Just 5.7 Percent Of Clinton Foundation Budget Actually Went To Charitable Grants

roughdraft274 said:

I agree that he was paid 500,000 for a speech. As he has been by many people and groups.

Can you show me where many in congress were against the deal prior to it being approved by nearly a dozen federal agencies?

Click to expand...

Yes I can ... but would it matter to you?

roughdraft274 said:

I agree that he was paid 500,000 for a speech. As he has been by many people and groups.

Can you show me where many in congress were against the deal prior to it being approved by nearly a dozen federal agencies?

Click to expand...

This speech was sponsored by the deal participants. Does that make a difference to you?

bubbabgone said:

Yes I can ... but would it matter to you?

Click to expand...

**** it. I'm done. I'm not pulling teeth from someone who doesn't even try to understand the difference in these two instances.

Later.

Her legal name should be changed to Crooked Hillary Rodham Clinton.

How much has Trump's campaign spent on his own businesses?

How much did Trump give to charity before claiming to have given it?*

How much would any person with HDS care?

None at all. Because if the Hated Liberal has a fault, they will ignore identical faults in their own guy no matter how they compare.



*I mention this due to the recent incident in which Trump lied about giving to a charity, was called on it, then gave the amount he previously claimed he had, and then acted like this meant he was telling the truth.

bubbabgone said:

As luck would have it, one of those Clinton Foundation annual meetings is about to take place in NYC very soon in an effort to ...


https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/meetings/annual-meetings/2016/speakers

Sound like gobbledegook? Does a commitment constitute charity? Are the commitments ever met? How many? How is success measured?

And that's been how the Clinton Foundation can say they spend 90% of their budget on charity ... because they consider talking about it & making commitments to be charity.

The BBB WGA gave the Clinton Foundation failing grades on effectiveness.
Why?

Other charity watchdog outfits don't seem to even ask about effectiveness.

Click to expand...

If I understand the mission of the Clinton Foundation correctly and how they conduct their business, the Foundation does more philanthropy work than charity work. Most of the funds they collect via donations is redistributed to projects that are deemed to solve problems.

The Clinton Foundation is an operating foundation. The money raised by the Foundation is spent directly on our programs, and not as grants to other charitable organizations.

Click to expand...

You can learn more about the Clinton Foundation's mission (what the Foundation is about) at their website. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about

Objective Voice said:

If I understand the mission of the Clinton Foundation correctly and how they conduct their business, the Foundation does more philanthropy work than charity work. Most of the funds they collect via donations is redistributed to projects that are deemed to solve problems.



You can learn more about the Clinton Foundation's mission (what the Foundation is about) at their website. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about

Click to expand...

Yes.
That generally describes the Foundation's business model and the reason why Charity Navigator originally declined to give a rating.
First they put it on a Watch List ...
then they said they couldn't rate the Foundation because of its business model ...
then they gave the Foundation a high rating ...
then it was discovered that Charity Navigator got free membership into the Clinton Global Initiative arm of the Foundation.

The curious thing about their review is how Charity Navigator described the Foundation ...

"The Clinton Foundation convenes businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change."

Then they list some charities that they say perform the same type of work. Here's one and its description ...

"Worldwide Orphans Foundation (WWO) was founded in 1997 by Dr. Jane Aronson, a renowned pediatric infectious disease and adoption medicine specialist, who has dedicated her life to working with children. Our mission is to transform the lives of orphaned children and help them to become healthy, independent, productive members of their communities and the world. WWO addresses children's physical and mental health, their education and their ability to plan for and to achieve that is productive and fulfilling in their own countries."

Doesn't it sound like the WWO actually performs hands-on services whereas the Clinton Foundation travels the globe to talk (convene)?
It should because that's what the Clinton Foundation does. Travels and talks and sometimes hires people who can sometimes perform a service that other charities are set up to perform themselves. That way travel expenses become program service expenses and the people hired can benefit the Clintons. That's not a wild allegation, it's what happens.

