The Times won’t follow suit: For ourselves, we first heard the claim on The Five, on April 30. The Clinton Foundation only spends ten percent of its money on charitable ventures!
On Monday, May 4, we heard Mary Katharine Ham repeat the claim on The O’Reilly Factor. O’Reilly had said that the FBI should investigation the foundation. Right on cue, the scripted Ham repeated that hot new claim:
O’REILLY (5/4/15): You don't get any evidence unless you investigate. Right, Mary Katherine? Don't you have to investigate before the evidence surfaces?The talking point was spreading fast on Fox. The Clinton Foundation only spends ten percent of its money on charitable giving!
HAM: Yes. I agree with you on that. And I appreciate you asking the FBI on it. Like Charles Krauthammer, I'm going to say that I wouldn't count on anything. And I also think that, by the way, the IRS should spend a bunch of time going after people for political reasons investigating tiny little 501's—
O’REILLY: But that's against the law. They are not supposed to do that.
HAM: Right. But these also raised red flags, like real red flags for the IRS to say “Hey, what is your classification about here and what do you actually spending on?” When you get to these numbers of the Clinton Foundation spending 10 to 15 percent on charitable giving and 60 percent unaccounted for or un-enumerated—
O’REILLY: But why do you say the FBI is not going to do it? I think [Director] Comey is an honest guy, is he not?
HAM: Look, I do think that if this were a Republican involved with this foundation that you would—
O’REILLY: Then you are saying, you're saying Comey is an ideologue and you would say he is not an honest man.
HAM: I want you to restore my faith, Bill.
Two nights later, the point came crashing down. To his credit, Fox’s own Eric Shawn put an end to the disinformation, speaking to Mr. O right there on The Factor:
O’REILLY (5/6/15): The accusation is that only 10 percent of the money raised, and it’s $2 billion, goes to grants out to poor people or institutions.Nothing gold can stay! The hot new claim was “incredibly misleading,” Shawn resolutely said.
SHAWN: That sounds really bad but it's actually incredibly misleading because it's the way the charity works. They don't give grants to other charities. They do most of it themselves. So that they actually have a rate of spending of about 80 percent, according to the IRS figures—they say 88 percent. You know, Bill, the experts for charity say that's very good. They usually want a charity to give about 80 percent.
O’REILLY: So their own people, whom they hire, do the work in Haiti, do the work in the other Third World nations paid by the Clinton Foundation themselves. So this is going in for infrastructure, for salaries, travel, for them to do the charity work rather than giving it to somebody else.
SHAWN: Or partners that they work with as opposed to being a charity that just gives.
O’REILLY: All right. So right now, the amount of the money of the $2 billion going out is OK?
SHAWN: Yes, it's pretty good, according to the experts. Yes.
He said the foundation actually dispenses 88 percent of its money on charitable spending. According to Shawn, experts say that this amount of charitable spending is actually “very good.”
Where did the bogus claim come from—the claim about ten percent? Wouldn't you know it? According to Eris Hananoki at Media Matters, the bogus claim started with Peter Schweizer, the pseudo-journalistic con man who is being treated with high regard by major mainstream journalists and major mainstream news orgs.
In this recent post, Hananoki quotes Schweizer spreading the bogus claim through a range of media outlets. He even pimped the phony claim on C-Span’s Washington Journal on Tuesday, May 5.
The following night, to his credit, Shawn shot Schweizer down.
They were willing to debunk this bullshit on The O’Reilly Factor. Where in the world is the New York Times, Schweizer’s business partner? Where on earth are the fiery liberals who ought to be screaming about such acts of deception?
The liberals are asleep in the woods, worrying about their careers. The Times is writing pointless, tedious “news reports” about which candidates are and aren’t using the term “middle class.”
To read the Times report, click this. Warning! Tedium kills!
Peter Schweizer is a con man. He’s also a partner of the glorious Times. Why on earth are fiery liberals tolerating this scam?
We’ll be asking that question all week. President Walker hopes and prays that no one will follow suit.