‘Clinton Cash’ Author Peter Schweizer Confirms: Clinton Foundation Gives Only Six Percent to Charity

[Jim_Higgins]

Clinton "Generosity"

‘Clinton Cash’ Author Peter Schweizer Confirms: Clinton Foundation Gives
Only Six Percent to Charity
http://tinyurl.com/ho7wyrv

--
Hussein Obama working hard to destroy America

[islander]

On 9/22/2016 5:15 PM, Jim_Higgins wrote:
> Clinton "Generosity"
>
> ‘Clinton Cash’ Author Peter Schweizer Confirms: Clinton Foundation Gives
> Only Six Percent to Charity
> http://tinyurl.com/ho7wyrv
>

Jim, this has been debunked many times. This guy does not know how to
read a balance sheet.

[billbowden]

"islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message
news:ns1vlb$lkg$1...@dont-email.me...

According to this, the balance sheet says assets were about 250 million in
2013. and expenses were about 23 million. I think the current figure is
about 300 million and expenses are about 10% or 30 million. If Clinton's can
rake off just 10 percent of the expense figure, they are making 3 million a
year. Nice work if you can get it.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/311580204

[islander]

The 6% figure that Jim cited goes back to Carly Fiorina's attempt to
discredit Hillary in 2013. I'm not sure who actually started this bit
of slime, but Fiorina certainly attempted to profit from it. A number
of charity watch organizations have checked it out and concluded that
the attempt to discredit Hillary was based on confusing how private
foundations and public charities work. Private foundations operate by
donating funds to other charitable institutions. There is a specific
line in the 990 that identifies those donations and for the Clinton
Foundation, that was indeed only about 6%. But, the Clinton Foundation
is a public charity which engages directly in charitable work, so the
money would appear under program service expenses and accounts for about
89% of the total funds. However, there are additional expenses in
running a large charity including salaries paid to staff, fundraising
activities, and a whole raft of administrative expenses. For the
Clinton Foundation to not only engage directly in charitable work and to
keep these costs to less than 11% is pretty amazing. Most public
charities wish that they could do as well.

One of the things that helps to keep the administrative costs down is
that the Clintons do not receive any compensation for their work. So,
no, the Clintons are not making 3 million a year.

[bfla...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 10:14:52 AM UTC-7, islander wrote:
> The 6% figure that Jim cited goes back to Carly Fiorina's attempt to
> discredit Hillary in 2013.

I think it admirable that you continue to debunk the nonsense that
some here promote due to their particular bias. One can just look
to see who the poster is and you know it will be a falsification
of fact.

Keep up the good work!

[GLOBALIST]

"Fabrication of facts" has not caused
the many deaths by the greatest liar
on the planet, Hillary.

[billbowden]

"Emily" <Emily1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jaeaubpoo2neta5hr...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:04:44 -0700, "billbowden"
> <bpe...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> wrote:
>
>>According to this, the balance sheet says assets were about 250 million in
>>2013. and expenses were about 23 million. I think the current figure is
>>about 300 million and expenses are about 10% or 30 million. If Clinton's
>>can
>>rake off just 10 percent of the expense figure, they are making 3 million
>>a
>>year. Nice work if you can get it.
>

> Why do you think they need to rake off money from the Foundation?
> They both have money coming in as former President and Senator, they
> get paid handsomely for speeches and their books sell pretty well.
> They probably have some investments. Unbridled greed is not one of the
> things they're usually accused of.


It's unclear how much of the reported 8 million of foundation travel
expenses went to (Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea). For security reasons, they
need special accommodations, and chartered planes aren't cheap. . .
. .
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/clinton-foundation-travel-expenses-113053

"Travel expenses for the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation for
last year totaled more than $8 million, a greater amount than the nonprofit
reported in previous years, according to Internal Revenue Service filings.
The travel costs were $8.448 million, according to the 990 forms the
foundation filed with the IRS. America Rising obtained a copy at the Clinton
Presidential Center in Little Rock, Ark. That figure was about 5 percent of
the more than the $145 million the Clinton Foundation raised last year, but
10 percent of its expenses."

