Type to search

Scandal? Knowing Zero About Clinton Foundation, Indignant Pundits Blather

Editor's Blog Featured Post Politics

Scandal? Knowing Zero About Clinton Foundation, Indignant Pundits Blather


A very strange thing has happened to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Suddenly, journalists who never paid the least attention to the foundation’s work over the past decade or so — and seemed content to let the Clintons and their associates try to do some good in the world — proclaim their concern about its finances, transparency and efficiency. Commentators with very little knowledge of any of the foundation’s programs, who are indeed unable to distinguish the Clinton Global Initiative from the Clinton Health Access Initiative, confidently denounce the entire operation as suspect.

What provoked this frenzy of ignorance and indignation, of course, is the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton for President of the United States. Partisan adversaries of the former Secretary of State have been working overtime, subsidized by millions of dollars in Republican “dark money,” to construct a conspiratorial narrative that transforms her husband’s good works into dirty deals. (Transparency is evidently required of the Clintons, but not of their critics.)

The main product of that effort, delivered by media mogul Rupert Murdoch amid a din of promotion in mainstream and right-wing media, is of course Clinton Cash, authored by a former Bush speechwriter named Peter Schweizer.

Compressing lengthy timelines, blurring important distinctions, and sometimes simply inventing false “facts,” Schweizer has attempted to transform the Clinton Foundation from an innovative, successful humanitarian organization into a sham institution that sells public favors for private gain.

While many of Schweizer’s most glaring accusations have been thoroughly debunked already — notably concerning the uranium-mining firm once partly owned by a major foundation donor — amplified echoes of his “corruption” meme are damaging nevertheless. Various media figures who have long hated the Clintons, from Rush Limbaugh to David Frum, feel liberated to utter any outrageous accusation, however distorted or dishonest.

But as so often has proved true when such individuals start screaming “scandal” and “Clinton” in the same breath, the sane response is to take a deep breath, suspend judgment and examine relevant facts.

Appearing on a recent National Public Radio broadcast with me, Frum asserted that the foundation spends far too much on air travel and other expenses. The same philanthropic impact could have been achieved, said Frum, if Bill Clinton had merely “joined the International Red Cross” after leaving the White House.

While Frum doesn’t know what he’s talking about, that won’t stop him chattering for a second. Among the significant achievements of the Clinton Foundation was to build a system that has drastically reduced the cost of providing treatment for AIDS and other diseases across Africa, the Caribbean and in other less-developed countries, saving and improving millions of lives. Bringing together major donors, including wealthy nations like Norway, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the leaders of poor nations to create these programs, he helped turn back a disease that once threatened to infect 100 million people globally. That effort required many hours of air travel by him and his aides — and many visits to extremely uncomfortable, and sometimes dangerous, places in which Frum will never set an expensively shod foot.

Like Limbaugh, Frum has claimed that the Clinton Foundation wastes enormous resources while concealing its donors and expenditures from a gullible public. The truth, attested by expert authorities on nonprofit and charitable organizations, is that the foundation spends (and raises) its funds with commendable efficiency — and it has posted far more detailed information, including the names of 300,000-plus donors, than federal tax law requires.

Did the foundation’s staff commit errors during the past 15 years or so? Undoubtedly. Could its operations be more efficient, more effective, more transparent? Of course — but its record is outstanding and its activities have done more good for more people than Frum, Limbaugh, Schweizer, the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch would achieve in 10,000 lifetimes.

Why don’t these furious critics care about basic facts? It may be unfair to assume that in pursuit of their political agenda, they are indifferent to millions of Africans dying of HIV or malaria. Yet they do seem perfectly willing to hinder an important and useful effort against human suffering.

When you hear loud braying about the Clinton Foundation, pause to remember that two decades ago, these same pundits (and newspapers) insisted that Whitewater was a huge and terrible scandal. Indeed, Limbaugh even insinuated on the radio that Hillary Clinton had murdered Vince Foster, a friend and White House staffer who tragically committed suicide. Politicians and prosecutors spent more than $70 million on official investigations of that ill-fated real estate investment, loudly proclaiming the Clintons guilty of something, before we finally discovered there was no scandal at all. Talk about waste!

So perhaps this time, with all due respect for the vital work of the Clinton Foundation, we should assume innocence until someone produces credible evidence of wrongdoing.

