Trump: Shut down the Clinton Foundation

Me and Kellyanne Conway, remember? Bet you can't reconcile her assertion either.

Oh, and you're slipping on your own slime. Several of the writers did not allude that the foundation is flawed, and at least one of its detractors is a neocon who "contributed" to a liberal medium.

You guys are so utterly full of shit and such a waste of time.

Still slithering around gwb trading's original question...slimy Freddy Flabbergasted
 
"All things science". That's his forte, you know.

He will go to great lengths to avoid ANY critique of his precious political party (even though he has no vote in US elections)...Notice how he will always try to find the one article to "disprove" the allegations while ignoring the other ten...

Slimy Freddy...
 
If the Clinton Foundation is truly a charity, it will be an unspeakable mistake to shut it down:

Is the Clinton Foundation Really a Charity?

"...Though the foundation has claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures are spent on good deeds, their own tax filings reveal that the real number is about ten percent. But far from being an unrelated, albeit embarrassing, sidebar to the allegations about influence peddling, this data is a reminder that the main point of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation is to support its namesakes in a lavish fashion and to allow wealthy donors access to them...."


https://www.commentarymagazine.com/...s/is-the-clinton-foundation-really-a-charity/




Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead keeps most of its money in house and hires staff to carry out its own humanitarian programs.[7]Because of this unusual structure for a foundation, Charity Navigator, a charity watchdog, has said it does not have a methodology to rate the Clinton Foundation.[7]Consequently, they added the foundation to their charity "watch list" in April 2015; it was removed from the "watch list" in December 2015 after the charity posted amended tax returns and a public memo on its website.[8] A different charity monitor, CharityWatch, says that 88% of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission and gave the foundation an A rating for 2016.[9]
 
Last edited:
..............

Mittendorf suggested it might be best to zero in on the Clinton Health Access Initiative, now a spin-off of the Clinton Foundation, as an example of the foundation's activity. If it's effective, he noted, that might be a sign that the larger organization is, too.

But that's not an easy task. The 2015 annual report of the CHAI, naturally, tells an inspiring story. The outfit has helped more than 11.8 million people in more than 70 nations gain access to low-cost HIV medicines (saving the global health system billions of dollars). It has distributed vaccines that annually helped save 138,000 lives. In 2015, it distributed 10.5 million long-acting reversible contraceptives in low-income nations and 13.7 million vials of anti-malaria medicine that allowed 2.1 million people to be treated and saved 52,000 lives. The initiative also promoted midwife mentoring in Ethiopia, developed a program to deal with child malnutrition in several nations, and helped amass supplies of medicines to treat pneumonia and diarrhea in India, Kenya, Uganda, and Nigeria. That's some story, if accurate. Has anything Trump ever done helped as many people?

The bottom line? Well, there may not be one. If the CHAI has accomplished only a portion of what it purports, it has done tremendous good and saved or improved the lives of millions. Could it have scored more successes with the resources at its disposal? Has it mounted projects that have failed? We don't know. Does it have a lot of highly paid staff? Yes, it does. But maybe that's justifiable, if the results are strong enough. (None of the Clintons are on the payroll—and that's true for the Clinton Foundation, too.) Still, rendering an ultimate verdict is tough. A journalist might have to travel to a dozen or more countries and interview health care providers and recipients on the ground to determine whether the annual report's claims fully match reality.

"Measuring successes in the other initiatives of the [Clinton Foundation]," Mittendorf notes, "is likely to be even more delicate since the outcomes are more 'fuzzy' and often entail shifting perceptions, altering policies of governments, developing partnerships, etc."

The Clinton Foundation is now a political football. Giuliani compares it to the mafia. Trump, who has barely even donated to his own foundation (and who has made contributions to the Clinton Foundation), has called for the organization to cease operations immediately, without apparent regard for what would happen to the people it serves. Conservative trolls on and off Twitter hysterically insist it is a Hillary Clinton crime scene and nothing but a scheme for Clinton self-enrichment. (The foundation has announced that if Clinton wins, her husband will leave its board and the foundation will cease accepting money from foreign and corporate sources. Its president, Donna Shalala, also said it will shrink and spin off programs if Hillary Clinton is elected.)

Yet in the real world, the foundation and its initiatives have endeavored for years to assist millions. It's a pity that, as is often the case with many nonprofits, the results of its high-minded efforts are not fully verified in a manner that could transcend agenda-driven political squabbling.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/clinton-foundation-controversy-actual-work
 
Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead keeps most of its money in house and hires staff to carry out its own humanitarian programs.[7]Because of this unusual structure for a foundation, Charity Navigator, a charity watchdog, has said it does not have a methodology to rate the Clinton Foundation.[7]Consequently, they added the foundation to their charity "watch list" in April 2015; it was removed from the "watch list" in December 2015 after the charity posted amended tax returns and a public memo on its website.[8] A different charity monitor, CharityWatch, says that 88% of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission and gave the foundation an A rating for 2016.[9]
Ah, I see.
 
oIaKl4B.jpg
 
Back
Top