Tag Archives: Charity Navigator

The Corruption Was Known, Visible, And Ignored

Posted on by

It is interesting to me that the Charity Navigator, supposedly a guide to the administrative costs of charities and the amount of good that they do, rates the Clinton Foundation at the Navigator’s highest rating. The rating includes accountability, tax filings, revenue and expenses, etc. The Charity Navigator gives them a 100% rating. Operation Blessing has a 99% rating, and Samaritan’s Purse has a 100% rating. However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) might not totally agree with the rating of the Clinton Foundation. It is possible that the Clinton Foundation has cleaned up its act, but the Foundation has had some questionable activities in the past.

On Sunday (updated Monday), Just the News posted an article about the Clinton Foundation.

The article reports:

A top Republican senator has provided Just the News a timeline written by FBI investigators laying out the repeated political obstruction those agents faced from their own bosses and the Justice Department during the 2016 election and beyond as they probed whether Hillary Clinton engaged in a pay-to-play corruption scheme involving her family foundation.

“Field agents were frustrated. But HQ would not let it go forward,” the newly-released and lengthy investigative timeline reveals. “We were trying to explore the [Clinton] Foundation, and we were told ‘NO’ by FBI HQ.”

…This follows Patel (FBI Director Kash Patel) unearthing a shorter timeline, written in 2017, which also chronicled the extensive stonewalling that bureau investigators in three cities faced from the Obama-era DOJ and FBI during the 2016 election.

FBI agents tried to get the help of federal prosecutors to determine whether or what crimes occurred while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, most notably, because at that time, her family foundation solicited hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign and U.S. interests with business before her department.

“Shut it down!” then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is quoted as demanding in the shorter timeline of the politicized barriers that agents in New York City, Little Rock, Ark., and Washington D.C. reported. 

The shorter timeline — written by a DOJ lawyer assigned to the FBI under former bureau Director James Comey — was secured by top aides to Patel and was obtained by Just the News earlier this year. The newly-released and longer timeline was handed over to Grassley’s office by the FBI along with a host of corroborating internal emails and was recently provided to Just the News.

The article concludes:

But John Durham’s 2023 special counsel report said that his appointment order by then-Attorney General Barr did not include the Uranium One saga within its scope, with the Durham report stating that “we have not interpreted the Order as directing us to consider matters addressed by the former United States Attorney for the District of Utah.”

The differences in how the Justice Department and FBI handled cases related to Clinton and Trump were stark — publicly exonerating Clinton for her mishandling of classified information when using a private email server as Secretary of State and not even allowing the Clinton Foundation investigation to get off the ground, while at the same time launching a sprawling inquiry into the Trump campaign and the candidate (and then the president) himself on the now-proven-false pretext of Russian collusion.

Special Counsel Durham later pointed out that “the immediate opening of Crossfire Hurricane as a full investigation contrasts with the care taken in connection with the investigation of the Clinton Foundation and other matters.”

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is long, but worth it. Meanwhile, I am still waiting for the orange jump suits. Will anyone ever be held accountable for government corruption?

I Don’t Like Federal Regulations, But…

Posted on by

America ideally is a land of equal opportunity. To some extent that is true, but there are some people who abuse their position and take advantage of the generosity of the American people. A story posted in The Boston Herald yesterday illustrates how a charity can be used for personal gain–I am not talking about the Clinton Foundation, but the Clinton Foundation might have gotten a few ideas from what I am about to share.

The article reports:

Do you know how much money Joe Kennedy, the former congressman, is now making at his “nonprofit”?

According to the most recent documents, his “public charity” has filed with the state attorney general, in 2016 Kennedy pocketed a total of $824,929 — $109,336 from Citizens Energy and $715,703 from “related organizations.”

His second wife, Beth, grabbed another $316,573 — $55,222 from Citizens Energy and $261,351 from those “related organizations.”

…Kerry Kennedy, got back into the news recently.

… like her older brother, Kerry, too, is fabulously well-to-do thanks to a family “nonprofit.”

The Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights foundation pays her $352,298 a year, including a $70,000 “bonus.”

…Reading the stories about Kerry’s big payday reminded me of Joe K. And it’s not only him and the second missus who are getting rich off the Citizens Energy gig —  I mean, nonprofit.

According to the public filing, CE’s CEO, one Peter Smith, made $627,983 in 2016. The chief financial officer, Ernest Panos, pocketed $447,260. Joe’s flack in his congressional office —  Brian O’Connor —  now makes $240,962 a year at Citizens Energy.

Charity Navigator, a somewhat reliable source for rating charities, does not rate Citizens Energy Corp because Charity Navigator only rates organizations that are classified as 501(c)(3) and able to accept tax-deductible donations. Citizens Energy Corp is classified as a 501(c)(4). However, just as a point of reference, Charity Navigator does rate the Clinton Foundation as 92.40 out of 100. I find that somewhat questionable.

It seems to me that there are people making large amounts of money due to the generosity of the American people. The government should not be in the business of determining the wages of anyone, but it seems to me that those running non-profit organizations should be paid salaries more in line with the average American. Helping people in need should not be a million-dollar-a-year job. I suspect the only way to deal with this problem is for the American people to pay more attention to the charities they support. More transparency from charities would also be helpful. Americans are a very generous people. It is unfortunate that there are those among us who are taking advantage of that generosity.

Pay For Play

Posted on by

The Associated Press posted a story today about the link between donations to the Clinton Foundation and State Department appointments given to people outside of the U.S. Government.

The article reports:

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money – either personally or through companies or groups – to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

When you go to the Charity Navigator that rates charities according to how much money they spend on administrative costs and how much money goes to their various causes and you look up the Clinton Foundation, this is what you find:

Why isn’t this organization rated?

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

Loosely translated that means, “We are not willing to take a stand.” I suspect they have seen what happens to people who take a stand to oppose or reveal anything the Clintons are doing.

The Associated Press article continues:

Some of Clinton’s most influential visitors donated millions to the Clinton Foundation and to her and her husband’s political coffers. They are among scores of Clinton visitors and phone contacts in her official calendar turned over by the State Department to AP last year and in more-detailed planning schedules that so far have covered about half her four-year tenure. The AP sought Clinton’s calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.

S. Daniel Abraham, whose name also was included in emails released by the State Department as part of another lawsuit, is a Clinton fundraising bundler who was listed in Clinton’s planners for eight meetings with her at various times. A billionaire behind the Slim-Fast diet and founder of the Center for Middle East Peace, Abraham told the AP last year his talks with Clinton concerned Mideast issues.

Big Clinton Foundation donors with no history of political giving to the Clintons also met or talked by phone with Hillary Clinton and top aides, AP’s review showed.

Some of the people who have been screaming for years that they wanted to ‘take the money out of politics’ should take a really good look at this. The Clinton family has become one of the most advanced crime syndicates since the Mafia. They need to be investigated.

 

Follow The Money

Posted on by

This article is based on an article posted in the Malaysia Chronicle on Tuesday. The article deals with the 1MDB Scandal.

The article reports:

Donation is the buzzword for this year, both in the United States as well as Malaysia, but serving different purpose. In US, as temperature rises in the wake of Clinton-vs-Trump for the presidential general election this coming November, hundreds of millions of dollars are being pumped into campaigns to influence American voters.

In the case of Malaysia, Saudi Arabia’s claim that it had donated US$681 million to Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, is now busted. The press conference held by the U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and US Department of Justice last week has not only exposed that money was stolen from 1MDB, but also proved that the Saudi had lied about its donation.

The article speculates that the money will be given to the Clinton Foundation or the Clinton Campaign so that when the Department of Justice investigates, Razak will get a favorable result. Whether or not that happens, the chart below tells us a lot about the money flowing into the Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation.

ClintonFoundationDonationsThese numbers are somewhat alarming when you consider that only 9 or 10 percent of the money donated to the Clinton Foundation actually goes to help those the foundation is claiming to help. Charity Navigator placed the Clinton Foundation on a watch list.

