Trump: Shut down the Clinton Foundation

Again, where's that list of "humanitarian programs"? So far it remains undisclosed what these programs encompass. BTW, quite hilarious that 2 "comrades" like this piece of useless drivel.:p The level of content of you lot is really getting pathetic.

The primary issue with the Clinton Foundation is that the 88% of funds that go to "charity" does not go to actual efforts to help people in Africa or other locations, the money goes as grants to think-tanks ran by Clinton political allies that "study" the issues in Africa. The entire structure is basically a way of paying off political allies for their support.

The Clinton Foundation report from 2014 (the latest available) cannot name a single charitable effort that actually provided material support to people in need.
 
The primary issue with the Clinton Foundation is that the 88% of funds that go to "charity" does not go to actual efforts to help people in Africa or other locations, the money goes as grants to think-tanks ran by Clinton political allies that "study" the issues in Africa. The entire structure is basically a way of paying off political allies for their support.

The Clinton Foundation report from 2014 (the latest available) cannot name a single charitable effort that actually provided material support to people in need.
Are you making this stuff up, or is someone doing it for you?

Here's the deal, regarding the controversies surrounding Clinton, including, but not limited to, the Foundation:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/a-summary-of-current-controversies-dogging-hillary-clinton-1.3043421

Read it and learn something.
 
Are you making this stuff up, or is someone doing it for you?

Here's the deal, regarding the controversies surrounding Clinton, including, but not limited to, the Foundation:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/a-summary-of-current-controversies-dogging-hillary-clinton-1.3043421

Read it and learn something.

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

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.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“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.

In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.

Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.

The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.

The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.

An accountant for the Clinton Foundation did not return The Post’s calls seeking clarification on its expenses Friday, and a spokesperson for the group refused comment.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
 
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

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.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“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.

In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.

Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.

The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.

The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.

An accountant for the Clinton Foundation did not return The Post’s calls seeking clarification on its expenses Friday, and a spokesperson for the group refused comment.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/


Obvious hit piece that ignores several truths, and still, nothing wrong is shown.
 
Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”
Who watches the charity watchdogs? Have a closer look at Charity Navigator:

http://www.nonprofitpro.com/article/who-watches-the-charity-watchdogs-charity-navigator/

Like the other watchdogs, Charity Navigator is not perfect. But its size and influence magnify its flaws. Critics believe the organization—which is uniquely positioned to champion charities and donors alike—has misused its platform, focusing on the wrong metrics and attempting to oversimplify the sector’s complicated inner workings, with disastrous results.

“There are two fatal flaws in the Charity Navigator approach: One, it misleads the public even when purportedly accurate, and two, it is often inaccurate,” said Geoffrey W. Peters, pro bono general counsel, American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising. “The public, press and politicians are encouraged to believe that Charity Navigator is an ‘impartial evaluator of publicly reported financial, accountability/transparency and results reporting’ that exists to ‘guide intelligent giving’ and ‘advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic marketplace.’ Yet its choices of ratings criteria are instead—whether intentionally or inadvertently—designed to mask rather than reveal what should be intelligent giving choices. And its public behavior is anything but impartial, intelligent or promoting efficiency.”

Peters, a respected fundraiser and industry veteran, stressed that his comments were his own and do not reflect the views of any organization with which he is involved. But his feelings on Charity Navigator typify those of the fundraising community at large.

The biggest issue is Charity Navigator’s notorious use of overhead and fundraising ratio as primary factors in its ratings formula. This information is easy to obtain, but tells little about how effective a charity truly is and favors organizations that spend little on fundraising or administrative costs. It’s also easy to manipulate.

“This has led to Charity Navigator rating organizations that are all but overt scams with four stars and others that are leading the sector in implementing impact measurement with lesser ratings—as if Charity Navigator could really distinguish between a three-star level of effectiveness and a two- or four-star level,” said Peters. “Thus, the public is misled into believing these ratings have meaning, utility and accuracy, when the truth is the measures chosen are nothing more than conveniently and easily obtained from the Form 990.”

