalty*. And how much does the foundation pay out in salaries. More than the total grants it’s made. An astonishing amount of money for a so-called *charity*. What the Foundation really is, SM, is a slush fund for the Clinton’s use. Would you like a few examples?

 

Sidney Blumenthal smeared people for the Clintons (like Monica) and lied under oath during the impeachment of Clinton in order to protect him. He’s on the Foundation payroll. They were paying him AT LEAST $10,000 a month for his advise to Secretary of State Hillary on Libya (and look how that turned out). They were paying him through the Foundation because Obama had BANNED Hillary from making him a government employee. Thus, the Foundation provided the means to keep him happy … and silent. Left-leaning Politico reported that "some officials at the charity questioned his value and grumbled that his hiring was a favor from the Clintons." No kidding.

 

Human Abedin was and is on the payroll of the Foundation (somewhat illegally, by the way, when she was also a State Department employee at the time). Huma and the Foundation have refused to say how much Huma was/is paid in salary. Bet it wasn’t/isn't for peanuts. Let’s put it this way. Just recently she and her husband bought a $!0 million dollar home. Life if good, when you’re in the inner circle of the Clintons and know about their illegalities. And server gate is a doozy.

 

Bruce Lindsey was a notorious *fixer* for the Clintons, who was implicated in numerous illegalities during Bill Clinton’s years as President. He was even named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in one scandal. Wikipedia quotes Bill Burton, another former top Clinton official, as saying "There is no end to which Bruce wouldn't go for the president, There are things Bruce would do for the president that nobody else on Earth would do, and Bruce wouldn't even think twice about it." Clinton used Executive Privilege to keep Lindsey from having to talk to investigators numerous times ... in the Riady campaign finance scandal, the Lewinsky matter and in Whitewater. He knows where the bodies are buried, SM. And as a reward for his faithful service (i.e., keeping all the skeletons buried), he’s been working as a top official in the Clinton Foundation since 2001, first as general counsel, then as Chief Executive Officer (from 2003 to 2013) … collecting a cool quarter million dollar PLUS salary ($319,605 in 2011). Currently as Chairman of the Board, which believe me has all sorts of perks, and CEO he gets a salary/benefits package of $398,159.

 

Ira Magaziner is a long time associate of the Clintons. He was made director of Hillary’s failed health care task force back in the early 90s. And he was the scapegoat when it was ruled that Hillary’s task force had blatantly violated “open-meeting” laws. He privately told people that the secrecy surrounding the effort was “forced” on him. He came close to being indicted (and would have been had the Clintons not been in charge of the DOJ). Despite the controversy, the Clintons kept him in the administration. And guess what he does now? He’s CEO of the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) … which was one of the major recipients of Foundation money over the years (it was originally part of the Foundation itself). He openly bragged that the Foundation is a “commercial” venture, rather than a "charity". He said in an interview that “This is not charity. The whole thing is bankable. It’s a commercial proposition.” He was referring not to CHAI but to the energy and climate change activities of the Clinton Foundation ... which is the ONLY programmatic effort explicitly listed in the Foundations 2013 IRS filing that doesn’t exist to fund the Clinton library or the Global Initiative conferences which can hardly be labeled charity. And what does Magaziner make as CEO of CHAI? Well, he was paid $415,000 in salary and consulting fees from the Foundation in 2013. Not peanuts.

 

Terry McAuliffe was and is a big time Clinton supporter (former Chairman of Bill Clinton's election campaign). He was involved in Travelgate and a scandal called Teamstergate. According to the NYTimes, http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/18/us/witness-says-clinton-friend-had-part-in-teamster-money-scheme.html (when the NYTimes can't even avoid discussing a scandal, you know it's bad), McAuliff was implicated by Richard Sullivan, the DNC's former finance director, as having played a "major role in promoting an illegal scheme in which Democratic donors were to contribute to the Teamster president’s re-election campaign, and in exchange the Teamsters were to donate large sums to the Democrats.” After Clinton's Presidency, McAuliffe became head of the DNC and was involved in the suspicious *purchase* of the Clinton's home. He’s led the Clinton Foundation's fundraising efforts and sits on it's Board of Directors (in 2010 he was the Board's chairman). When McAullife ran for governor, he received more than $13 million from 120 donors who also just happened to give to the Clinton *charity*.

