Skip to comments.The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation.
Posted on 08/14/2013 8:59:32 AM PDT by safetysign
Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh? Today it runs with a fascinating takedown of the Clinton Foundation that vast vanity project that conservatives are wary of criticising for being seen to attack a body that tries to do good. But the liberal NYT has no such scruples. The killer quote is this:
For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.
Over a year ago Bill Clinton met with some aides and lawyers to review the Foundation's progress and concluded that it was a mess. Well, many political start-ups can be, especially when their sole selling point is the big name of their founder (the queues are short at the Dan Quayle Vice Presidential Learning Center). But what complicated this review what made its findings more politically devastating is that the Clinton Foundation has become about more than just Bill. Now both daughter Chelsea and wife, and likely presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton have taken on major roles and, in the words of the NYT "efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons charity work from Mr Clintons moneymaking ventures and Mrs Clintons political future." Oh, they're entangled alright.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
Oh happy day.
The story at the New York Times has been knocked offline
Billy Jeff made a phone call? /s
The Clinton’s are notorious grifters and it is no surprise that their “foundation” enriches them as much as it does any charity. Hillary’s girl Friday, Huma, also has a cushy position with the foundation.
The NYT planting the first seeds of plausible deniability for the Clintons? Most definitely.
Key phrases like "reviewed and concluded", "taken on .. efforts to disentangle" make it sound like they didn't know all along. Like they didn't know about pork futures. Like they didn't know where the FBI files were. Etc, etc, etc...
NYT pays back the Clintons for the threats they made to stop negative coverage of Weiner and to instead write puff pieces about Huma Abedin or else.
And Clintons pay back the NYT by knocking out their website.
Funny how all of this happened a day after the Weiner polled 10% yesterday and now most likely has no chance of becoming mayor.
As of 12:08 pm EDT the NYT has been knocked off line
Just pre-campaigned jockeying - squeakiest wheel gets the grease and all that.
Nothing to see here. It would be absolutely unheard of for any journalist (I gag when I have to apply this to NYT) of the NYT to do anything detrimental to any powerati Democrat. That includes the Clintons
Isn’t that a coincidence. I wonder how many times the NYT has gone down? Probably not very often. Perhaps the Clintons are activating their cleanup team again.
its still offline!
Http/1.1 Service Unavailable
It’s the Vince Foster poltergeist.
The NYT is telling the Clintons to clean up their act before 2016 so Hillary is not hurt by it.
lol That’s wild. It’s still down. One day, every crooked thing these people have done will catch up with them. Hopefully, all at once.
I think you have the most correct assumption of what is going on yet posted. Get it out now so it is long forgotten by 2016.
And should it come up then, Hillary’s sainthood will be further enhanced as she continues to stand by Bill’s “troubles”.
My guess? A campaign money laundering scheme for Hillary & Friends.
these organizations set-up by athletes and politicians for rehab purposes are scams.
Usually a large portion gets funneled to a spouse or a relative and eventually ends up in campaign coffers or some public project where the cash is laundered a few times down..
I’ll bet Bill has hit more black women than Obama.
Probably WHY they were CYBER ATTACKED TODAY!!!
Its in the Clinton’s best interests that any and all scandalous stories be published now so that they cannot come out during an election campaign in 2016.
This is the old Clinton tactic of airing the dirty laundry early like they did back in the 1990’s.
Before you contribute to a charity, you might want to check how EFFICIENT it is using the money they receive, how well it has sustained its programs and services over time and their level of commitment to being accountable and transparent.
So, you look at their Financial Health and their Accountability & Transparency.
For instance, Charity X spends $2.5 million on program expenses, compared with its overall operating budget of $3.5 million. Thus, Charity X spends 71.4% on program expenses.
Here’s one group that rates Charities according to a predefined metric and criteria:
4 star charities are the best. Those scoring less than 3 stars are INEFFCIENT to say the least.
One charity I contribute to — Compassion International has 4 starts.
The Clinton Foundation is rated 2 starts.
Why is Webster Hubbell’s daughter in the picture?
Add embezzlers to their list of traits.
I wanna know so's I can go to the liebury an copy it before it disappears furevur!!!
For later reference
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.