Joe Conason

A highly experienced journalist, author and editor, Joe Conason is the editor-in-chief of The National Memo, founded in July 2011. He was formerly the executive editor of the New York Observer, where he wrote a popular political column for many years. His columns are distributed by Creators Syndicate and his reporting and writing have appeared in many publications around the world, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker, The New Republic, The Nation, and Harpers.

Since November 2006, he has served as editor of The Investigative Fund, a nonprofit journalism center, where he has assigned and edited dozens of award-winning articles and broadcasts. He is also the author of two New York Times bestselling books, The Hunting of the President (St. Martins Press, 2000) and Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth (St. Martins Press, 2003).

Currently he is working on a new book about former President Bill Clinton's life and work since leaving the White House in 2001. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, including MSNBC's Morning Joe, and lives in New York City with his wife and two children.

  • 1


  1. Stuart May 13, 2015

    People helping people. Republicans hate that.

    1. itsfun May 14, 2015

      People getting rich under the cover of actually helping people is what is hated.

      1. bobnstuff May 14, 2015

        Unlike Rush who made $400 million selling hate and fear. That’s four times as much as the Clinton’s made together in the same time frame.

        1. itsfun May 14, 2015

          Rush is not a politician or running for President of this nation. We have the right to challenge and know the ethics and honesty of all that are running for public office.

          1. bobnstuff May 14, 2015

            He has a obligation to be truthful and use facts to challenge the high and mighty, not to misinform the masses with lies and half truths. It’s the duty of the forth estate to keep our government honest but they MUST use facts and proof to do this job. Rush is a little fast and loose with the truth. Any news outlet that goes to court to get the right to lie must be suspect in their reporting.

          2. itsfun May 14, 2015

            Your right about Rush and every news outlet, but I still say we have the right and obligation to challenge and know the ethics and honesty of all that are running for public office.

          3. bobnstuff May 14, 2015

            I agree, A free society need to know the character of their leaders, We need to be armed with facts. When the media twists the truth and offers option as fact they do a disservice to the public and the country as a whole. As a country we were raised to trust the media, people like Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley gave us facts we could trust. I have lost the trust in groups like Fox News. I can understand a mistake now and
            again but having to recheck everything they say is just to much.

        2. Paul Anthony May 14, 2015

          Yes, he is a buffoon, in the same league as Sharpton and the “Reverend” who never had a church. The Left has its idiots, too, and the faithful idiots that listen to them.

          1. bobnstuff May 14, 2015

            I guess I expect the right to be more serious and business like. It’s the left that’s suppose to be fast and loose. I know that the my local republican party is no fun but if you want a good time hang out with the democrats. I also live in a republican stronghold. I can’t remember the last time a democrat won
            a local office.

          2. bobnstuff May 14, 2015

            The left is supposed to be uncouth and free. Another word for left is Gauche. The left bank in Paris was the low rent district where the artists lived. The left side of Parliament is the House of Commons. The right wing houses the House of Lords. I fear things are getting a little flipped in our country of late.

  2. Hilary May 13, 2015

    My favorite punditry line – even when the latest scandal du jour is proven to be nothing, it still “feeds the narrative” about HRC. Which is exactly what they’re doing.

  3. Darsan54 May 14, 2015

    I was always told the press is just about the facts; finding objective facts amidst the din. But no the narrative is determined long before the reporting begins and the facts are cherry picked to fit the theory. Sad.

    1. Theodora30 May 14, 2015

      No kidding. At least some of them are openly admitting it now. Check out this shockingly honest Politico article:

      Notice that the headline implies if Hillary loses it will be her fault but the article (and the link) is about the MSM’s desire to take her down – the opposite of the headline. Politico is a must read for Beltway insiders so this open admission is particularly surprising to me,

      The accusations that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster did not just come from Rush. Both Congress and Ken Starr investigated that ridiculous charge.

