We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, September 7. 2016
Hardly surprising, but one guy had the nerve to delve into it. Charles Ortel has the details: "Clinton Foundation Is Charity Fraud Of Epic Proportions", Analyst Charges In Stunning Takedown
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"Furthermore, 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. That's because the organization spent the vast bulk of its windfall on "administration, travel, salaries and bonuses", with the fattest payouts going to family friends."
Directly in line with my comment earlier today regarding the Clinton Foundation money-laundering operation.
By the way, Barack Obama is planning to do the exact same thing.
Zachy! Where is you? Come tell us how WRONG we are, with backup.
I can fill it in for him Sam via Mrs. feeblemind.
The discrepancies are the fault of underlings and flunkies. No reflection on the Clintons.
In addition, the site reporting the story is not credible. If it doesn't come from the NYT, WaPo or dinosaur networks, it simply isn't true.
The Clintons are doing wonderful work through their charities helping thousands.
And, "Hillary Clinton is awesome and I love her." Also Bill is a good man too.
Nothing to see here, everyone move along.
Hillary, a woman of the people, as long as they send cash!
Sam L: Zachy! Where is you? Come tell us how WRONG we are, with backup.
You already know it's wrong. You already know how to find evidence to show that you are wrong. But you prefer to believe it anyway.
feeblemind: I can fill it in for him ...
None of those reasons are valid arguments. You already know why. But you prefer to believe it anyway.
Yes, we already know that as much as 15% of this money went to good causes. Probably less, but let's take the high estimate.
We're still not impressed. Lots of liberals aren't impressed by it either, just in case you think this is another one of those conservative echo-chamber things. In fact, the outrage by some prominent liberals over the Clinton Foundation is one of the things that gives me hope for the nation going forward.
Assistant Village Idiot: Yes, we already know that as much as 15% of this money went to good causes.
Based on audited tax returns, 88% went to program expenses.
Assistant Village Idiot: In fact, the outrage by some prominent liberals over the Clinton Foundation is one of the things that gives me hope for the nation going forward.
There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about the confluence of money and politics, however, you can't address that by making stuff up.
Bruce Kesler: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/07/clinton-foundation-deceived-irs-on-tax-exemption-from-the-start/
Have you looked at the claim with skepticism?
The original 1997 IRS application included the Clinton Foundations articles of incorporation, which stated the Foundation “may engage in any and all other charitable, educational and scientific activities permitted to an organization exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code.”
There is nothing to indicate the Clinton Foundation has engaged in non-exempt activities.
As usual, the Clintons excel at walking the borderline and getting coverage for it from their lackeys in the mainstream media and government bureaucrats, not to mention your excuses. Still, as this Bloomberg article points out, parallel to the FBI's Comey not having the professional guts to recommend prosecution for Hillary's email lies and coverups.
"The letter next makes allegations of instances where Hillary Clinton, acting as Secretary of State, provided large governmental benefits in exchange for contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Though tax law prohibits charitable organizations from providing private benefits to the organization’s managers or disqualified persons, in the alleged transaction, the Clinton Foundation did not provide private benefit to Hillary Clinton, its donors, or others with ties to the organization. Rather, the allegation is that Hillary Clinton, not serving the Clinton Foundation at the time, provided benefits. Thus, there does not appear to be any wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation, itself, that would cause it to lose its exemption. However, one plausible argument against the Clinton Foundation, which could result in a loss of its exemption, is that the organization operates for a purpose that is illegal or contrary to established public policy — a subjective law established in a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Such a case could be a difficult and improbable one for the IRS to successfully argue.
"In the meantime, the IRS, considering all referrals, is looking into the allegations, but it is unlikely that we will see the Clinton Foundation losing its exemption anytime soon under the applicable tax laws."
Bruce Kesler: Still, as this Bloomberg article points out, parallel to the FBI's Comey not having the professional guts to recommend prosecution for Hillary's email lies and coverups.
The letter starts out with a falsehood, something that could have been easily checked. See our previous statement.
Maybe, according to you, but not others who are more knowledgeable and authoritative. But, regardless, the Clinton Foundation is the shadyiest and boldest political self-serving enterprise, let's not forget the huge salary and perks $s paid to their daughter, by any politician..............until Obama does his.
The American people can see through the legal shammery they use to cover up, and have judged Hillary (and Bill) crooked.
There may well be enough who will choose her anyway as President, and that would be tragic for any shred of remaining credibility and integrity in the federal government.
It's excusers like you who are rushing the USA into the gutter.
Bruce Kesler: Maybe, according to you, but not others who are more knowledgeable and authoritative.
Facts are facts. Their articles of incorporation were provided to the IRS with their original application, which states "may engage in any and all other charitable, educational and scientific activities permitted to an organization exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code.”
Bruce Kesler: But, regardless, the Clinton Foundation is the shadyiest and boldest political self-serving enterprise, let's not forget the huge salary and perks $s paid to their daughter
Chelsea Clinton receives $0 for her work with the Clinton Foundation. Perhaps that is "yuge" in the right-wing echochamber. Her salary is also information easily available by looking at the Foundation's independently audited 990 filings. So you have simply substituted one falsehood for another.
Instead of treating claims skeptically, those in the right-wing echochamber accept falsehoods as facts — because it fits their preconceptions. Even when these falsehoods are pointed out, the falsehoods continue to rebound in the echochamber. Furthermore, when sources are shown to be unreliable, those in the echochamber simply return to those sources for more unreliable claims.
