The Clinton Foundation - A Textbook Lesson In How to Set Up Your Own Tax-Free Influence-Peddling Money-Laundering Scheme!

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocument...0b0083da-9.pdf

Making the money to support one's family. The Stockholm Connection! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Read the whole article. Those were refilled. There are more current versions.
Sorry I'm missing your point. Unless you found something illegal no one else has, then that return is quoted in the article you're too lazy to read. The head of the second largest charity watch org examined it and said it appeared to indicate 89% of it's budget went towards their programs.

Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.
By only looking at the amount the Clinton Foundation doled out in grants, Fiorina “is showing her lack of understanding of charitable organizations,” Borochoff said. “She’s thinking of the Clinton Foundation as a private foundation.” Those kinds of foundations are typically supported by money from a few people, and the money is then distributed to various charities. The Clinton Foundation, however, is a public charity, he said. It mostly does its own charitable work. It has over 2,000 employees worldwide.
“What she’s doing is looking at how many grants they write to other groups,” Borochoff said. “If you are going to look at it that way, you may as well criticize every other operating charity on the planet.”
In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
“Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”
Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.

Read the whole article. Those were refilled. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

What are you jabbering about?

You're like a rabid dog when someone throws down a piece of steak!

You'll snap at anything!!!! Growl, bark, and make no sense.

You cut and paste "articles" .... I look for documents!!!!

Munchmasterman, Interesting, thanks for the clarification on program activities. Like Carly Fiorina, I assumed most of the good work provided by the Clinton Foundation was through grants and payments to charities. I believe actually that’s the way most foundations work – they don’t run charities internally. Your criticism of LustyLad on that point, not knowing how foundations work, isn't merited. And I just looked at the tax returns and not the financial statements, which is probably the approach you’d take too if you were looking at Trump’s businesses, and the tax returns were available. This is what Charity Navigator does, they too look at the tax returns, and that’s one of the reasons they don’t rate the Clinton Foundation, because you purportedly have to trust the the consolidated financial statements (which aren't part of the tax return) to understand what’s going on.

I was one of the largest funders of an organization in a Latin American country that’s trying to set up a program to provide information about local charities to potential donors. It wasn’t a large amount – my donation was probably smaller than your annual mongering budget. Anyway, Charity Navigator is the gold standard, and we modeled our web site and analytical methods after theirs. The fact that Charity Navigator once had the Clinton Foundation on their watch list and still won’t rate them is a big red flag. Based on that and a quick look at their financial statements, I don’t think your typical responsible donor who’s trying to get a decent bang for his buck would donate to the foundation. If he’s looking to curry favor, or wants an opportunity to pal around with Bill, then it makes sense. Warren Buffett may be a hypocrite, but he knows how to analyze a financial statement. He’s a big donor to the Gates Foundation, but I can guarantee you won’t see him giving money to the Clinton Foundation, unless it’s done for business development purposes.

Circling back to the financial statements, looking at the 2014 consolidated statement, which includes results from the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation along with entities controlled by the foundation, there are some big question marks. An example is salaries and benefits, which total $96 million out of $248 million of total expenditures, or 39% of the total. According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which compared the Clinton Foundation to comparable foundations, increasing salaries are a worrisome trend. Actually, out of the $248 million, the only items that unambiguously look like they’re being spent for charity are direct program expenditures of $34 million, UNITAID commodities expenses of $14 million, and procurement and shipping expense of $2.5 million. Anyway, you can judge for yourself – if interested, take a look at footnote 9 to the 2014 financials, which I posted a link to above.

Apparently the largest component of Charity Watch’s rating is the percentage of expenses spent on overhead versus the percentage spent on program expenses, and since the Clinton Foundation purportedly only spends 12% on overhead, it gets an A. But what’s in program expenses? If Bill or Hillary or Chelsea jets around looking at the Foundation’s far flung interests, that’s probably included in program expenses. Same with Bill’s trips to Davos. When the Clinton Global Initiative puts on its big annual meeting, providing Hillary et al with an opportunity to network with the world’s movers and shakers and moneymen, that’s included in Program Expenses.

