Obama Goes Full Clinton Foundation With Series Of $400,000 Wall Street Speeches

Well, I can take some comfort in knowing that at the end of the day, Hillary's Wall Street speeches probably cost her the election. :)

Maher on Obama speaking fee: Isn’t that what cost Clinton the election?

CLINTON’S LEAKED WALL STREET SPEECHES REVEAL, SHOCKINGLY, THAT SHE GETS WALL STREET

Hillary Not Truthful About Wall Street Speaking Fees

Barack Obama: Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speeches cast her as an 'insider' and helped her lose to Donald Trump
 
  • Like
Reactions: fhl
Slartibartfast said:
What some are perhaps missing is the Clinton Foundation is a lot of initiatives under an umbrella, about 10 different "initiatives". The Carter Center is similar.

Each will have it's own reports so this could be the source of a lot of error in understanding. Read a figure for some branch and apply it to the whole foundation.

The Clinton Global Initiative for example would spend a lot on conferences, that is what it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation#Clinton_Global_Initiative_.28CGI.29_and_CGI_U
More...

The difference being that the Carter Center has a clear, unblemished record in regards to clear charitable spending for health, peace, housing, and agriculture programs. No one on either side of the aisle disputes the spending and work by the Carter Center.
 
gwb-trading said:
Have fun - https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports
More...

Ok which year is 60% on the gala. We are not enemies here, you make a statement, I'm happy to learn.

Edited, I've looked at several years e.g. 2012 and I'm not seeing it.

clinton 2012.PNG
 
Last edited:
fhl said:
Holding gala events and going to conferences. Charity work. I'm sure a lot of 'farmers' showed up to those events.

You're descending into 'deep state denial'.
More...
If you'd like to attend the next one let me know, always happy to sell tickets. Since about half the programs deal with farm runoff there was a pretty substantial number of farmers involved. Like I said, this was a local charity closer to Ducks Unlimited than the Clinton Foundation. Curious what your experience has been in non-profit strategy and execution? Always happy to exchange real insights of what works and what doesn't if you're truly interested in the subject area?
 
gwb-trading said:
I don't oppose charities and foundations from holding annual galas for fund raising. In fact most charities do this including our local Foodbank.

However our local Foodbank spends 90% of its donations on directly getting food to people. Only 10% is spent of admin overhead, fund raising, and the costs of hosting a gala.

The problem with the Clinton Foundation is that it percentage of money spent on their gala is simply out of bounds of being reasonable for a charity. In fact the only reason for the Foundation to exist appears to be hosting a gala to promote the Clintons. This is not charity - it is just a vehicle for raising the Clinton stature.
More...


I know they have to spend money to raise funds. The 2013 return said they spent 8 million, i think it was, on fundraising. But the conferences and events they attended accounted for 8 or 9 million, which was a separate expense on that tax filing. I'm guessing it's that amount that is what they counted as their own charitable work. I didn't see anything else on there that they could try to pass off as charity.

In my view, an underwhelming percentage of their money went to charity even if you take their word and their expansive view of what constitutes charity.
 
Last edited:
Sig said:
closer to Ducks Unlimited than the Clinton Foundation.
More...


That pretty much says it all. I can agree with you on that. It's not the kind of thing the Clinton Foundation would do. So the question remains. What is it that the Clinton Foundation counts as their own charitable endeavors and will we ever get an answer. I'm not holding my breath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top