I mentioned before that none of the charity rating services that I've seen actually look at the quality of the services provided or verify the numbers they're given ... Charity Watch admits it.
And, think about it, how could they evaluate the effectiveness of convening a group for the money it spends?
They certainly don't sound comparable to me. Do they to you?

bubbabgone said:

Yes.
That generally describes the Foundation's business model and the reason why Charity Navigator originally declined to give a rating.
First they put it on a Watch List ...
then they said they couldn't rate the Foundation because of its business model ...
then they gave the Foundation a high rating ...
then it was discovered that Charity Navigator got free membership into the Clinton Global Initiative arm of the Foundation.

Click to expand...

OMG, that's your "aha!" moment to cling to your obedient narrative that you don't have to trust "a leading and respected organization that evaluates and rates charities". that's almost as amazingly dumb as your obedient narrative that you don't have to trust Charity Watch because

bubbabgone said:

The Charity Watch review of the Clinton Foundation, which the person posting it can't answer any questions about.

Click to expand...

Bubba, stop being the perfect example of LIV and posting the perfect example of LIV bait. you really should put more effort into your posts.

The Clinton Global Initiative waived its membership fees for Charity Navigator, as it does for nonprofits, nongovernment organizations and social entrepreneurs.

Charity Navigator gives Clinton Foundation the highest possible rating - Business Insider

Now read that very slowly and as many times as necessary: as it does for nonprofits, nongovernment organizations and social entrepreneurs. And fyi, notice I'm still here responding to your posts. You not only cut and run from my last post, you predicted I would cut and run. Now we can add "hypocrite" to the list of things that describe you. so lets review the facts that shred your convenient and obedient narratives.

Two charity rating organizations give the Clinton Foundation high marks.

bubbabgone said:

Have you noticed that when anyone dares criticize the Clinton Foundation they are always countered with 2 sites.
1) The Charity Watch review of the Clinton Foundation, which the person posting it can't answer any questions about.

and the other is ...

2) FactCheck.orgs commentary about what Carly Fiorina claimed.
FactCheck always seems to very narrowly focus on broad questions so as to be gentle with certain favored characters.

Two things stand out in that particular FactCheck link ...
One is ...


Meaning, the C.F. doesn't actually DO anything for anyone anywhere but they run up travel expenses to get where they talk to people.
Apparently they make a lot of phone calls to government & business that might become donors or already are.
Those activities are called "Program Services" and they cost well over $200,000,000 a year to provide.

The other thing that stands out in that FactCheck link is that FactCheck didn't check those facts from Clinton Foundation.
They just accepted them.
They can do that when they only focus on Fiorina.

To be fair, there is a 3rd defense site that has been linked here but it was Hillary Clinton's site.
I think we all figured that was some sort of self-mocking joke best left alone.

Click to expand...

You have missed the point. The OP expressed outrage that the Clinton Foundation gave away only 6% of the money. There should be no outrage about that because the Clinton Foundation is an operating foundation, not one that gives money away. Hence, the OP was neutered.

As to all of your allegations as to the effectiveness of the Clinton Foundation... its an interesting discussion, but not germane to this thread. What is noteworthy, however, is that you make a big deal about the 3rd party evidence presented but do not counter 3rd party evidence with any of your own. Instead, you chose to stand up on your soap box and spew out your impressions, as ill-informed as they may be. Pretty weak, don't your think?

bubbabgone said:

Yes.
That generally describes the Foundation's business model and the reason why Charity Navigator originally declined to give a rating.
First they put it on a Watch List ...
then they said they couldn't rate the Foundation because of its business model ...
then they gave the Foundation a high rating ...
then it was discovered that Charity Navigator got free membership into the Clinton Global Initiative arm of the Foundation.

The curious thing about their review is how Charity Navigator described the Foundation ...

"The Clinton Foundation convenes businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change."

Then they list some charities that they say perform the same type of work. Here's one and its description ...

"Worldwide Orphans Foundation (WWO) was founded in 1997 by Dr. Jane Aronson, a renowned pediatric infectious disease and adoption medicine specialist, who has dedicated her life to working with children. Our mission is to transform the lives of orphaned children and help them to become healthy, independent, productive members of their communities and the world. WWO addresses children's physical and mental health, their education and their ability to plan for and to achieve that is productive and fulfilling in their own countries."