Crooks. Even Charity Navigator refused to certify the Clinton Foundation, and liberal Democrat Sunlight Foundation also didn't. Chelsea was paid $600,000 a year by NBC for a very few feel good pieces, and large sums by other sinecures gotten through her parents' influence, that she has demonstrated no talent of her own to deserve or earn. It's a crime family. Zach, or whatever your real name may be, go somewhere else to peddle Clinton excuses:
"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.
In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.
Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.
But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.
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.
Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.
“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.
In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.
Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.
Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.
The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.
The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.
An accountant for the Clinton Foundation did not return The Post’s calls seeking clarification on its expenses Friday, and a spokesperson for the group refused comment
Bruce Kesler: Even Charity Navigator refused to certify the Clinton Foundation
Let's check and see what they say, shall we?
Charity Navigator (before): 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.
Charity Navigator (today): Overall Score & Rating 94.74 (out of 100), ★★★★
Bruce Kesler: Chelsea was paid $600,000 a year by NBC for a very few feel good pieces, and large sums by other sinecures gotten through her parents' influence, that she has demonstrated no talent of her own to deserve or earn.
Quick! Change the subject! There's nothing illegal or immoral about Chelsea being paid for her celebrity.
Another bought endorsement by the Clinton crime family:
"A non-profit group that has received favors from the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), including a free membership that entitled its officials to rub elbows with world leaders, issued its top rating Thursday for the Clinton Foundation.
Charity Navigator awarded the Clinton Foundation four-stars based on an rating algorithm that scored the controversial non-profit with a 97.5 on financial issues and 93 on accountability and transparency. The new rating represented a boost for the foundation, as Charity Navigator had previously put it on its watch list due to concerns about its finances and transparency.
But the four-star rating had hardly been announced before the Associated Press reported that Charity Navigator was a member of the CGI from 2012 to 2014. The CGI is one of the Clinton Foundation’s best-known programs, as it regularly convenes glittering gatherings of celebrities, government officials and philanthropic stars.
The $20,000 CGI membership fee was waived for Charity Navigator, which reported it as an in-kind contribution, according to the AP. The news organization said Charity Navigator chairman Michael Thatcher claimed his group joined CGI “to mingle with world leaders and promote its ratings.”
Various sorts of people are willing to pay millions of dollars for the opportunity to mingle with the high and mighty assembled by the CGI or CF. To be on the freceiving end of such favors is an inherent conflict of interest."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/09/behind_that_four_stars_rating_for_the_clinton_foundation_from_charity_navigator.html#ixzz4JlVozGsz
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Further, $600k a year to Chelsea for a very few video tidbits on NBC is hardly paying for her parent-bestowed celebrity but rather a tithe paid by media supporters to the Clinton crime family.
Bruce Kesler: A non-profit group that has received favors from the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), including a free membership that entitled its officials to rub elbows with world leaders, issued its top rating Thursday for the Clinton Foundation.
Gee whiz, Bruce Kesler. It's YOUR citation!
It's Clinton's bribe, accepted and paid back by Charity Navigator with a reversal of their unfavorable rating. -- Your quickfire excusefest backfires.
Bruce Kesler: It's Clinton's bribe, accepted and paid back by Charity Navigator with a reversal of their unfavorable rating.
That's a false statement as they didn't give a negative rating. Here it is again:
Charity Navigator (before): 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.
We might look at one of the other major charity rating services for comparison:
Charity Watch: RATING: A
Program Percentage : 88 %
The failure to give a rating reflected the inability of the Clinton Foundation to reveal transparent or credible reports of its operations. That is a BIG negative in common sense. Instead you rely on polite euphemisms. Your second bullet occurred only after the Clintons and allies pressured and paid off Charity Navigator. You keep repeating the same evasions of the facts. That makes you a natural Clintonite.
Bruce Kesler: The failure to give a rating reflected the inability of the Clinton Foundation to reveal transparent or credible reports of its operations.
Charity Navigator: We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
So it was because their methodology was not suitable.
You falsely claimed that Chelsea Clinton received a "yuge" salary from the Clinton Foundation. You falsely claimed that Charity Navigator wouldn't provide a rating. You falsely claimed Charity Navigator gave an unfavorable rating for the Clinton Foundation. You falsely claimed they wouldn't provide a rating because of lack of transparency. You impugn your own source! It's funny, actually.
Meanwhile, we provided a rating for comparison from an independent organization.
Charity Watch: RATING: A
Program Percentage : 88 %
Almost all other large charities are rated, but the Clinton Foundation's squirrelly self-serving Clinton family operations requires a special "methodology" crafted for it! There's an elephant in the room, but your donkey eyes fail to see it, as you search for evasions, just like Hillary does. :-)
Bruce Kesler: Almost all other large charities are rated, but the Clinton Foundation's squirrelly self-serving Clinton family operations requires a special "methodology" crafted for it!
Most charities subcontract their work, so merely pass through donations. The Clinton Foundation actually delves into the work itself. In any case, we provided a rating from an independent organization, providing additional support. The ratings are based on audited filings.
As noted, you have made many false statements, but have yet to modify your views accordingly.
Bruce Kesler: Almost all other large charities are rated
You know, you don't have to rely upon others. You can read for yourself the filings of the Clinton Foundation, which are a matter of public record. Look for program expenses, and note that their filings are independently audited by Pricewaterhousecoopers.