Clinton Foundation / Clinton Wealth questions linger (POL)

According to DonDiego's typically dishonest metric:

Of all the funds which departed the American Red Cross for the year ending 6/2013
__92% was expenses
__8% was "charitable" grants

Right DonDiego? Right jatki? Right jphelan?

Who cares, the thread is not about the read cross.

The Red Cross and the Clinton Foundation both appear to be the Liberal Utopia. They're both great at turning $1 into 15 cents.

This is hogwash. Just because a charity spends a lot of its money on salaries and expenses and not on GRANTS has no bearing on how efficiently it's meeting its charitable goals.

The Red Cross employs 35,000. They have 500,000 volunteers. Boilerman implies they are just lining their pockets and not doing anything because they don't give out grants. That makes no sense. An average of 91 cents of every dollar the Red Cross spends is invested in humanitarian services and programs. Just because they decided it was more efficient to build their own organizations for first aid training, disaster relief and blood collection Boilerman claims they are wasting 85 cents of every dollar...since they aren't...You know....giving out GRANTS to other companies.

in order to level those charges against the Clinton Foundation you have to actually analyze what exactly their people are doing with the money. Just because they don't do grants doesn't make them any more or less a charity and it sure doesn't mean that all the money went to administration.

The issues with the CF appear to be on the donation side and what these international billionaires who all just happen to have some kind of business/political issue are getting for their millions in donations...and why their involvement wasn't reported as required....Oh and how the personal Clinton wealth generating machine is intertwined with the same players. Oh..and what the meaning of 'is' is.

Article on CF tax errors

Clinton Foundation admits making mistakes on taxes

"(Reuters) - The Clinton Foundation's acting chief executive admitted on Sunday that the charity had made mistakes on how it listed government donors on its tax returns and said it was working to make sure it does not happen in the future..."
".. After a Reuters review found errors in how the foundation reported government donors on its taxes, the charity said last week it would refile at least five annual tax returns.

"So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don't happen in the future," Clinton Foundation acting Chief Executive Officer Maura Pally said in a statement.

The errors appeared on the tax forms 990 that all non-profit organizations must file annually with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to maintain their tax-exempt status..."

https://news.yahoo.com/clinton-foundation-admits-making-mistakes-taxes-191504850.html

George Washington: "I cannot tell a lie."

Boilerman: "I cannot tell the truth."

jatki: "I cannot tell the difference."

I believe the original source is correct - that 15% of revenue to the Clinton foundation were distributed as charitable grants. However this is misleading as all "charitable" works of the Clinton foundation are completed within the charitable grants and this is not out of line with other charities (i.e. the American Red Cross).

However, many question still linger with as many as one dozen "coincidences" where Clinton Foundation funding coincides with favorable political outcomes involving Hillary Clinton who was serving as Secretary of State. In addition, I still question how the Clinton's attained wealth rivaling the Romney's as "Civil servants", book writers for books that don't sell, and public speakers. As such, I will change the topic of this thread to "Clinton Foundation / Clinton Wealth questions linger (POL)". I believe this is more accurate and not as misleading as the current thread title.

So, are we just now admitting to mistakes because the blonde bit*h is running for office? Anyone who believes these people are not dishonest and only do what is best for them, best get their heads out of the sand!

Last I recall someone restating that many years of returns were subjects of federal probes, audits, or lawsuits.

More likely in the Clinton's case to cover for any offshore monies they(the charity or B and H's wallets) received.

Interesting, they don't cover bill hillary and Chelsae foundation. I think forkie or others might call bullshit on this as a source.