Doesn't it sound like the WWO actually performs hands-on services whereas the Clinton Foundation travels the globe to talk (convene)?
It should because that's what the Clinton Foundation does. Travels and talks and sometimes hires people who can sometimes perform a service that other charities are set up to perform themselves. That way travel expenses become program service expenses and the people hired can benefit the Clintons. That's not a wild allegation, it's what happens.

I mentioned before that none of the charity rating services that I've seen actually look at the quality of the services provided or verify the numbers they're given ... Charity Watch admits it.
And, think about it, how could they evaluate the effectiveness of convening a group for the money it spends?
They certainly don't sound comparable to me. Do they to you?

Click to expand...

Bottom line is you have no idea what the Foundation does or if it's effective. Using your BS standards, the average church doesn't do any good - all they do is gather around and talk every week. We'd also have to dismiss anything having to do with schools. Who cares if they're teaching and learning? What does NRA do worth a damn - how many people has it saved from cancer?

You're created a BS standard where the only "real" charitable work is buying stuff and distributing it to people, then measured the CF against your BS standard to criticize it, but you don't even know how much of what it does meets THAT benchmark, which we know because you're citing summary descriptions from other parties.

All that's fine if the goal is to figure out where you want to send your own money, but it's pretty hilarious to watch you make definitive statements about what they do when you clearly are nearly totally ignorant about their operations.

upsideguy said:

You have missed the point. The OP expressed outrage that the Clinton Foundation gave away only 6% of the money. There should be no outrage about that because the Clinton Foundation is an operating foundation, not one that gives money away. Hence, the OP was neutered.

As to all of your allegations as to the effectiveness of the Clinton Foundation... its an interesting discussion, but not germane to this thread. What is noteworthy, however, is that you make a big deal about the 3rd party evidence presented but do not counter 3rd party evidence with any of your own. Instead, you chose to stand up on your soap box and spew out your impressions, as ill-informed as they may be. Pretty weak, don't your think?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're referring to.
What 3rd Party evidence would you like me to counter?
That the charity review organizations don't evaluate a Charity's effectiveness and so they accept what they've been given?
Or was it something else?

JasperL said:

Bottom line is you have no idea what the Foundation does or if it's effective. Using your BS standards, the average church doesn't do any good - all they do is gather around and talk every week. We'd also have to dismiss anything having to do with schools. Who cares if they're teaching and learning? What does NRA do worth a damn - how many people has it saved from cancer?

You're created a BS standard where the only "real" charitable work is buying stuff and distributing it to people, then measured the CF against your BS standard to criticize it, but you don't even know how much of what it does meets THAT benchmark, which we know because you're citing summary descriptions from other parties.

All that's fine if the goal is to figure out where you want to send your own money, but it's pretty hilarious to watch you make definitive statements about what they do when you clearly are nearly totally ignorant about their operations.

Click to expand...

Is your position that there's no such thing as measurement of a charity's effectiveness?
Or that there's no point trying to measure effectiveness of a charity or that it's not important?
Or that a charity shouldn't be expected to measure effectiveness or account for its expenses?

I gave you how Charity Navigator described the Clinton Foundation and another they said did the same kind of work.
They didn't sound the same to me ... did they sound the same to you?

bubbabgone said:

Is your position that there's no such thing as measurement of a charity's effectiveness?
Or that there's no point trying to measure effectiveness of a charity or that it's not important?
Or that a charity shouldn't be expected to measure effectiveness or account for its expenses?

Click to expand...

My point is simple - you are nearly completely ignorant of what the CF does or whether what they do accomplished any real good. And yet you're declaring that you do know and you've evaluated whether they are effective and are asserting as fact that they are not. It's hilarious.

