Patterico's Pontifications

4/25/2015

No Clinton Should Ever Use The Word “Transparent” (With Updates)

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:04 pm



[guest post by Dana]

This past week, Chelsea Clinton, who once tried to care about money but really couldn’t, revealed that as an adult, she’s learned well from her parents and that the acorn, indeed, does not fall far from the tree.

As Hillary studiously works to avoid any media confrontation about the scandals surrounding her and poo-poos this latest one as a “distraction,” the younger Clinton found herself taking on the role of Defender of the Foundation when the moderator at a Council on Foreign Relations event on women’s rights asked her about the foundation “bubbling up a little bit in the news”. (Side note: Bubbling up a little bit?? Seriously? That’s how you choose to refer to a full-blown explosion of brazen corruption involving a presidential-hopeful that has left a money trail throughout the world and in bank accounts far and wide, including uranium holdings and God knows what else? This is not what any reasonably objective person would term “bubbling up a little bit”…)

In response, Clinton demonstrated the smooth art of ‘diplomacy’ avoidance while defending the “important work” of the foundation and their “transparency”:

“What the Clinton Foundation has said is that we will be even more transparent, even though Transparency International and others have said we’re among the most transparent of foundations.

“I very much believe that that is the right policy. That we’ll be even more transparent. That to eliminate any questions while we’re in this time, we won’t take new government funding, but that the work will continue as it is,” Clinton continued, referring to the foundation’s recent policy change to limit donations from foreign governments, like Saudi Arabia.

It’s interesting that Clinton cited Transparency International, as it appears they also have their own issues of credibility. I was unable to check out Clinton’s reference to “others” for obvious reasons.

With that, at the charity clearing house, Charity Navigator whose mission is to “examine two broad areas of a charity’s performance; their Financial Health and their Accountability and Transparency”, the Clinton Foundation currently stands as “unrated”:

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

And speaking of those transparent Clintons, Hot Air is now reporting that the progressive group Common Cause is surprisingly making a reasonable request of accountability from Hillary and the foundation:

Citing concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of hidden overseas donors, Common Cause called on presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Clinton Foundation today to commission an independent and thorough review of all large donations to the foundation and to release the results.

“As Mrs. Clinton herself observed earlier this week, voluntary disclosure is not enough,” said Common Cause President Miles Rapoport. “A report in Thursday’s New York Times indicates that the Clinton Foundation violated an agreement to identify all of its donors. The foundation’s omissions create significant gaps in the information that voters need to make informed decisions at the polls.”

To ensure that the audit is complete, Rapoport said the foundation should enter into a contractual agreement with auditors to open its books fully and to make public the complete report of their review.

(H/T ASHQ podcast)

–Dana

UPDATE: I’m adding this breakdown of the Clinton Foundation expenditures:

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fund-raising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons are on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the Foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.”

The Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group, has come out and said that it appears the foundation works as a “slush fund” for the Clintons.

UPDATE 2: As of this morning, the Clinton Foundation blog has put up a new post entitled A Commitment to Honesty, Transparency, and Accountability.

In part:

As the Foundation’s impact has grown, so too has its commitment to transparency. When Hillary Clinton was appointed Secretary of State, we took unprecedented steps to avoid potential conflicts of interest by going above and beyond what is required of any philanthropy and instituted voluntarily annual disclosure of all of our donors on our website. We also established a policy around the foreign government contributions we accept, recognizing that in order to continue our life improving work we rely on the contributions of government, as is the case with most large scale global charities.

Today, our donor disclosure and foreign government contributor policy is stronger than ever. Since Secretary Clinton decided to run for President, we have committed to disclosing all of our donors on a quarterly basis. In addition, we announced that we will only accept funding from a handful of governments, many of whom the Foundation receives multi-year grants from, to continue the work they have long partnered on.

So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don’t happen in the future. We are committed to operating the Foundation responsibly and effectively to continue the life-changing work that this philanthropy is doing every day.

58 Responses to “No Clinton Should Ever Use The Word “Transparent” (With Updates)”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. “a lot of people have questioned, for example, you know – why did the foundation take money from Saudi Arabia when they didn’t treat women, you know, as well as perhaps they could”

    I think the Council On Foreign Relations lady is, you know, kind of maybe suggesting that the policies of the perverted Saudi royal trash what run Saudi Arabia are maybe not super women-friendly?

