Quote
Originally posted by: pjstrohQuote
Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Hmmm. What the Clinton Foundation claims and what the tax returns show, are two completely separate things. Are you suggesting that the tax returns are wrong, because God forbid that the Clintons would ever lie?
I understand the tax returns are wrong and are being refiled. If someone on these boards stated that fact then their commentary would be accurate.
But the criticism on these boards was something else. People here suggested less than 15% of money donated to the charity was going to the actual charity. That was a smearing lie wasn't it?
That's what the numbers showed, no smearing lie there.
"One of the mantras one must invoke when discussing the Clinton Cash controversy is to say that whatever one might think of the pay-to-play aspects of the former first family’s charitable endeavors, the Clinton Foundation does a lot of good work around the world. But now that more of the press is finally asking tough questions about the Clintons’ activities, it appears that their charity may not pass the basic question donors ask of any philanthropy: how much of the money raised is actually spent on the causes you are supposed to be aiding? 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/2015/04/30/is-the-clinton-foundation-really-a-charity/
"After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back. In a tweet posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to [the foundation’s] life-changing work..."
"..There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.
https://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/
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..."
"...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."
https://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
There's tons others, just google Clinton fund percent to charity, I did. Funny I didn't see anyone defending them...hmm. Oh wait, I have HERE!
