Clinton Foundation Only Spends 6% On Charity

Not a scandal at all:

If you actually look at the numbers of their filings and 990s, that’s what it indicates. Now, what the Clinton Foundation will say is, “Yes, we take in $200 million, let’s say, and we only take $12 million of that and give it to charitable groups like Doctors Without Borders, and the Red Cross, et cetera.” But what they’ll say is, the remaining 94 percent goes for all these charitable activities that we are doing,

The problem is, when you start drilling down on what, precisely, those charitable activities are, and what they have to show for it, it gets really, really fuzzy and hazy. So you’ll have some charities like Doctors Without Borders will say, “We immunized 100,000 kids last year.” And you can look at that. That’s a very clear metric. Okay, here’s where they did it. They were in sub-Saharan Africa. They had all these doctors.

The Clinton Foundation will say, “We assisted or facilitated in 100,000 kids getting immunizations.” Well, okay, what does that mean? And they don’t really tell you. They don’t really explain to you how it works.

So the number is absolutely correct, that six percent goes to other charities. The other 94 percent is in this stew of marketing, and management, and travel expenses, and sort of all these obscure things, that it’s really hard to dissect what is the end result of that 94 percent being spent.

The Clinton Foundation has $372 million in assets, along with $102 million in government grants it receives, on top of their regular contributions of around $200 million. And according to this, nobody knows where any of it is going, beyond some small contributions to other known charities that disclose their spending.

What this says to me is that there is an incredible level of corruption out there. Charity Navigator’s whole purpose is to rate charitable foundations. They previously stated that they do not rate the Clinton Foundation because it’s model is atypical.

Atypical. As in it took hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign countries and entities with interests before the State Department where Hillary worked, and converted them into overhead often spent on the Clintons, with almost no records available of how that worked, beyond general assertions. That is very atypical.

Now I just checked, and it has four stars, rating near the top in transparency and accountability. What is wrong with this picture?

That did not happen by accident. If I set up a foundation, and I put 6% of the monies received to charity, and the rest went to unknown expenses, Charity Navigator would not say my model was atypical nor would it five me four stars – it would have given me zero stars.

What I want to know is how that happened. What caused them to decline to rate the Clinton Foundation, and then reverse themselves. Was it simply an SJW who got in a position of power and made the call, or was it something more nefarious, like intimidation by PIs and threats of government action against their organization?