As to your question, sure, it's possible to measure the effectiveness of a charity, but it's an immense task, far tougher and FAR more expensive to do than a financial audit, and largely subjective, which is why it's going to be rare to non-existent for a charity ratings outfit to take that on. Really and objectively evaluating the effectiveness of the various CF programs would cost 6 figures I imagine and require a team of experts. I mentioned churches. How do you measure the "effectiveness" of a church's core mission which revolves around events on Sunday and weekly bible study perhaps, and a little bit of local charity? It's nearly impossible to do on any kind of objective basis.

I gave you how Charity Navigator described the Clinton Foundation and another they said did the same kind of work.
They didn't sound the same to me ... did they sound the same to you?

Click to expand...

Not the same doesn't indicate that one is effective and one isn't. The hundreds of local churches in my area are "not the same" as the outfit I volunteer for which takes in the homeless, mostly addicts, which is different than the local food banks, Second Harvest etc. Are only one of them effective? Of course not, they're all effective in their own way.

JasperL said:

My point is simple - you are nearly completely ignorant of what the CF does or whether what they do accomplished any real good. And yet you're declaring that you do know and you've evaluated whether they are effective and are asserting as fact that they are not. It's hilarious.

As to your question, sure, it's possible to measure the effectiveness of a charity, but it's an immense task, far tougher and FAR more expensive to do than a financial audit, and largely subjective, which is why it's going to be rare to non-existent for a charity ratings outfit to take that on. Really and objectively evaluating the effectiveness of the various CF programs would cost 6 figures I imagine and require a team of experts. I mentioned churches. How do you measure the "effectiveness" of a church's core mission which revolves around events on Sunday and weekly bible study perhaps, and a little bit of local charity? It's nearly impossible to do on any kind of objective basis.

Not the same doesn't indicate that one is effective and one isn't. The hundreds of local churches in my area are "not the same" as the outfit I volunteer for which takes in the homeless, mostly addicts, which is different than the local food banks, Second Harvest etc. Are only one of them effective? Of course not, they're all effective in their own way.

Click to expand...

I'm not ignorant of what the CF does since there are examples of what they've done and I know about them ... here's one.
https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/758858202435899392
The Haiti story was carried by some news organizations.
There are more from other countries but you have to be interested enough and not so partisan that you turn away.

Years ago Charity Navigator decided that effectiveness was an important quality for all charity monitor organizations to measure so they decided to do just that.
As it turns out, they found that Charities don't maintain data that might demonstrate effectiveness so they "postponed" their effort.
They all just accept what they've been fed from the charities and don't address effectiveness.
But don't you think charities that actually deliver hands-on services would be easier to demonstrate effectiveness?
And don't you think that what you were shown in the video clip demonstrates a totally different kind of effectiveness that the monitors could easily detect if they chose to?
If I could find it they could find it and so could you.

Charity Navigator suggested the 2 charity examples I noted do the same type of work ... one looks like its reason for being is a whole lot different than the other.

bubbabgone said:

I'm not ignorant of what the CF does since there are examples of what they've done and I know about them ... here's one.
https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/758858202435899392
The Haiti story was carried by some news organizations.
There are more from other countries but you have to be interested enough and not so partisan that you turn away.

Click to expand...

I'm not turning away - I watched the video and saw almost nothing in it relating to CF work. The first one kind of turned me off from the whole segment, but I watched. It was about a factory, no mention of CF foundation anywhere, and the big problem is the project didn't create 60,000 jobs as promised by only 5,000 jobs. I don't know why that happened or where the CF was in any decision related to that, or even if there was anything done wrong.

And let's be serious here. I volunteer for one charity, and our lawyer and our accountant and the person we use for brokerage services and a person who helps us on the medical side are all donors to the charity. It's what happens. I do a lot of work for a nearby college through a lawyer, and he's a big donor to the school (and a graduate), same is true for their broker and they have $300 million in an endowment. Do the contributions lead or follow the work or are they related to the work? Who knows and what matters is these people do good work for the charity AND are donors.

So do CF donors sometimes or often get a benefit. I'm sure they do - frequently. What I'm not sure of is if that's at all unusual - not in my experience - or corrupt. The lawyer I work with is the most ethical person I know in that business and he's a legitimate supporter of a school that is run fantastically well IMO, from top to bottom, and we bend over backwards making sure our bills are fair to us and the school. There's nothing unethical going on that I see.

