In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

[David_42]

I think a principled defense of the Clinton Foundation would include information about how much of the $$$ it takes in goes to the charities it purports to exist for.

Clinton foundation's main work is to influence people to pledge funds and efforts towards specific charity causes. That takes staff, logistics, organization. That work's charitable effect is not easily quantifiable in accounting.

For example Clinton Health Access Initiative works with governments and private groups to lower the costs of treatment for HIV/AIDS in the developing world.

On paper that is 100% money spent on expenses like staff,travel etc. and 0% on charity, while in reality lower costs of treatment is big help to those sick people.

Read up None

Spoken like someone who's never really had to go to the mat for a charity. Like someone who has no clue what it takes to raise money for the truly needy. Like someone who's been trained to see it as a profession that affords the high life. Like a Clinton.

To hell with you.

Pathetic response. The clinton foundation has made a substantial real world impact and the efforts of the foundation aren't a secret.

 

[David_42]

Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

I repeat, detailed. Vet your watchdogs, Watchdogging the charity watchdogs

Has the Clinton Foundation released its detailed financials for public scrutiny?

If you don't have an allergic reaction to such things, think for yourself.

CharityWatch’s work is supported by individual donations.

Annual Reports, Financials & Tax-Exempt Materials

You don't understand the meaning of the word "detailed" very well, do you? Either that or you're just spitting out links without even reading what they have to say in a "hail mary" pass, hoping against hope no one will notice.

I've done my research. It doesn't get much more detailed then what I've provided straight from the source, which is already under a microscope.

It can't be under a microscope, because they (Clinton Foundation) haven't provided it.

Yes they have. They HAVE to provide it. Are you suffering from CDS? Unfortunately the only cure is to register as a democrat..

 

[AntonToo]

Spoken like someone who's never really had to go to the mat for a charity. Like someone who has no clue what it takes to raise money for the truly needy. Like someone who's been trained to see it as a profession that affords the high life. Like a Clinton.

To hell with you.

Spoken like someone who has no actual response.

Pound that table!

 

[Alexandra]

Spoken like someone who's never really had to go to the mat for a charity. Like someone who has no clue what it takes to raise money for the truly needy. Like someone who's been trained to see it as a profession that affords the high life. Like a Clinton.

To hell with you.

Spoken like someone who has no actual response.

Pound that table!

Project much?

 

[David_42]

Spoken like someone who's never really had to go to the mat for a charity. Like someone who has no clue what it takes to raise money for the truly needy. Like someone who's been trained to see it as a profession that affords the high life. Like a Clinton.

To hell with you.

Spoken like someone who has no actual response.

Pound that table!

Project much?

Your response has nothing in it that actually presents a refutation of anything we've said in this thread.

 

[Alexandra]

I repeat, detailed. Vet your watchdogs, Watchdogging the charity watchdogs

Has the Clinton Foundation released its detailed financials for public scrutiny?

If you don't have an allergic reaction to such things, think for yourself.

CharityWatch’s work is supported by individual donations.

Annual Reports, Financials & Tax-Exempt Materials

You don't understand the meaning of the word "detailed" very well, do you? Either that or you're just spitting out links without even reading what they have to say in a "hail mary" pass, hoping against hope no one will notice.

I've done my research. It doesn't get much more detailed then what I've provided straight from the source, which is already under a microscope.

It can't be under a microscope, because they (Clinton Foundation) haven't provided it.

Yes they have. They HAVE to provide it. Are you suffering from CDS? Unfortunately the only cure is to register as a democrat..

Oh, yes. By all means, the only solution is to register with a party and enslave yourself to parroting whatever the line-of-the-moment is, just to get a lil' more power.

Humbug. (I'd use stronger words, but I'm trying to be polite). Independent is the only way to go.

Think for yourself.

 

[AntonToo]

Project much?

Retardo,unlike you I actually DID have a response that went through addressing your argument that organization's charity work can be always quantified in simple number of pass-through funds.

It's a bad argument, and I proved it, while you just kept on ranting without any real response.