 

Starting to get the picture? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Charity Watch gave the Clinton Foundation an A rating.

And no one would expect that other pathological liar, Be a Loser, tell the truth about what great work the Clinton Foundation does all over the world.

Clinton Foundation brings medicine to tens of thousands of people.

Trump U defrauded thousand of people.

Does LOSER bring up those two facts?

Of course not.

His head is buried up Trump's rectum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I provided proof that the Clintons aren't making any bank from their own charity and you ignored it. I guess your bias against the truth is showing again.

Yep, just more bullshitta.

 

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

 

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

 

 

Ask Pig boy where is this fraud of epic proportions.

 

BeLoserPigFamily_zpspggtbf39.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read my article, You'd know that those speaking fees go to the foundation. :D

You're being dishonest or clueless again, Truther. Only a small portion of their speaking revenues have "reportedly" gone to the Foundation. Those fees were from the speeches that Hillary gave when it was illegal for her take money for speeches because she was Secretary of State. All together, from 2007 to 2014, the Clintons gave about $14.8 million in charity to their Foundation as a tax write-off. The did that during a period, however, when they made well over $100 million from speeches. And I say “reportedly” above because even those speech donations are somewhat questionable. ABC reported in 2014 (https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2014/07/11/the-philanthropic-problem-with-hillary-clinton-s-huge-speaking-fees/ ) that it was “unable to get Hillary Clinton to provide documentation attesting to the donation of her speaking fees to the foundation. A review of the Clinton Foundation’s Form 990s for several of the past years reveals no disclosure of the names of major donors and therefore no information as to whether Hillary Clinton (or Bill Clinton, for that matter) has been donating speaking fees to their philanthropy.” The article also nots that many of the claimed donations are just the Clintons taking money from one charitable foundation and putting it in theirs. So they giveth … BUT TAKETH AT THE SAME TIME. Net gain for charity? Perhaps zero. As the article notes, Hillary told ABC that “it goes from a Foundation at a university to another foundation.” Hillary is merely “repurposing” the donations by others to colleges to suit the Clinton's needs ... like the need for hush money. Just saying ... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Charity Watch gave the Clinton Foundation an A rating.

And no one would expect that other pathological liar, Be a Loser, tell the truth about what great work the Clinton Foundation does all over the world.

Clinton Foundation brings medicine to tens of thousands of people.

Trump U defrauded thousand of people.

Does LOSER bring up those two facts?

Of course not.

His head is buried up Trump's rectum.

Bullshit. hitlery's slush fund was put on a charity watch list. How can you support crooks like her and Bill when less than 10% of the money taken in ever leaves?

DailyCaller

 

 

 

POLITICS

Clinton Foundation Put On Charity ‘Watch List’ Along With Al Sharpton’s Shady Nonprofit

The Clinton Foundation has joined Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network on a list of naughty nonprofits maintained by Charity Navigator, a prominent charity monitor.

The Clinton Foundation was put on Charity Navigator’s “watch list” last month, The New York Post reported on Sunday.

The foundation has come under intense scrutiny of late amid revelations it received millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. Money also flowed to the foundation from companies and businessmen who benefited from their relationship to the Clintons.

Furthermore, analysis of the foundation’s tax forms showed it spends a relatively small percentage of its income on charitable activity.

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/26/clinton-foundation-put-on-charity-watch-list-along-with-al-sharptons-shady-nonprofit/#ixzz4JfOjkmqs

The Clintons have never made one cent of profit from he Clinton Foundation. All proceeds go to good works.

That's a lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A philanthropy watchdog, CharityWatch, a project of the American Institute of Philanthropy, gave the Clinton Foundation an A rating.

Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or charity), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.

 

http://www.factcheck...ation-money-go/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullshit. hitlery's slush fund was put on a charity watch list. How can you support crooks like her and Bill when less than 10% of the money taken in ever leaves?

DailyCaller

 

 

POLITICS

Clinton Foundation Put On Charity ‘Watch List’ Along With Al Sharpton’s Shady Nonprofit

The Clinton Foundation has joined Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network on a list of naughty nonprofits maintained by Charity Navigator, a prominent charity monitor.