Other criticisms leveled at the site:

• It does a poor job of actually identifying when a nonprofit is crooked. Writes Jan Masaoka for
Blue Avocado, an online nonprofit magazine: “When a nonprofit is extremely badly managed or is run by crooks, the charity raters are typically the last to know. Paradoxically, the raters wait for The New York Times to identify bad apples, and then they jump in to call the apple rotten. The Central Asia Institute (Three Cups of Tea) was found to be crooked by 
‘60 Minutes’ at a time when it boasted four-star ratings (the top available) from the raters.”

• Despite its status as a nonprofit, Charity Navigator does not rate itself. While it plans to in the future—and freely offers its financial and results data on its website—it’s a bad look for an organization that advocates for transparency.

• It does little to defend charities from inaccurate reports or wrongful criticism. “What our sector needs is more courageous leaders to help shape pubic discourse and respond to false and misleading media headlines, not to wrongly follow the herd in order to gain favor with the media,” said Peters. “Charity Navigator, once again, missed that opportunity when a truly worthwhile charity recently was attacked in the national media, and instead of using its supposed expertise in reading the Form 990 to clearly refute the allegations, it instead placed the charity on its Watch List despite the correct information being readily ascertainable from [the organization’s] Form 990 and website.”

On this last point, Peters is referring to Wounded Warrior Project, the subject of investigations by CBS News and The New York Times alleging that the veterans charity spent $26 million on opulent staff parties and events. The investigations leaned heavily on financial data obtained from Charity Navigator, and while much of that information
appears to have been misinterpreted—a closer reading of Wounded Warrior Project’s Form 990 reveals that $24.4 million of its events spending was a program expense—the damage was already done.

Three days after the reports were published, Charity Navigator added Wounded Warrior Project to its Watch List and Donor Advisory. At the time, Wounded Warrior Project had a four-star accountability and transparency score—Charity Navigator’s highest.

Peters argues that Charity Navigator should have stepped in or spoken up to address the issue. But this goes against the watchdog’s stated policy. From Charity Navigator’s Donor Advisory methodology page:

The Donor Advisory Issuance Committee does not have the capability to independently assess the veracity or accuracy of the information, nor does it attempt to do so. The committee views its role solely as determining whether a donor might find such information relevant in considering whether to make a contribution to the organization. Charity Navigator makes no representation nor takes any position regarding the accuracy or completeness of the reports referred to in the Donor Advisory or contained in the external links to which donors are directed.

Charity Navigator views itself as a neutral observer, passing no judgment and adding charities to its Watch List and Donor Advisory only as a means of alerting donors to potential issues. And to its credit, it has been consistent in this policy and transparent in its methodology. But that hasn’t stopped the public—or the media—from viewing the lists as a condemnation, exemplified by this CBS News headline in the days following its initial Wounded Warrior Project report: “Wounded Warrior Project on Charity Navigator’s Watch List.” The post has 3,000 Facebook shares. A month later, Wounded Warrior Project was already
losing major donors.

“When is the last time you recall Charity Navigator defending a misconceived attack by the media or a politician?” said Peters. “Perhaps that tells you something about its leadership in the sector.”
 
Last edited:
Are you making this stuff up, or is someone doing it for you?

Here's the deal, regarding the controversies surrounding Clinton, including, but not limited to, the Foundation:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/a-summary-of-current-controversies-dogging-hillary-clinton-1.3043421

Read it and learn something.

Here is the 2014 Clinton Foundation Annual Report - despite the glossy images and glowing speech with calls to action - the report fails to provide any information on direct charitable contributions that help people. For example - the "Clinton Foundation in Haiti" merely lists facilitation actions - "During 2013, the Foundation continued to facilitate high-level visits to Haiti from more than 50 leaders in international business and philanthropy." So their rich donor friends got to fly to Haiti for free, eh?

