Hillary Clinton is taking a financial hit in the aftermath of the election. With her no longer having US government access or secrets to peddle around the world, it seems that the supposed charitable activities of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative are seen by foreign nations as being less worthy than there were when she was widely expected to be the next president. As a result of greatly diminishing payment for favors disguised as charitable contributions, the Clinton Global Initiative will be shutting its doors.
The RT anchor describes, with a straight face, the report as an investigation into whether or not the charity work was CGI’s priority. The sarcasm can be heard just below the surface as the reporter, Caleb Maupin, describes it as a “pity” they were shutting down, “considering all of the noble deeds they were planning.”
They then role a montage of big claims made by big donors, although it’s not stated how much of that money ever ends up going to the supposed cause it was donated to, although another report in the Daily Caller indicates the number to have been a pathetic 5.7% for the Clinton Foundation as a whole for the year 2014.
Maupin notes that the Foundation was doing very well until the election but have since fallen on hard times. He says, “It usually brings in hundreds of millions of dollars but the government of Australia has ended its partnership with the Clinton Foundation and Norway has drastically reduced its contributions.” Australia average over $8 million per year for the last ten years and Norway dropped from $20 million in 2015 to $4.2 million in 2016.” There is no reason, with her no longer having access or secrets to exchange for money, to expect that trend to discontinue.
He reports that despite having operations all over the planet, the Clinton Foundation recruited only five new donors in the final quarter of 2016. Lew Rockwell comments, “The governments of Norway and Australia, like all governments, are not charitable institutions. They’re self-interested institutions interested in their own viability and their own growth and they felt that having Bill Clinton be in hock to them and Hillary Clinton in hock to them benefited them. But there is nothing charitable about it.”
He continues, “They were able to get favors from the American government in return for it. It was not because they loved Bill Clinton. It was not because they thought that the so-called programs of the Clinton were worth [it], I think it’s because it was a ‘you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours.”
Maupin demonstrates his mastery of the understatement, saying, the Clinton Foundation received quite a bit of negative publicity during the 2016 race,” noting the friends lists that were kept on donors, who received special treatment at the state department. With donations drying up, April 17th will be the last day of the Clinton Global Initiative.
He asks, “So is world hunger solved, all the diseases cured, mission accomplished? Or is it that those “good friends” of our won’t be enjoying the perks they were expecting with somebody else in the oval office? The answer is obvious.
Please like Rick on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/ and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar I’m also at Stop The Takeover, https://www.facebook.com/StopTheTakeover/ and please follow on Twitter @RickRWells.