Hillary Clinton

Clinton Foundation Financial Disclosures Stubbornly Refuse to Disclose Clinton Foundation Financial Information

It's all a misunderstanding though.

|

At the end of April, a top official at the Clinton Foundation admitted that the organization had made multiple mistakes on its tax forms. It was an honest mistake, acting CEO Maura Pally said, and the organization would work toward refiling the forms with correct information.

However, Pally stated in a post on the Clinton Foundation website, the organization had never failed to be fully transparent about its funding sources. Despite the mistaken tax forms, she wrote, the foundation had not failed to correctly report its revenue totals. Instead, government grants were combined with other donations, a mistake. In any case, she noted, information on the foundation's grants has "always been properly listed and broken out and available for anyone to see on our audited financial statements, posted on our website." 

This statement might reasonably lead one to believe that the government grants were properly broken out on forms available on the Foundation's website. And yet however reasonable this belief, it does not appear to be the case. Via Reuters:

The audited financial statements, however, do not break out government grants separately, foundation officials told Reuters.

Instead, they combine them with an unspecified amount of funds from private grant-making organizations, in keeping with generally accepted accounting principles, the foundation officials said. The revenue tables in the statements do not make explicit that any revenue at all comes from governments.

A Clinton Foundation official told Reuters that Pally's statements were not in error, but may have been misinterpreted, and apologized for any confusion. 

In perhaps related news, multiple recent polls have found that a majority of the public does not consider Hillary Clinton to be particularly honest or trustworthy. 

NEXT: Video: Cattle Ranchers vs. The Feds

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Welp, I’m convinced it was all on the up and up!

    1. Just like their income!

  2. “a majority of the public does not consider Hillary Clinton to be particularly honest or trustworthy. “

    Moar evidence of patriarchy, ugh

  3. Can you imagine what the IRS would do if the Clinton Foundation had “tea” or “party” somewhere in its name?

    1. Or “liberty” or “freedom”. Or “Gillespie” or “Welch”?

    2. Indeed.

  4. Good grief. Could Hillary be any sleazier or any more obvious about her sleaze? I get the sense that her support is slowly dying. As she is more and more visible, as people are getting a closer look at her they are starting to slowly back away.

    Hell, she already rivals Obumbles in scandals and she isn’t even in office.

    Sadly, taking bribes from foreign governments while being SoS didn’t hit her as hard as the glaring hypocrisy of the ‘equal pay for equal work’ debacle now making the rounds.

    1. I think a lot of people aren’t even paying attention yet, but the anti-Hillary ads and memes coming in the months before the election will be a sight to behold, and it’s hard to see how she can be elected after all that, unless the GOP totally blows it in some way.

      1. unless the GOP totally blows it in some way..

        “I am proud, uh, today to sign into, uh, law the ‘Don’t Speak Ill Of Any Candidate Act’, which, uh, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.”

        1. I think some state already passed that law. Ohio? I can’t remember which state.

  5. I for one feel that a strangely controversial article should be written about the urban progressive left demanding heavy regulation and scrutiny for others but remaining free from such burdens themselves.

    This Clinton situation seems to be such a case. Perhaps Hillary is on the verge of a libertarian moment?

    1. “Disclosure for thee, not me”

  6. Just think. Were she elected POTUS, she could make a fortune selling three SCOTUS seats.

    1. To quote Rod Blagojevich:

      “I’ve got this thing and it’s fuck?ing golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for fuckin’ noth?ing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can para?chute me there”

      1. Every time I read a Blagojevich quote, I hear it in Mayor Quimby’s voice. Doesn’t make sense I know.

    2. I would say that there could be good money in selling the position of FHOTUS.

      1. Get her marriage with the former King annulled….. and marry her to Ramsey Bolton?

        I guess this is one instance where going with the show version makes more sense than the book version.

        1. I dont mean to be insulting
          but please do not compare Hillary to Sansa ever again
          thanks

          1. Is it just me, or is she getting more attractive?

            1. As she could not possibly get any uglier (both internal and external), I suppose it is possible. Nowhere to go but up, so they say.