    Does anyone else get that vibe?

    happyfeet (831175)

  3. this road apple didn’t fall too far from the horse’s a55es that whelped it…

    this isn’t a family: it’s a multi-generational criminal conspiracy.

    redc1c4 (dab236)

  4. I skipped that part, happyfeet, because she irritated me so much: “didn’t treat women …as well as perhaps they could”??? Seriously?? Be honest and spit it out: didn’t treat women with any respect, dignity, worth or value other than as breeders. Her pandering to Chelsea was disgusting. And Chelsea’s pandering to her audience in not admitting they took money from women-hating regimes was even more disgusting. This, too, at an event on women’s rights! Pandering whores, the lot of them.

    Dana (86e864)

  5. It will be interesting to see where the progressive herd goes: defend Hillary, deflect and attack the GOP candidates or show some fortitude like Common Cause. Of course, this may depend on who the WH is pushing and it sure isn’t Hillary.

    Dana (37f695)

  6. This chick has no future.

    mg (31009b)

  7. Right, Transparency International. That’s like saying Joe Shmoe thinks we’re transparent.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  8. this “transparency”
    word certainly does not mean
    what she thinks it means

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  9. Slick willie is on his way to Nepal to make a killing, just like Haiti.

    mg (31009b)

  10. I think Bill’s goin’ to Katmandu,
    That’s really really where he’s going to
    If he ever gets out of here
    That’s what he’s gonna do

    Kkkkkk, Katmandu
    I think it’s really where Bill’s going to
    If he ever gets out of here
    Bill’s goin to Katmandu

    Bill’s got no kick against the west coast,
    Weinstein Brothers are such good hosts
    Too busy chasin’ ass to give ’em a toast,
    That’s him, you know it’s true

    He’s got no street cred in the southern states
    He left spunk on the dress, they saw him skate
    and for his skank wife they got nuthin’ but hate
    And that fat Monica blew

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  11. The Silver Bullet Band would be proud, Col.

    mg (31009b)

  12. #6, she does not need a future in politics or any other endeavor, she is a multimillionaire heiress. But, don’t be too sure about that no future thing. If a horse’s posterior like RFK Jr. can have a minor league political career, surely so can Chelsea.

    GKH (1943bf)

  13. Last year, the WaPo discussed if Chelsea ran for office, what her options were.

    Chelsea herself confirmed she is open to running for office:

    “I’m … grateful to live in a city and a state and a country where I really believe in my elected officials, and their ethos and their competencies. Someday, if either of those weren’t true and I thought I could make more of a difference in the public sector, or if I didn’t like how my city or state or country were being run, I’d have to ask and answer that question.”


    She would have the Clinton money (of which there is clearly a whole lot), the Clinton brand (which up until a few months ago, still seemed strong and prosperous. This month’s scandals, and particularly last week’s explosion, are on an entirely different level and the jury is certainly still out), and she would have a wealth of connections to take advantage of and perhaps favors owed her parents to call in.

    Dana (86e864)

  14. she has no future in helping America. Just like her mother.

    mg (31009b)

  15. Enough with the political dynasties. And don’t forget Baby Charlotte has politics (and crooks and liars) on both sides of her family tree.

    Everyone knows Chelsea Clinton’s mother-in-law is former … Pennsylvanaia Congressman Marjorie Margolies Mezvinsky. But did you know that her father-in-law was also a member of Congress? He certainly was, and he was from the state of Iowa if you can believe that. And now, he’s an ex jailbird .

    Mezvinsky was a lawyer and consumer affairs activist who ran ads of voters mispronouncing his name, and by attacking the Nixon administration. He ran a true grass roots campaign that centered on modern techniques such as voter id’s, etc. (1970)

    For 1972, Mezvinsky was back. This time, he beat Schwengel 54-46% as Nixon was taking 56%. Mezvinsky did well in Iowa City, where many of the UI students were likely coming out to back McGovern. …. What was his name among the Congressional press corps? “Fast Talking Ed.”

    With ’74 being such a Democratic year, Mezvinsky kept his seat, but not by a super-imposing margin, 54-46%.
    By 1976,…..Mezvinsky was not returning to the district as much as he used to, and in a swing seat, doing so was a must. Leach was able to reverse the margin, 54-46%.

    Soon after his loss, Mezvinsky moved to Pennsylvania where his ambitions of returning to public life was obvious. For a time, he was the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. But he yearned for elective office and sought the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in 1980 but lost, though he did score enough chits to Chair the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.
    ….
    In 1992, Marjorie shocked many when she won a Montgomery County Congressional seat. The margin was fewer than 2,000 votes and it was the first sign that the rock-ribbed Republican county was changing. But Mezvinsky was famously booted out when she cast the deciding vote for Clinton’s tax package after having promised voters during the campaign that she wouldn’t (House Republicans broke into a chant of “Goodbye Marjie.” Mezvinsky sought a comeback in 2000, but her bid for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination ended amid her husband’s embezzlement legal troubles.

