Donald Trump issues Statement on Clinton Foundation

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Here is what I found on that site

Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”

You're cherry picking the claim being debunked, not the facts presented in the article.

originally posted by: Gryphon66te]

Let's say we focus on one thing at a time?

Compensation: $2.2 million
Travel: $13 million
Other wages and Salaries: $47 million

Can you focus on that?

a reply to: UnBreakable


Ah, you get stars for a tabloid article ... you must be really proud.

Thanks for proving my claim yet again!

a reply to: Gryphon66

The "facts" in the article are that it's considered spent on charity because of how it's labeled. That's what your source said. Which is exactly what the knock on them is.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

The "facts" in the article are that it's considered spent on charity because of how it's labeled. That's what your source said. Which is exactly what the knock on them is.

Nope.

You are ignoring the fact that the CF is a working Foundation, conveniently.

Once again, it's not a "charity" in that it collects money and dispenses it ... there are multiple initiatives and efforts world wide that you have no interest in.

You want to play silly-ass games with your own claims. You enjoy that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I presented facts, you apparently want to ignore them

Compensation: $2.2 million
Travel: $13 million
Other wages and Salaries: $47 million

a reply to: Gryphon66
If you don't like what we are finding then why don't you post something else? I will post what I feel like. If you want something else posted....post it! Quit telling us what to post!!!
Charity Watchdog: Clinton Foundation is a "Slush Fund"

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.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

I presented facts, you apparently want to ignore them

Compensation: $2.2 million
Travel: $13 million
Other wages and Salaries: $47 million

You didn't present anything.

You typed words. You made a statement (well, technically, three.)

That's your claim ... now prove it.

Prove how that relates to the comment made in the first paragraph of the article (which is just a general introductory statement).

Or stop talking to me with this nonsense.

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Gryphon66
If you don't like what we are finding then why don't you post something else? I will post what I feel like. If you want something else posted....post it! Quit telling us what to post!!!
Charity Watchdog: Clinton Foundation is a "Slush Fund"

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.

Wow, that's a great response!

You'll post what you like, no matter how misleading it may seem in terms of the article I presented? YOu conveniently ignore the sources in my Fact Check article about what the Foundation actually ACCOMPLISHES, you take a quote out of context that was DISPROVEN in the follow up of the article.

Sure, you can post any nonsense you like. Pardon my bluntness ... but "Duh."

I haven't quoted anything from the New York Post. Why would I address the claims of a tabloid?

a reply to: Gryphon66

As for conferences, nearly 98 percent of money spent was tabbed as a programming expense.

So tab it as a programming expense and suddenly it counts as "charitable spending" according to your source.

That's the knock on them, they hide behind labels. Your source then looked at labels to see if it's charitable spending or not.

a reply to: Gryphon66

What 'propaganda' sources are you referring to? I am a Contracting Officer by trade, and I can tell you that if people wanted to find some interesting audit trails, they should look at what the USAID and State Dept. was doing with their contracts while Clinton was there - I would recommend starting with the contracts that went to places for disaster relief after the earthquakes in Haiti. This would be just for starters.

Not every negative thing about the Clintons is propaganda.

How can Clinton Foundation be any different from their founders?

Both are lying, corrupted, murderous criminals, and we're supposed to believe their foundation is doing charity work. How naive do you have to be in order to believe that?

I see people are asking for proof? And when they get one, they complain it didn't come from the Clinton's News Network or some other "independent" news station.

Ridiculous

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Well, it won't matter to those who already have pre-judged the situation, but in my eyes, it is actually a GOOD THING FOR CLINTON to have light shone on the Clinton Foundation... Tactical error?? What about the Trump Foundation, does anyone know what it does???

Here is from the article Gryphon linked:

“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”

“We operate programs on the ground, around the world, that are making a difference on issues ranging from poverty and global health to climate change and women’s and girls’ participation,” Minassian told us via email. “Many large foundations actually provide grants to the Clinton Foundation so that our staff can implement the work.”
Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton Foundation listed these:

Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.

Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.

Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.

Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.

Here is the wiki... WOW! Wiki - Clinton Foundation


So go ahead, Trump, shine that light...I dare you.

a reply to: SonOfThor

Interesting. I'm sure an audit of just about any organization would provide interesting facts.

I can accept that as a truism.

Now, my claim is that most of the right-wingers on this site have ZERO knowledge about what the Clinton Foundation actually has accomplished in the world, nor do they have any interest in anything other than their own confirmation bias.

Thoughts on that?

Here's an article from last year discussing the Clinton Foundation, and it's work...