[islander]

If there is a point that you are attempting to make here, I don't see
it. The Clintons were not compensated for their time, but it is fair,
legal, and understandable that they would receive compensation for their
expenses. If they need additional security, that is a product of the
hatred out there which is motivated by the political right.

Contrast this with the current controversy over the payment of Trump's
expenses that are compensated by his campaign to companies that are
owned by him. That is also legal, but of questionable ethics.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/20-of-donald-trumps-campaign-spending-goes-to-trump-businesses-filing-says-2016-06-21
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9f7412236962464f9f2c0a8d2696ba25/trumps-campaign-cycles-6-million-trump-companies
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/politics/donald-trump-business-spending-fec/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/is-trumps-campaign-breaking-the-law-by-paying-money-to-trumps-businesses
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/is-trumps-campaign-breaking-the-law-by-paying-money-to-trumps-businesses

There are lots more examples of how Trump is enriching himself by
spending other people's money.

http://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2016/09/21/48-days-trump-relishes-the-idea-of-spending-other.html

[islander]

It is a nasty job, but someone has to do it!

Seriously, those who sit quietly on the sidelines give credence to the
political operatives who depend on people to sit quietly on the sidelines.

[billbowden]

"islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message

news:ns6flk$udr$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 9/23/2016 5:43 PM, billbowden wrote:
>> "Emily" <Emily1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I think it's a red herring to change the subject to Donald Trump. But
anyway,.it's sort of hypocritical of Hillary Clinton to support
environmental reform to fight global warming while flying around in jet
airplanes using 347 gallons of fuel per hour. From other sources, one
transatlantic flight can add as much to your carbon footprint as a typical
year's worth of driving. And that's assuming you fly tourist class. My
carbon footprint is about $25 a month plus 40 miles of driving a week.
.
"While it is not clear which jet Clinton prefers on the campaign trail, or
if they routinely switch between the jets they use, Clinton has been pinned
on Executive Fliteways’ Falcon 900B “heavy jet” in the past, according to a
media reports. Hillary boarded the plane, which burns 347 gallons of fuel
per hour, shortly after laying out her campaign’s plan to combat global
warming."

[rumpelstiltskin]

I don't agree with that. Everybody "knows" that rich people buy
$10,000 items where everybody else is content with $10 items
that are almost the same. If the Clintons are funding a charity,
they shouldn't muddy the waters by expecting the charity to
support their expenses, however much those expenses may be
really necessary IMV. They're certainly rich enough that surely
they could cover their own expenses just as an unregistered
contribution to the charity they set up.

>
>Contrast this with the current controversy over the payment of Trump's
>expenses that are compensated by his campaign to companies that are
>owned by him. That is also legal, but of questionable ethics.
>http://www.marketwatch.com/story/20-of-donald-trumps-campaign-spending-goes-to-trump-businesses-filing-says-2016-06-21
>http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9f7412236962464f9f2c0a8d2696ba25/trumps-campaign-cycles-6-million-trump-companies
>http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/politics/donald-trump-business-spending-fec/
>http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/is-trumps-campaign-breaking-the-law-by-paying-money-to-trumps-businesses
>http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/is-trumps-campaign-breaking-the-law-by-paying-money-to-trumps-businesses
>
>There are lots more examples of how Trump is enriching himself by
>spending other people's money.

No debate about that. There are thieves and Thieves.
The Clintons maybe get a partial capital "t" but Trump
definitely gets a full capital "t", maybe surrounded with
blinking coloured lights and dancing strippers. Trump
doesn't even attempt to be subtle about it - well maybe
he does but he's too clumsy to pull it off. Until he got
into politics, he could get away with that, but now he's
wide open to critical comment and popular attention,
with good harpies like Saint Elizabeth Warren watching
keen-eyed and ready-beaked from their trees.


