Supplemental: Mr. O shoots Schweizer down!

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2015

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?

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.
The talking point was spreading fast on Fox. The Clinton Foundation only spends ten percent of its money on charitable giving!

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.

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.
Nothing gold can stay! The hot new claim was “incredibly misleading,” Shawn resolutely said.

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?

Your answers:

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.


  1. There are many kinds of charities an foundations. And funding a foundation's endowment is different from giving to the United way. The United Way (if that still exists) pays out its gifts promptly. A foundation builds and usually maintains an endowment and actively seeks out and creates projects and uses.....Does anyone really think the Rockefeller or Ford (etc) Foundations kick out their entire endowments right away?


    'Nuf sed.

    1. About the CN Watchlist

      Charity Navigator, as an impartial evaluator of publicly reported financial, accountability/transparency and results reporting information, takes no position on allegations made or issues raised by third parties, nor does Charity Navigator seek to confirm or verify the accuracy of allegations made or the merits of issues raised by third parties that may be referred to in the CN Watchlist. However, given that our primary obligation is to donors, Charity Navigator has determined that the nature of this/these issue(s) warrants highlighting the information available so that donors are aware of the issues in question which may be relevant to their decision whether to contribute to this organization. (See How we decide to add a charity to the CN Watchlist).

    2. It goes to Charity Navigator's homepage--what point did you think this made?

    3. Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters

      I get this from that url. Isn't handing you a shovel good enough?
      Do I have to do the digging for you as well?

      Why isn't this organization rated?

      We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
      What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

      It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

      EIN 31-1580204
      Street Address 610 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE 2ND FLOOR
      City, State, Zip LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201-1732
      NTEE Code E70
      NTEE Classification Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion
      NTEE Type Health - General and Rehabilitative
      Classification Charitable Organization
      Subsection 501(c)(3) (View the list of codes)
      Activities (994) Described in section 170(b)1)(a)(vi) of the Code
      (61) Library
      Foundation Status Organization which receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)
      Deductibility Contributions are deductible
      Affiliation Independent - the organization is an independent organization or an independent auxiliary (i.e., not affiliated with a National, Regional, or Geographic grouping of organizations).
      Group Name [Not Applicable]
      Ruling Date January, 1998
      Asset Amount $277,805,820
      Income Amount $151,088,009
      Form 990 Revenue Amount $148,889,439
      Latest Form 990 Return December, 2013
      Filing Requirement 990 (all other) or 990EZ return
      Fiscal Year End December
      IRS Forms 990
      (provided courtesy of Foundation Center) (Log In or Register Now to View Forms 990!)
      December, 2013
      December, 2012
      December, 2011
      December, 2010
      December, 2009
      The data displayed in this profile is provided by the IRS for free in the form of Publication 78 and the Business Master File (BMF).

      Learn more about unrated organizations.

    4. Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is on Charity Navigator's Watchlist
      Here's why:

      On February 18, 2015, The Washington Post reported that, "the foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs."
      The article also states that "in posting its donor data, the foundation goes beyond legal requirements, and experts say its transparency level exceeds that of most philanthropies."
      For more information: The Washington Post

      On February 19, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton "was one of the most aggressive global cheerleaders for American companies, pushing governments to sign deals and change policies to the advantage of corporate giants such as General Electric Co., Exxon MobilCorp., Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co." The article goes on to state that "at the same time, those companies were among the many that gave to the Clinton family's global foundation set up by her husband, former President Bill Clinton." The article says that "at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public and foundation disclosures."
      The article also states that "corporate donations to politically connected charities aren't illegal so long as they aren't in exchange for favors. There is no evidence of that with the Clinton Foundation. [...] All of the companies mentioned in this article said their charitable donations had nothing to do with their lobbying agendas with Mrs. Clinton's State Department."
      For more information: The Wall Street Journal

      On February 20, 2015, MarketWatch reported that the Clinton Foundation said "that if Hillary Clinton runs for president, it will consider whether to continue accepting contributions from foreign governments, a step that would be aimed at avoiding the appearance of conflicts of interest."
      For more information: MarketWatch

      On February 20, 2015, The New York Times reported that "no critic has alleged a specific conflict of interest. The foundation, in fact, went beyond normal philanthropic bounds for transparency six years ago in instituting voluntary disclosure of donors within broad dollar ranges on its website."
      For more information: The New York Times

    5. On February 26, 2015, Politico Magazine reported on questions raised regarding the foundation's acceptance of foreign donations during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. According to the article, "The Clinton Foundation failed to submit a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government to the State Department for approval under an ethics agreement put in place as Hillary Clinton was being confirmed as secretary of state."
      The article also states that "some dismissed recent scrutiny of the foundation's fundraising and management as a function of the news media's 'total obsession' with the Clintons, in the words of Chris Ruddy, the CEO of the conservative media outlet Newsmax, which last year pledged $1 million to the foundation."
      For more information: Politico Magazine

      On March 1, 2015, Politico Magazine reported that the Clinton Foundation’s CEO, Eric Braverman, quit abruptly only a year and half after his arrival at the foundation. According to the article, "[Braverman’s] exit stemmed partly from a power struggle inside the foundation between and among the coterie of Clinton loyalists who have surrounded the former president for decades and who helped start and run the foundation."
      For more information: Politico Magazine