Years ago Charity Navigator decided that effectiveness was an important quality for all charity monitor organizations to measure so they decided to do just that.
As it turns out, they found that Charities don't maintain data that might demonstrate effectiveness so they "postponed" their effort.
They all just accept what they've been fed from the charities and don't address effectiveness.

Click to expand...

Doesn't surprise me because I would think the kind of "effectiveness" ratings an org like that could do would be next to worthless and HIGHLY subjective. Again, how do you evaluate the effectiveness of a church? Or even an animal shelter? Number of dogs adopted? What if they only accept the best candidates and send the rest to kill shelters? It's how it works here - the no-kill shelters reject a bunch of dogs that end up at shelters that have no option but to kill thousands per year. Etc......

But don't you think charities that actually deliver hands-on services would be easier to demonstrate effectiveness?

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that's not the only way to be effective in doing good works. And I've seen nothing to demonstrate what kind of work done by CF is delivering "hands on services" even if that is the only way to be effective as a charity and it's not.

And don't you think that what you were shown in the video clip demonstrates a totally different kind of effectiveness that the monitors could easily detect if they chose to?
If I could find it they could find it and so could you.

Click to expand...

Come on, the video was a hatchet job that didn't even pretend to take a big picture view of anything. Show me where in the video it talked about what the CF did, how much money was spent, and what was accomplished for ALL their projects there.

Charity Navigator suggested the 2 charity examples I noted do the same type of work ... one looks like its reason for being is a whole lot different than the other.

Click to expand...

Fine, use that to direct your own charity dollars. I wouldn't think of giving CF a nickel, but that's mainly because I can see on the ground lots of work done locally, know who is doing the work, and know they're helping my neighbors so that's where my money goes. I have NO IDEA if the CF is effective or not, and don't really care to find out. What I haven't seen is any evidence it's fraudulent. Let's say it collects $100 million and 'only' gets $50 million worth of real benefit out of those dollars. It's $50 million more than most people raise and deliver in charitable aid. I'm sure they've raised over a $billion over time. If $250 million made a real difference, name any recent politician who has done more with their time out of office. Carter maybe.

JasperL said:

I'm not turning away - I watched the video and saw almost nothing in it relating to CF work. The first one kind of turned me off from the whole segment, but I watched. It was about a factory, no mention of CF foundation anywhere, and the big problem is the project didn't create 60,000 jobs as promised by only 5,000 jobs. I don't know why that happened or where the CF was in any decision related to that, or even if there was anything done wrong.

And let's be serious here. I volunteer for one charity, and our lawyer and our accountant and the person we use for brokerage services and a person who helps us on the medical side are all donors to the charity. It's what happens. I do a lot of work for a nearby college through a lawyer, and he's a big donor to the school (and a graduate), same is true for their broker and they have $300 million in an endowment. Do the contributions lead or follow the work or are they related to the work? Who knows and what matters is these people do good work for the charity AND are donors.

So do CF donors sometimes or often get a benefit. I'm sure they do - frequently. What I'm not sure of is if that's at all unusual - not in my experience - or corrupt. The lawyer I work with is the most ethical person I know in that business and he's a legitimate supporter of a school that is run fantastically well IMO, from top to bottom, and we bend over backwards making sure our bills are fair to us and the school. There's nothing unethical going on that I see.



Doesn't surprise me because I would think the kind of "effectiveness" ratings an org like that could do would be next to worthless and HIGHLY subjective. Again, how do you evaluate the effectiveness of a church? Or even an animal shelter? Number of dogs adopted? What if they only accept the best candidates and send the rest to kill shelters? It's how it works here - the no-kill shelters reject a bunch of dogs that end up at shelters that have no option but to kill thousands per year. Etc......



Perhaps, but that's not the only way to be effective in doing good works. And I've seen nothing to demonstrate what kind of work done by CF is delivering "hands on services" even if that is the only way to be effective as a charity and it's not.


