NY Post and Wash Times are reight wing papers trying to fool folks

They are the Post's source. Do you have reason to believe that Charity Navigator is part of the RW hate machine?

I give this post 3 Pinocchios.

RATING: A

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Sorry to burst your bubble.

How cute.

Not of the poster who made it.

Kind of similar to this actually:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1586625

Difference being I used a different four letter word to describe my opinion of the opinion, and I apparently hurt someone's feelings.

I guess I'm sorry if the word I chose hurt your feelings?

That's a lot different than me telling some poster I couldn't give a crap about what he thought was crap.

It sounds like you're confused.

It's pretty commonplace where I was from.

but posting anything from the NY Post, as sleazy a rag as can be found, is just not cricket.What next, the Weekly World News? World Net Daily?

The actual charitable contributions of the Clinton Foundation don't mee the criteria for a trustworthy charity.

That is the problem with NY Post. It twists, turns, and slimes those whom its owner does not like.

Let's link to the actual report and skip the unreliable commentary the NY Post specializes in.

This is what it said:
Why isn't this organization rated?

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.

So the NY Post is not quite accurate in its reporting. Surprise!!

for their cause. But 9 mil out of 140? Gimme a break. They are a slush fund, no matter what paper reports it.
Not a charity, except to their friends and family.

And if you can't I appeal to you to peer into your conscience and summon your better angels and withdraw your calumny.


Thank you in advance.

Press Release: Fondo Acceso SAS Announces First Investment in Colombia
New York, NY
PRESS RELEASE
The Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Investment Fund formed by philanthropist Frank Giustra and the Fundacion Carlos Slim, in association with the William J. Clinton Foundation, makes a US $1.35 million investment in Alimentos SAS, a promising Bogota-based fruit by-products manufacturer

Investment to result in the creation of 277 new manufacturing and farm jobs in Colombia

New York, NY, September 15, 2011 — Fondo Acceso S.A.S. (Acceso) announced today that it will invest US$ 1.35 million in Alimentos SAS (Alimentos), a 28-year-old Bogota-based manufacturer that produces several lines of fruit by-products including natural fruit juices and pulp for distribution in supermarkets as well as to institutional consumers. The investment (a combination of debt and equity) will facilitate Alimentos’ implementation of plant improvements enabling them to secure industry certifications and to introduce innovative shelf-stable technology allowing expansion into new markets. The investment in Alimentos will be made directly by Fondo Acceso SAS, a Colombian enity and subsidiary of Acceso Fund LLC.

Acceso was incorporated in 2010 by Fundacion Carlos Slim, A.C. and the William J. Clinton Foundation in association with Frank Giustra. Through this partnership and President Clinton’s focus on the issue, Acceso addresses the limited financing opportunities for the small-and-medium-sized enterprise (SMEs) sector in Colombia — a sector that is underserved by traditional capital markets. Acceso uses market-based approaches to make disciplined investments in the form of loans or equity, not grants. Acceso measures both social and financial returns, with social returns sought in the form of job creation. Over the next five years, the investment in Alimentos is expected to generate 277 new jobs — 100 in manufacturing and 177 in agriculture from the Colombia farm community that supplies fruit to Alimentos.

“By providing SMEs access to capital and assuring they seek the technical assistance needed to grow responsibly, we believe that they are well-positioned to expand. Through innovative funds such as Acceso, NGOs can be a catalyst for stimulating private financial market support of SMEs”, said Carolina Botero, Manager, Fondo Acceso.

About Fondo Acceso SAS

Fondo Acceso S.A.S. (Acceso) was incorporated in 2010 by Fundacion Carlos Slim, A.C. and the William J. Clinton Foundation as part of the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. Small-and medium-sized enterprises (SME’s) employ 30 percent of the Colombian labor force, but face challenges in accessing the financing that would enable them to expand. Acceso works to provide emerging SMEs in Colombia equity financing alternatives along with capacity-building assistance. To learn more about Acceso, please visit: www.fondoacceso.com.

About Alimentos SAS, SA

Alimentos SAS has a 28 year history working in Colombia’s processed food market. In 2005, the company was acquired by Mr. Daniel Gaviria and Mr. Luis Trujillo, former executives in Colombia’s dairy industry. The combined vision of Mr. Gaviria and Mr. Trujillo is to apply the extended shelf-life and conservation processes common in the dairy industry to the fruit juice and fruit puree markets. To learn more about Alimentos, please visit www.pulpas-de-frutas.com.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/news-and-media/press-releases-and-statements/press-release-fondo-acceso-sas-announces-first-investment-in-colombia.html

If you believe providing seed money to socially responsible businesses is a bad thing there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

The William J. Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative in partnership with the Carlos Slim Foundation have announced the launch of a $20 million investment fund to support small business growth in Colombia.

http://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/clinton-giustra-sustainable-growth-initiative-carlos-slim-foundation-launch-20-million-investment-fund

If you think that charities should be running private equity firms, there is nothing I can do for you.

