The Clinton Foundation, financial troubles.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by CoinBlazer, Nov 21, 2019.

  1. CoinBlazer

    CoinBlazer de omnibus dubitandum

    Government Accountability Institute president Peter Schweizer said on Wednesday that the Clinton Foundation, founded by former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is losing revenue due to a lack of donations.

    “All that money has now dried up, literally,” Schweizer told “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” “The Clinton Foundation has had a hard time raising money because they don’t have the influence to sell. They don’t have power access to sell and that, I think, is the primary evidence for what the Clinton enterprise was all about."

    “The Clinton Foundation literally raised 10 percent of what it did in 2009 when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state," Schweizer added, "and the international numbers are even worse." The foundation posted its third straight year of losses following Hillary Clinton's defeat in the 2016 presidential election, according to 2018 tax documents. The foundation lost $16.8 million on revenue of $30.7 million in 2018, according to the documents. It has posted roughly $16 million in losses every year since 2015, when it had roughly $116 million in revenue.

    Clinton Foundation spokesman Brian Cookstra pushed back against media reports implying that the foundation is struggling.

    "These reports are not accurate. Our entire 990 shows our work was fully funded by donations, grants, savings from prior years, and interest from our endowment," Cookstra told Fox Business. "In the last year, the Clinton Foundation's programs have grown to help more people, and we are committed to operating programs that are effective, efficient, and sustainable."
    JohnHamilton likes this.
  2. Mopar Dude

    Mopar Dude Well-Known Member

    If my little company could post 116 million in revenue for just one year..... We would be set the next twenty. Apparently I need to be selling influence rather than construction materials.
    JohnHamilton likes this.
  3. CoinBlazer

    CoinBlazer de omnibus dubitandum

    I'll give you $5 if you tell people how awesome I am. :)
    JohnHamilton and Mopar Dude like this.
  4. Mopar Dude

    Mopar Dude Well-Known Member

    Coinblazer is awesome!!..... I will PM my address so you can square up....
  5. JoeNation

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    Oh Fox News. You are so full of it...
  6. JoeNation

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    Now if you'd like to talk about actual fraud.

    The final chapter: Judge's ruling that Donald Trump must pay $2 million to charities ends troubled foundation's saga
    Michael CollinsDennis WagnerKevin McCoy

    that President Donald Trump must pay $2 million to charity appears to be the final chapter in the saga of Trump’s troubled charitable foundation.

    State Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla of Manhattan ruled on Thursday that Trump pay $2 million in damages to various nonprofit groups to settle allegations that he and his family used the Trump Foundation to further his political and business interests.

    Though Trump admitted the misconduct in court documents, he issued a defiant statement in which he accused New York’s attorney general of mischaracterizing the settlement process for political purposes. Trump claimed he had been attacked by “political hacks in New York State.”

    Here’s a closer look at the ruling and the foundation’s legal troubles:


    What was the lawsuit about?
    The lawsuit, filed last year by then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, outlined a wide array of mismanagement by Trump and his three eldest children.

    Chief among them: allowing Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to orchestrate a televised fundraiser in Des Moines, Iowa, for the foundation, which then distributed $2.8 million to veterans’ charities that were also chosen by the campaign.

    prohibited by New York law from supporting political candidates or campaigns.

    Trump staged the fundraiser on Jan. 28, 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, rather than participate in a Republican presidential debate.

    According to the lawsuit, Trump's campaign staff, not the foundation, chose the veterans' groups that would get the money. That violated New York's charity laws.

    The Attorney General's Office and the Trump Foundation reached an agreement last year to dissolve the foundation and distribute its remaining $1.8 million in assets to a variety of charities, including the Army Relief Fund and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
  7. JoeNation

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    I guess we could also talk about Trump University. I think that was a 25 million dollar fraud settlement.
  8. Mopar Dude

    Mopar Dude Well-Known Member

    Joe, it isn't necessary to defend democratic shenanigans with Trump shenanigans. Hell, they are all crooked as the day is long. One has nothing to do with the other. Politicians are what they are.
    CoinBlazer likes this.
  9. CoinBlazer

    CoinBlazer de omnibus dubitandum

    I'm sure you meant pay up, not square up lol
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  10. JoeNation

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    Except that the Democrats, Hillary and Bill Clinton in this case, haven't actually be charged with any "shenanigans". It's all innuendo. If you can point to a specific illegal act committed, investigated, and litigated into the Clinton Foundation, I'll buy the "everyone of them is guilty" argument. Fox innuendo is not the same as Trump's corrupt foundation. There is no equivalency here. None.
  11. Mopar Dude

    Mopar Dude Well-Known Member

    Well, the thread was about the foundation losing contributions since Hillary's fall from grace. It wasn't about fraudulent dealings until you interjected that. No, Mrs. Clinton has not been investigated and litigated because our current sitting president gave her a pass. Destroying emails and personal servers reeks of corruption.... However that isn't what the thread is about either.
  12. JoeNation

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    I understand the innuendo perfectly. I'm unsure what Hillary's "fall from grace" refers to. The Fox innuendo IS about the Clinton Foundation being in some way fraudulent. The innuendo never quite spells out how it is fraudulent though.

    Trump has repeatedly called for investigations of Hillary Clinton and specifically the Clinton Foundation through multiple FBI directors. The problem is that the president doesn't have the power to do investigations, only the Justice Department can do that. They have and found zero evidence of wrongdoing. So much for Trump giving her a pass.

    That old conspiracy theory was also investigated in relation to Benghazi. Nine separate investigations ala the Republicans. Again, no criminal charges ever made.
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2019
  13. Mopar Dude

    Mopar Dude Well-Known Member

    OK.... But here's the rub with me. I did see a piece earlier in the week where a North Carolina republican congressman's son was holding a conservative symposium of some kind on a college campus. There was a liberal stand on campus to ban the symposium and the young man was spray painted in the face for his efforts. I have seen the hooded protestors at Berkeley violently preventing conservative speakers from speaking on campus. I could cite other examples, but what I am getting at is this..... Coinblazer made what looks to me to be a somewhat innocuous post about the Clinton Foundation losing money. You engaged by putting on the proverbial boxing gloves and finding Trump smear to respond with. I do understand that your feelings like other liberal folks are strong or even vile when it comes to the president. What I don't understand is the lashing out that seems to be emanating from the lefts position..... I wish I had the time in my life to devote to keeping up with current news. I don't. But I do seem to sense a disturbing trend here. I didn't care for our former president. The man cost me a great deal of money. But I certainly don't remember the violent actions toward the left during the previous eight years. To this old boy it all appears quite irrational.
    SmalltownMN and JohnHamilton like this.

Share This Page