Clinton Foundation Spent Less Than 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014

a reply to: Xcathdra
Your source is obsolete.
What part of obsolete do you not understand.
www.charitynavigator.org...

a reply to: Phage

Maybe if you read the article you would have seen the 2016 update. By all means though feel free to ignore the article while continuing to act like you normally do.

Reinstated after they were pressured to do so.

Or is there something in the article you dont understand and need explained to you?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Reinstated after they were pressured to do so.

Bull#. Your source said that Charity Navigator is reliable and Charity Watch isn't. Remember? Now it isn't? Because it is satisfied with the Foundation's accounting practices?

Charity Navigator is much larger and older than Charity Watch.

www.dailywire.com...

a reply to: Phage

So you still have not bothered to read the article. When you do get back to me.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Which one? You posted several.
Can you read a financial statement?

a reply to: Phage

Then you didnt read it.. Either that or you didnt understand it. Is there something I can explain to you to help you understand it?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Which one? You posted several.

a reply to: Phage

and you apparently didnt read or you didnt understand any of them so I will ask again is there something I can explain to you that you are not understanding from the articles?

a reply to: Xcathdra
You posted several. Most of them obsolete.
Which one is current? Simple question.

a reply to: Phage

Read the links I gave.. Secondly if your going to tell me something is out of date, even after I tell you there is an update, you should know which article im talking about. Even more so after constantly telling me the article / info is BS.

Labeling something as BS when you didnt bother to read it / understand it is telling but not surprising. Like I said before, spend less time on the snark and your superiority complex and more time reading what people type and post and we wouldn't need half a page of you telling me something is bs and then telling me you dont know which article is being referred to.

If you dont know then how can you claim its bs.

Read the articles and get back to me.

This is what the Better Business Bureaus charity watch said about the clinton foundation.

And its not good

www.give.org...

a reply to: Xcathdra

Read the articles and get back to me.

I read them.
Which one is current by your standards?

a reply to: Phage

The one with the 2016 update.

a reply to: ANNED

And its not good

Really?
Out of 20 standards it missed on three. That's "not good?"

Clinton Foundation / aka Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation meets the remaining 17 Standards for Charity Accountability.

Program Expenses

Program Service Expense Ratio: Standard 8

Description
Spend at least 65% of its total expenses on program activities.

The organization meets this standard.

Truthful Materials

Misleading Appeals: Standard 15

Description
Have solicitations and informational materials, distributed by any means, that are accurate, truthful and not misleading, both in whole and in part. Appeals that omit a clear description of program(s) for which contributions are sought will not meet this standard. A charity should also be able to substantiate that the timing and nature of its expenditures are in accordance with what is stated, expressed, or implied in the charity's solicitations.

The organization meets this standard.

www.give.org...

a reply to: Xcathdra

The one that says that the foundation consolidated its tax forms as Charity Navigator requested? That one? From Snopes?
What do you think that means? Do you think it means that the foundation lied on it tax forms? Or do you understand that Charity Navigator wanted a clearer format to be presented to it?

a reply to: Phage

Well the foundation did lie / lie by omission on its tax forms. If they didnt they wouldnt have to go back and refile them.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well the foundation did lie / lie by omission on its tax forms. If they didnt they wouldnt have to go back and refile them.

Please provide evidence that the foundation refiled its tax returns.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well the foundation did lie / lie by omission on its tax forms. If they didnt they wouldnt have to go back and refile them.

Please provide evidence that the foundation refiled its tax returns.

wow... ok

* - Huffpost - Clinton Charities Refile 6 Years Of Tax Returns To Amend Errors
* - Breitbart - Clinton Foundation Amends Tax Returns, Discloses Millions In Foreign Contributions
* - Politico -
Clinton Foundation refiles tax returns - It is correcting errors that came to light during Hillary Clinton's campaign.
* - Forbe s - Clinton Foundation Amends 4 Years Taxes, Admits Speech Fees Weren't Donations
* - Reuters - Exclusive: Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audit for other errors
* - WND - Clinton Foundation refiles 'fraudulent financials' with IRS
* - NBC - Clinton Foundation Admits 'Mistakes' in Tax Returns

This is nothing new...

I am a bit surprised you are unaware of the issues with the Clinton Foundation. Especially after defending it the way you did. Or do you ignore negative information if it runs contrary to something you support?

a reply to: Xcathdra
Thanks.
So, did the refiling show any substantive irregularities? Any penalties or fees assessed?
And what does this have to do with their rating by Charity Navigator?

Especially after defending it the way you did.

Did I give the impression I was defending anything? I saw you providing obsolete criticism of the foundation's ratings with charity "watchdogs" and pointed that out.

a reply to: Phage

Well the Clinton foundation is currently being investigated by the IRS so we shall see.

The refiling of the taxes and non transparency in executive pay were listed as reasons for being placed on the CN watch list. They were only removed from the list and given 4 stars after being pressured.