Mythical harpie:
http://static.englishdictionary.education/800/harpy.jpg

Bird named after the mythical harpie (for it's savage aggressiveness):
http://www.oiseaux-birds.com/dossiers-ornithos-photos/grands-aigles/doss-gds-aigles-harpie-feroce-tm1.jpg

Wonderful harpie (should be President):
http://www.recorder.com/getattachment/3d739c76-400b-41f0-809b-b7c2876bde40/APPeter-Warren-Aetna-ph01








>
>http://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2016/09/21/48-days-trump-relishes-the-idea-of-spending-other.html
>

[rumpelstiltskin]

I don't object to that when she's doing it as part of her duties of
state, since she should be protected and it is necessary. If it's
done as part of support for a charity though, that's an entirely
different matter IMV: among other considerations, it doesn't "look"
good.

>.
>"While it is not clear which jet Clinton prefers on the campaign trail, or
>if they routinely switch between the jets they use, Clinton has been pinned
>on Executive Fliteways’ Falcon 900B “heavy jet” in the past, according to a
>media reports. Hillary boarded the plane, which burns 347 gallons of fuel
>per hour, shortly after laying out her campaign’s plan to combat global
>warming."

Same comment as above. It is true that public officials and
candidates have special dangers that they, and we, should be
concerned about.

[rumpelstiltskin]

I'm glad you're doing it. I don't have the stomach for Jim
and a few others, myself, though, and I'm here mostly for
entertainment, not out of duty or out of a hope of changing
the world. Of course though, it's not as easy for Jim to
attack you from the bastion of his ugly, smelly, dungpile-of-
history religion as it is for him to attack me from there, and
there are plenty of others who like to live in that same
dungpile and will cheer him on.

[Bill Bowden]

"rumpelstiltskin" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:cpleub543d6gd13lc...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 19:25:01 -0700, "billbowden"
>>

>>"islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message
>>>

I remember flying from New Zealand to Los Angeles and John Wayne was in line
in the LA airport cafeteria. I don't think he was flying in a chartered
plane, just first class. A woman in line ahead of me said: "That's John
Wayne just ahead of me". So I asked how she knew that and she said to wait
until he said something. And sure enough he got impatient and said to "Hurry
Up With Them Pancakes!" But he wasn't alone and sat at a table with 4 or 5
others. Later, I saw him again in one of the gift shops as he was walking
out, and the cashier called to him to pick up his change. Apparently, he
bought something with a $50 or $100 and wasn't interested in the change. But
now there is an airport in Orange County named after him. "John Wayne
Airport".

When I was sitting at my table and Wayne was sitting a couple tables away, I
thought about asking for an autograph but didn't do it. I didn't see anybody
else asking for autographs, so I didn't want to be the only one. I suppose
he just wanted to eat breakfast and be left alone.






--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[islander]

Practically speaking, we have only two choices. On the topic of payment
of travel expenses, the Clintons have not received personal compensation
for the use of transportation. Trump has.

Shifting the conversation to global warming is a red herring, however.

[islander]

I could support Warren for President in 2020!

[Bill Bowden]

"islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message

news:ns9lqi$f4f$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 9/24/2016 7:25 PM, billbowden wrote:
>> "islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message

I'm having trouble with the math. The Clinton foundation spends 8 million a
year in transportation expense. An average flight from New York to South
Africa is $700 one way or $1400 round trip. So, if we assume a delegation of
20 people travel to some country, twice a week to conduct chairity business,
that's a cost of 1400 *20 * 104 = 2.9 million Where did the other 5 million
go? And I'm being conservative in the estimates. I don't think the
foundation sends out 20 people twice a week to negotiate business. What am I
missing?

[islander]

You are grasping at straws now. The $8M for travel would include more
than just the cost of airline tickets. It has been a long time since I
did much traveling, but the other costs associated with travel were
usually more than the cost of the airline tickets. See line 17 on their
990. $6M of the $8M are for Program Service Expenses which include a
variety of costs associated with holding meetings in places around the
world.

[islander]

On 9/24/2016 10:50 PM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:

There are unfortunately a lot of deplorable people out there and they
tend to be very vocal. Perhaps it is because they see an end to what
they call their "culture." Unfortunately, liberals tend to avoid
confrontation and I think that there comes a time when liberals need to
pay attention. Much of the progress that we have made in basic human
rights is at risk. Liberals need to speak up AND VOTE. If the
Republicans succeed in naming the next couple of justices to the Supreme
Court, many of our basic human rights will be in jeopardy. Silence
implies consent and not voting is a vote for right wing politics.