Anyway, I was wrong when I said the Clinton Foundation was 5% real and 95% slush fund. After a bit more time, I’d put it at maybe 30% real charity and 70% for self aggrandizement and slush fund.

Tiny is cool, he can make a point without the usual shit slinging.

Munchmasterman, Interesting, thanks for the clarification on program activities. Like Carly Fiorina, I assumed most of the good work provided by the Clinton Foundation was through grants and payments to charities. I believe actually that’s the way most foundations work – they don’t run charities internally. Your criticism of LustyLad on that point, not knowing how foundations work, isn't merited. And I just looked at the tax returns and not the financial statements, which is probably the approach you’d take too if you were looking at Trump’s businesses, and the tax returns were available. This is what Charity Navigator does, they too look at the tax returns, and that’s one of the reasons they don’t rate the Clinton Foundation, because you purportedly have to trust the the consolidated financial statements (which aren't part of the tax return) to understand what’s going on.

I was one of the largest funders of an organization in a Latin American country that’s trying to set up a program to provide information about local charities to potential donors. It wasn’t a large amount – my donation was probably smaller than your annual mongering budget. Anyway, Charity Navigator is the gold standard, and we modeled our web site and analytical methods after theirs. The fact that Charity Navigator once had the Clinton Foundation on their watch list and still won’t rate them is a big red flag. Based on that and a quick look at their financial statements, I don’t think your typical responsible donor who’s trying to get a decent bang for his buck would donate to the foundation. If he’s looking to curry favor, or wants an opportunity to pal around with Bill, then it makes sense. Warren Buffett may be a hypocrite, but he knows how to analyze a financial statement. He’s a big donor to the Gates Foundation, but I can guarantee you won’t see him giving money to the Clinton Foundation, unless it’s done for business development purposes.

Circling back to the financial statements, looking at the 2014 consolidated statement, which includes results from the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation along with entities controlled by the foundation, there are some big question marks. An example is salaries and benefits, which total $96 million out of $248 million of total expenditures, or 39% of the total. According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which compared the Clinton Foundation to comparable foundations, increasing salaries are a worrisome trend. Actually, out of the $248 million, the only items that unambiguously look like they’re being spent for charity are direct program expenditures of $34 million, UNITAID commodities expenses of $14 million, and procurement and shipping expense of $2.5 million. Anyway, you can judge for yourself – if interested, take a look at footnote 9 to the 2014 financials, which I posted a link to above.

Apparently the largest component of Charity Watch’s rating is the percentage of expenses spent on overhead versus the percentage spent on program expenses, and since the Clinton Foundation purportedly only spends 12% on overhead, it gets an A. But what’s in program expenses? If Bill or Hillary or Chelsea jets around looking at the Foundation’s far flung interests, that’s probably included in program expenses. Same with Bill’s trips to Davos. When the Clinton Global Initiative puts on its big annual meeting, providing Hillary et al with an opportunity to network with the world’s movers and shakers and moneymen, that’s included in Program Expenses.

Anyway, I was wrong when I said the Clinton Foundation was 5% real and 95% slush fund. After a bit more time, I’d put it at maybe 30% real charity and 70% for self aggrandizement and slush fund. Originally Posted by Tiny

70% profit on a few hundred million isn't a bad days work.

So if getting put on the list is such a big deal then Charity Navigator taking them off the list means....

Charity watchdog removes Clinton Foundation from its watch list

December 22, 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ts-watch-list/

Holy Toledo! You're right, masterdickmuncher! Eight months after it placed the Clinton Foundation on its Waltch List, Charity Navigator did indeed remove them again in December 2015. Thanks for the heads-up! I will award you two points (+2) for catching this news flash... I obviously missed it.


http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity...-a-slush-fund/

The (NY) post article shows they know as little as you do about foundations. But at least they didn't try to conceal the fact the foundation had been taken off the list like you did.

