Remember when some were confidently proclaiming that the FBI

[pnwmom]

was also investigating the Clinton Foundation? Based on wishful thinking instead of evidence.


Charity Watch gives it an A rating and lists it as one of the top two charities focused on "Peace and International Relations."

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

https://www.charitywatch.org/top-rated-charities

[NWCorona]

1. Did you see Comey's reaction when asked about the foundation?

[Gabi Hayes]

3. his eyes bugged out, didn't they? that might have been the only time

he was taken aback, except when he got PISSED at that one jagoff who accused him, basically of being part of the VHCC...vast Hillary Clinton conspiracy

[Native]

7. oh yeah, things definitely got weird there for a few moments, even when he was asked

the same question in another manner, his response was kind of strange. It was very interesting.

[Maru Kitteh]

9. Ha ha. I noticed all the drool cups they had to put under the bibs

of the crybabies at Freeperville/Jackass Delusionals.

The indictment fairy is dead, but they just keep slapping the defibrillator paddles on her cold body and yelling CLEAR!

And she keeps being dead. Poor indictment fairy. Good thing 81+% and growing numbers of Sanders' supporters now also support Clinton. Democrats are moving forward, together.

[NWCorona]

10. Feel free to see it that way.

[seabeyond]

12. Come on board. We are having way more fun. Nt

[Hortensis]

16. Besides the poor Indictment Fairy, I do see vast incompetence.

Are you, for instance, NWCorona, happy that they put Comey on TV AGAIN to reiterate even more firmly to the national media and national audience all the answers they should have avoided like the plague?

* Hillary did not commit a crime.
* Hillary did not lie.
* Petraeus committed very serious crimes, and she committed no crime at all.
* NO ONE ELSE has ever been prosecuted for what she's done.

And more. Now the House boys are actually planning to have the FBI PROVE to the nation that Hillary did not lie under oath to Congress.

The gang that can't shoot straight keeps taking themselves out. I'm just afraid someone's going to explain to them why that's a really bad idea.

[NWCorona]

23. Am I happy? No. Why would I?

The lines are drawn and this hearing won't change any minds so it's really moot and a waste of money. I did watch it though and learned some new things.

I think it is foolish to assume that Comey was in the tank before looking at the evidence collected.

It should be said that this isn't roses for Hillary either.

[Hortensis]

25. If it weren't for the snow job most of the

media has been doing, it would be roses for Hillary. Even so, I'm seeing MSNBC forced to come around and be more honest today. Apparently the feedback from yesterday wasn't so good.

Innocent.
Innocent.
Innocent.
Innocent.
Innocent.
Innocent.

The right lies.
The anti-Democrat left lies.
Hillary didn't lie.

[NWCorona]

29. I'm pretty sure I've never called her a liar.

Whether you see it or not. Hillary does deserve criticism of this mess.

[seabeyond]

31. Nope. Clinton never did, from start. That is why it never made sense and looks even more stupid, now

[Hortensis]

35. Oh, technically she should have been more

conscientious about security--she could have been the one to whip a sloppy StateDept into shape. But without all the lies and malice, who'd know anything at all about it?

What various ways does your senator use to communicate work matters? How about his or her aides and office manager? None of that bloodthirsty mob knows or cares.

And pretending that this attempted right-wing lynching has been motivated in the least by concerns about security is just one of the things I mean by "lying."

[seabeyond]

37. No, the condition, situation and the past all dictated that she took excellent steps to resolve

the issues at hand. At that time.

She made sure she had a secure system, that did not get hacked, while others did, and a system that was effective and useful. I know she is suppose to give a mia cupa? but often we make this insistence when there is no valid reason for it. IMO.

[Hortensis]

54. Well, she did use a more secure system

than the State Department's, and no doubt more secure than used in most government departments.

[840high]

43. Yes she does. (Not on DU)

[Demsrule86]

63. I don't think it should be said

but whatever. This is a partisan witch hunt same as Benghazi...in fact, her server was not hacked. Had she followed the 'rules' which no SOS has, she would have been hacked. Let's remember that much of this is baked in. And Hillary beat back a serious primary challenge while under this witch hunt of an investigation.