  4. Dominick Vila May 14, 2015

    The false claims about misappropriation of donations, waste, and mismanagement, as long as Hillary remains in the race; unless Bill Clinton takes legal actions against those committing libel or defamation of character. We are all free to express our opinions, but when people accuse someone else of a felony or crime without evidence, the accused has the right to defend himself/herself.
    Incredibly, and in spite of lack of evidence, understanding of the subject matter, or even bothering to check the Foundation’s records, political charlatans are taking advantage of the latest “scandal” by making accusations that will make them look like the fools they are when the truth finally emerges. One of the most bizarre is the innuendo that only 9% of donations go to charity and the rest is wasted or worse. This claim, based on the fact that 9% of the donations go to GRANTS to charitable institutions, ignores the fact that most of the remaining revenues go to INITIATIVES supported by the Foundation itself, such as eradicating malnutrition and fighting disease in Third World countries, improving education systems in countries beset by extreme poverty, bringing potable water and electricity where there was none before, teaching farmers new techniques, and helping those afflicted by natural disasters. Instead of being proud of the fact that an American institution is highly regarded – and supported – worldwide, Hillary’s detractors are using the latest “scandal” to insinuate wrongdoing citing, among other things, that the Clintons have become millionaires. Never mind the high speaking fees that Bill Clinton collects or the return on investments, the message is that the Clintons are using charitable donations to enrich themselves.
    I guess Bill should have followed the model established by Ford, who devoted his retirement to playing golf; or Bush I, who spends his time parachuting; or Bush II and his oil painting renditions, instead of trying to do good in the world and helping change the perception of greed that so many foreigners have of us.
    The GOP is not attacking Hillary because she is unqualified, because of her record, or vision, but because of her successes and the fact that they have nothing to challenge her attributes without resorting to mudslinging.

    1. itsfun May 14, 2015

      Bill Clinton’s model is just making money for Bill Clinton. The success of Hillary is not being questioned. Her integrity is. How much money has she made selling out America is. How many bribes has she accepted is. Many foreigners have the perception of our greed after discovering how easy it is to bribe many of our politicians.

      1. bobnstuff May 14, 2015

        If you look at facts the picture is different then when you listen to people like Rush. Rush never lets little things like the truth get in the way of his stories. As Rush says where there is smoke there must be fire, the problem is that his kind can’t tell the difference between smoke, dust, steams or clouds.

      2. Aaron_of_Portsmouth May 14, 2015

        Its obvious that your model is to remain in darkness and utter nonsense non-stop w/o regard for educating yourself. What a pathetic state of being.
        But, you have “Free Will” to remain in a state of darkness and irrelevancy.
        Are there not more pressing issues you should be consuming your time with given the limited life-span you have?? To be overly-concerned with rumors about someone else’s finances is an irresponsible waste of time granted to you by God and shows a complete disdain for what you’ve been granted in this life.

        1. hicusdicus May 14, 2015

          You sure like to squirt out a lot of silly talk.

          1. edwardw69 May 14, 2015

            And you have no argument.

      3. Dominick Vila May 14, 2015

        Until evidence of wrongdoing is found, the only thing the GOP, and its charlatans, can do is make unsubstantiated claims designed to destroy the opposition, and at the same time shift attention from their miserable record and lack of vision.
        In the meantime, the Clinton Foundation continues to help thousands of people worldwide, and enjoy the respect and admiration of people throughout the world…while your hero cannot leave the country for fear of being arrested, charged with crimes against humanity, and pray President Obama or his successor rescues him and brings him back to Texas where he can resume his impressionist renditions.

        1. itsfun May 14, 2015

          What hero are you talking about? My father died 8 years ago, he was my only hero. Can you tell me where the Clinton foundation is getting their money.

          1. hicusdicus May 14, 2015

            From people and governments they have done favors for. The two of them are so unethical they make Bernie look like a boy scout.

        2. hicusdicus May 14, 2015

          They disperse 10 percent of their income and the rest goes for overhead. As long as people like you can be so easily duped it will continue.

          1. edwardw69 May 14, 2015

            Lie. Take a break; you need one.
            Perhaps an another oxy pill in your soup? Rush recommends them.

          2. Dominick Vila May 15, 2015

            No point trying to debate those who have been brainwashed, or are so consumed by hatred that they are willing to do or say whatever it takes to attack their targets.
            People from around the world donate to the Clinton Foundation because they respect, admire, and support what they are doing. The endeavors they have engaged in since the foundation was created – and continue to be engaged in – cannot be supported with 9% of their revenues.
            You do realize that this make believe “scandal” is not going to get your party any where, right? In fact, it establishes a contrast between lazy and greedy republican politicians and what people like Jimmy Carter has done with Habitat for Humanity, and bill Clinton is doing with his Foundation. The contrast speaks of character, value, and commitment to help those who need help the most, something the average Republican does not understand, and when they do they reject or oppose as evidence of evil.

