Trump gave 100k to Clinton foundation

[cooltigger21 0]

Oh you gotta love the irony in this one. He's a brilliant businessman but I wish he'd stick to that. When it comes to politics he sounds ridiculous. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/242088-trump-gave-at-least-100k-to-clinton-foundation

[cptau 169]

Trump is just a publicity hound. Most business executives avoid personal publicity at all cost. This guy seeks it out.

He needs to go back to whatever he does to make money.

[WarTim 3,456]

Who cares? He is not even a factor?

[cooltigger21 0]

Who cares? He is not even a factor?

Ordinarily I wouldn't care but he's been so bombastic about Hillary and all of her stuff and then he goes off and gives them money.

[AUDub 11,147]

Phht. 100 large? That's barely walking around money.

[autigeremt 6,598]

Phht. 100 large? That's barely walking around money.

He has more than that hidden up there under his hair....

[InfernoOrangeSS 321]

Who cares? He is not even a factor?

Ordinarily I wouldn't care but he's been so bombastic about Hillary and all of her stuff and then he goes off and gives them money.

It does reek of hypocracy.

He's just a publicly hound. He'll never actually run. He just likes to hint about it every election cycle so he can get his name/face out there.

[DKW 86 7,419]

If these brainiacs cant do any better research on the charities they fund, then they do not need to be giving opinions on anything, and they SURE DONT NEED TO RUN FOR OFFICE.

What was the effective rate for the CF? 10% or less?

[JoeBags7277 734]

Well, that should ruin his (clears throat)... chance... at the GOP nomination. :-\

[AURaptor 1,122]

Which news company is Trump an anchor for now?

[aujeff11 6,243]

Given the amount of money Trump has, giving 100,000 could be a gesture of spite. I know that sounds weird..

[AURaptor 1,122]

Given the amount of money Trump has, giving 100,000 could be a gesture of spite. I know that sounds weird..

ha-ha... I think you're onto something.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

If these brainiacs cant do any better research on the charities they fund, then they do not need to be giving opinions on anything, and they SURE DONT NEED TO RUN FOR OFFICE.

What was the effective rate for the CF? 10% or less?

The opposite:

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

[DKW 86 7,419]

If these brainiacs cant do any better research on the charities they fund, then they do not need to be giving opinions on anything, and they SURE DONT NEED TO RUN FOR OFFICE.

What was the effective rate for the CF? 10% or less?

The opposite: <DKW: :lmao: :lmao: ...yes, i am mocking you.>

https://www.charityw...-foundation/478

Untrue: According to its own tax filings, CF gave only 9.9% to actual charitable recipients...

http://www.nationalr...ys-david-french

Over at The Federalist, Sean Davis has a must-read report about the Clinton Foundation’s extraordinary stinginess with grants. The Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its 2013 expenditures “go directly” to its alleged “life-changing work.” Not really, says Davis, who took a close look at the numbers and discovered something else entirely: There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim. He continues: If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants. It looks like the Foundation — which once did a large amount of direct charitable work — now exists mainly to fund salaries, travel, and conferences: While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt. None of this is surprising. In fact, it’s rather common for less-ethical charities to claim that all expenses for salaries, travel, and conferences are “program expenses” because employees are “speaking out” or — to use a favorite activist term — “fighting for” their causes. While most of the coverage of the Clinton Foundation focuses on the ethical challenges as a political problem for Hillary Clinton, the more meaningful story is the hundreds of millions of dollars of wasted charitable donations — money that spent wisely could have brought much greater real benefit to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens. The large donors, however, likely weren’t deceived. They knew the Foundation was pay-to-play, and their own concern for the poor likely exactly matched that of the Foundation they were so lavishly funding.

Read more at: http://www.nationalr...ys-david-french

The BBB and other Charity Rating services are, AT THIS MINUTE, reviewing their ratings for CF over this article.

Watchdog simply uses the charity's own numbers. It does not do research apparently.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Bump. Have to hear what the sewing circle has to say to reality/facts/stuff.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

"Through 2014 the foundation had raised almost $2 billion from U.S. corporations especially Wall Street; foreign governments and corporations; political donors; and various other moneyed interests.^[2] During its lifetime the foundation has received praise from philanthropic experts and has had support from both Democrats and Republicans, with the latter including members of the George W. Bush administration.^[2] Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead keeps most of its money in house and hires staff to carry out its own humanitarian programs.^[5] Because of this unusual structure for a foundation, Charity Navigator, a charity watchdog, has said it does not have a methodology to rate the Clinton Foundation.^[5] Nonetheless, they added the foundation to their charity "watch list" (an action the foundation has said is unwarranted, for which Charity Navigator disagrees, stating the Clinton Foundation needs to publicly address the revelations made by reliably-sourced media outlets if they ever want off the CN Watchlist"

Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.

There is a very interesting relationship that exists between many "foundations". That is specifically, "charitable grants" given to one another. I'm not sure how you go about reconciling those.