    Mezvinsky was sentenced to 80 months in prison for a massive investment scheme, dubbed the “Nigerian advanced payment ponzi scheme that ultimately robbed victims of $10 million. He was convicted of 31 of 69 charges, including mail and bank fraud and would serve seven years in federal prison near Elgin Air Force Base in Florida, which would be followed later by probation. That’s where he was by the time of the wedding.

    Ed Mezvinsky was supposedly permitted to attend Marc and Chelsea’s wedding ceremony, but not the reception. Around the time of the wedding, he said he was “remorseful for what happened, it was a terrible time, and I was punished for that. And I respect that and accept responsibility for what happened, and now I’m trying to move on and am grateful I have the opportunity for that.”
    Ed and Marjorie divorced in 2007. Ed, 76, has finished probation.

    http://themoderatevoice.com/183195/chelsea-clintons-father-in-law-an-ex-iowa-congressman-who-went-to-jail/

    I do wonder if Ed Mezvinsky has any official position with the Clinton Global Initiative.

    elissa (64443d)

  16. Thanks, mg. I just saw one Reggie Love (self-proclaimed “body man” for the Prez) say “there’s no fooling the press” and he did it with a straight face.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  17. she has no future in helping America. Just like her mother.

    mg (31009b) — 4/25/2015 @ 6:09 pm

    Unfortunately, as we too well know, not everyone who ends up in office actually help people. And how sad is that. They may claim they do at the start, but their actions eventually reveal otherwise. Greed, self-importance and power are difficult to control.

    Dana (86e864)

  18. Eh, ‘not everyone elected to office actually end up helping people’….

    Dana (86e864)

  19. Opportunities for graft are a serious distraction for the weak willed that tend to seek office. Or maybe that’s why they seek office.

    Gazzer (a3547c)

  20. If politicians were subject to the same ethics and laws the corporate world is governed by, there would be countless pols thrown out on the street or in prison.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  21. How long before the clinton clan start having kennedy moments? ski wreck, plane wreck, car wreck, pills, porn, greed, never mind.

    mg (31009b)

  22. Be thankful they aren’t drunken Irish breeders.

    Gazzer (a3547c)

  23. It used to be Democrats warehoused loyal party apparatchiks at Fannie and Freddie between assignments or runs for elective office. I wonder how many we will now find have been stashed at the Clinton Foundation.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  24. Daleyrocks,

    Don’t you picture a whole lot of people scrambling right about now?

    Dana (86e864)

  25. Dana – Like cockroaches when the lights get turned on.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  26. i dunno, seems to me quite a few people would say that the Clinton lies are transparent.

    seeRpea (8fa79e)

  27. It sure would be nice if we had Perry Mason on this, because no republican seems to give a crap.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/the_clintons_little_tin_box.html

    mg (31009b)

  28. Can someone convince me that team r is so aloof they new nothing about clinton place?
    If they are aloof, shoot them and take our tax dollars back. I could use mine for arugula seed.
    team r is as progressive as clinton place. What a disgusting country. Damn, I wish I could go back to my innocent upbringing. Feeling free, shooting anything that moved while riding my horse, Champion. [named after Gene Autry’s horse.]

    mg (31009b)

  29. I think Chelsea is still capable of embarrassment.

    Cherish the memory.

    DNF (208255)

  30. The only way any member of the Clinton Clan (did I spell “Clan” correctly?) could authentically use the word “transparent” is regarding lingerie. Sorry, readers, the image is just too horrible. Won’t do that again.

    LTMG (94c4c3)

  31. teh Dangler strikes again… http://t.co/QdpYuXCAKL

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  32. I’ve updated the post:

    The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

    The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

    On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fund-raising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons are on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the Foundation.

    In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

    Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

    But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.”

    The Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group, has come out and said that it appears the foundation works as a “slush fund” for the Clintons.

    Dana (86e864)

  33. The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

    It should be renamed the “Crony Capitalist Foundation,” with a mission statement of “committed to the joy and happiness of champagne socialists and limousine liberals throughout the world.”

    Mark (607f93)

  34. Corrupt to their bones.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  35. Someone should ask Chelsea what her current working definition of “is” is.

    Joe Miller (540b44)

  36. I’ve added a second update to the post. The Clinton Foundation blog has a post up this morning discussing commitment, transparency, and accountability:

    In part:

    As the Foundation’s impact has grown, so too has its commitment to transparency. When Hillary Clinton was appointed Secretary of State, we took unprecedented steps to avoid potential conflicts of interest by going above and beyond what is required of any philanthropy and instituted voluntarily annual disclosure of all of our donors on our website. We also established a policy around the foreign government contributions we accept, recognizing that in order to continue our life improving work we rely on the contributions of government, as is the case with most large scale global charities.

