In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

[AntonToo]

Speak for yourself. *bats eyelashes*

Just speaking for myself here, but I think you are a retard.

 

[Alexandra]

Speak for yourself. *bats eyelashes*

Just speaking for myself here, but I think you are a retard.

I'll save a seat on the short bus for you, dear.

 

[Flopper]

I think a principled defense of the Clinton Foundation would include information about how much of the $$$ it takes in goes to the charities it purports to exist for. Just about any charitable foundation worth its salt is not only forthcoming with such information, but earnestly provides in copious detail, because its whole reason is to provide for whatever their causes are, and they really, really, want to attract donors - and one of the best ways is to reassure potential donors that their money would go towards doing some good.

The only time anyone has heard of the Clinton Foundation doing any good is when Hillary needs a few feel-good, handkerchief cases to wheel out for the ol' campaign.

Anyone worthwhile in her position, facing the criticism she's facing, wouldn't wheel out some tear-jerking propaganda... she'd wheel out a detailed accounting of the foundation's finances that demonstrates integrity.

Not happening.

I spent a while looking at the consolidated financial statement for the American Red Cross and the Clinton Foundation financial statements as well looking at their web sites. I sure did not see any $$$ listed for all the programs they support. In fact, the Red Cross web site wasn't any better than the Cinton Foundation Web site. Both organization highlight accomplishments for selected programs, but no comprehensive listing of where the money goes. I checked the Humane of United States, another charity my wife donates to and didn't find zip as to how much goes money goes to various programs. I don't think this information is available to the public. I sure can't find it.

 

[Alexandra]

I honestly appreciate your efforts, but you have to know that comparisons to the Red Cross don't really mean anything except that no one's interested in their financials. According to 501c standards (which don't apply to religious charities, unfortunately), every bit of a charity's info is reported and should be public. It just takes a doggedly determined group with enough wherewithal to hold their feet to the fire (pls. see Judicial Watch when it comes to Clinton). The Red Cross, however, has been around for so long, done so much and has no apparent political interests... well, no one's baying for their blood.

So to speak.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Alexandra]

I think a principled defense of the Clinton Foundation would include information about how much of the $$$ it takes in goes to the charities it purports to exist for. Just about any charitable foundation worth its salt is not only forthcoming with such information, but earnestly provides in copious detail, because its whole reason is to provide for whatever their causes are, and they really, really, want to attract donors - and one of the best ways is to reassure potential donors that their money would go towards doing some good.

The only time anyone has heard of the Clinton Foundation doing any good is when Hillary needs a few feel-good, handkerchief cases to wheel out for the ol' campaign.

Anyone worthwhile in her position, facing the criticism she's facing, wouldn't wheel out some tear-jerking propaganda... she'd wheel out a detailed accounting of the foundation's finances that demonstrates integrity.

Not happening.

I spent a while looking at the consolidated financial statement for the American Red Cross and the Clinton Foundation financial statements as well looking at their web sites. I sure did not see any $$$ listed for all the programs they support. In fact, the Red Cross web site wasn't any better than the Cinton Foundation Web site. Both organization highlight accomplishments for selected programs, but no comprehensive listing of where the money goes. I checked the Humane of United States, another charity my wife donates to and didn't find zip as to how much goes money goes to various programs. I don't think this information is available to the public. I sure can't find it.

P.S. As for Humane Society, I personally don't recommend them. If you want to help the critters with a more straightforward org, I recommend the ASPCA (internationally the SPCA). Much better than the Humane Society and sooooooooo much better than PETA.

 

[Flopper]

I honestly appreciate your efforts, but you have to know that comparisons to the Red Cross don't really mean anything except that no one's interested in their financials. According to 501c standards (which don't apply to religious charities, unfortunately), every bit of a charity's info is reported and should be public. It just takes a doggedly determined group with enough wherewithal to hold their feet to the fire (pls. see Judicial Watch when it comes to Clinton). The Red Cross, however, has been around for so long, done so much and has no apparent political interests... well, no one's baying for their blood.

So to speak.

I don't think there is any legal requirement for a 501C to report where they spend their money. I suppose if the feds challenge their tax free status, they would have to report it. The tax documents for the Clinton Foundation are available on line. There is nothing in there about how charitable contributions are used.

 

[Alexandra]

I honestly appreciate your efforts, but you have to know that comparisons to the Red Cross don't really mean anything except that no one's interested in their financials. According to 501c standards (which don't apply to religious charities, unfortunately), every bit of a charity's info is reported and should be public. It just takes a doggedly determined group with enough wherewithal to hold their feet to the fire (pls. see Judicial Watch when it comes to Clinton). The Red Cross, however, has been around for so long, done so much and has no apparent political interests... well, no one's baying for their blood.

So to speak.

