Sir Chanticleer schreef op 19 december 2018 14:01:
[...]
Nog 1 keer dan, omdat het zo mooi ilustreert hoe feiten werken en hoe oogkleppen:
uit artiel in link:
As our colleague David Fahrenthold first reported in his Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting on the Trump Foundation,
Trump did not donate any money to the foundation between 2008 and 2015 and most of its money was not actually his. By law, Trump wasn’t allowed to buy things for himself using the charity’s money, even if he was buying them from nonprofit groups.
But Trump
twice used the charity’s money to
settle legal disputes that involved his for-profit businesses, the New York attorney general alleged. He also engaged in other instances of
self-dealing, such as paying $10,000 to buy a portrait of Trump that was found hanging in one of his golf resorts. The foundation also
donated $25,000 to a Florida political group aiding the reelection effort of
state Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) —
and was used to benefit his presidential campaign, the lawsuit said.
En gisteren is het fonds gesloten. De directeuren (allemaal trumps) liggen onder vuur. En trump moest ook de Football helm van Tim Tebow retourneren, gekocht met Foundation geld en te pronk in zijn kantoor.
Mijn conclusie: criminal enterprise, slush fund, en een illustratie van het bedrog dat iedre aktie van trump karakteriseert.
Dan Clinton Foundation:
Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation. A memo written by a top Clinton aide, leaked by WikiLeaks in 2016, further exposed the inner workings of “Bill Clinton Inc.,” in which donors to the Clinton Foundation were pressed to provide personal income to the former president.
“It was highly unusual to me and ethically challenged,” Allison said, adding that he stood by the quote. But he noted that he made the “slush-fund” comment in the course of a 20-minute conversation. “
What was robbed from the context of the quote is that I did say that the Clinton Foundation did good work,” he said.
In 2016, Charity Navigator began listing the
Clinton Foundation as a “low concern” charity, with a four-star rating, its highest rating. The Clinton Foundation currently has a score of 93.91 out of 100 for finances, accountability and transparency.
the American Institute of Philanthropy’s CharityWatch gives the Clinton Foundation an
“A” rating, its second-highest efficiency rating, which is based on the percent of total expenses a charity spent on its programs in the year analyzed and the cost to raise $100.
For 2016, according to tax documents and audited financial statements, the Clinton Foundation spent 88 percent of its cash budget on programs, compared to 12 percent on overhead, such as fundraising, management and expenses. The organization also calculated that it costs the Clinton Foundation only $2 for every $100 it raises.
it to
spend more than $200 million a year on its programs.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-chec...De Clinton's wheelen en dealen zoals gewoonlijk, en het geeft een apart geurtje af. Niet ethisch, on gebruikelijk. Jammer. Ze gebruiken hun macht en invloed om er zelf beter van te worden (met tegenprestatie) en om hun Foudnation vol te laten lopen met geld. En dat vervolgens te gebruiken voor goede doelen. Waarschijnlijk ook de reden dat Bill Gates er in investeert.
Kortom, de Clintons doen goed met een (licht) ethisch probleem, en trump steelt van de armen en koopt er een schilderij van zichzelf van.
Negatief over Clinton:
psmag.com/news/whats-going-on-with-th...Conclusie: Pay-to-Play....Onbewezen. (Mag ik u even wijzen op het Inauguratie fonds van de heer trump? Dank u wel.)