In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants

Depending on which side of the fence you are on, you may appreciate the breakdown, or just dismiss it due to the source..

However, when Trump, HuffPO, Ed Rendell, (though he must have been talked to ), call for the Foundation to close down, there's something shady going on imo....

I hope the FBI & the IRS are conducting a thorough investigation and clear the air on this situation.

a reply to: Gryphon66
I will post WHATEVER I want.

Hillary Clinton just sent out a call for the Highest Bidder. She just put our nation for sale. This is what I believe to be the truth...I have to prove nothing to YOU.

Some donations slipped through the cracks

“We’ll cross that bridge if and when we come to it, but let me just try to set the record straight. We had absolutely overwhelming disclosure,” she said. “Were there, you know, one or two instances that slipped through the cracks? Yes. But was the overwhelming amount of anything that anybody gave the foundation disclosed? Absolutely.”

Boston Globe calls for freeze on Clinton Foundation donations

“But as long as either of the Clintons are in public office, or actively seeking it, they should not operate a charity, too,” the editorial board wrote. “The Clintons themselves seem to realize that; ‘There’ll clearly be some changes in what the Clinton Foundation does and how we do it,’ Bill Clinton said in June; ‘And we’ll just have to cross that bridge when we come to it.’ Why wait? The Clintons should move now to end donations to the foundation, and make plans to shut it down in November. Even if they’ve done nothing illegal, the foundation will always look too much like a conflict of interest for comfort.”

Over half of Clinton donors ineligible to donate

Over half of the Clinton Foundation’s donors would be ineligible to donate money to the foundation under new guidelines that would bar foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton is elected president, according to a new analysis by The Washington Post.

And the best is that now they have called for everyone to line up and see who can pay-to-play before the deadlines......

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SonOfThor

Interesting. I'm sure an audit of just about any organization would provide interesting facts.

I can accept that as a truism.

Now, my claim is that most of the right-wingers on this site have ZERO knowledge about what the Clinton Foundation actually has accomplished in the world, nor do they have any interest in anything other than their own confirmation bias.

Thoughts on that?

www.nytimes.com...

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well. And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

The clinton foundation facilitated allowing the russians to get uranium from the USA. Isn't that a good thing?

a reply to: Martin75

He keeps ignoring my posts where I point out his source is doing exactly what the CF is criticized for.

As for conferences, nearly 98 percent of money spent was tabbed as a programming expense.

So tab it as a programming expense and suddenly it counts as "charitable spending" according to your source.

That's the knock on them, they hide behind labels. Your source then looked at labels to see if it's charitable spending or not.

Basically they are saying as long as it's labeled as charitable it counts, despite what it's actually spent on.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

As for conferences, nearly 98 percent of money spent was tabbed as a programming expense.

So tab it as a programming expense and suddenly it counts as "charitable spending" according to your source.

That's the knock on them, they hide behind labels. Your source then looked at labels to see if it's charitable spending or not.

Note: It is not the kind of Foundation that hands out grants, which is part of the confusion people have.
The Clinton Foundation has as PART of its activities something called "The Clinton Global Initiative."

CGI is not a grant-making organization. CGI Annual Meetings have brought together more than 150 heads of state, 20 Nobel Prize laureates, and hundreds of leading CEOs, heads of foundations and NGOs, major philanthropists, and members of the media. As of 2013, CGI members have made more than 2,300 commitments, which have improved the lives of over 400 million people in more than 180 countries. When fully funded and implemented, these commitments will be valued at $73.5 billion

Each CGI member develops a Commitment to Action – a plan to take specific action to make the world a better place. Commitments generally fit within one of CGI’s nine tracks: The Built Environment, Education & Workforce Development, Energy, Environmental Stewardship, Girls & Women, Global Health, Market-Based Approaches, Response & Resilience, and Technology.

It is a very complex organization. That in itself makes it a perfect target because people can throw sound-bites of disapproval at it, without even knowing what it does or why.

If there are improprieties, then of course, these must be addressed. But in fairness (if that still exists) one has to look at what it does, the lives it saves, the people it helps, and the efforts it makes to these ends in real, on-the-ground activities.

I hate being put in the position of "apologist" for something I'm just learning about myself - but Trump is so eagerly negative that it becomes cartoonish, and if he says something, it is more likely than not to be a lie...

(A 71% chance it is mostly a lie to pants on fire... Link Politifact)

a reply to: shooterbrody

Another right-wing media nonsense claim.

What about Malaria? What about HIV/AIDS?

You guys can't see that you're proving my point with EVERY post, LOL.

This is too easy.