And then they pay themselves, ,including Chelsea, Huma, and their friends. They use it to hire businesses run by their friends, who donate it back.. Kind of like Teneo.
Something like 87% of incoming money goes to charity programs with the rest spent on salaries, overhead and fundraising. This is one of the best ratios in philanthropy. The National Pediatric Cancer Foundation is one of the best rated charities out there and it's ratio is 88%.
Donations go to farmer's and aids patients and US schools.
Okay....so I looked on the CF website and found what you are saying is true....on the CF tax return 2015, £225 millions spent on programs, £29 million on administration.....
Of course, that doesn't tell us how much on what programs...that's the key information that I've not seen anywhere and would be very interested in, should clear everything up, and stop all this questioning of poor Hillary's philanphropic motivation
The reason I'm asking is I'd seen similar figures to the ones bandied about in the following subverse before: https://voat.co/v/politics/2001627
TIL: The Clinton Foundation collected over $2 billion and consumed 94% of that cash in "mysterious" expenses. (politics)
Submitted 12 hours ago by guinness2
‘Clinton Cash’ Author Peter Schweizer Confirms: Clinton Foundation Gives Only Six Percent to Charity
That's because Peter Schweizer is a liar.
Peter Schweitzer was part of fake good government charity set up by Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer (both of Team Trump) and was paid to write two books one to take out Jeb Bush (that everyone forgot about) and one to take out Hillary Clinton that people still quote everywhere. The big lies that came out of the Clinton book and since were the Clintons were taking money from the Clinton Foundation which was not spending money on charity and that Clinton by herself approved a uranium deal. When the book was launched, Schweitzer had to admit to Fox News he had no proof of wrongdoing in the uranium deal, he just had a timeline and had not quid pro quo.
In fact the timeline was completed screwed up. The guy closest to the Clintons had already sold his share of the uranium company three years BEFORE the deal and 18 months BEFORE Clinton became Secretary of State. Clinton didn't have veto power over this deal like the liar claimed. It was approved by a multagency group called CFIUS headed by the Treasury Department not State. State's representative on CFIUS board said Clinton never intervened on any CFIUS matter. The sale was approved because it posed no threat to US National Security. In fact, the company being sold was a Canadian company that did not have a license to export uranium from the US. Any uranium they mined had to be sold WITHIN the US.
As for the Charity Spending lie, what they quoted as charitable giving was only GRANTS to other charities. A lot of charities do that. They raise money and grant all the money to a charity doing the work. The Clinton Foundation does not do that. They do the work themselves. They have employees on the ground in Africa and the Central America and in the US.
You can check the fact check websites for either of those claims above.
I get my numbers from CharityNavigator.com which evaluates charities, but you can also find it on the Clinton foundation websiite. Here's the big ticket line items, you can then find out what each of these initiatives is doing.
Program Services
Clinton Health Access Initiative $143,041,357 57.3%
Clinton Global Initiative 23,544,381 9.4%
Clinton Presidential Center 13,501,618 5.4%
Clinton Climate Initiative 8,293,416 3.3%
Clinton Giustra Enterprise
Partnership 7,358,967 3.0%
Clinton Development Initiative 4,482,714 1.8%
Clinton Health Matters Initiative 3,696,323 1.5%
Other Programs 13,789,165 5.5%
view the rest of the comments →
Diogenes_The_Cynic ago
I expected the celebrities, but some were bizarre. Podesta donated to her? Her own daughter, Chelsea?
One of the bigger donations was with icmediadirect which handles peoples online reputations. Well then HRC, you knew these people?
RweSure ago
Donated to her? No.
Donated to a charity. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton donate it to it as well.
Commoner ago
And then they pay themselves, ,including Chelsea, Huma, and their friends. They use it to hire businesses run by their friends, who donate it back.. Kind of like Teneo.
Are_we_sure ago
They do not pay themselves. False.
They have not taken any salaries ever.
Something like 87% of incoming money goes to charity programs with the rest spent on salaries, overhead and fundraising. This is one of the best ratios in philanthropy. The National Pediatric Cancer Foundation is one of the best rated charities out there and it's ratio is 88%.
Donations go to farmer's and aids patients and US schools.
madhatter67 ago
Okay....so I looked on the CF website and found what you are saying is true....on the CF tax return 2015, £225 millions spent on programs, £29 million on administration.....
Of course, that doesn't tell us how much on what programs...that's the key information that I've not seen anywhere and would be very interested in, should clear everything up, and stop all this questioning of poor Hillary's philanphropic motivation
Are_we_sure ago
That's because Peter Schweizer is a liar.
Peter Schweitzer was part of fake good government charity set up by Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer (both of Team Trump) and was paid to write two books one to take out Jeb Bush (that everyone forgot about) and one to take out Hillary Clinton that people still quote everywhere. The big lies that came out of the Clinton book and since were the Clintons were taking money from the Clinton Foundation which was not spending money on charity and that Clinton by herself approved a uranium deal. When the book was launched, Schweitzer had to admit to Fox News he had no proof of wrongdoing in the uranium deal, he just had a timeline and had not quid pro quo.
In fact the timeline was completed screwed up. The guy closest to the Clintons had already sold his share of the uranium company three years BEFORE the deal and 18 months BEFORE Clinton became Secretary of State. Clinton didn't have veto power over this deal like the liar claimed. It was approved by a multagency group called CFIUS headed by the Treasury Department not State. State's representative on CFIUS board said Clinton never intervened on any CFIUS matter. The sale was approved because it posed no threat to US National Security. In fact, the company being sold was a Canadian company that did not have a license to export uranium from the US. Any uranium they mined had to be sold WITHIN the US.
As for the Charity Spending lie, what they quoted as charitable giving was only GRANTS to other charities. A lot of charities do that. They raise money and grant all the money to a charity doing the work. The Clinton Foundation does not do that. They do the work themselves. They have employees on the ground in Africa and the Central America and in the US.
You can check the fact check websites for either of those claims above.
I get my numbers from CharityNavigator.com which evaluates charities, but you can also find it on the Clinton foundation websiite. Here's the big ticket line items, you can then find out what each of these initiatives is doing.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/2015_ar_2015financials_upd.pdf
madhatter67 ago
The reason I'm asking is I'd seen similar figures to the ones bandied about in the following subverse before:
https://voat.co/v/politics/2001627
It really would be good if you point me to the source of your figures, just to clear up the obvious discrepancy
madhatter67 ago
Interesting....would love if you could share a link to some figures for this....I've not really ever seen a breakdown of where the CF money goes