The Clinton Foundation was put on Charity Navigator’s “watch list” last month, The New York Post reported on Sunday.

The foundation has come under intense scrutiny of late amid revelations it received millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. Money also flowed to the foundation from companies and businessmen who benefited from their relationship to the Clintons.

Furthermore, analysis of the foundation’s tax forms showed it spends a relatively small percentage of its income on charitable activity.

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/26/clinton-foundation-put-on-charity-watch-list-along-with-al-sharptons-shady-nonprofit/#ixzz4JfOjkmqs

That's a lie.

shrillary-rotten-clinton-mainstream-medi

Link to post
Share on other sites

A philanthropy watchdog, CharityWatch, a project of the American Institute of Philanthropy, gave the Clinton Foundation an A rating.

Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or charity), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.

 

http://www.factcheck...ation-money-go/

Don't expect Kingaroo to ever state the truth when it comes to Hillary. He thinks Hillary has lied to him, and cannot name even one thing she has ever said that has affected him in any way. He just hates Hillary, judges all women on how hot they are, and thinks the hot ones should show him their tits when he says the magic words (magic only for him), "Show me your tits", a technique effective only at Mardi Gras with drunken women throwing out plastic bling on floats in the Parade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Less than 15% does

 

really ???

 

In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

“Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”

Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.

We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

 

 

 

Program Expenses (Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs and services it delivers) 86.9%

 

 

Score(out of 100) Rating

Overall Score & Rating 94.74

Financial 97.50

Accountability & Transparency 93.00

 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol... look at Cadman now wanting to spin Hillary's mess. He wants to include " separate affiliates " because he knows he can't justify the Clinton Foundation spending their money on Bill, Hillary and Chelsea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A philanthropy watchdog, CharityWatch, a project of the American Institute of Philanthropy, gave the Clinton Foundation an A rating.

Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or charity), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.

 

http://www.factcheck...ation-money-go/

According to http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/ , IRS documents from 2008-2012 show that only about 15% of the Clinton Foundation’s expenses went to "charities" not controlled by the Clintons. The Foundation raised over $500 million dollars but only 15 percent ($75 million) of that went towards programmatic grants. Over $25 million went to travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went towards employee salaries and benefits. And $290 million … in other words, the vast majority of the spending … was simply classified as “other expenses.” Given such vague accounting, it's hard to say what it was spent on or what it good it did. Sounds to me like CharityWatch may be spinning for Hillary.

 

As pointed out by the author of this article (http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/28/top-clinton-foundation-official-this-is-not-charity/ ) in a response to a critique by politifact, when the CEO of the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) … which was one of the major recipients of Foundation money over the years … openly brags about the organization being a “commercial” venture, rather than a "charity", you ought to listen. He (Ira Magaziner) said in an interview that “This is not charity. The whole thing is bankable. It’s a commercial proposition.” And he was referring to the energy and climate change activities of the Clinton Foundation ... which is the ONLY programmatic effort explicitly listed in the Foundations 2013 IRS filing that doesn’t exist to fund the Clinton library or the Global Initiative conferences which can hardly be labeled charities.

 

The truth is that in 2013, for example, only 10% of Foundation spending went to charitable grants (i.e., not controlled by the Clintons). See http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/ . The rest of the spending was in-house:

 

Clinton-Foundation-2013-Breakdown.jpg

 

And the two single largest “charitable” initiatives of the Clinton Foundation — by its own admission — were the Clinton Presidential Library, which exists solely to put a positive spin on Clinton's presidency, and the Clinton Global Initiative, which the New York Times characterized as a “glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.” Promoting Bill's legacy and holding fancy parties are not what most people think of when the word "charity" comes to mind, benson. Yet, you and es wants to call that a “charity”. :rolleyes: Well, es is a FOOL. Guess you are too. As the article above proves, “the claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go directly to life-changing work is demonstrably false.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol... look at Cadman now wanting to spin Hillary's mess. He wants to include " separate affiliates " because he knows he can't justify the Clinton Foundation spending their money on Bill, Hillary and Chelsea.

 

So does Charity Navigator's rating and Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs and services it delivers include separate affiliates ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...