      On March 9, 2015, The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that Donna Shalala, "a former Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Bill Clinton, has been selected to lead the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation [...]"
      For more information: The Chronicle of Philanthropy

      On March 19, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Clinton "Foundation agreed not to seek donations from other governments, but cash kept flowing from individuals with connections to them. [. . .] In response to questions about foreign donations, a foundation official said the individuals have given to a host of other major philanthropies. 'Like other global charities and nongovernmental organizations, the Clinton Foundation receives support from individuals all over the world because our programs are improving the lives of millions of people around the globe,' said spokesman Craig Minassian."
      For more information: Wall Street Journal

      On April 13th, 2015, The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that "Hillary Clinton resigned from the Board of Directors of the Clinton Foundation on Sunday after formally declaring her candidacy in the 2016 presidential race." The article goes on to say, "The foundation said it would consider changes this week in its donor policies, possibly including more frequent disclosure."
      For more information: The Chronicle of Philanthropy

      On April 15, 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that "the board of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has decided to continue accepting donations from foreign governments, primarily from six countries, even though Hillary Clinton is running for president."
      For more information: The Wall Street Journal

      About the CN Watchlist
      Charity Navigator, as an impartial evaluator of publicly reported financial, accountability/transparency and results reporting information, takes no position on allegations made or issues raised by third parties, nor does Charity Navigator seek to confirm or verify the accuracy of allegations made or the merits of issues raised by third parties that may be referred to in the CN Watchlist. However, given that our primary obligation is to donors, Charity Navigator has determined that the nature of this/these issue(s) warrants highlighting the information available so that donors are aware of the issues in question which may be relevant to their decision whether to contribute to this organization. (See How we decide to add a charity to the CN Watchlist).

  3. MeganKelly'sSneerMay 12, 2015 at 6:44 PM

    Somerby uncharacteristically glosses over Shawn's assertion that "experts for charity" consider an 80% giving rate to be good. Not saying that there aren't "experts for charity" (as opposed to Polifact), or that they failed to analyze the appropriate foundation records and compared them to an average giving rate, or that they didn't determine that 80% "is good." 80% seems like a good giving rate to me but I'm no charity expert and neither is Somerby.

    It just seems that in this context, Somerby blindly accepts the assertion of a known anti-UN crackpot in order to use that crackpot's correction of O'Reilly to flog liberals again.

    1. It "seems" that way if you're out of your mind. What matters is not whether "anti-US crackpots" define charitable giving one way or another, but that giant mainstream press (what the rubes of the right call "the liberal media") is doing nothing to refute the idiotic and false claim that the Clinton Foundation uses only 10% of its intake charitably.

      If that fact reflects poorly on ("flogs") liberals in your mind, perhaps they deserve the flogging.

    2. Can someone explain to me why defending Schweizer is a "liberal" position? He appears to me to be a "crackpot" making unfounded (false?) assertions about someone on our side of the fence for personal gain.


  4. "I am so happy to share this wonderful testimony about Dr Brave, my name is Elizabeth Jefferson I am 34 years old, I live in Florida united states, I am happily married to Sowers Jefferson with three kids we got married in 2006 I am a banker but due to some certain family conditions I had to quit my job so I could have time for my family my husband works in a construction company not long ago around may 2015 my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very Confused by the way he treat me and the Kids. Later that month he did not come home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i Done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce That he hate me and do not want to see Me again in his life, i was mad and also Frustrated do not know what to do,i was Sick for more than 4 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is Incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never believed in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted Dr Brave for the return of my husband to me, he told me that my husband have Been taken by another woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want us to divorce. then he told me that he have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to Me and the kids, he casted the spell and After 27hours my husband called me and He told me that i should forgive him, he Started to apologize on phone and said That he still loves me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the spell that Dr Brave casted on him that brought him back to me today, i and my family Are now happy again today. thank you Dr Brave for what you have done for me i would have been nothing Today if not for your great spell. i want You my friends who are passing through All this kind of love problem of getting Back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact him on this email: , web site: . and you will see that your problem will be solved Without any delay or effect cell number +2348072370762 Thanks for reading. ."

  5. I promise to share this testimony all over the world once my boyfriend returns back to me, and today with all due respect I want to thank DR.ONIHA for bringing joy and happiness to my relationship and my family. I want to inform you all that there is a spell caster that is real and genuine. I never believed in any of these things until I lost my boyfriend, I required help until I found a great spell caster, And he cast a love spell for me, and he assured me that I will get my boyfriend back in two days after the spell has been cast. Three days later, my phone rang, and so shockingly, it was my boyfriend who has not called me for the past 6 years now, and made an apology for the heart break, and told me that he is ready to be my backbone till the rest of his life with me. DR.ONIHA released him to know how much I loved and wanted him. And opened his eyes to picture how much we have shared together. As I`m writing this testimony right now I`m the happiest girl on earth and me and my boyfriend are living a happy life and our love is now stronger than how it was even before our break up. So that`s why I promised to share my testimony all over the universe. All thanks goes to DR.ONIHA for the excessive work that he has done for me. Below is the email address in any situation you are undergoing, it may be a heart break, and I assure you that as he has done mine for me, he will definitely help you too.
    CALL/WHATSAPP : +16692213962.