Come on, the video was a hatchet job that didn't even pretend to take a big picture view of anything. Show me where in the video it talked about what the CF did, how much money was spent, and what was accomplished for ALL their projects there.



Fine, use that to direct your own charity dollars. I wouldn't think of giving CF a nickel, but that's mainly because I can see on the ground lots of work done locally, know who is doing the work, and know they're helping my neighbors so that's where my money goes. I have NO IDEA if the CF is effective or not, and don't really care to find out. What I haven't seen is any evidence it's fraudulent. Let's say it collects $100 million and 'only' gets $50 million worth of real benefit out of those dollars. It's $50 million more than most people raise and deliver in charitable aid. I'm sure they've raised over a $billion over time. If $250 million made a real difference, name any recent politician who has done more with their time out of office. Carter maybe.

Click to expand...

The clip talked about what the Clinton Foundation arranged to be done in Haiti by their donors, how badly it was done, what the donor participants got out of it.
Keep in mind, that video was intended to call attention to the C.F. ... not what the Clintons themselves get out of it.
I hesitate to say it's a separate issue because it's often quite intertwined.

So ... the charity you volunteer for ... do you do the work for the targeted groups? ... can you explain how effective the charity is given their charter.

btw, ya know how you minimized " It was about a factory, no mention of CF foundation anywhere, and the big problem is the project didn't create 60,000 jobs as promised by only 5,000 jobs. ".
That kind of thing is typical of the C.F.. They hire the provider because they're connected and the work has been typically over budget and under value.
That's for situations that could produce measurable results like construction.

Other situations are pure graft. Donate and pay for speeches and you get access before or after.
There are other examples too but from the reactions here some of you will never be persuadable ... that's not unexpected.
But they're out there if you care to look.

bubbabgone said:

The clip talked about what the Clinton Foundation arranged to be done in Haiti by their donors, how badly it was done, what the donor participants got out of it.
Keep in mind, that video was intended to call attention to the C.F. ... not what the Clintons themselves get out of it.
I hesitate to say it's a separate issue because it's often quite intertwined.

Click to expand...

Most of it had nothing to do with the CF. Where did it say the CF had anything at all to do with the factory? Where did it say the CF had anything to do with awarding the mobile phone contract? Who else applied for that grant? Could they do the job? The CF didn't award the mobile phone contract, you've just drawn a line between owner - > CF -> contract and we're supposed to conclude the CF was involved and it was a corrupt deal. But the video demonstrated neither. Same thing all the way around. Do you know why the housing went way over budget? I don't have a clue and I'm guessing you don't either. Could be the company pocketed 80 million and only did 20 million of work but there is no EVIDENCE that happened.

So ... the charity you volunteer for ... do you do the work for the targeted groups? ... can you explain how effective the charity is given their charter.

Click to expand...

Yes, but we're different than a food bank, which is different than United Way, which is different than a school which is different than a church which is different than the CF. I'm nearly 100% positive you have no idea where the CF actually spends its money, and on what, doing what.

btw, ya know how you minimized " It was about a factory, no mention of CF foundation anywhere, and the big problem is the project didn't create 60,000 jobs as promised by only 5,000 jobs. ".
That kind of thing is typical of the C.F.. They hire the provider because they're connected and the work has been typically over budget and under value.
That's for situations that could produce measurable results like construction.

Click to expand...

CF didn't provide a nickel of the funding and the video said nothing to indicate the CF had any role at all! It was U.S. funding, not CF funding, and the ties to Hillary were the companies who bought their output. Well, hellfire, that is awful that companies tied to her bought their product - scandalous!!! CORRUPT HILLARY!! Wait......wut? That's a GOOD thing the factory had people to sell to!

Other situations are pure graft. Donate and pay for speeches and you get access before or after.
There are other examples too but from the reactions here some of you will never be persuadable ... that's not unexpected.
But they're out there if you care to look.

Click to expand...