The Clinton Foundation was indeed placed on the Charity Navigator Watchlist at the time this article was published, April 2015. It was removed from the Watchlist in December, 2015 because the Foundation provided their amended tax Forms for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

Nevertheless, the Clinton Foundation engages in such egregious business practices that Charity Navigator cannot fully evaluate it. Therefore, it is unrated.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204

It said: 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.

Nowhere in Charity Navigator is the Clinton Foundation declared "clean." Sorry.

It conducts itself so atypically (i.e. egregiously) that CN cannot even rate it.

I respect CN for resisting whatever pressure the Clinton machine would surely have placed on them.

Please find a single thesaurus for me that says egregious is an acceptable synonym for atypical.

This is off the top of my head, based on high school Latin.

a + typical That means, "not typical." Pretty straightforward, right?

e + gregious The prefix "e" means "outside of." "gregious" comes from the Latin for "herd"

Something that is not typical is also something that is outside of the herd, the group, the norm.

That which is outside the norm is atypical

Unfortunately, the word egregious has taken on negative connotations lately, and that is what you are so so upset about. Well, I'm upset, too, because I like the word egregious and remember when it wasn't so negatively connoted.

But in reality, the Clinton Foundation operates in an atypical -- or, egregious -- manner.

And before you get too attached to atypical, take a look at some of its usual synonyms (the first few listed in Roget's):

abnormal anomalous divergent odd peculiar strange unnatural aberrant deviant

"Atypical" mean "not typical", "egregious" means "outstandingly bad; shocking".

Yes, "atypical" can have darker meanings, but not in the context it is used, especially with the disclaimer:

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.

Judging from the strained explanation, you apparently did not find any thesaurus that said the words are synonymous.

I operate in the non-profit world and would welcome some atypical business practices. I don't know what atypical business practices that the Watchdog group believes The Clinton Foundation is engaged in. I am at work and don't have time to review the 990 or annual report.

Let me give you an idea of an atypical business practice I'd like to see more. One is Program Related Investing. Many foundations steer clear of PRIs because they are afraid of running afoul of IRS regulations. Without getting into details, it is a way to use money to help people set up enterprises and provide for themselves (Think of worker coops, micro-enterprises in third world countries, or L3C's in the US), instead of just giving them food or other things they need for survival.

"It conducts itself so atypically (i.e. egregiously)"

If you believe atypical is synonymous with egregious please accept my apology on behalf of an educational system that failed you.

That's egregious.

synonym: deplorable.

What are these "egregious business practices", who describes them as such, and where are the documented?

There are lots of issues upon one may impugn HRC's judgment, but engaging in this kind of dubious commentary discredits us.

Click on it.

most recent Annual Report?

In accordance with our policy for removing charities from the CN Watchlist, Charity Navigator removed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from the Watchlist in December 2015 because the charity provided publicly accessible information regarding their amended tax Forms for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. This information, along with the public memorandum submitted addressing the other issues raised in the Watchlist entry, meets our requirements for removal.

Charity Navigator placed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation on the CN Watchlist because we became aware of the following information:

On February 19, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton "was one of the most aggressive global cheerleaders for American companies, pushing governments to sign deals and change policies to the advantage of corporate giants such as General Electric Co., Exxon MobilCorp., Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co." The article goes on to state that "at the same time, those companies were among the many that gave to the Clinton family's global foundation set up by her husband, former President Bill Clinton." The article says that "at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public and foundation disclosures."
The article also states that "corporate donations to politically connected charities aren't illegal so long as they aren't in exchange for favors. There is no evidence of that with the Clinton Foundation. [...] All of the companies mentioned in this article said their charitable donations had nothing to do with their lobbying agendas with Mrs. Clinton's State Department."

For More Information: The Wall Street Journal

On February 26, 2015, Politico Magazine reported on questions raised regarding the foundation's acceptance of foreign donations during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. According to the article, "The Clinton Foundation failed to submit a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government to the State Department for approval under an ethics agreement put in place as Hillary Clinton was being confirmed as secretary of state."
The article also states that "some dismissed recent scrutiny of the foundation's fundraising and management as a function of the news media's 'total obsession' with the Clintons, in the words of Chris Ruddy, the CEO of the conservative media outlet Newsmax, which last year pledged $1 million to the foundation."

For More Information: Politico Magazine

On February 20, 2015, MarketWatch reported that the Clinton Foundation said "that if Hillary Clinton runs for president, it will consider whether to continue accepting contributions from foreign governments, a step that would be aimed at avoiding the appearance of conflicts of interest."