          3. hicusdicus May 15, 2015

            What is all this hatred and evil all about? Why so dramatic? I am not a GOP follower. The Clinton foundation according to IRS form 990 only dispersed 10 percent of the monies to charitable organizations. Somebody dug this up and that is when the problems started. I only know what I read. Living in Arkansas and knowing people who dealt with the Clinton’s while he was governor I have a completely different opinion of him and her. There was a book written by a secret service agent who I think served under 6 presidents. He said Carter was the worst president he ever served under on a personal level. I want people, the party does not matter , who will take control and pull us out of this nose dive into the mountain. The working Americans can not continue to prop up people who refuse to try and produce. The government makes no money it only takes it from the working people and disperses it to those who don’t want to work. The welfare system need to be changed and tightened up.

          4. Dominick Vila May 15, 2015

            Looks like we have been reading different sources. The only problem in one of the IRS 990 Forms submitted by the Clinton Foundation is that instead of listing foreign donation in the appropriate line, it listed them along with all the other donations under “general revenues”. That, by the way, is the reason for the amended re-filing.
            I am not sure I understand what your comment about welfare, which I believe should be tightened, has to do with the Clinton Foundation. However, Carter’s Habitat for Humanity, and his commitment to help those in need, which are influenced by his religious beliefs, deserve respect, rather than unwarranted criticism. As for his ranking, I have never read anything credible indicating he was our worst President. The hostage crisis was out of his control. The failed rescue mission had more to do with poor planning and execution by the Pentagon, than with anything Carter did, even though he took responsibility for it. The 16% interest rate that prevailed during part of his presidency was put in place by the Fed to control inflation.

          5. hicusdicus May 15, 2015

            Well that is my story if you don’t like it make up your own. If I thought Obama was doing a good job of governing I would give him credit. As far as Jimmy Carter goes ask the people in the military during his administration. I will not knock Carter I made a little over a million dealing gold during his administration.

    2. hicusdicus May 14, 2015

      You have got to be kidding.

      1. edwardw69 May 14, 2015

        OH, what a retort! You have just disproved everything he said, right?
        Fool. You.

    3. grandmanya4u May 17, 2015

      If former Pres. Carter would run – They would say he is running a scam called Habitat for Humanity. My God, we still have people listening to Hannity, Faux News, Limpballs etc and they breed/vote and use the precious oxygen.
      No wonder the country is in a mess. Ignorance is a bliss, education is a mis(no wonder the Repuignorants in every red state cuts funds to Ed. Keep them stupid, gullible and ignorant and scared out of their stupid minds and they will vote against themselves and sing cumbaya we are the best in the world.NOT.
      U R right on Dominic.

  5. itsfun May 14, 2015

    The author of this article says people don’t know what they are talking about regarding the Clinton foundation. How do we know he knows anything about the foundation? Is he just shooting at the messenger as has been past Clinton strategy?

    1. bobnstuff May 14, 2015

      It’s called fact checking, looking at the books to see were the money is going. Checking dates and events to get the time line right. Getting the whole story before rushing to judgment. Things that have been lost by a large part of the right wing media.

      1. itsfun May 14, 2015

        I still have the same question about the author. How much fact checking did he do? All he is doing is attacking the reports of others. Does he have any facts. That’s all I am asking.

        1. bobnstuff May 14, 2015

          He may have looked at a calendar and saw that the time line doesn’t work or he may have at how the government is set up to keep this kind of deal making from happening. He might have even looked at the results of the work the foundation is doing to see if they did what they say they did. Just a thought.

          1. itsfun May 14, 2015

            If he did any of the above, he should tell us in his article.

          2. bobnstuff May 14, 2015

            Then you agree that facts must be checked and the proof should be presented as well as the research having been done. I guess you have the same problem with Fox in their reporting.

          3. itsfun May 14, 2015

            Yes I do. As far as FOX goes, I don’t watch it enough to comment on their reporting. When I do watch, I see a lot of issues talked about with a person on the left and a person on the right. Segments are not long enough to call them a debate though.

