What did he do? You are talking about his wife. George S. gave the money DIRECTLY and is held out by ABC as impartial even though he worked for Dukakis, Gephardt, and Clinton. Still giving them money? Cannot you not see the conflict of interest?
Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor to the Clinton Foundation, giving at least $10 million since 2001, according to foundation disclosures. At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, co-founded by a Saudi prince. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-faces-test-of-record-aiding-women.html Do you really care?
It's a charitable foundation, not a slush fund. Do you know what a slush fund is? I challenge you to prove that it is a slush fund. Oh, is that why you won't do the research? No problem, I'll do it for you. Charity watch came out with a report on the Clinton Foundation last Monday. They got an "A" rating with 89% going to programs and only 11% overhead. Their cost to raise $100 is only $3. https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
Been reported but the liberal TV media fails to cover it and I can't figure out why. http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html
It is dwarfed by the money that Saudi Arabia gives to Republican lobbyists. They are not equal opportunity influence buyers. http://www.thenation.com/article/18...s-new-member-gop-super-pac-chair-norm-coleman
Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses. After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back. In a tweet posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to [the foundation’s] life-changing work.” There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim. In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the truth, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers “life-changing” commodities?
So Rush Limbaugh suggests. But opinions differ. Many foundations carry out charitable works by giving money to other organizations that, in turn, do the ground-level charity work, whereas the Clinton foundation’s charitable works are mostly done by people on the foundation’s payroll. "We are an implementing organization rather than a grantmaking organization," said the foundation’s Minassian. That’s why the Clinton Foundation’s 990s show a relatively small amount of money categorized as "grants" -- only about 10 percent of all expenses in 2013. The foundation says its own employees are doing its charitable work. The annual report -- which, remember, includes both the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative -- says that 7 percent of expenditures were spent on "management and expenses" and 4.5 percent for "fundraising." (The numbers on the 990s for the two entities are in the same ballpark.) Add those two percentages together and you get almost 12 percent; subtract that from 100 percent and you get the 88 percent figure the foundation cited. LINK An independent audit of the Clinton Foundation also suggests otherwise and includes ALL of the tax documents submitted. Some critical reports have failed to properly understand the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-foundation-cash-controversy/2015/04/27/id/640856/ John Cassidy, a columnist with The New Yorker, fair-minded and balanced, got it right when he wrote that "Clinton Cash" appears to contain "largely unsubstantiated allegations." He notes that Schweizer admits he cannot prove the allegations, and that "with [Fox News' Sean] Hannity and other conservative media figures piling on, the Clinton campaign will be able to portray questions about the Clinton Foundation and the family’s finances as a political witch-hunt rather than a legitimate exercise in vetting presidential candidates." Even Bill O'Reilly, who has a penchant for telling the truth, told his Fox audience that the Clintons deserved the "presumption of innocence" and that "right now the evidence is circumstantial, not vetted, and the subject of wild speculation by anti-Clinton forces." And anyone that imagines that international charities conducting business worldwide don't have significant travel expenses and employees that must be paid is being disingenuous.
anyone female championing womens rights while taking bazillions from from leaders who mutilate, rape and murder women regularly needs to be cup-checked.