Well, when you allege a video showed the CF was corrupt when the segment in question didn't even mention the CF and the only tie to the Clinton family was some alleged links between buyers of textiles and HRC as if Walmart being a client of the factory is a bad thing, then, no, I'm not going to be persuaded. And the rest of the video was similar stuff.

As to buying access, yes, of course that happens. I already conceded that, it's how the world works, and not just in the CF but pretty much any elected office anywhere in America.

zimmer said:

Nice slush fund for family and friends... Or one of Felonious Bill's Bimbo's.

And wherever they've gone to "help", like Haiti, replace "help" with "botch"... Just like at State.

Hillary, and The Clinton Crime Family have a bad, never ending case of Botch-ilism.

Click to expand...

In case no one has mentioned it already in this thread:

This was hashed out about a year ago, and it's a BS criticism. Most foundations just give money to other organizations/NGOs. Clinton Foundation works directly on its own projects.

This is why Charity Navigator gives them a very high rating.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

It is obvious the only reason why Daily Caller is mentioning this is because Trump's foundation is apparently a hot mess, pulling crap like spending $250k on Donny's legal fees.

JasperL said:

Most of it had nothing to do with the CF. Where did it say the CF had anything at all to do with the factory? Where did it say the CF had anything to do with awarding the mobile phone contract? Who else applied for that grant? Could they do the job? The CF didn't award the mobile phone contract, you've just drawn a line between owner - > CF -> contract and we're supposed to conclude the CF was involved and it was a corrupt deal. But the video demonstrated neither. Same thing all the way around. Do you know why the housing went way over budget? I don't have a clue and I'm guessing you don't either. Could be the company pocketed 80 million and only did 20 million of work but there is no EVIDENCE that happened.



Yes, but we're different than a food bank, which is different than United Way, which is different than a school which is different than a church which is different than the CF. I'm nearly 100% positive you have no idea where the CF actually spends its money, and on what, doing what.



CF didn't provide a nickel of the funding and the video said nothing to indicate the CF had any role at all! It was U.S. funding, not CF funding, and the ties to Hillary were the companies who bought their output. Well, hellfire, that is awful that companies tied to her bought their product - scandalous!!! CORRUPT HILLARY!! Wait......wut? That's a GOOD thing the factory had people to sell to!



Well, when you allege a video showed the CF was corrupt when the segment in question didn't even mention the CF and the only tie to the Clinton family was some alleged links between buyers of textiles and HRC as if Walmart being a client of the factory is a bad thing, then, no, I'm not going to be persuaded. And the rest of the video was similar stuff.

As to buying access, yes, of course that happens. I already conceded that, it's how the world works, and not just in the CF but pretty much any elected office anywhere in America.

Click to expand...

You should view the video again ... this time with the sound on. Maybe you're confused and think the Clinton Global Initiative is unrelated to the Clinton Foundation. It's not.
The companies chosen were donors, got paid a lot, and typically did a **** job.

If you believe the stuff you're spouting, you really need to wake up.
If you don't believe it, stop wasting my time.

What would convince you that the C.F. is a corrupt enterprise used by the Clintons as a vehicle for their own benefit? What would that proof look like?

Visbek said:

In case no one has mentioned it already in this thread:

This was hashed out about a year ago, and it's a BS criticism. Most foundations just give money to other organizations/NGOs. Clinton Foundation works directly on its own projects.

This is why Charity Navigator gives them a very high rating.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

It is obvious the only reason why Daily Caller is mentioning this is because Trump's foundation is apparently a hot mess, pulling crap like spending $250k on Donny's legal fees.

Click to expand...

Charity Navigator also said they can't address the quality and effectiveness of what the C.F. does.

bubbabgone said:

You should view the video again ... this time with the sound on. Maybe you're confused and think the Clinton Global Initiative is unrelated to the Clinton Foundation. It's not.
The companies chosen were donors, got paid a lot, and typically did a **** job.

If you believe the stuff you're spouting, you really need to wake up.
If you don't believe it, stop wasting my time.

What would convince you that the C.F. is a corrupt enterprise used by the Clintons as a vehicle for their own benefit? What would that proof look like?

Click to expand...