          4. bobnstuff May 14, 2015

            I watch very little news, I would rather read it, that way I can go back and recheck what was said. Most broadcast news is short bits and sound bites for people with short attention spans. You get half of what was said and then someone telling what it meant. I’m a big boy and can understand the English language so I don’t need some talking head thinking for me. I have worked in the broadcast business and have known a lot of the local news folks, that may color my view. I have little respect for most, they look good on camera and speak well but that’s it. I worked at WIXZ the station that Rush got his start, about twelve years after him. I had friend that had worked with him there and at KQV radio. He was a jerk back then and hasn’t changed much.

          5. hicusdicus May 14, 2015

            People have looked into it and it is not doing what people think it is doing.

          6. edwardw69 May 14, 2015

            Actually, it is doing exactly what it meant to do. And the “people” who have looked into it are liars. Period.

          7. hicusdicus May 14, 2015

            You know this for a fact and you would never lie.

          8. dpaano June 23, 2015

            What people?

          9. hicusdicus June 29, 2015

            Not you that’s for sure.

      2. hicusdicus May 14, 2015

        How do you personally check facts? How do you know the facts you are checking are actually the correct facts?

        1. bobnstuff May 14, 2015

          It’s sometime very easy. The congress is the easiest. Everything they say on the floor is recorded. Bills
          are published facts can be check from prime sources. Everything the President says is at WhiteHouse.Gov. You can check the employment numbers at BLS.gov. Other things are a little more challenging but you get good at it after a while. If you want to see if a website is trustworthy you first look to see who runs it. Google the web masters and see who they are. Don’t trust anything that you can’t cross check. I also have an interesting group of friends that are pretty good at facts. My nephew is good friend with the fire chief at Swanksville and he also helped with the search at the World Trade Center. I also have a friend that runs a website tracking troop movements. The government was going to shut him down until they figured out he was better at it then they were. An other friend is in charge of declassifying information for the Air Force. I have gotten emails from the International Space Station. I always look for prime sources when I can. I read five or six newspapers every day. I don’t follow sports and watch very little TV so I have time to muck around on line. I start at Wikipedia but you can’t trust then completely. They can give you some starting points. People on line always seam to think I’m a liberal and on some things I am but mostly I’m a searcher of the truth.

    2. KDJ54 May 14, 2015

      Ah, yes faux erudition masquerading in a contrived Socratic exercise attacking the writer through a stupid question. About half way down the article you will find this quote “spends (and raises) its funds with commendable efficiency —”, You can conveniently click on this underlined phrase and just like magic you will be taken to Charity Watch of the American Institute of Philanthropy and there you will find the Clinton Foundation and its “A” rating along with a break down of its fundraising efficiency and spending on charitable works.

      1. itsfun May 14, 2015

        Where is the money coming from?

        1. plc97477 May 14, 2015

          Why do you care, it’s not yours.

          1. itsfun May 14, 2015

            I want to know if a Presidential candidate is accepting money from a foreign country for favors if elected.

          2. bobnstuff May 14, 2015

            You must hate the dark money of the packs. Untraceable unlimited cash. This kind of money would be oh so easy to skim, legally or not. We have the best government money can buy.

          3. grandmanya4u May 17, 2015

            They get their money from those who cares about humanity and
            helping others. What’s wrong with getting money lets say from people of Russia and helping people in others countries including US???? What’s wrong w/it??
            Rush is a blow hard piece of white trash that feeds on ignorant, racist people with his alike mentality.
            “The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has it’s limits” A. Einstein
            “Those who pass judgment and don’t seek truth are Idiots” Confucius

          4. itsfun May 17, 2015

            How do you know they are not getting their money from foreign countries that want favors in return? That’s what could be wrong with it and as a American Citizen, I demand that any and all Presidential candidates reveal where their money is coming from. You are just hoping all the money is from kind and caring people. How often do you listen to Rush? If you don’t listen to him, does that make you one to pass judgment and not seek the truth?