Oh, shit! I just gave you credit for doing something right and you immediately fuck it up! The NY Post article is dated April 2015 (after the Clinton Foundation went on Watch List). Your WaPo article is dated December 2015 (when it went off again). My NY Post article could not possibly have mentioned something that didn't occur until 8 months later! Better read more carefully, dickmuncher. Sorry, but that fuck-up will cost you -2. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

The next question is – why did Charity Navigator reverse its decision? Did the Clintons bribe them, rough them up, threaten blackmail, talk about the Clinton Enemies List, hint at future IRS audits and DOJ investigations? Well, I don't have any evidence that the Clintons resorted to such hard-knuckle tactics.... oh wait, I do! Here's a New York Magazine story dated May 2015. For those who are timeline-challenged like dickmuncher, that means this story came out one month AFTER the Clinton Foundation went on the Watch List, but seven months BEFORE it was removed again.

"Since March, the Foundation has embarked on an aggressive behind-the-scenes campaign to get removed from the list.... (Charity) Navigator executives counter that the Foundation has demanded they extend the Clintons special treatment. They also allege the Foundation attempted to strong-arm them by calling a Navigator board member. 'They felt they were of such importance that we should deviate from our normal process. They were irritated by that,' says (former CEO Ken) Berger."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-watchdog.html

I guess the Clintons are quite experienced at taking the Godfather approach whenever they want something. It worked - they got their Foundation off the Watch List. But was it really a victory? As Tiny just noted:

The fact that Charity Navigator once had the Clinton Foundation on their watch list and still won’t rate them is a big red flag. Originally Posted by Tiny

Sorry, dickmuncherman, I was almost ready to take you off my Libtard Watch List, but after closer inspection you failed again. Maybe next time.

Tiny is cool, he can make a point without the usual shit slinging. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

So he's NOT prosimian, like YOU huh EKIM !!!

Circling back to the financial statements, looking at the 2014 consolidated statement, which includes results from the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation along with entities controlled by the foundation, there are some big question marks. An example is salaries and benefits, which total $96 million out of $248 million of total expenditures, or 39% of the total. According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which compared the Clinton Foundation to comparable foundations, increasing salaries are a worrisome trend. Actually, out of the $248 million, the only items that unambiguously look like they’re being spent for charity are direct program expenditures of $34 million, UNITAID commodities expenses of $14 million, and procurement and shipping expense of $2.5 million. Anyway, you can judge for yourself – if interested, take a look at footnote 9 to the 2014 financials, which I posted a link to above.

Apparently the largest component of Charity Watch’s rating is the percentage of expenses spent on overhead versus the percentage spent on program expenses, and since the Clinton Foundation purportedly only spends 12% on overhead, it gets an A. But what’s in program expenses? If Bill or Hillary or Chelsea jets around looking at the Foundation’s far flung interests, that’s probably included in program expenses. Same with Bill’s trips to Davos. When the Clinton Global Initiative puts on its big annual meeting, providing Hillary et al with an opportunity to network with the world’s movers and shakers and moneymen, that’s included in Program Expenses.

Anyway, I was wrong when I said the Clinton Foundation was 5% real and 95% slush fund. After a bit more time, I’d put it at maybe 30% real charity and 70% for self aggrandizement and slush fund. Originally Posted by Tiny

Thanks for the excellent analysis. They would like to stuff everything into "program expenses" but no one is fooled. Does anyone really think their 2,000 employees engage primarily in charity? Folks like Sidney Blumenthal and Huma Abedin? Here are some questionable 2014 numbers from that Footnote 9:

$95.9M in salaries
$17.2M in consulting
$14.2M in events
$20.8M in travel
$2.8M in telecom
$13.5M in training
$7.3M in rent
$7.8M in office expenses

I'll leave out depreciation and capital charges. Who the fuck would want to throw money down this rabbit hole of a "charity" – except for political favor-seekers?

T... Does anyone really think their 2,000 employees engage primarily in charity? Originally Posted by lustylad

One might want to revisit .... "employees"!

The Clintons should all be in jail.