You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Are_we_sure ago

um no.

The "Clinton Scam" is only a scam because you've been lied to. This is completely false.

The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.

The Clintons take no money out of the Foundation. There is not a single expert who believes the Clinton Foundation spends only 10% of its expenses on charitable work. That was a lie pushed by political operatives, specifically this lie was started by Peter Schweizer knowing that most people don't wouldn't know the details. Schweizer is a professional liar as he has been repeatedly corrected on this by actual experts and but he still lying about this for over two years now.

Here's a tip, if you want to learn how the Clinton Foundation operates, you can read their 990 forms which is the tax form that 503c nonprofits need to file. You can read the Chronicle of Philanthropy to see how other charities work. You can also look at charitable watchdogs and see how the Clinton foundation is regarded.

Charity Navigator gives them 4 stars and scores them 94.74 out of 100.

Financial 97.50 Accountability & Transparency 93.00

Here's the truth of their expenses. They do not spend 10% on charity. They spent 87% on charitable programs last year. They spent 4% on fundraising and 9% on administrative overhead. So salaries are part of that 9% along with rent, supplies, travel, etc.

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

EXPENSES Program Expenses $201,397,304 Administrative Expenses $20,619,878 Fundraising Expenses $7,610,237 TOTAL FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES $229,627,419

CharityWatch gives them an A and has them as Top Rating Charity. They calculate charitable programs at 88% of expenses. For comparion, the American Red Cross has an A- rating.

Jem777 ago

Really! You want to be on record with that. If Peter Sshweizer was lying where is the lawsuit from the Rich lawyers? The world bank and US AID have already been implicted as part of a scheme used by CF in Haiti. There are attorneys, judges, & others involved who have the evidence. Might want to reconsider

Are_we_sure ago

Yes. Dude is a liar. There's no way he could honestly have screwed up his reporting on Uranium One has bad as he did. There is simply no way he could have written the story the way he did honestly. Because the facts are

A friend of Bill Clinton has a Uranium company, he sells in 2007. In 2008 he makes a lot of big charitable donations the Clinton foundation, same year Hillary Clinton loses her bid for the presidency. In an unanticipated move Obama asks her to be Secretary of State. In 2009Russia buys shares in a Canadian company primarily to get access to uranium deposits in Kahzakstan. In 2010, the seek enough shares to control the company. The company has a US subsidiary, so the US Government has to approve the sale. The entire Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States signs off on the deal because there's no national security issue, the US subsidiary would not to apply for an export license to sell the uranium outside the US. And Peter Schweizer claims this reflects badly on Hillary Clinton How.

He claimed she could have vetoed the deal. (She did not have veto power.) He implies she only approved the deal because of a financial donation to the Clinton Foundation. Except she was never involved at all in this decision in any way and the financial donation was two years before the deal, by a guy who used to own the company, but no longer did.

So it was a quid pro quo deal where the money was exchanged two to three years any possibility of a deal with Russia to buy the company arose and where Clinton wasn't involved in approved that sale in anyway. Sounds legit. That's some straight bribery.

Jem777 ago

Really. That is your basis for substantiating the Clinton Foundation is not a scam. What you just posted? Seriously? And that they have an A- from Charity Navigator? Really?

Have you ever traveled to Haiti? Or any of the other countries that have donated? Do you know who Marc Rich Is? Do you know who BC really is? Do you know history?

Hell at this point do you know anything? You already lost your credibility here but this takes the cake. You are literally providing cover for horrible crimes and it is nauseating.