          5. grandmanya4u May 17, 2015

            itsfun – Only in America the richest donate to the runners for president because they get ROI (Citizen’s United rings the bell?) and it’s not charity.Do U know how much $20M of Adelson money would help the poor in the world instead of investing in a delusional looooser Gingrich?? Not enough to build the colony on the moon but enough for one way ticket. How much this would help the US VETERAN’s families?? Sure as hell they don’t have to tell U how much and from whom. It’s on foundation site and shows where the money is going. Dig deeper. or ask the Foundation for full disclosure and U will get it. Clinton, like Carter does good with his foundation. Maybe he should take painting and drinking??
            ” Advertising has given wings to our culture, our civilization”
            Remove it, dilute it, vitiate its effort ,and presently you will depress the masses of our people to a lower class mediocrity”
            Lasker, 1936

          6. itsfun May 17, 2015

            The question of where the money came from is being asked. However full disclosure may not be there. How about the former Clinton staffer (George on ABC) give them and everyone forgot to report it. This is a not for profit foundation and they sure as hell do have to tell us where the money comes from. Carter is not running for President now. By the way since you must listen to Rush to be able to call him names, why don’t you just admit it and not ignore my question about him. What are you advertising?

    3. Paul Anthony May 14, 2015

      In 2013, the Better Business Bureau found the charity failed to meet “Minimum standards of accountability and transparency”. Another watchdog, Charity Navigator, added the Clinton Foundation to its “watch list” saying its finances were “atypical.
      These are the facts the author of this article couldn’t find or chose to ignore.
      Many have questioned the legitimacy of the foundation. It is only in the news now because Ms. Clinton is running for President. The media that has ignored the red flags until now finds it hard to continue staying quiet.
      The author of this article is an apologist for the Clintons. Makes one wonder how much of the Foundation’s funds found there way into his bank account.

  6. FT66 May 14, 2015

    The Clinton Foundation is too technical for a person like Rush Limbaugh to understand it.

    1. I do not think it is wise to underestimate Rush ! He has been down many a road and has won many a fight and if you think this one will be any different you could be very wrong and embarrassed !

      1. bobnstuff May 14, 2015

        Rush is a Shock Jock who dropped out of collage after one term and went to work as rock n roll DJ at WIXZ just outside of Pittsburgh. He is a salesman that sells anything he thinks you will buy. Right now he is selling hate and fear. I think the drugs have gotten to his brain. When you fact check him you find he doesn’t know what he is talking about half the time.

        1. dpaano June 23, 2015

          Half the time????? I’d say ALL the time!

      2. Carolyn1520 May 14, 2015

        Oh please, I hope you are trolling.
        Otherwise, please name one fight he has won. Be specific about all his so called victories.
        He gets paid a lot to feed the fears and feelings of the right. That’s why no facts are required and by the time truth time rolls around he’s on to the next mouth dump.

    2. dpaano June 23, 2015

      He’d have problems figuring out a 10-year-old’s lemonade stand concept!

  7. Karen Bille-Golden May 14, 2015

    To the lucid thinkers on this venue and others, I offer the old adage, “garbage in, garbage out” We’ve become a nation of lazy thinkers who allow ourselves to be spoon fed ridiculous lies and half truths, thereby falling into the carefully laid trap of allowing someone else to do the thinking for us. Truth in journalism is becoming a thing of the past.

  8. Eleanore Whitaker May 14, 2015

    Class is not based on money. It is based on one’s sense of personal self-respect. This is where the right wing and GOP get it wrong all the time. How anyone could miss what the Clinton Foundation has done proves that narrow minds don’t allow any thought other than what they are TOLD to think by their media billionaire moguls.

    I have followed the Clinton Foundation nearly from its inception. It is the “gift that keeps on giving…..BACK.” It was pretty stupid of Rush and the rest of the lunatic purveyors of lies and deception to not take the time to study the history of the Clinton Foundation since its earliest days. Not only have Hillary and former President Clinton donated their speaking fees to the Foundation, but they have been instrumental in encouraging others in the realm of charity and politics to do the same.

    But, as we all know…to any right winger or CON, charity only exists if they GET something in return in precise proportion to what they GIVE. Then, they tell the rest of us that we have “entitlements?” When they believe they cannot give away ONE dime unless they GET a tax cut in return? That is NOT charity.

    Charity is supposed to be a personal sacrifice with ZERO gain from the giver. That’s how you know the pundits got it all wrong about the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation.

