Seriously, does anybody believe this foundation was created primarily to engage in charity as opposed to engage in image-building and promotion of the Clintons?
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
The fact that politicians are corrupt is pretty well known universally. But that isn't the problem. The problem is that people accept it and continue to vote for the people. You can see examples in this thread. As long as we reward corrupt people with political power, we will continue to have corrupt people in office. Shame on us.
So did Politifact -- whose article YOU apparently did not read. If you're looking at the Clinton Foundation documents like you would most similar charities, their numbers would look awful. However, since they do most of the work themselves, paying for salaries ought to be classified mostly as programs rather than overhead.
Again, I do think they are overstating things with the 88% number. But they clearly aren't only spending 10-15% on programs. It's probably more in the 75-80% range.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
They publish annual reports, like most other large charities.
No, I don't worship any politicians, and certainly not the Clintons.
Meanwhile, I see no indication you actually read the Politifact article. If you did, you'd understand why merely reading the tax filings does not give you an accurate picture of how much the Clinton Foundation spends on programs.
Maybe this time we will get her.