I don't think there is any legal requirement for a 501C to report where they spend their money. I suppose if the feds challenge their tax free status, they would have to report it. The tax documents for the Clinton Foundation are available on line. There is nothing in there about how charitable contributions are used.

Eh, don't think I didn't notice the hedge .Yes, 501cs have to make all their expenditures available on request - the key being "on request." That's the whole idea behind the laws involved - people who give to charities want to know how their donations are being spent, and the CF, like others, have found cozy little loopholes. Of course the tax stuff is online. It's much harder to get away from the IRS. But, of course, what you have to report to the IRS, especially as a charity, isn't exactly detailed. And do I even need to bring up the obvious influence with the IRS that someone like Clinton has...?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you imagine if it were Jeb Bush as SecState and he and his wife were selling his position in their non profit Foundation to the highest foreign bidder

 

[jillian]

Cashing in on being SecState in real time is now "ingenious ". I think "criminal" is a better word

as opposed to cashing in on supporting putin?

she didn't "cash in". that's rightwingnut silliness.

the clinton foundation has done a lot of good in the world. dumb donald leaves a trail of bilked people everywhere he goes.

your idea of criminal is butt backwards.

 

[jillian]

I honestly appreciate your efforts, but you have to know that comparisons to the Red Cross don't really mean anything except that no one's interested in their financials. According to 501c standards (which don't apply to religious charities, unfortunately), every bit of a charity's info is reported and should be public. It just takes a doggedly determined group with enough wherewithal to hold their feet to the fire (pls. see Judicial Watch when it comes to Clinton). The Red Cross, however, has been around for so long, done so much and has no apparent political interests... well, no one's baying for their blood.

So to speak.

I don't think there is any legal requirement for a 501C to report where they spend their money. I suppose if the feds challenge their tax free status, they would have to report it. The tax documents for the Clinton Foundation are available on line. There is nothing in there about how charitable contributions are used.

Eh, don't think I didn't notice the hedge .Yes, 501cs have to make all their expenditures available on request - the key being "on request." That's the whole idea behind the laws involved - people who give to charities want to know how their donations are being spent, and the CF, like others, have found cozy little loopholes. Of course the tax stuff is online. It's much harder to get away from the IRS. But, of course, what you have to report to the IRS, especially as a charity, isn't exactly detailed. And do I even need to bring up the obvious influence with the IRS that someone like Clinton has...?

 

[jillian]

If you come into this with an open mind, you might stop spreading nonsense about the clinton foundation
In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

Business and organizations love to rub shoulders with iconic American leaders — though the money Clinton has earned is probably a fraction of what President George H.W. Bush made by signing up with The Carlyle Group, an international conglomerate that made most of its initial money from U.S. defense contracts and from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia.

Rather than simply "cashing in," the young former president wanted to devote a substantial amount of his time and energy to making the world a better place, improving the lives of poor people and, at the same time, demonstrating in a real way that Americans cared.

I know for a fact that then-President Bush was deeply appreciative of Bill Clinton's help during this period. Let’s not forget that it was George W. Bush who had so much confidence in Bill Clinton that he asked him to co-chair with his dad, Bush 41, both the Tsunami and Katrina relief efforts. (Later, Obama personally asked Bill Clinton to co-chair the Haiti relief effort.)

HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING PEOPLE IGNORE:

Ingeniously, Bill Clinton set up his annual foundation conclave, CGI, as a clearinghouse between other foundations, wealthy donors, NGOs, governments and businesses — to meet face-to-face with charities working on the front lines of poverty alleviation, education and healthcare.

At CGI, the Clinton Foundation doesn’t encourage donations to itself (though it easily could have), but instead seeks "commitments" from donors to other charitable organizations to improve global health and wellness, increase economic opportunities for women in less-developed nations, reduce childhood obesity, and spur economic growth in countries that desperately need the help.

After those commitments are made, no money flows into the Clinton Foundation. Donors honor their pledges directly with the charities.

Over 10 years, CGI meetings have resulted in more than 3,100 commitments to action, deploying more than $100 billion which has been used to improve the lives of more than 430 million people in 180 countries around the world.

And about those "bribes" or whatever you want to call them:

One claim is that to help a major donor to the foundation, Hillary as secretary of state, changed her position and supported the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which was ratified in 2011.

In another instance, again to help the same donor, the U.S. government agreed to give a Russian company ownership of Uranium One, a firm which controls approximately 20 percent of the uranium mines in the U.S.

Knowing a bit how this administration works, it is preposterous to think that President Obama or his White House approved any deal to benefit the Clinton Foundation or one of its donors.

In the case of Colombia, it had made tremendous strides in improving its human rights situation during the period Hillary Clinton changed her position. And, as it turned out, the Clinton donor had sold out his stake in Uranium One years before the Russians bought the company.