Breitbart reported in April of last year:

“Charity Navigator, who we have on the show all the time, placed the Clinton Foundation on a watch list,” she ( Fox Business Network’s “The Willis Report,” host Gerri Willis) continued. “They think there are problems with this non-profit.” She added, “Any Democrat—they say what a wonderful charitable organization it is doing to help people in need, people who are hungry, people who have AIDS. Listen, 6 percent of the money it collected in 2013, 6 percent — $9 million, of the $140 million in total it collected, went to help people.”

There are a whole lot of things going on with the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton campaign that are downright scary.

 

The Clintons Seem To Have A Hard Time Playing By The Rules

Posted on by

Today’s Washington Examiner posted a story about a Congressional request for the documents related to ethics office discussions with the Clinton Foundation and both Clintons about speech fee disclosures made since Dec. 2008, when Clinton struck a deal with the White House just before becoming secretary of state. The article explains that the deal imposed stricter reporting requirements on Bill Clinton and the family’s foundation given Hillary Clinton’s impending position as the nation’s chief diplomat.

The article reports:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz pressed the Office of Government Ethics last week for an explanation of its decision to exempt Clinton from laws compelling public officials to disclose all forms of income.

“Earlier this year, press reports indicated that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband failed to disclose millions of dollars in paid speeches over the past thirteen years under the belief they did not have a duty to report that because the speeches were delivered on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and not in the Secretary’s or the President’s personal capacity,” Chaffetz wrote.

The Utah Republican cited “at least five speeches” for which Clinton routed her speaking fee to the philanthropy between 2014 and 2015. She did not list that income on her disclosure form as the law typically requires.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have amassed a tremendous amount of money since leaving the White House. A lot of that money has been channeled through the Clinton Foundation, which the Charity Navigator refused to rate because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.” The Federalist posted an article in April pointing out that the Clinton Foundation actually spends approximately 10 percent of its donations on charity.

It is time to examine closely the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons’ sources of income. Hopefully, Congress will not be blocked in this investigation.

Would You Give To Any Charity That Gave So Little To The People It Was Claiming To Help?

Posted on by

The Clinton Foundation has been in the news a lot lately. There are some real questions as to what some of the donations actually bought or why they were given. Now there are some real questions as to how wisely the money was spent.

Yesterday Breitbart.com posted an article about the expenditures of the Clinton Foundation. The article reports:

“Charity Navigator, who we have on the show all the time, placed the Clinton Foundation on a watch list,” she ( Fox Business Network’s “The Willis Report,” host Gerri Willis) continued. “They think there are problems with this non-profit.” She added, “Any Democrat—they say what a wonderful charitable organization it is doing to help people in need, people who are hungry, people who have AIDS. Listen, 6 percent of the money it collected in 2013, 6 percent — $9 million, of the $140 million in total it collected, went to help people.”

Washington Free Beacon’s Liz Harrington weighed in saying, “The numbers just don’t add up. One of the biggest offenses of the Clinton Foundation came out yesterday — 88 percentof the their expenditures go directly to their charitable programs. That is just simply not true. As you mentioned, they raked in $140 million. They only spent nine million on direct aid. Most of their money goes towards salaries, bonuses, to close friends, folks tied to the Clinton campaign.”

Willis read the $140 million 2013 spending breakdown from the New York Post, saying, “Here is a list of foundation spending—where the money goes: $30 million on payroll expenses, $9.2 to conferences and meetings, fundraising — $8 million. Nearly $8.5 million on travel.”

Unfortunately this problem is not unique to the Clinton Foundation. It is a good idea to do some research before you give to any organization in order to find out how much of your gift will actually be spent on the mission of the organization. Charity Navigator rates charities according to their financial transparency and overhead. For example, Goodwill Industries of Greater New York and Northern New Jersey is rated at 89.62, the American Red Cross is rated at 85.25, and Operation Blessing is rated at 92.12. The Charity Navigator has placed the Clinton Foundation on a watch list. That says it all.