[pnwmom]

14. No, I couldn't watch the whole thing. What did he say?

[seabeyond]

2. I was not a fan of Clintons. I have listened the last year. They kick our ass, and Hillary

certainly does, in what they do for others. And we have the audacity to say, not good enough.

Another, interesting. lol. Been a long day at work, dealing with continual problems of others.

[DURHAM D]

8. Hi sea. I posted this earlier today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=163007


This whole thing is about a woman who cares and, as usual, was just trying to do her job.

[seabeyond]

11. They had a crappy system and Clinton used a better system. And evidently, way more secure.

Ya. I just said it too. That never made sense that the X President, who has everyone attacking him would not have locked down their system tight. I mean, they were the Clinton's after all, Vincent and Whitewater and more.

I really is interesting, seeing all this the last year or so, in a woman's eye. I am going to really enjoy this, and Clinton is that good. It will be fun to watch her.

[Hekate]

4. 5th Rec, pnwmom.

[Vattel]

5. It kind of sucks as a charity. But it is a charity.

[seabeyond]

13. The people in Africa helped with the cost of AIDS medicine probably would not make the same comment.

[Vattel]

15. It does help people, which is good.

[seabeyond]

17. Wow. Ya. Helping people is good.

[Vattel]

18. Ikr? Who would have thought?

[Gabi Hayes]

19. how, EXACTLY, does is suck as a charity?

be specific

thank you

[Vattel]

20. The actual benefits it provides to the needy per dollar donated is not very high.

[seabeyond]

22. I thought it rated at 89% which is "very high".

[Vattel]

24. That figure is very misleading because of the rather unusual way that

the Foundation operates. Foe example, the costs of a conference about how to benefit the needy would be part of the 89% even if that conference never actually benefitted a single needy person.

[Gabi Hayes]

27. why don't you just quit while you're behind?

take it somewhere else

please

[Vattel]

34. personally I would recommend donating to charities that get you more bang for the buck.

But even less effective charities like the Clinton Foundation do a lot of good.

[seabeyond]

28. Here is the thing. Facts present itself that this Org helps people. In many ways.

I won't work at spinning it when it is doing so much good for so many people. Believe what you want. I do not really give a shit.

[Vattel]

32. You don't really care how effective it is. That is okay with me.

[seabeyond]

38. Why do you play that silly passive aggressive game that is so obvious, knowingly? I never understood

that. What is the reward in it?

[Vattel]

39. Hmmm. You suddenly got aggressive and now you accuse me of being passive aggressive.

[seabeyond]

40. I was straightforward, and curious. " You don't really care how effective it is"

That is passive aggressive. See, the insult without appearing you are insulting, but the insult clear.

[Vattel]

44. "Believe what you want. I do not really give a shit."

Last edited Fri Jul 8, 2016, 12:44 AM - Edit history (1)

That was rude. I responded in kind. I apologize for the insult, though.

[Hoyt]

33. If it generates interest and donations, it helps people.

Most people rate charities by how much money charities dole out, not by what the do by actually providing services. But, doesn't matter if they cured HIV or help poor women, people are going to criticize Clinton, C that's just what they do.

[pnwmom]

42. Wrong. You're pulling that out of your hat. The reason the Clinton Foundation

is different than many other foundations that are rated is because it delivers services directly -- it doesn't just make grants to real charities. It IS a charity.

[Vattel]

45. I am not wrong.

You are right that it doesn't just make grants to charities. And you are right that it is a charity. I didn't deny either of those facts.

[pnwmom]

46. You provided no evidence for your claim. Once again. n/t

[Vattel]

47. Not providing evidence for my claim doesn't mean that my claim is wrong.

Last edited Fri Jul 8, 2016, 12:43 AM - Edit history (1)

Here is some evidence: "On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on 'conferences, conventions and meetings'; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel." Very little of the 140 million in donations and pledges that the foundation received was spent directly helping people--you know, like costs for food or medicine or construction or malaria netting or water purification, etc. And I won't mention all the cronyism, but even Blumenthal was on the Foundation payroll.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/17/1516678/-Government-Watchdog-Calls-Clinton-Foundation-A-Slush-Fund

[pnwmom]

48. Your original source is the rightwing Federalist, laundered through Daily Kos.

Of course you swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker.

What a crock. How do you think a charity can operate without paying salaries and office expenses? Those people working on water purification systems need to be paid.

