Hacker News Reader

Comment by chasing | Hacker News Reader

Nope. You're probably thinking of the $25m the Saudis gave to the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit humanitarian organization.

View on HN

It's a non-issue and you're really wasting your time responding to these attempts to suggest "both candidates were as corrupt as each other" in the 2016 election:

"Nonetheless. looking at the Clinton Foundation’s donor list, Saudi Arabia gave between $10 million and $25 million. But the foundation reported the Saudi money in December 2008, and the amount hasn’t changed since. Clinton Foundation spokesman Brian Cookstra pointed out that Saudi Arabia did not give to the foundation while Secretary Clinton was at the State Department."

Why people genuinely believe we should focus on this, rather than Donald Trump's ongoing business ties to Russia—and all of the blatant lies about it—I'll never know.

If we are to accept the 'Clinton Foundation spokesman' as the definitive source of truth, then in fairness we would have to accept the administration's claims on Russia with the same merits.

As to why, there seems to be more of a corrupt veil that obscures Saudi Arabia's true role in the world vs. Russia. For example

https://news.vice.com/story/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-sponsor-...

The Clinton Foundation publicly discloses all its donors. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors

Trump has stated there are no ties to Russia.

So we can now be done with both of these concerns?

We have already found multiple ties to Russia, contradicting Trump's claims.

The Clinton Foundation's disclosures match the totals in its mandatory financial reports. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-rep...

>If we are to accept the 'Clinton Foundation spokesman' as the definitive source of truth, then in fairness we would have to accept the administration's claims on Russia with the same merits.

This is some bizarre logic.

Is it really bizarre to apply the same standards? Can the accused verify themselves innocent in one instance but not in another?

A fund run by their daughter...

http://time.com/3736221/chelsea-clinton-global-initiative-hi...

...that has been accused of sometimes using the foundation as a type of slush fund...

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea-clinton-used-foundation...

...and doesn't always do what it promises...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/hillary-clint...

You believe that the Saudis donated 25 million dollars out of the kindness in their hearts, to an American foundation, run by Hilary Clinton, without any implication that the favor be returned?

Hillary Clinton (two "L"s) never ran the Clinton Foundation. She spent two years on the Board. The President of the Clinton Foundation is Donna Shalala. And the person who probably actually leads it is the founder: Bill Clinton.

How is that not the same thing?

Well, it's confusing because both include the word "Clinton," but one is a human being who, amongst other things, ran for President in 2016. The other is a non-profit humanitarian organization. Two different things.

Pretty snarky when we all know the lines are blurrier than your comment suggests.

Here's one example where the Clinton Foundation provided access to government officials by corporations seeking favors: http://freebeacon.com/issues/emails-clinton-foundation-donor...

Denis O’Brien has a checkered past of journalistic obstruction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_O%27Brien

Access. The Clinton Foundation sells access, from which the Clinton family benefits.

I don't see the Gates Foundation pulling this, do you?

> non-profit humanitarian organization

Which just happens to pay the Clintons' bills every time they feel like travelling anywhere, and direct money to whoever the Clintons want to do favours for.

The election is over, we can all admit that the Clinton Foundation is pretty stinky.

They've also helped millions of people get affordable AIDS medication.

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/jun/15...

Don't want to get into Trump vs Hilary debate, but don't you think it is a bit strange that nearly every rich individual has their own foundation? A foundation that most people don't know what is responsible for. Most of the time you don't hear it doing much either.

Why for example some political entities donate large amount of money to these foundations instead of the ones that are proven to do something (like red cross).

It feels like perhaps those foundations are there just to exploit a tax loophole, and that they donate once in a while to specific cause to satisfy their legal requirements.

That's probably true, but there's very little evidence of donations to the foundation being used to elicit favors, and there's a smidge of evidence that such attempts failed. Example:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-donor-chag...

If you give money to a government official in return for a specific favour then you'll both wind up in prison.

But there are certainly a helluva lot of ways of for this transaction to occur without anyone ever directly saying "here is your bribe".

Good grief.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8825813

...that spent significantly more money on luxury travel costs than it did on charitable grants. [1]

[1] http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-3115...

93.91/100 from Charity Navigator, spending 86.9% on programs and services.

Aside from the editorializing about "luxury", that's because it is a direct-action charity, not an pass-through charity that gives grants to other charities while skimming off the top for administrative expenses. So, yes, it spends more on travel (and lots of other things) than on charitable grants, because grants aren't the mechanism by which it's charitable purpose is realized.

    Charitable grants are not a major focus
    of the Clinton Foundation, which instead
    uses most of its money to carry out its
    own humanitarian programs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation

"Luxury" sounds like editorializing given the data you provide to back up your claim, which simply lists travel as being a $7.8mm cost and grants as a $4.1mm cost (page 10 of your linked PDF).

"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 fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is 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..." [1]

[1] https://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-found...

So of $140M raised tax-free in 2013, half was spent keeping the operation going that very year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com