Maggie's Farm

So more than half of all the people that huddled with Clinton were donors to her family’s foundation? Grab the can of damage-control spray!

Or maybe not.

That doesn't make it a slush fund, nor support the claim of a program percentage of 10%.

Nor does it salvage the false claim in the AP tweet on the story.

Bird Dog: But why? It's a family slush fund, with 10% to charity

False. The Clinton Foundation is subject to annual, independent audits, and their program percentage is 88%, giving it an A-rating. The work of the Foundation has saved millions of lives, often working closely with other foundations, such as the Gates Foundation.

mudbug: Did you get that from their website?

From Charity Watch.

mudbug: Maybe you can ask some Haitians

A lot of money was wasted on Haiti reconstruction. The Clinton Foundation represented only a tiny percentage of what was spent there. Most of the money came from the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. So?

mudbug: Waiting for a house to be built?

Classic hobnobbing.

MissT: Why are you bothering to defend her?

We're not defending her. We're disputing overly broad claims. If you were to claim that money has undue influence on politics, then we would not disagree. But that's not your argument.

B Hammer: A couple of interesting things about Charitywatch.org: The top charities are lefty and when I tried to search a charity, they wanted me to join - no information until I join.

We have searched for many charities on Charity Watch, and never had to log in.

B Hammer: Charitynavigator does not even rate the Clinton Foundation.

Charity Navigator: What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated? It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

Jim: You have to read between the lines as to what is going on.

Ah. You read what it feels like they said, not what they actually said.

Clinton Foundation: program percentage 88%, rated-A by Charity Watch.

MissT: Only 10% went to charitable grants

That's right. As you can see by looking at their tax filings, another 70% went towards direct charitable aid projects. Including subsidiaries, 88% went towards charitable works. This is easily verified by looking at the actual works. For instance, the Foundation provides anti-viral drugs for millions of HIV patients in poor countries.

B Hammer: How any reasonable person, can read thru this (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-abedin-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-state-department-gave-special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/)

What a reasonable person should do is not accept partisan claims without expressing skepticism. Try to debunk such claims before adopting them.

In this case, it looks like the rich and connected have access to well-placed officials in government. Basically, the Crown Prince of an important U.S. ally worked around the system to get a meeting with the Secretary of State. He knew somebody who knew somebody, and pulled a string to get a meeting. This is not illegal, nor even unethical.

You might consider it unfair, but it is how the world works. It's not even clear if there is a regulatory fix that makes it so that Joe Schmoe has the same access to high-level government officials as the Crown Prince of Bahrain. It's not even clear that that would make sense!

arcs: You all might consider what is used to pull such a string.

Connections. For instance, if you once did business with your Congressional representative, then you are more likely to be able to talk to your representative than somebody who doesn't have that relationship. If you contributed to a political campaign, so much the better. All of this is legal.

If the Bill Clinton hit you up for a donation for his HIV program, then that forms a connection. If you also had a high-dollar fundraiser for the Clintons, then that develops the connection. If you are famous or well-connected, you are much more likely to be able to talk to Clinton. And each interaction strengthens the connection. You may even tell your friends that you are a friend of Bill. That's how the world works. Regulation can help reduce some of the possibility of corruption, but can't eliminate it completely.

Sure, you may consider it unfair. You might think that Joe Schmoe should have just as much chance of talking to the Secretary of State as the Crown Prince of an important U.S. ally. But it's not clear what regulation could make this happen. And it's not even clear that this would be desirable!