Importantly, The New York Times reported that no less than nine federal agencies and officials including the Defense, Treasury and Energy Departments, as well as the White House, had to approve the Uranium One deal.

Jose Fernandez, who held the position of the department's principal representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviewed the sale, told The Wall Street Journal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

I needed a good laugh before bed. Thanks bud!

That's your way of saying you have no argument, especially when you realize the clinton foundation has helped hundreds of millions of people.

10% to actual charity. I don't need an argument. It does seem you need some perspective tho

Except it is 89%...

Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

What kind of low life, dengrades a charity that has done so much good for poor people...

Listen again, Clinton don't get paid....

thank you for that. truth rarely mattes to the these people

 

[CowboyTed]

If you come into this with an open mind, you might stop spreading nonsense about the clinton foundation
In Defense of the Clinton Foundation


HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING PEOPLE IGNORE:
And about those "bribes" or whatever you want to call them:

I needed a good laugh before bed. Thanks bud!

That's your way of saying you have no argument, especially when you realize the clinton foundation has helped hundreds of millions of people.

10% to actual charity. I don't need an argument. It does seem you need some perspective tho

Where the hell do you get the 10% number?

At CGI, the Clinton Foundation doesn’t encourage donations to itself (though it easily could have), but instead seeks "commitments" from donors to other charitable organizations to improve global health and wellness, increase economic opportunities for women in less-developed nations, reduce childhood obesity, and spur economic growth in countries that desperately need the help.

Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

From her Tax returns. I tip a waitress more than that let alone what I give to charity in both time, work & money. Clinton's want hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech for charitable contributions. Then they keep most of the money.

Fuck them & fuck you

Another load of Shit
This is a Libertarian Website

Hillary Rodham Clinton released her tax return for 2015 over the weekend. It turns out that she paid a 31% marginal tax rate on her taxable income. And she and Bill are responsible for $1,042,000 in charitable donations. Ninety-six percent of those donations went to their favorite charity — The Clinton Family Foundation. For the Clintons, charity begins at home.

With a combined income of $10,745,378, the Clintons, filing jointly in 2015, paid $3,624,455. That’s actually quite a lot of money, and in all fairness, those of us who are libertarians think that they should not have had to pay a penny of it; but neither should the rest of us. The Clintons reported only one hundred dollars in wages and tips, but they had $10,168,272 in business income. Their refund for 2015, due to their overpayment of estimated taxes, was a hefty $1,039,790. So much for their Form 1040. But the really interesting tidbit about their charitable donations does not begin until we get to Schedule A — Itemized Deductions.

There, after interest paid and other itemized deductions, we learn the extent of the Clintons’ charity, to the tune of one million and forty-two thousand. But it’s not until we get to the supplement to Schedule A that the breakdown is spelled out in a neat typewritten list. One million dollars were donated to the Clinton Family Foundation. Forty-two thousand went elsewhere.



Read more: 96% of Clinton's Charitable Donations Went to Clinton Family Foundation
Follow us: @TheLibRepublic on Twitter

 

[Dana7360]

And now I know to dismiss you completely.

Unless, of course, you can tell me exactly what my experience in charitable work is, what "partisanship" it is you think I have (which means you'd better know what my positions on all the issues are), etc. Of course, this might be a challenge for you, especially since you have to introduce your post by making sure what my name is.

I used to say to people that it must be nice to put people you've never met into tidy little boxes as soon as you speak to them, just on the basis of what their opinion is on one thing or another, but I've since changed my mind. It must be hell. You just don't you're in it.

I don't need to tell anything about you that you didn't already prove.

You can't address a single fucking thing that was explained to you about Clinton Foundation's model and how it relates to their fund allocation.

Take your stories about how you are a this grand philanthropist and shove them up your ass, they are just your stories and no one gives a shit.

**snicker**

I've been reading your posts in this thread.

You make many accusations but you don't provide any proof.

You demand proof from others, you're given links to their tax information and a link to their rating by an independent organization, you claim it's not true. But you don't provide any proof it's not true.

You don't provide any proof of anything you post.

Why should anyone believe you?

If you provided any credible proof of your claims maybe you might be taken seriously. You don't so all an intelligent person can do is believe you're full of garbage.

So I'm asking you for credible proof of your claims. Will you please provide it? Far right wing sources aren't credible.

 

[TNHarley]

Why do tax payers have to subsidize this charity that ranks in over 70M a year? Sounds like some "trickle down" bullshit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Cashing in on being SecState in real time is now "ingenious ". I think "criminal" is a better word

as opposed to cashing in on supporting putin?

she didn't "cash in". that's rightwingnut silliness.

the clinton foundation has done a lot of good in the world. dumb donald leaves a trail of bilked people everywhere he goes.

your idea of criminal is butt backwards.

