Sunday, October 23, 2016

Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Machine

Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Machine
© 2015 Rick Adamson
by Rick Adamson 6.6.15

Who ever came up with the idea for the machine was brilliant. The entire setup is a strategic masterpiece. The scheme is legal and has made the Clinton's very rich.

Just think, you have an arrangement (a marriage in this case) where one partner (or the other) has been on the public payroll for 30+ years, one receives a lavish pension from the government, both receive security services provided by the the Secret Service, one provides lobbying services but accepts no lobbying fees (and, therefore, does not have to register with FedGov as a lobbyist) because speaking fees are arranged instead.

There is no smoking gun or quid pro quo because they are both lawyers and are surrounded by lawyers who know how to avoid it. There is no proof of pillow talk (influence) because they do not sleep together.

The Foundation has collected $2 Billion since its inception but only spends about 10% on charitable grants. Most of the money is spent on staff, salaries for long time cronies and lavish trips (by the Clinton’s, unless Uncle Sam pays, and others) to extravagant conferences.

According to Kyle Smith of the NYPost.com the operation has been “run about as forthright as the KGB”. In 2013 the BBB found the charity failed to meet “minimum standards of accountability and transparency”. While paying for the best legal advice, it’s accountant’s are blamed for the Foundation’s failure to properly disclose donors and donations as required by the IRS. When omissions are disclosed the response is “Ok, we will just amend the tax returns”.

There is no doubt that the foundation has done many good things, however, the overhead associated with those good deeds (making the Clinton’s rich) has been high when compared to the good that the contributed money could have done had it been contributed directly toward the intended purpose.

What a heavenly arrangement.

And That’s that!



No comments: