My understanding is that universities are federally tax-exempt , so financially, it makes no difference to them who gets the money.
But the optics are better for them if they donate the money to a charitable foundation rather than to a politician. That way, it looks less like a bribe.
And you can be sure they are more than willing to coordinate with H*****y to make sure the payment is done is a way that is most advantageous to her.
You’d have to be a tax lawyer to fully understand the process.
As for Haiti, even if the donation had gone directly to Haiti, the Haitian people would have gotten just as much out of it as they did after the UN and the Clintons took their cuts. The only difference is one group of criminals would have gotten more, and the other groups of criminals would have gotten nothing.
Either way, the end result would be the same.
And what difference, at this point, does it make?
“And what difference, at this point, does it make?”
The Clinton/Haitian/UN deal made us officially into a third world country. Imagine if you, working as a high level US official with some say in the US side of the deal went to the first beneficiary of the deal, the UN and dealt yourself in. Then you handled the payments to Haiti with, of course, your handling fee. If this was legal and ethical why didn’t Hillary go straight to Congress and suggest it? Because Congress would have been incensed. And, other than one article here on FR, I’ve never even seen it mentioned since. Imagine if a relative of George Bush had done this. They’d still start every news broadcast with, “This is 3,795th day since Obadiah Bush stole money from the taxpayers.”