    Today, our donor disclosure and foreign government contributor policy is stronger than ever. Since Secretary Clinton decided to run for President, we have committed to disclosing all of our donors on a quarterly basis. In addition, we announced that we will only accept funding from a handful of governments, many of whom the Foundation receives multi-year grants from, to continue the work they have long partnered on.

    So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don’t happen in the future. We are committed to operating the Foundation responsibly and effectively to continue the life-changing work that this philanthropy is doing every day.

    Dana (86e864)

  37. ah—“mistakes were made”.

    elissa (50fee7)

  38. This is the kind of thing I’m not sure the repubs should take notice of, at least not until head to head debates where points can be made for all to see and without spin. The repubs cannot make the press and the public care about corruption if they don’t want to. I think the best they could do would be to make some pointed observations in real time when “everybody” (who cares) is watching right before the election.

    Besides, in one way almost anyone they could find to replace her, given enough lead time, would almost by necessity to be more qualified.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  39. There is a reason all of this came out early.

    JD (3b5483)

  40. And that new comment from the Clintons is hysterical.

    JD (3b5483)

  41. Who woulda thunk it would be the Clintons who’d sell the rope used to hang us all?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  42. “transparent” is what you call people with usually grown-up kids who decide late in life that they’re actually in a situation where they have genitalia what don’t match who they are… inside

    you know like what happened to brucella

    i know this cause of i have amazon prime and I am popculturally savvy

    happyfeet (831175)

  43. MD,

    I think the Republicans have two options: start using this now and hit her hard with these accusations and take the hits as a result (nothing has been proven in a court of law, etc, which it would take because clearly, with the Clintons and their followers, optics really don’t matter); or wait until the debates and see if the interim period brings any legal action and/or committees focused on investigating more thoroughly with an eye toward legally establishing any prosecutable malfeasance, or something of the sort. But given how much is unfolding, I’m wondering if Hillary is going to pull out well before then…

    Dana (86e864)

  44. Is it better to run against a damaged Clinton with the Clinton campaign machine (and all its baggage), or against a relatively undamaged Obama surrogate like Warren with the Obama campaign machine?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  45. first things first

    Team R needs to produce a credible clinton alternative

    happyfeet (831175)

  46. well i’m sure the RNC has a ‘fully operational’ opposition research against Red Squaw, as well any other opponent,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  47. Is it better to run against a damaged Clinton with the Clinton campaign machine (and all its baggage), or against a relatively undamaged Obama surrogate like Warren with the Obama campaign machine?

    Either way, with the media’s help, the deck will be stacked against the GOP. So who, at this point in time, is the MSM more likely to carry water for? Judging from the NYT this past week, it just might not be Hillary. Which leads me to this: I am hearing it bandied about that it is the WH leaking the inside dirt on Hillary and the foundation in an effort to push her out and open the door for Warren to run unobstructed.

    Remember, Hillary has hired a number of the Obama staffers already, so unless there are a number of defectors, she’s already got both teams battling for her.

    Dana (86e864)

  48. the problem with that, is there’s no guarantee those staffers will be loyal, the Center for American Progress was originally a Clinton redoubt, little doubt who they actually are loyal to, take Podesta for example,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  49. Loyalty: so easily bought in Hillary’s world.

    Dana (86e864)

  50. i don’t think H.C being in or out would be affected by any actions of any part of the GOP.
    watch the NYTimes – if they keep hammering at her, she is going to be in trouble as most of the MSM take their marching orders from the NYTimes.

    seeRpea (8fa79e)

  51. clintons vs obamas will be the death of us all.
    Please Lord deliver us a leader.

    mg (31009b)

  52. Also, no Clinton should ever use the words “sexual assault,” especially not in a campaign speech.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  53. That human beings can write such drivel whips me to despair.

    ErisGuy (76f8a7)

  54. I see Chelsea isn’t wearing her wedding ring.

    My prayers have been answered!

    Wish me luck!!

    Mike (7c4039)

  55. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2015/04/dear-arkansas-ag-leslie-rutledge-its.html

    DEAR ARKANSAS A.G. LESLIE RUTLEDGE: It’s time to subpoena the Clinton Foundation’s records

    …It is unlikely that the IRS or the Justice Department will investigate the Clintons and their eponymous foundation anytime soon, but the Arkansas attorney general does have the authority to look into any wrongdoing since the foundation is incorporated [PDF] in the state of Arkansas

    …Arkansas law requires that charities register with the state and also disclose their financial data, principally by attaching the IRS tax form 990. In addition, charities must comply with Arkansas law, which one would assume covers a multitude of possible misdeeds…

    Steve57 (08cad4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2851 secs.