That Daily Kos article you posted links to a Zerohedge page that says its source is the Federalist.

In case you’re wondering what might prompt Mr. Allison to make such a claim, it’s not just the recent pay-to-play scandals that have emerged.

snip

www.zerohedge.com/...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-28/government-watchdog-calls-clinton-foundation-slush-fund

It was the Federalist which first broke the story about the Clinton Foundation spending more money on salaries and travel than grants. It reported the following back in March:

And this is the publisher of the Federalist -- he's the founder of RedState:

Ben Domenech, PublisherBenjamin Domenech is the publisher of The Federalist, host of The Federalist Radio Hour, and writes The Transom, a daily subscription newsletter for political insiders. Domenech also serves as a fellow at The Manhattan Institute. He was previously a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute; editor in chief of The City, an academic journal on faith and culture; and a speechwriter for HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson and U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas. He co-founded Redstate and co-hosted Coffee & Markets, an award-winning economic podcast. His writing has been published in The Daily Beast, Politico, Commentary, Reason, and GQ, and he appears regularly on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and CBS's Face The Nation. He divides his time between Virginia and New York. Email him at [e-mail]


ON EDIT:

Wait, there's more! Zero Hedge turns out to have a Donald Trump connection. And it's anti-Obama and pro-Putin!

Good going, Vattel. You surpassed my worst expectation.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

History, authorship, and finances[edit]

The website was established in 2009.[3] According to the Boston Business Journal, the website "publishes financial news and opinion, aggregated and original" from a number of writers "who purportedly hail from within the financial industry."[3] Posts on the website are signed "Tyler Durden," a character in the Chuck Palahniuk book and movie Fight Club.[3][4]

In 2009, shortly after the blog was founded, news reports identified Daniel Ivandjiiski, a Bulgarian-born former hedge-fund analyst who was barred from the industry for insider trading by FINRA in 2008, as the founder of the site, and reported that "Durden" was a pseudonym for Ivandjiiski.[4][5][6][1] One contributor, who spoke to New York magazine after an interview was arranged by Ivandjiiski, said that "up to 40" people were permitted to post under the "Durden" name.[4]

In April 2016, the authors writing as "Durden" on the website were reported by Bloomberg News to be Ivandjiiski, Tim Backshall (a credit derivatives strategist), and Colin Lokey. Lokey, the newest member revealed himself and the other two when he left the site.[1] Ivandjiiski confirmed that the three men "had been the only Tyler Durdens on the payroll" since Lokey joined the site in 2015.[1] On leaving, Lokey said: "I can't be a 24-hour cheerleader for Hezbollah, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and Trump anymore. It's wrong. Period. I know it gets you views now, but it will kill your brand over the long run. This isn't a revolution. It's a joke."[1] Lokey said that he earned more than $100,000 in compensation from Zero Hedge in 2015, but departed from the site over a disagreement with editorial vision, expressing dissatisfaction with what he believed to be the website's turn toward clickbait.[1] Ivandjiiski defended the website, saying that it was always intended to be a for-profit entity, and criticized Lokey for making public comments.[1]

According to Ivandjiiski, the blog generates revenue from online advertising.[1]

Readership, views, and stances[edit]

The New York Times described Zero Hedge in 2011 as "a well-read and controversial financial blog."[7] The site was described by CNNMoney as offering a "deeply conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic view of the world."[8] Financial journalists Felix Salmon and Justin Fox have characterized the site as conspiratorial.[9][10] Fox described Ivandjiiski as "a wonderfully persistent investigative reporter" and credited him for successfully turning high-frequency trading "into a big political issue," but also termed most of the writing on the website as "half-baked hooey," albeit with some "truth to be gleaned from it."[10] Tim Worstall described the site as a source of hysteria and occasionally misleading information.[11] Bloomberg Markets noted in 2016 that since its founding in the middle of the financial crisis, "Zero Hedge has grown from a blog to an Internet powerhouse. Often distrustful of the 'establishment' and almost always bearish, it's known for a pessimistic world view. Posts entitled 'Stocks Are In a Far More Precarious State Than Was Ever Truly Believed Possible' and “America's Entitled (And Doomed) Upper Middle Class' are not uncommon."[1]

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman describes Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery."[12] Krugman notes that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt."[13]

Lokey, a former paid Zero Hedge writer who left the website in 2016 over disagreements in editorial direction, characterizes the site's political content as "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft.

