Clinton Foundation appears to be little more than a money laundering operation

The Clinton Foundation is described as being a charitable organization. Charitable to whom?

According to an Investor’s Business Daily editorial page review of the Clinton Foundation’s 2013 IRS form 990, the “charity” spent 87 percent of its money on salaries, conferences, travel and other overhead. Nearly 30 percent was spent on compensation. The Clintons spent more on travel and conferences than they did on grants.

IBD illustration

The CEO was paid nearly $400,000 and a director was paid nearly $500,000.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal points out the double standard being applied to the Clintons. The paper repeats the facts about how the chairman of a Canadian company donated more than $2 million to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and the company was seeking State Department approval of a sale of stock to a Russian company while a Kremlin bank was paying Bill Clinton a $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.

No quid pro quo here. Move along. Nothing to see.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, WSJ notes, prohibits gifts that are essentially “a vehicle to conceal payments made to corruptly influence foreign officials.”

Companies have paid millions in fines for relatively small gifts to overseas charities run by people with the power to return the favor. WSJ cites examples.

Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group, is quoted as saying by the New York Post, “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons.”







23 comments on “Clinton Foundation appears to be little more than a money laundering operation

  1. agent provocateur says:

    Reblogged this on Nevada State Personnel Watch.

  2. Winston Smith says:

    I’m shocked, s…h…..o……c……..k………e……….d……………

    The day Vince Foster died…

  3. nyp says:

    Let’s see now. …you neglect to mention that most of the Clinton Foundation salaries go to the more than 2,000 aid workers that it employs around the world. I suppose Mr. Mitchell felt that that point wasn’t important enough for his readers.

    Nor, in discussing the supposed stake of a Canadian donor in a uranium mine, does Mr. Mitchell think it necessary to mention that at the time of the deal in question the Canadian donor, Frank Giustra, had sold his entire investment, and had no financial interest in the deal.
    Nor does Mr. Mitchell think it worth mentioning that in reality the State Department did not have any power to “approve” the uranium sale in question, as it was one of nine separate federal agencies on an approval committee chaired by the Department of the Treasury.
    Nor did he think it worth mentioning that Hillary played no role in the State Department’s participation in the work of that committee.

    Finally, Mr. Mitchell thought it not worth mentioning that the Clinton Foundation spends almot 90% of it expenses directly on charitable programs, that fundraising accounts for less than 3% of its budget, and that the American Institute of Philanthropy gives it an “A” rating.

    Mr. Mitchell did not mention any of those facts because they do not fit into his idea of how journalism ought to be conducted.

  4. Screenshot says:

    Reblogged this on News247-365 and commented:
    Thank you for this. The activities of the “Clinton Foundation” are suspicious at best, and potentially criminal at worst.

  5. Father Paul Lemmen says:

    Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.

  6. nyp says:

    Ah, I see. Rather than actually respond to substantive points, you are now just indiscriminately linking to whatever sites, wingnut or otherwise, have headlines that you think criticize the Clinton Foundation.

  7. nyp…still defending the indefensible progressive leftist Democrat slush funds.

  8. Anonymous says:

    None so blind as those who WILL NOT see.

  9. This just in: Apparently, 181 Clinton Foundation donors also lobbied the State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary. And those are just the donors being reported.

    Of course, there is not a shred of evidence to prove a link between the two, because she shredded all the evidence.

  10. nyp says:

    Ah, I see. So if someone donates to a cause with which a public official or office seeker is affiliated, that official is beholden to the donor, and their actions are likely to be corrupted.

    Hmmm … does the same reasoning apply to political expenditures? PACs? SuperPACs?

    Or is Thomas Mitchell’s condemnation limited to charitable donations to organizations associated with Democrats?

  11. Winston Smith says:

    DARPA, sorry, I keep forgetting which websites you consider “wingnut”. Pls provide that list again so we’ll all know which not to ever cite.

  12. It apparently now includes NYT.

  13. nyp says:

    The New York Times is not wingnut, although it occasionally gets stories wrong. Breitbart is the epitome of wingnuttary. New York Post publishes wingnut stories all the time, but they are too cynical to the thought of truly wingnut. They publish that crap for effect, but they don’t really believe it. The “Federalist”? I don’t know what that is, except that they don’t know how to read a 990.

  14. Steve says:

    Never mind,

    A REAL angry old white establishment pol has just announced for Prez 2016!

    Who might this angry old white establishment pol be?

    Why it’s

    Bernie Sanders!
    Can’t get much more old, white or angry…don’t care where your from….this is telling, real telling.

  15. Athos says:

    Winston, thanks for the good old fashion belly laugh (calling petey, DARPA)! A government mad scientist? Who’d of thunk it?

    As to BJ and that great Sec of State Hillbeast, OF COURSE THEY TOOK THE CASH$$


    That’s what they do. Cattle futures, Whitewater, Lincoln bedroom sales. Loral, and Hughs Electronic Corporation sales to China, James T. Riady, Lippo and the Utah Coal lockup, Rose Law Firm records turning up in WH, people lying to their own diaries, ad infinitum. It’s a Clinton kind of world!
    (send Hill a cigar!)

    The real tragedy is that nothing will come from this. They never seem to pay, do they? Benghazi should have been enough to send this shrill packing, but nooooooooo!

    What’s their net worth again?

  16. nyp says:

    You see, it’s all connected. It’s all of a piece.Cattle futures, the murder if Vince Foster, Mena Airport, Whitewater, WTC7 and Benghazi.
    And those military maneuvers in Texas. Gotta keep an eye on that.

  17. Winston Smith says:

    Oh yeah, I forgot about Whitewater. I’ll put it in the next version of my song. After all, when it comes to the Clintons, there’s always something to add to the list of corruption…

  18. Winston Smith says:

    Oh look, even MSNBC is questioning some of the Clintons’ decisions:

    BTW, go Bernie Sanders!

  19. nyp says:


  20. […] This from the woman who sold State Department favors to the highest foreign bidders who provided donations to her secretive foundation that gave next to nothing to charity. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s