She didn't "Cash in"?

Why were foreign government contributing to a Foundation run by the current SecState?

 

[bendog]

If you come into this with an open mind, you might stop spreading nonsense about the clinton foundation
In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

Business and organizations love to rub shoulders with iconic American leaders — though the money Clinton has earned is probably a fraction of what President George H.W. Bush made by signing up with The Carlyle Group, an international conglomerate that made most of its initial money from U.S. defense contracts and from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia.

Rather than simply "cashing in," the young former president wanted to devote a substantial amount of his time and energy to making the world a better place, improving the lives of poor people and, at the same time, demonstrating in a real way that Americans cared.

I know for a fact that then-President Bush was deeply appreciative of Bill Clinton's help during this period. Let’s not forget that it was George W. Bush who had so much confidence in Bill Clinton that he asked him to co-chair with his dad, Bush 41, both the Tsunami and Katrina relief efforts. (Later, Obama personally asked Bill Clinton to co-chair the Haiti relief effort.)

HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING PEOPLE IGNORE:

Ingeniously, Bill Clinton set up his annual foundation conclave, CGI, as a clearinghouse between other foundations, wealthy donors, NGOs, governments and businesses — to meet face-to-face with charities working on the front lines of poverty alleviation, education and healthcare.

At CGI, the Clinton Foundation doesn’t encourage donations to itself (though it easily could have), but instead seeks "commitments" from donors to other charitable organizations to improve global health and wellness, increase economic opportunities for women in less-developed nations, reduce childhood obesity, and spur economic growth in countries that desperately need the help.

After those commitments are made, no money flows into the Clinton Foundation. Donors honor their pledges directly with the charities.

Over 10 years, CGI meetings have resulted in more than 3,100 commitments to action, deploying more than $100 billion which has been used to improve the lives of more than 430 million people in 180 countries around the world.

And about those "bribes" or whatever you want to call them:

One claim is that to help a major donor to the foundation, Hillary as secretary of state, changed her position and supported the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which was ratified in 2011.

In another instance, again to help the same donor, the U.S. government agreed to give a Russian company ownership of Uranium One, a firm which controls approximately 20 percent of the uranium mines in the U.S.

Knowing a bit how this administration works, it is preposterous to think that President Obama or his White House approved any deal to benefit the Clinton Foundation or one of its donors.

In the case of Colombia, it had made tremendous strides in improving its human rights situation during the period Hillary Clinton changed her position. And, as it turned out, the Clinton donor had sold out his stake in Uranium One years before the Russians bought the company.

Importantly, The New York Times reported that no less than nine federal agencies and officials including the Defense, Treasury and Energy Departments, as well as the White House, had to approve the Uranium One deal.

Jose Fernandez, who held the position of the department's principal representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviewed the sale, told The Wall Street Journal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

The only thing wrong with the Clinton Foundation is that Hillary Clinton is still trying to serve the electorate as well as the Foundation. It's a two master thing.

 

[Flopper]

I honestly appreciate your efforts, but you have to know that comparisons to the Red Cross don't really mean anything except that no one's interested in their financials. According to 501c standards (which don't apply to religious charities, unfortunately), every bit of a charity's info is reported and should be public. It just takes a doggedly determined group with enough wherewithal to hold their feet to the fire (pls. see Judicial Watch when it comes to Clinton). The Red Cross, however, has been around for so long, done so much and has no apparent political interests... well, no one's baying for their blood.

So to speak.

I don't think there is any legal requirement for a 501C to report where they spend their money. I suppose if the feds challenge their tax free status, they would have to report it. The tax documents for the Clinton Foundation are available on line. There is nothing in there about how charitable contributions are used.

Eh, don't think I didn't notice the hedge .Yes, 501cs have to make all their expenditures available on request - the key being "on request." That's the whole idea behind the laws involved - people who give to charities want to know how their donations are being spent, and the CF, like others, have found cozy little loopholes. Of course the tax stuff is online. It's much harder to get away from the IRS. But, of course, what you have to report to the IRS, especially as a charity, isn't exactly detailed. And do I even need to bring up the obvious influence with the IRS that someone like Clinton has...?

Charities simple do not report cost by program because they're not required to do so by law. It's not a loophole law. The Clinton Foundation just like all major 501cs lump together all programs expenditures so you can't determine how much was spend digging wells in Africa vs feeding children in Haiti. However, they are required to report all donations and the amount spend on all programs so a donor can't determine just what percent of the their donations goes to charitable programs. This is why my wife and I donate mostly to small charities that we visit, meet those that run the organization, and see what they are doing with our money.

I don't support the Clinton Foundation for a number of reasons but not because I think they're crooks. Other than the name Clinton, what wrong with CF?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Ted Rall: At the Clinton Foundation, Access Equals Corruption