[Vattel]

50. I only quoted the claims about what is on the tax forms.

If those numbers are wrong, prove it. I agree that the source sucks. But if the numbers on the tax forms are correct, the source is irrelevant.

[pnwmom]

51. When you post from a right-wing hate source, there's no reason to trust any of its numbers.

Look at that pie chart and compare it to Charity Watch. It's totally wrong and totally made up. Nothing else they post can be trusted either.

But as I said, they are saying that it is improper for a charity to spend money on salaries and office space. That is just nuts.

[Vattel]

55. No, the pie chart seems accurate

[pnwmom]

56. Not compared to the Charity watch pie chart. And that is a neutral source, not a RW hate site.. n/t

[Vattel]

57. You don't seem to understand the charts, which doesn't surprise me.

The charity watch chart follows the foundation reckoning that only fundraising expenses and "management and general" expenses count as overhead. That is fine. I don't have a problem with that. But although federalist chart wrongly identifies only 10% as being charity, it does reveal that much of the 88% that charity watch counts as "program expenses" and so not overhead is not direct aid to the needy. A huge amount is spent on travel, salaries, conferences, the Clinton presidential library, etc. My only point, and it is a correct one, is that unless the Foundation has become more effective than it was in 2013, it isn't very effective in terms of the amount it helps the needy per dollar. But it does help the needy, and so I don't want to complain too much about it.

[pnwmom]

58. You keep pushing the point of view of a right-wing hate site. You just can't stop yourself.. n/t

[Vattel]

59. lol

[Gabi Hayes]

26. exactly! why do people try to pull stuff like that?

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Contact & General Information 
Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation
1271 Avenue of the Americas
42nd Floor
New York, NY 10020
www.clintonfoundation.org
Tax Status: 501(c)3 

Other Names 

Clinton Foundation
Clinton Global Initiative
Clinton Health Access Initiative
William J. Clinton Foundation

Charities often solicit donors under multiple names. CharityWatch is aware of this charity soliciting donors using the above names.

RATING: A 
Is this rating different than what you expected based on what the charity reports about itself or what other raters report about this charity? Read about what makes CharityWatch's independent ratings different from other sources of information.

they must SUCK...not an A+, only an A rating

that poster is, what? I'll leave it there

I wonder if this is more to its liking:

http://www.businessinsider.com/theres-something-fishy-about-donald-trumps-charitable-donations-2015-8

[seabeyond]

30. An A rating, 89% and their AIDS program in Africa alone.... And we are suppose to be it up. Nt

[Gabi Hayes]

41. a very smooth (in its own eyes, at least), operator

guess he holds no brook for all the rating systems that put it at the top, and chooses to ignore the facts as they present themselves

perhaps someone will ask it to present some charities that do more, spend more money, delegate a higher percentage of their fundraising to their projects

haven't seen any of that, because it did mention the existence of other charities. why no example of where it donates?

[seabeyond]

21. We have established this sucky charity helps people and helping people is good.

I dunno, might just be the long day, but huh?

[niyad]

6. you must not confuse them with facts!

[DemonGoddess]

36. K&R!

[Rex]

49. If there was something fishy in the CF, I would be talking about it.

There is nothing there, it is a foundation that gives to charity.

[Vinca]

52. Does Charity Watch monitor where the money comes from?

I think that's the part that is concerning the FBI since there have been pay-to-play allegations. I was a little shocked at Comey's reaction when asked about it since I assumed all the Clinton-related investigations were over.

[pnwmom]

53. Comey didn't say they were investigating it. He used the standard FBI boilerplate

when people ask such questions, and no conclusions can ever be drawn from it:

"would not comment on existence or non-existence of any other investigations"

[gogo_du]

60. As someone who has worked in government IT

I have found the premise that privately managed email servers are much less secure than government email servers, curious. Government servers have bigger targets on their backs to boot.

[pnwmom]

61. They have bigger targets on their back -- and there is proof that the .gov system

has been hacked numerous times.

Whereas the FBI couldn't find any evidence that Hillary's system had been. They just have to assume it was, and that the hackers were much cleverer about covering up their tracks than when hacking into the .gov system.