 

[David_42]

Annual Reports, Financials & Tax-Exempt Materials

You don't understand the meaning of the word "detailed" very well, do you? Either that or you're just spitting out links without even reading what they have to say in a "hail mary" pass, hoping against hope no one will notice.

I've done my research. It doesn't get much more detailed then what I've provided straight from the source, which is already under a microscope.

It can't be under a microscope, because they (Clinton Foundation) haven't provided it.

Yes they have. They HAVE to provide it. Are you suffering from CDS? Unfortunately the only cure is to register as a democrat..

Oh, yes. By all means, the only solution is to register with a party and enslave yourself to parroting whatever the line-of-the-moment is, just to get a lil' more power.

Humbug. (I'd use stronger words, but I'm trying to be polite). Independent is the only way to go.

Think for yourself.

We're done here. You've gone completely off track.

 

[Alexandra]

Spoken like someone who's never really had to go to the mat for a charity. Like someone who has no clue what it takes to raise money for the truly needy. Like someone who's been trained to see it as a profession that affords the high life. Like a Clinton.

To hell with you.

Spoken like someone who has no actual response.

Pound that table!

Project much?

Your response has nothing in it that actually presents a refutation of anything we've said in this thread.

Well, I happen to think it refutes everything "you" have said in this thread. Deal with it or don't. Your choice.

 

[buckeye45_73]

If you come into this with an open mind, you might stop spreading nonsense about the clinton foundation
In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

Business and organizations love to rub shoulders with iconic American leaders — though the money Clinton has earned is probably a fraction of what President George H.W. Bush made by signing up with The Carlyle Group, an international conglomerate that made most of its initial money from U.S. defense contracts and from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia.

Rather than simply "cashing in," the young former president wanted to devote a substantial amount of his time and energy to making the world a better place, improving the lives of poor people and, at the same time, demonstrating in a real way that Americans cared.

I know for a fact that then-President Bush was deeply appreciative of Bill Clinton's help during this period. Let’s not forget that it was George W. Bush who had so much confidence in Bill Clinton that he asked him to co-chair with his dad, Bush 41, both the Tsunami and Katrina relief efforts. (Later, Obama personally asked Bill Clinton to co-chair the Haiti relief effort.)

HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING PEOPLE IGNORE:

Ingeniously, Bill Clinton set up his annual foundation conclave, CGI, as a clearinghouse between other foundations, wealthy donors, NGOs, governments and businesses — to meet face-to-face with charities working on the front lines of poverty alleviation, education and healthcare.

At CGI, the Clinton Foundation doesn’t encourage donations to itself (though it easily could have), but instead seeks "commitments" from donors to other charitable organizations to improve global health and wellness, increase economic opportunities for women in less-developed nations, reduce childhood obesity, and spur economic growth in countries that desperately need the help.

After those commitments are made, no money flows into the Clinton Foundation. Donors honor their pledges directly with the charities.

Over 10 years, CGI meetings have resulted in more than 3,100 commitments to action, deploying more than $100 billion which has been used to improve the lives of more than 430 million people in 180 countries around the world.

And about those "bribes" or whatever you want to call them:

One claim is that to help a major donor to the foundation, Hillary as secretary of state, changed her position and supported the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which was ratified in 2011.

In another instance, again to help the same donor, the U.S. government agreed to give a Russian company ownership of Uranium One, a firm which controls approximately 20 percent of the uranium mines in the U.S.

Knowing a bit how this administration works, it is preposterous to think that President Obama or his White House approved any deal to benefit the Clinton Foundation or one of its donors.

In the case of Colombia, it had made tremendous strides in improving its human rights situation during the period Hillary Clinton changed her position. And, as it turned out, the Clinton donor had sold out his stake in Uranium One years before the Russians bought the company.

Importantly, The New York Times reported that no less than nine federal agencies and officials including the Defense, Treasury and Energy Departments, as well as the White House, had to approve the Uranium One deal.

