But as soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work. In November, the Australian government confirmed it “has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.” The government of Norway also drastically reduced their annual donations, which reached $20 million a year in 2015.
In November, the Australian government confirmed it “has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.”
For a propaganda hit piece, yes. Here's the giveaway-
That quote is from another hit piece, not the Australian govt at all.
Post-truth all the way, baby.
For what it's worth:
About
Observer offers a sophisticated readership of metropolitan professionals an original take on the latest in news, culture, politics and luxury, bringing its irreverent sensibility to a national audience.
MASTHEAD
Publisher: Jared Kushner
http://observer.com/about/
So, you don't believe it's closing? Let's try this again....
https://labor.ny.gov/app/warn/details.asp?id=5801
So, you don't believe it's closing? Let's try this again....
https://labor.ny.gov/app/warn/details.asp?id=5801
Puh-leeze! The Australian govt didn't say "scandal ridden" even though the author tried to give that impression.
I didn't bother to read that article about the Australian government. I was only questioning if you believed the closure was real.
You didn't read shit but you managed to cop an attitude anyway, right?
Hahaha! Holy crap, you are a gas. Seems like it is you with the attitude.
So coy.
They did a lot of good for a lot of unfortunate people despite all the scurrilous innuendo thrown their way. Maybe the Trump Foundation will step up to fill the gap, huh?
The Clinton's goal is always to have more coming in than going out, so as less comes in, spending will be continuously reduced. It's not like anyone (with money or power) actually believed that there was much moral value in sending millionaires to posh resorts to tell other millionaires that someone really needs to do something for the poor and unfortunate.
Perhaps now, some of the money spent on those seminars and meetings and resorts will eventually be spent on their nominal causes.
The Clinton's goal is always to have more coming in than going out, so as less comes in, spending will be continuously reduced. It's not like anyone (with money or power) actually believed that there was much moral value in sending millionaires to posh resorts to tell other millionaires that someone really needs to do something for the poor and unfortunate.
Perhaps now, some of the money spent on those seminars and meetings and resorts will eventually be spent on their nominal causes.
I didn't bother to read that article about the Australian government. I was only questioning if you believed the closure was real.
You miss my point: what the CFF considers program spending is what virtually every other such foundation counts as overhead. That most of the big donors are shutting down the gravy train shows that they understand this and were merely buying access and influence. That the Clintons are cutting back shows that they value having the money over the good that money can do as they typically spend it. Personally, I look for some more spin-offs which are depleted of wealth and then return to the fold or get shut down.Clintons have always had a pretty good track record on disbursement vs money incoming, even above a lot of other older established charities. It was not even established until Bill was out of office.
Trump on the other hand has a record of shoving everything straight into his pocket, and refuses to diversify assets or show his taxes.
You miss my point: what the CFF considers program spending is what virtually every other such foundation counts as overhead. That most of the big donors are shutting down the gravy train shows that they understand this and were merely buying access and influence. That the Clintons are cutting back shows that they value having the money over the good that money can do as they typically spend it. Personally, I look for some more spin-offs which are depleted of wealth and then return to the fold or get shut down.
And yes, Trump's foundation even more transparently exists only to allow people to buy access to Trump and allow Trump to pay fines and penalties with before-tax dollars. It should have been shut down long ago, particularly since Trump routinely used it to launder donations into his pocket. That it is only now an issue just shows that those in power only have a problem with this when it interferes with anointing the Queen.
Meanwhile the charity run by the man about to be sworn in as president can't be shut down due to various investigations into several incidents of the man using the donations to the charity for several personal benefits for both himself and his business.
I'll see what observer.com has to say about that. Be back with a link....,
You miss my point: what the CFF considers program spending is what virtually every other such foundation counts as overhead.