Foundations For Liars: Bill Clinton’s Stains On Philanthropy

[mystery-ak]

Foundations For Liars: Bill Clinton’s Stains On Philanthropy
Charles Ortel
7–9 minutes

“The desire of power in excess, caused the angels to fall; the desire of knowledge in excess, caused man to fall: but in charity there is no excess [emphasis added]; neither can angel, nor man, come in danger by it.”

Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

In his active political career, Bill Clinton, at times, displayed genius. However, his post-presidency defines how an arrogant, proud person can cruelly destroy a charity’s ability to perform good works lawfully.

Francis Bacon, an intellectual giant, understood that true charity only benefits the recipient. Bill is the opposite. In thousands of pages of word torrents, Bill seems to suggest that activities pursued through “his” foundation served as a kind of personal redemption.

Neither public good nor personal redemption, however, appears in Clinton’s “charity” documents. In required public filings, Bill and his family never explain why a Little Rock library and research center reimbursed the Clinton family's global travel and staff expenses from January 2001 onward. Nor do the Clintons document the many personal benefits they have received from donors to “their” charity.

These defective filings, all made under penalties of perjury, along with the contradictions in recent sworn testimony before the House Oversight Committee, are a minefield of increasing danger for Bill and his family.

Once an adept liar, Bill and his “defense” team abandoned the pretense of truth-telling in key instances during his recent appearance before the Oversight Committee. We know this from a close reading of key details in the long transcript.

Tax-exempt nonprofit corporations are required to file truthful public records under state, federal, and foreign laws as they solicit donations and conduct operations in furtherance of their authorized purposes.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/03/foundations_for_liars_bill_clinton_s_stains_on_philanthropy.html

[catfish1957]

I hate to be crass and nasty on the subject, but I'd venture 90% of NGO's are scams and shams. 

And that's a damned shame. 

[Canuck Conservative]

I'm always suspicious of "charities" that have staff earning big money, like hundreds of thousands of dollars each ... shouldn't more of that money actually go the charity's intended targets??

(for example, the United Way CEO makes $400,000 a year ... I won't ever donate to them until that changes!!)

[catfish1957]

I'm always suspicious of "charities" that have staff earning big money, like hundreds of thousands of dollars each ... shouldn't more of that money actually go the charity's intended targets??

(for example, the United Way CEO makes $400,000 a year ... I won't ever donate to them until that changes!!)

Agree...  Used to piss me off when my Company strong armed the employees for UW "Fair Share".  We had an employee who brought up the UW CEO at a Fundraiser kickoff event.  The local chapter rep, him hawed around an answer.  But as far as the employee, I think it ended his career.

[Bigun]

I hate to be crass and nasty on the subject, but I'd venture 90% of NGO's are scams and shams. 

And that's a damned shame.

And the saddest part is that our government has no constitutional authority to fund a single one of them.

[Smokin Joe]

And the saddest part is that our government has no constitutional authority to fund a single one of them.

THIS!