[rumpelstiltskin]

In my case, silence implies not wanting to deal with hopeless
and unpleasant characters when there's no chance of changing
their minds. They're not in the majority nationally anymore,
even though they are in the majority of many of the states in
the Southeast and Midwest. I'm just glad I don't have to live
among "those people" anymore.



KKKristianity sucks: Death to it!


Sky ... Monster ...
Why do you fly ... so hi-igh?
Sky ... Monster ...
When are you gon...na die-ie?
Die .. die .. die .. die . die . sky . MONster.


tune: G....... |F.G.... |
DF.DF.DF|..G..... |
G....... |F.G.... |
DF.DF.FD|..C..... |
G..F..E. |..C.F.F.|D.C.....|.... |


(Not death to KKKristians though - let them live
in their own little communities where they don't
bother anyone else ... but reach out to the kids
who aren't like them and need to be rescued!)

[islander]

I don't hold out any hope that I will change their minds, but I do think
that it is time to speak up publicly to make it very clear that their
behavior is not acceptable. Most of them will die off over the next
couple of decades and the coming generations need liberals to speak up
to show that their beliefs have no place in a modern world.

I wonder what their children and grandchildren will think of their
bigotry when they discover it in the permanent record of the Internet?

[rumpelstiltskin]

Things go up and down. Germany was very liberal before
the Nazis. The world does seem to be getting better, though
not the Islamic world, but it gets better by fits and starts,
ISTM, with an awful lot of backsliding. I'm sure glad I didn't
live in the 16th century or earlier though, just about
anywhere. But of course advancing technology has a lot to
do with the general improvement of life.

I'd probably be dead, or at least have lost my right arm
at age 28, without modern medicine.

[billbowden]

"islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message

news:nsbf7g$ijg$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 9/25/2016 5:18 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
>> "islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message

>>> Practically speaking, we have only two choices. On the topic of payment
>>> of travel expenses, the Clintons have not received personal compensation
>>> for the use of transportation. Trump has.
>>>
>>> Shifting the conversation to global warming is a red herring, however.
>>>
>>
>> I'm having trouble with the math. The Clinton foundation spends 8 million
>> a
>> year in transportation expense. An average flight from New York to South
>> Africa is $700 one way or $1400 round trip. So, if we assume a delegation
>> of
>> 20 people travel to some country, twice a week to conduct chairity
>> business,
>> that's a cost of 1400 *20 * 104 = 2.9 million Where did the other 5
>> million
>> go? And I'm being conservative in the estimates. I don't think the
>> foundation sends out 20 people twice a week to negotiate business. What
>> am I
>> missing?
>>
>
> You are grasping at straws now. The $8M for travel would include more
> than just the cost of airline tickets. It has been a long time since I
> did much traveling, but the other costs associated with travel were
> usually more than the cost of the airline tickets. See line 17 on their
> 990. $6M of the $8M are for Program Service Expenses which include a
> variety of costs associated with holding meetings in places around the
> world.
>

That's a pretty general category of "Program Service Expenses". Anything
would fit that. How do you itemize that? Here's an interesting tidbit for
you: Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton, was paid nearly $275,000
in salary, benefits, and a housing allowance for just five months’ work as
CEO that year. Seems it's not what you know, but who you know. Charity
navigator also decided not to give the clinton foundation a favorable rating
since they couldn't figure out how they did business. It didn't fit the
usual model, so they couldn't rate it. But I think they changed their minds
when Clintons complained.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/the-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund-fund-for-the-clintons.php


"The Clinton Foundation joins Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network
on Charity Navigator’s list. It seems appropriate that two great con
artists, Bill Clinton and Al Sharpton, should be thus be joined."

[islander]

Charity Navigator changed their rating because they realized that the
Clinton Foundation ran their own programs rather than just funneling
money through other organizations. We covered this before. They now
give the Clinton Foundation a four star rating, the highest.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680