For More Information: MarketWatch

On March 1, 2015, Politico Magazine reported that the Clinton Foundation’s CEO, Eric Braverman, quit abruptly only a year and half after his arrival at the foundation. According to the article, "[Braverman’s] exit stemmed partly from a power struggle inside the foundation between and among the coterie of Clinton loyalists who have surrounded the former president for decades and who helped start and run the foundation."

For More Information: Politico Magazine

On February 20, 2015, The New York Times reported that "no critic has alleged a specific conflict of interest. The foundation, in fact, went beyond normal philanthropic bounds for transparency six years ago in instituting voluntary disclosure of donors within broad dollar ranges on its website."

For More Information: The New York Times

On February 18, 2015, The Washington Post reported that, "the foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs."
The article also states that "in posting its donor data, the foundation goes beyond legal requirements, and experts say its transparency level exceeds that of most philanthropies."

For More Information: The Washington Post

On March 19, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Clinton "Foundation agreed not to seek donations from other governments, but cash kept flowing from individuals with connections to them. [. . .] In response to questions about foreign donations, a foundation official said the individuals have given to a host of other major philanthropies. 'Like other global charities and nongovernmental organizations, the Clinton Foundation receives support from individuals all over the world because our programs are improving the lives of millions of people around the globe,' said spokesman Craig Minassian."

For More Information: Wall Street Journal

On March 9, 2015, The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that Donna Shalala, "a former Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Bill Clinton, has been selected to lead the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation [...]"

For More Information: The Chronicle of Philanthropy

On April 15, 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that "the board of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has decided to continue accepting donations from foreign governments, primarily from six countries, even though Hillary Clinton is running for president."

For More Information: The Wall Street Journal

On April 13th, 2015, The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that "Hillary Clinton resigned from the Board of Directors of the Clinton Foundation on Sunday after formally declaring her candidacy in the 2016 presidential race." The article goes on to say, "The foundation said it would consider changes this week in its donor policies, possibly including more frequent disclosure."

For More Information: The Chronicle of Philanthropy

The Clinton Foundation provided Charity Navigator with the following response to the issues cited in the CN Watchlist entry.

For More Information: The Clinton Foundation Memorandum

On April 23, 2015, Reuters reported that "Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors."

For More Information: Reuters

On May 26, 2015, International Business Times published an article titled, "Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department"

For More Information: International Business Times

On May 27, 2015, The Daily Beast published an article titled, "Corrupt FIFA Has Clinton Foundation Ties; World Cup Host Qatar Gave Millions"

For More Information: The Daily Beast

On May 29, 2015, The Chronicle of Philanthropy published an article titled, "Longtime Clinton Friend Earned $10,000 a Month at Foundation"

For More Information: The Chronicle of Philanthropy

On June 19, 2015, Factcheck.org published an article titled, "Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?"

For More Information: FactCheck.org

On November 17, 2015, The Nonprofit Times published an article titled, "Clinton Foundation Re-files Form 990s."

For More Information: The Nonprofit Times

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204

(Please see the Archived Watchlist at the link for numerous embedded links)

I wasn't expecting it.

If anyone wants to make an OP of CN's Archived Watchlist for the Clinton Foundation, I think that would be peachy.

you could have merely cited the first paragraph, which renders the subsequent text irrelevant.

That's what would typically be done.

No
I had clinton supporter.links to.stormfront again.....dang.
Safe bet tho so i will.keep that as my bet.

Great, Sanders supporters are now attacking a foundation that fights AIDS and climate change, and supports small farmers and offers programs for women in places that are not very good to women. And they use the the NEW YORK POST as their source! My goodness, fuck the rest of the world if that's what it takes to get at Hillary. The Clinton Foundation does a lot of good work and spends most of its money on its work.

But, if it helps Sanders to go after international AIDS funding, I guess it's worth it.

They provide clean drinking water to remote areas of Africa without which kids would literally poop themselves to death from dysentery.


But it's a war on this board so I guess these attacks are fair...Let's just all be honest about what's going on.

No one disputes that. But seriously, in all honesty, do you not see that the CF has huge ethical problems,
especially in concert with HRC as SOS? If you can't see it or admit it, then you are lost. The information
is everywhere, the quid pro quo for the CF orchestrated by HRC as SOS.
Res ipsa loquitur indeed

If you believe that spending 88% of the money you raise on the people you raised it for is small there in nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

The controversy is a function of how they administer their programs and not whether the funds raised are actually spent.

of a plethora of business related activities but cry foul constantly. The boy who cried wolf comes to mind fairly often.

But but ... we do so much good! How dare you look too closely at us!

lemme guess, never been to Harlem.

and uses AIDS as an excuse for stealing your donations.

that Glenn Greenwald's benefactor is also a donor to that fund...

Or something

solely based on gender.

Be sure to duck & cover after kicking the hornets nest!

Nothing new, here.

< ----- Sanders supporter

The nypost is less reliable for truth than stink on dog shit.

You should make this an OP.