96 Percent Of Hillary’s Charitable Donations In 2015 Went To Clinton Foundation

Hell, you can also watch it on YouTube.

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
a reply to: introvert

Ah very true messir. But, an actual charitable organization (not just one in name) typically spend 75-90% on CHARITY and the rest on administration (which is why most rely on volunteers), not the other way around as is the case for the Clintons.

The CF is not just a charity. It is an operational foundation that does it's own legwork. That being said, their costs would be higher for salaries and costs when other charities simply give the money to the people that do the work.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: JDeLattre89

It is true that the CF does not give out much of it's funds to charity. The CF is an operational foundation. That means they carry out much of the work themselves all across the globe. The expenses for salaries, travel and operational costs also include the costs incurred while carrying out their efforts. Those costs and salaries are not just for CF administration.

Just call it what it is... a tax dodge and slush fund.

a reply to: Edumakated

It does not appear to be a slush fund. It appears they are a 'boots on the ground' foundation that does the charity work themselves and does not simply give money away and hope something gets done.

a reply to: Subsonic

They also have the Clinton Global Initiative. All their operations are one big shell game of moving money around.
Most leaders of charities at least get on the ground sometimes and pumps some fresh water or something. Ever see them do that stuff? Hell no. They have been running these charities for almost 20 years and I have yet to see a picture of them going shake hands with poor people or anything. Complete joke and scam. Look at Audrey Hepburn, now that was a real charity. Even some of George Clooney's stuff he got on the ground. I honestly don't know how they can live with themselves morally. I think it just takes a certain kind of person who lacks empathy or compassion for others. Only way I can explain it. That part of their brains is either not there or broken.

So what? At least they released their tax returns so we could see that. So when will the orange messiah release his tax returns so we can see how much he donates to his own slush fund I mean Trump charities.

Lol.

Enter the Clinton shills.

Don't let them control the dialogue, guys. They are only here to distort, deflect and, if necessary, lie through their teeth.

Resist the temptation to engage them.

It is not really a slush fund because most of the money do not go to the clintons themselves (Hillary, Bill, & Chelsea), but rather to their close friends. Although, in 2013 the clintons benefited from $8M worth of travel from the funds. But compared to other reputable charities, they do almost no real leg work.

For better numbers check this New York Post article

Although, they did call it a slush fund.

originally posted by: buster2010
So what? At least they released their tax returns so we could see that. So when will the orange messiah release his tax returns so we can see how much he donates to his own slush fund I mean Trump charities.

Probable the same time Obama shows us his college transcripts or his application papers.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
Is this illegal? Can an individual not donate to their own charity? Where exactly is the problem; or did you only wish to shine light on the Clinton's altruism?

I'm actually surprised they donated any money to other charities; if it were me, then ALL of my charitable contributions would go to my own foundation.

If you give money to yourself, did you actually give any money since ownership never changed.

a reply to: xuenchen

This should be enough evidence to show that the Clintons care not for their religion, education or where they originated from but more having to do with their political agenda.

I'm sure that if you determine how the Clintons are affiliated with the First Methodist United Church, you will see that there donations are not arbitrary to the kindness at heart, but more so dealing with "influence".

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I don't believe that is a stipulation for Us charities. Only Canada and the UK, I believe.

No wonder you have problems then with criminal politicians. Good luck with that, maybe someone could clarify the law?

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: kruphix


Yeah sure, you had a charity... LOL

a reply to: LifeMode

They are all corrupt, most politicians are corrupt, egocentric and liars. That´s how they crawl up their way inside the party. there is no other way, its the system.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: xuenchen

Is there something illegal about that?

If I had my own charity organization where I knew what causes the money donated to it was being used for, I would donate my own money to that charity as well.

This seems very desperate.

Because the Clinton Foundation is essentially a money laundering scheme to put cash back in the pockets of the Clintons.

In 2013, less than 10% of the Foundation's outgoings were actually distributed to charitable causes. The rest went on... well, the Clintons and their cronies.

To paraphrase the following link, it's basically becomes a bloated, tax-exempt travel agency for the Clintons.

The Clinton Foundation Scam

There was a raid the other day involved unions using pension funds for Hillary,was excited till I found out the FBI was involved the truckload of documents is probably being shredded as we speak.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Somebody has to pay Chelsea's outrageous salary at the foundation.

It's not cheap living like a billionaire in NYC and rubbing elbows with the Trumps.

Don't forget that Chelsea's Hubby, a former Goldman-Sucks™ flunkie, lost close to 90% of His portfolio and I'm guessing they'll need the $$$ to get Chelsea into Congress and then " 'Merica, The country formerly known as "America" but We had to sell the A to China, 'Merica's very first Queen and She will reign until death and then one of her progenies will then take over...

Xue- You've been keeping an eye on this Clinton Cabal any sign of the $6B w/a B, that went "missing" while Mrs. Clinton was the Head of State? I refer You to these:

www.activistpost.com...
www.washingtontimes.com...

I ask that You alert Us at ATS™ when this large sum of $$$ is "found".. This was about the same timeframe as the e-mails so it might have gotten lost in the shuffle, either that OR the e-mails were the diversion???

I'm thinking the e-mails are "explainable" (We are dealing with a psychopath) but there is no excuse for "losing" $6 Billion dollars unless the State dep't. is back to buying $45k hammers and $13k toilet seats, although they could now triple charge for North Carolina but I read that Google™ purchased the naming rights for the public restrooms and the signs will now read "Men" "Women" and "Feeling Lucky"...

Carry on...

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: xuenchen

Is there something illegal about that?

If I had my own charity organization where I knew what causes the money donated to it was being used for, I would donate my own money to that charity as well.

This seems very desperate.

Does it? Do you even get it? Clinton gives to her own charity that has hired her daughter at an inflated salary and gets a tax deduction for it and you think that is okay? She's taken money out of one pocket, laundered it through her charity for a deduction, and put it in her other pocket. And you don't see anything WRONG with that? What's wrong with you?

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
If you give money to yourself, did you actually give any money since ownership never changed.

The taxation is on the money as income, not as a donation.

Ownership changed when they received money as income, and, like all income, should be taxed.

However, rather than paying taxes on that income, they "donate it" to a "charity"... The Clinton Foundation.

This "donated income" is not taxed, and they funnel it right back into their pockets.

They've basically laundered their taxable income into nontaxable income.

To be honest, I don't know if it's illegal, but it sure sounds shady and is exactly the type of behavior I'd expect from that family.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: xuenchen

Is there something illegal about that?

If I had my own charity organization where I knew what causes the money donated to it was being used for, I would donate my own money to that charity as well.

This seems very desperate.

Does it? Do you even get it? Clinton gives to her own charity that has hired her daughter at an inflated salary and gets a tax deduction for it and you think that is okay? She's taken money out of one pocket, laundered it through her charity for a deduction, and put it in her other pocket. And you don't see anything WRONG with that? What's wrong with you?

Is it illegal?

Simple question that all the Clinton haters seem to be ignoring.