Reporting Accurately On Clinton Seems Difficult For The Media

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/reporting-accurately-on-c_b_11720548.html?

Yes, Hillary and Bill Clinton are different. First because no public officials have ever had the kind of scrutiny they have had or been attacked as viciously for so long. Then no former president has ever set up a Foundation like the Clinton Foundationaccomplishing the good works the Foundation has for millions around the world. Lest we forget the Foundation has received a clean bill of health from a number of charity watchdogs.

Then no-one alive today remembers a time when the person losing a Party’s hard-fought Presidential primary was asked by the winner who defeated her to assume what many consider the most important role in his administration.

The latest attack on Hillary comes from the Associated Press trying to make a direct connection between the meetings Clinton held as Secretary of State and donations to the foundation. They focus on 184 meetings. They include meetings with Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel and Bill and Melinda Gates as if they had to donate money to meet with the Secretary. Then they bury the sentence in the column that should actually have been the headline, “The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009.” The New York Times jumped on the story and they also take to listing names. But when talking about a supposed deal somewhere deep in the column admit “There was no evidence that Mrs. Clinton had exerted influence over the deal.” The New York Times reporters continue their attacks on Hillary and their stories taken in totality amount to zero.

In fact the foreign dignitaries, rich people, corporations and foundations who happened to donate to the foundation and wanted to meet with Hillary had actual international business ideas or issues they wanted to discuss all of which were appropriate for State Department discussion. One example mentioned in the AP story happened in June of 2011 “Clinton met with Nancy Mahon of MAC AIDS, the charitable arm of MAC Cosmetics, which is owned by Estee Lauder. The meeting occurred before an announcement about a State Department partnership with MAC AIDS to raise money to finance AIDS education and prevention. The MAC AIDS fund donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation and several million more in commitments to programs through the Clinton Global Initiative.” Obviously the intent of including this in the story was to show a connection to the Foundation. But it is clear that connection is irrelevant to the international charity work they did in partnership with the State Department. They didn’t get anything rather they gave more money and it wasn’t to the Clintons but rather the money went to help people in need around the world.

Ignored in this continuing effort to discredit everything Clinton, is what Gary Bass, founder and former director or OMB Watch, originally formed as a government accountability organization, said “it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account. Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, “she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time.” That corresponds to what the State Department and the FBI have said.

Now Hillary Clinton has apologized for using a private server. She learned from that and clearly won’t do it again. But it has not been shown anywhere at any time that what passed across her server either hurt an individual or the nation.

What gets lost by the media in their rush to attack Hillary, using every Republican scattershot, is before she began her campaign she was honored by Republicans and Democrats, national and international leaders including John McCain all praising the work she did at State. She has an incomparable history of service to people. When she is serving people, whether in elected or appointed office, or simply as a private citizen, just not when running for office, people remember and admire that history. In 2015 American’s voted her most admired woman in the world for the 20th time.

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/

The Foundations work doesn't only consist of charitable grants. From reading some of the other threads in this forum one is lead to believe that the Clinton's are using the foundation's money for their personal gain. They don't receive compensation from the foundation so how are they financially enriching themselves through the foundation?

[Rob L 3,811]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/

The chart above is BS..the numbers do not add up

[John Miller 761]

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

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is an A rated charity. It takes only $2.00 to raise $100.00 (that ratio of some charities will make your head spin - some take $80.00 or more to raise $100.00). The overhead is 12% while spending for the program accounts for 88%. There aren't many charities that get these kind of ratios maximizing their program work out of the funds they raise.

[Jacque67 7,328]

The chart above is BS..the numbers do not add up

Plus one-I've run out!

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

The chart above is BS..the numbers do not add up

maybe my math is off...........

34+33+2+6+5+10+10= 100 according to my calculator. is my calculator broke?

[Rob L 3,811]

maybe my math is off...........

34+33+2+6+5+10+10= 100 according to my calculator. is my calculator broke?

They dont line up with audited,published statements

[Dakine10 5,452]

The chart above is BS..the numbers do not add up

Welcome to the world of Republican math. Where the numbers don't usually add up to anything, but it does make them feel better.