Nearly all the foundation's actions are listed as "assisted" (e.g. "The Clinton Foundation has also assisted with the creation of a new TOMS shoe factory in Haiti") - which means the foundation did nothing in regards to direct charity but only enabled outside business interests to set up operations.

Read it and learn something - https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_annual_report_2014.pdf

Can you name one? Just one charitable effort from the Clinton Foundation in the last five years that directly provided aid to people. Not an "assist", not a "facilitation" but direct goods delivered to people in need.
 
Here is the 2014 Clinton Foundation Annual Report - despite the glossy images and glowing speech with calls to action - the report fails to provide any information on direct charitable contributions that help people. For example - the "Clinton Foundation in Haiti" merely lists facilitation actions - "During 2013, the Foundation continued to facilitate high-level visits to Haiti from more than 50 leaders in international business and philanthropy." So their rich donor friends got to fly to Haiti for free, eh?

Nearly all the foundation's actions are listed as "assisted" (e.g. "The Clinton Foundation has also assisted with the creation of a new TOMS shoe factory in Haiti") - which means the foundation did nothing in regards to direct charity but only enabled outside business interests to set up operations.

Read it and learn something - https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_annual_report_2014.pdf

Can you name one? Just one charitable effort from the Clinton Foundation in the last five years that directly provided aid to people. Not an "assist", not a "facilitation" but direct goods delivered to people in need.
Oh, so you're an expert in all things charitable now? You do realize, of course, that even Trump's campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, said, "The Clinton Foundation does a lot of good work and I also want to say that for the record that they do." What do you know that she doesn't? Maybe you should give her a call.
 
Oh, so you're an expert in all things charitable now? You do realize, of course, that even Trump's campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, said, "The Clinton Foundation does a lot of good work and I also want to say that for the record that they do." What do you know that she doesn't? Maybe you should give her a call.

Of course you take the quote out of context. She was defending against attacks from Clinton surrogates that Trump's donation to the Clinton Foundation was "pay-to-play".

Which only leads to the question now that Clinton supporters are defining anyone (e.g. Trump) who donated to the Clinton foundation as doing "pay-to-play" then this pretty much confirms that the entire scheme is pay-to-play.

Now answer the question. Can you find one, just one charitable effort from the Clinton Foundation in the last five years that directly provided aid to people. Not an "assist", not a "facilitation" but direct goods delivered to people in need.


I provided you with a link to their annual report. Read it in depth - find us just one example of direct charitable support.
 
Of course you take the quote out of context. She was defending against attacks from Clinton surrogates that Trump's donation to the Clinton Foundation was "pay-to-play".

Which only leads to the question now that Clinton supporters are defining anyone (e.g. Trump) who donated to the Clinton foundation as doing "pay-to-play" then this pretty much confirms that the entire scheme is pay-to-play.

Now answer the question. Can you find one, just one charitable effort from the Clinton Foundation in the last five years that directly provided aid to people. Not an "assist", not a "facilitation" but direct goods delivered to people in need.


I provided you with a link to their annual report. Read it in depth - find us just one example of direct charitable support.
I took nothing out of context. Her reference to the Foundation's work stands on its own. Of course she tries to muddy the waters with allegations of "pay-for-play" because she's a Trump operative, and that's her job. But even she can't bring herself to say some of the bullshit that you guys are spouting. That was my point. Did you miss that?

Again, be sure to give her a call and set her straight.
 
I took nothing out of context. Her reference to the Foundation's work stands on its own. Of course she tries to muddy the waters with allegations of "pay-for-play" because she's a Trump operative, and that's her job. But even she can't bring herself to say some of the bullshit that you guys are spouting. That was my point. Did you miss that?

Again, be sure to give her a call and set her straight.

So let's get to the bottom line. You cannot find one example of charitable effort from the Clinton Foundation in the last five years that directly provided aid to people.

In summary, your complete inability to address this point means that you agree with my conclusion.
 
Back
Top