Putting the Clinton Foundation in Context: Corruption Plain on the Face of It
Amy Sterling Casil
9913

A recent Politifact article purports to “analyze” the Clinton Foundation tax returns, financial statements and website to “prove” that Republican claims that the Foundation spends 80% of its revenue on “overhead” are false.
The Republican claims are very likely “false” in that the Foundation has no clear mission and doesn’t really do anything that’s ordinarily regarded as charitable (and doesn’t do much at all that can be matched to the claims on their website and definitely not to the television pundit claims and campaign spokespeople — the most recent being “If the Foundation is closed down we won’t find a cure for AIDS”). But they’re not false the way Politifact means. “Overhead” is only a term with meaning if there are some type of charitable efforts going on. I’m really not seeing that anywhere I look to analyze the Clinton Foundation.
So Politifact repeats the Clinton Foundation website claim it has helped over 56,000 farmers in Malawi (a prominent feature on the Clinton Foundation website).
That’s flat out impossible and the poor guy they hired to try to make something of their scammy efforts there is already working somewhere else. The farm that was supposedly “helping” over 56,000 “smallholder” farmers can barely grow peanuts, is a for-profit corporation, and has been seeking FDisince 2013. If you don’t know what FDi is, then maybe you shouldn’t write message board posts talking about how stupid I am or Politifact articles saying that the Clinton Foundation does so much charitable good in Malawi.
This is the exact same circumstance and MO as the “Coffee Academy” in Haiti. It’s a for-profit business earning profit or losing money for someone foreign to its country, nothing to do with the local people and providing no charitable assistance whatsoever.

You’ve made the case against Hillary Clinton — America’s Imelda Marcos.

There are wealthy liberals who do good work abroad. Bill and Melinda Gates are making a real impact in public health worldwide. Their work saves lives.

By comparison, the Clinton Foundation is a sham and a scam. Off the top, 55% of its donations go to overhead, yet you’ve shown us that there is precious little in the way of expenditure where it’s truly needed to be overhead. By comparison, college research financing’s an honest game (they only take 25% or so in overhead from the average research grant).

Where’s the 55% percent in overhead going? You’ve shown us it’s not to help the world’s poor, needy or ill, but its privileged. That the one Clinton Foundation person charged with helping save millions of children’s lives in Asia and the Pacific had a lucrative day job selling Caterpillar earth movers in Vietnam (one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies) shows what a store-front scam the Clinton Foundation is.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Jean Lafitte’s story.