Jose Fernandez, who held the position of the department's principal representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviewed the sale, told The Wall Street Journal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

Better not ask for an open mind, people will see how corrupt it is.

Show me some proof of this "corruption." You can't.

Enojoy

I've shown the proof.....I'm sure you're just making notes....lololol

 

[leftwinger]

Indefensible. Corrupt, smoke mirrors tricks and gimmicks. So many tricks their rating is "un-rated".

quit posting that tired old 2013 sbapshot. I found 10-20 confusing stories about "where the money goes".

As the other poster says, should be clear and transperant. FAIL
Scam. Trump is right again.

 

[Alexandra]

You don't understand the meaning of the word "detailed" very well, do you? Either that or you're just spitting out links without even reading what they have to say in a "hail mary" pass, hoping against hope no one will notice.

I've done my research. It doesn't get much more detailed then what I've provided straight from the source, which is already under a microscope.

It can't be under a microscope, because they (Clinton Foundation) haven't provided it.

Yes they have. They HAVE to provide it. Are you suffering from CDS? Unfortunately the only cure is to register as a democrat..

Oh, yes. By all means, the only solution is to register with a party and enslave yourself to parroting whatever the line-of-the-moment is, just to get a lil' more power.

Humbug. (I'd use stronger words, but I'm trying to be polite). Independent is the only way to go.

Think for yourself.

We're done here. You've gone completely off track.

The only track here is a defense of the Clinton Foundation as a charity organization worth defending. You've tried to break it down into "Well, gee, according to this or that group which judges these things according to a few basic numbers provided by the foundation itself (without any detailed accounting) it's all peachy keen, and I don't have a damn thing to say about all the plainly horrid abuses of power except 'neener-neener.'

You really expect anything better from your opposition?

I've at least taken the trouble to show you why your information is faulty, and as someone who has done a lot of genuine charitable work and knows what it takes to earn, scrape and give every penny (non-religious, so you understand), I'm more than familiar with the differences involved.

Umph off.

 

[leftwinger]

Ooops wrong link......

 

[buckeye45_73]

Man liberals will believe anything....wow, how easy to control.

 

[AntonToo]

Man liberals will believe anything....wow, how easy to control.

Oh yes, tell us how YOU are the critical thinking one

 

[Flopper]

If you come into this with an open mind, you might stop spreading nonsense about the clinton foundation
In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

Business and organizations love to rub shoulders with iconic American leaders — though the money Clinton has earned is probably a fraction of what President George H.W. Bush made by signing up with The Carlyle Group, an international conglomerate that made most of its initial money from U.S. defense contracts and from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia.

Rather than simply "cashing in," the young former president wanted to devote a substantial amount of his time and energy to making the world a better place, improving the lives of poor people and, at the same time, demonstrating in a real way that Americans cared.

I know for a fact that then-President Bush was deeply appreciative of Bill Clinton's help during this period. Let’s not forget that it was George W. Bush who had so much confidence in Bill Clinton that he asked him to co-chair with his dad, Bush 41, both the Tsunami and Katrina relief efforts. (Later, Obama personally asked Bill Clinton to co-chair the Haiti relief effort.)

HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING PEOPLE IGNORE:

Ingeniously, Bill Clinton set up his annual foundation conclave, CGI, as a clearinghouse between other foundations, wealthy donors, NGOs, governments and businesses — to meet face-to-face with charities working on the front lines of poverty alleviation, education and healthcare.

At CGI, the Clinton Foundation doesn’t encourage donations to itself (though it easily could have), but instead seeks "commitments" from donors to other charitable organizations to improve global health and wellness, increase economic opportunities for women in less-developed nations, reduce childhood obesity, and spur economic growth in countries that desperately need the help.

After those commitments are made, no money flows into the Clinton Foundation. Donors honor their pledges directly with the charities.

Over 10 years, CGI meetings have resulted in more than 3,100 commitments to action, deploying more than $100 billion which has been used to improve the lives of more than 430 million people in 180 countries around the world.