    Doesn’t matter to people who refuse to add one second of attention to men like Limbaugh, O’Reilly or Hannity. These are male media prostitutes who have NO class and no sense of self-respect. Which, is why they can stoop as low as they do.

    Of course, the way to end this BS is to put a stop to deliberate lies and contortions in Free Press…by hauling their butts into court for libel and slander.

  9. Carolyn1520 May 14, 2015

    Bill Clinton was on the Letterman show and they talked almost exclusively about the work of the foundation. If any of the critics accomplished a tenth as much good in the
    world as this foundation has accomplished they could garner some respect.
    Instead, true to form, trying to make someone else look bad rather than accomplishing anything positive for the greater good themselves, they remain, republicans.

  10. edwardw69 May 14, 2015

    The same 30% who follow Benghazi, the IRS foolishness, and the ridiculous Vince Foster crap, are following this. The truth will make no difference to them; however, they are still just 30%.

  11. Whatmeworry May 14, 2015

    Why would anyone care about the Clinton foundation until Hilary ran for office. Now that she is running all the dirty deals and money laundering rears its ugly head once again. Typical Clinton

    1. edwardw69 May 14, 2015


      1. Whatmeworry May 14, 2015

        I don’t need to provide proof, I just tell lies

      2. Whatmeworry May 14, 2015

        Try reading even the State Run Media newspapers

        1. Whatmeworry May 15, 2015

          I am reading even the State Run Media newspapers like Forbes

      3. Whatmeworry May 15, 2015

        I Try reading even the State Run Media newspapers

    2. Daniel Max Ketter May 14, 2015

      The only dirty deals were dealt by W and his republican cronies. Ms Clinton has never even told a white lie to the american public, which is why she will become the next resident in the white house.

  12. Whatmeworry May 14, 2015

    We should care about the Clinton foundation until Hilary ran for
    office. Now that she is never running all the dirty deals and money laundering
    like Reagan rears its ugly head once again. Typical Clinton

    1. Daniel Max Ketter May 14, 2015

      Yep, ole ronnie was as crooked as a dogs hind leg.

  13. atc333 May 15, 2015

    Would all the critics please compare the link between contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which exists for other than political purposes, and the link between direct major contributions to the elections of specific candidates, who then will consciously, or subconsciously owe their election to those major contributors, and possibly vote accordingly in response to those contributors agenda, rather than the best interests of the nation or its people.
    Why is one now being attacked by the very same individuals who see no problem with the second example, which has much more of cause and effect link than donations to the Clinton Foundation’s proven charitable purposes?.

    1. ps0rjl May 15, 2015

      Yes, how come these very people are so outraged over possible Clinton Foundation contributions and yet have no problem with ALEC where major contributors help the politicians they support write legislation the contributors want?

  14. ps0rjl May 15, 2015

    Yes, hurry folks. Let’s look for another Clinton scandal where there is none. Let’s have another committee investigate Benghazi even though we’ve already had three investigations all led by Republicans that cleared Hillary before. Let’s waste more of the taxpayers’ money on hatchet jobs.
    As for listening to the likes of Limbaugh and his fellow travelers, let’s look at some of his failings. He dropped out of college during Vietnam but didn’t get drafted due to either an old high school football injury or a boil on his butt. The story is a little murky there. Or could it have been because his grandfather was a judge in his hometown. And please spare me that he went automatically from a 1Y to a 4F when they dropped the 1Y classification. I had a 1Y and when they dropped the classification I went automatically without even a physical to 1A and drafted into the Marines without even a physical. He also thought all drug users should be locked up. Of course that was before he got caught abusing Oxicotyn. Then he took a ten week sabbatical to dry out and has never spoken about drug users being locked up since. He is a supporter of DOMA where marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Of course he is such an expert having been married and divorced three times. The man is a blowhard piece of sh*t in my book.

  15. paulyz May 17, 2015

    Hmm, I believe the Clintons are in the group called the 1%ers.

  16. Eden Keel May 19, 2015

    rusho is a waste of sperm the drug addic

  17. dpaano June 23, 2015

    They couldn’t get to Hillary with Benghazi, so they’re going to try to go after her using their extremely charitable foundation!!! What a bunch of pitiful and totally unimpressive idiots!!!


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.