I listened to the sound, three times. So, in your own words please describe the link between the CF and the factory?

bubbabgone said:

I'm not ignorant of what the CF does since there are examples of what they've done and I know about them

Click to expand...

Bubba, if you are not ignorant of what the Clinton Foundation does then you of course know that the thread is just more conservative LIV bait. Any chance you could show some integrity and point that out to the OP? anyhoo, speaking of ignorant, you're not getting the facts right. As I’ve already shown, you tried to imply that Charity Navigator only gave the Clinton Foundation high marks after it was “discovered” the CN got “free membership”. Were you posting LIV bait or were you intentionally dishonest?

bubbabgone said:

Yes.
That generally describes the Foundation's business model and the reason why Charity Navigator originally declined to give a rating.
First they put it on a Watch List ...
then they said they couldn't rate the Foundation because of its business model ...
then they gave the Foundation a high rating ...
then it was discovered that Charity Navigator got free membership into the Clinton Global Initiative arm of the Foundation.

Click to expand...

“first” they gave the CF high marks in 2007. Here, try to learn some facts.

The watchdog had previously rated the Clinton Foundation with four stars in 2007, and in 2012 downgraded it to three stars due to changes in its methodology. Its original four-star rating was based on the foundation's financial health and performance. In 2012, it also evaluated the charity on accountability and transparency. Charity Navigator requires five independent board members, but the foundation had only three during the 2009 fiscal year, Thatcher said. The downgrade came the same year that Charity Navigator was a member of the Clinton Global Initiative.
Charity Navigator gives Clinton Foundation the highest possible rating - Business Insider

In case you didn’t quite grasp it, CN downgraded the CF in 2012 because CN changed its methodology. Hey, that’s the year they got “free membership”. I already proved your LIV bait about "free membership “ was LIV bait but I didn’t realize how LIV baity it was. Now bubba, these facts are easy to find even for LIVs. The trick is you have to look instead of obediently believing conservative LIV bait.

JasperL said:

I listened to the sound, three times. So, in your own words please describe the link between the CF and the factory?

Click to expand...

First, you have to realize that Bubba and the Haiti Prime Minister were co-chairs of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission.
Got that?

"A former US president, Bill Clinton, is currently the co-chair of the CIRH, the body charged with co-ordinating reconstruction projects in the aftermath of the devastating 2010 earthquake, the UN’s special envoy to the country and a co-chair of the president's advisory council on economic growth and investment."
...
"The strange multi-directional role that Mr Clinton plays as co-chair of the CIRH, special UN envoy, former US president, spouse of the US secretary of state and head of his own foundation which supports projects in the country, will continue to lead to confusion about who he advocates for and to whom he ultimately answers."

Click to expand...

Bill Clinton's role in economic policy increases

Bubba and Mrs. Bubba had already been anxious to get this factory built in an area that wasn't affected by the quake so it had nothing to do with that.
But it was a good excuse to get it going.
It required hundreds of millions of dollars and action by Congress.
The chosen construction participants and retailers that benefited were big supporters of the Clintons and heavy Democrat donors to the Party and the Clinton Foundation.

But about the project itself ...

“if the American people saw the true cost of this, they’d say ‘you’ve got to be out of your mind.’”

Click to expand...

Outsourcing Haiti | Boston Review

bubbabgone said:

I'm not ignorant of what the CF does since there are examples of what they've done and I know about them ... here's one.

Click to expand...

where'd you go? You made a claim you were "not ignorant of what the CF does". I asked you if you were not ignorant then you of course know that the thread is just more conservative LIV bait. You seemed to have cut and run from my posts pointing how your falsehoods and then holding you accountable for claiming you were "not ignorant of what the CF does". Now normally I allow conservatives to slink away when I've shown they have no idea what they're talking about. But bubba, you not only cut and ran from the discussion but you claimed I would. Here read what you wrote.

bubbabgone said:

You're only gonna get 1 shot at either of those.
You wander off or evade and that's it (as you can see, I know your rep).

Click to expand...

I of course found it funny you claimed I would as you were explaining why you would cut and run.