And about those "bribes" or whatever you want to call them:

One claim is that to help a major donor to the foundation, Hillary as secretary of state, changed her position and supported the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which was ratified in 2011.

In another instance, again to help the same donor, the U.S. government agreed to give a Russian company ownership of Uranium One, a firm which controls approximately 20 percent of the uranium mines in the U.S.

Knowing a bit how this administration works, it is preposterous to think that President Obama or his White House approved any deal to benefit the Clinton Foundation or one of its donors.

In the case of Colombia, it had made tremendous strides in improving its human rights situation during the period Hillary Clinton changed her position. And, as it turned out, the Clinton donor had sold out his stake in Uranium One years before the Russians bought the company.

Importantly, The New York Times reported that no less than nine federal agencies and officials including the Defense, Treasury and Energy Departments, as well as the White House, had to approve the Uranium One deal.

Jose Fernandez, who held the position of the department's principal representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviewed the sale, told The Wall Street Journal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

OPEN MIND???
Do you know where you are?

 

[David_42]

I've done my research. It doesn't get much more detailed then what I've provided straight from the source, which is already under a microscope.

It can't be under a microscope, because they (Clinton Foundation) haven't provided it.

Yes they have. They HAVE to provide it. Are you suffering from CDS? Unfortunately the only cure is to register as a democrat..

Oh, yes. By all means, the only solution is to register with a party and enslave yourself to parroting whatever the line-of-the-moment is, just to get a lil' more power.

Humbug. (I'd use stronger words, but I'm trying to be polite). Independent is the only way to go.

Think for yourself.

We're done here. You've gone completely off track.

The only track here is a defense of the Clinton Foundation as a charity organization worth defending. You've tried to break it down into "Well, gee, according to this or that group which judges these things according to a few basic numbers provided by the foundation itself (without any detailed accounting) it's all peachy keen, and I don't have a damn thing to say about all the plainly horrid abuses of power except 'neener-neener.'

You really expect anything better from your opposition?

I've at least taken the trouble to show you why your information is faulty, and as someone who has done a lot of genuine charitable work and knows what it takes to earn, scrape and give every penny (non-religious, so you understand), I'm more than familiar with the differences involved.

Umph off.

Damn, now I have to jump in again.

The only track here is a defense of the Clinton Foundation as a charity organization worth defending.

It is a charity worth defending. Its track record speaks for itself.

"Well, gee, according to this or that group which judges these things according to a few basic numbers provided by the foundation itself (without any detailed accounting) it's all peachy keen, and I don't have a damn thing to say about all the plainly horrid abuses of power except 'neener-neener.'

The clinton foundation is nonprofit and charity watch is independent, and its not the only one watching the clinton foundation. There's a reason Bush praised clinton for his foundations work, along with Obama and others. What "abuses of power?"

I've at least taken the trouble to show you why your information is faulty,

It's not faulty, considering you provide nothing to the contrary. Are you stupid?

as someone who has done a lot of genuine charitable work and knows what it takes to earn, scrape and give every penny (non-religious, so you understand), I'm more than familiar with the differences involved.

Good for you. Then you should know that the Clinton Foundation has helped millions, tens of millions, and the majority of donations go straight into helping people in regards to education, getting medicine..

 

[leftwinger]

Man liberals will believe anything....wow, how easy to control.

Oh yes, tell us how YOU are the critical thinking one

Isn't it past your bedtime?

 

[AntonToo]

I've at least taken the trouble to show you why your information is faulty, and as someone who has done a lot of genuine charitable work and knows what it takes to earn, scrape and give every penny (non-religious, so you understand), I'm more than familiar with the differences involved.

Umph off.

Alexandra is it? it's nice that you did charity work and all but it is tiny little itsy bitsy spec of dust compared to work that gets done by the Clinton Foundation and your baseless shitting on them is not because you are somehow an expert on making a difference in the world, but because you are a two bit partisan hack.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Man liberals will believe anything....wow, how easy to control.

Oh yes, tell us how YOU are the critical thinking one

Oh I'm sorry, is that a dick in your mouth?