            2. she is at that age where one grows out of being a child and into an adult, when looks change rapidly. So, yeah, she is.

            3. oh ho
              it’s not just you

  7. I suspect the Clinton foundation will only get slightly more scrutiny from the media than does… Oh, I dunno, the Rainbow Push Coalition’s financial records.

    1. From the mainstream media, but they aren’t the only game in town, these days. A story on a libertarian or conservative blog + a Drudge link = a story too big for the MSM to ignore.

      1. Meh. For instance, what I’ve seen from The New York Times on Hillary thus far is “people are saying” type articles.

        I’m not sure how much damage it does to someone like Hillary to have Fox News and Little Green Footballs saying nasty stuff about her.

        1. The Times did some good research into the Clinton Foundation.

          Is LGF saying bad things about Hillary? I thought they went proggy years ago, so I assumed they’d be onboard.

        2. ‘Some Republican critics claim that…’

  8. So response went from “Whoops, we’ll fix it!” to “No we didn’t!”? Riiiiight.

  9. At this point, I think Hillary and her people have realized there is no fixing the public’s perception of her being dishonest and sleazy. So they are not even going to try. Their plan seems to be to convince people to vote for her in spite of her being a crook. Hell, who is to say it won’t work?

    1. “Hillary: She’s No Richard Nixon”

    2. I almost feel as if she and Bill were caught by surprise at how many people are willing to pay $500K for one speech, and are torn between moar power and how much mor emoney they could rake in without the scrutiny of an election. But they also know that money is only rolling in because she is likely to be the Democrat nominee, so I wonder if the aren’t secretly hoping to lose the election.

      1. If you didn’t know any better, you would think the entire operation is just one giant money making racket and Hillary has no intention of ever being President.

        1. “Grandma! ANOTHER present?!”

        2. Actually, you might have a good movie premise there.

          Hilary Clinton-equivalent runs her campaign as The Producers-style fraud, wins, and then desperately tries to get impeached, but in such a way that her post-presidency money train won’t be affected.

          Who says there aren’t roles out there for middle-aged actresses?

          1. Meryl Streep has waited her whole life to play Hillary.

            1. You’re right! Jesus, I want to watch the hell out of that movie now.

          2. Did… did you just write the next season of ‘Veep’?

          3. Bud, that is AweSome! I don’t know why I didn’t make the connection myself; that’s one of my favorite movies.

            Spring time … for Hillary … and William too.

  10. “In perhaps related news, multiple recent polls have found that a majority of the public does not consider Hillary Clinton to be particularly honest or trustworthy. ”

    Didn’t most polls show the exact same thing about Bill Clinton before re-electing him?

    1. I, for one, would like to know what the Millennials think.

    2. But he is a charmer, and she is not.

  11. FFS, how hard is this? Really? Did you just hire your idiot relatives to do financial mangement?

    1. It is only easy if you are not trying to hide something.

      1. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, guys. They could have just filled the place with cronies who have zero idea how to manage an organization.

        1. No. Even cronies know how to fill out a disclosure form. That only takes a feral sense of self preservation, which every crony has.

        2. I actually make a decent coin consulting for companies that have had their aunt working the books for 3-4 decades. Then she retires/dies and no one has a fucking clue.

          1. How much did Aunty Beth skim off?

  12. Is it just my imagination or does Hillary look more like Nixon in drag with every passing day?

    1. If only she were as honest!

  13. It was an honest mistake, acting CEO Maura Pally said

    Hey, I’m not your buddy, Pally!

    1. I’m not your buddy, guy!

      1. I’m not your guy, uh, fawkes!

        1. Oh for fawkes’ sakes!

          1. I’m not your sake, rice wi — Never mind.

            1. *reason*

  14. Not to Boromir the thread up…

    but One does not simply go, “Whoops” with tens of millions of dollars.

    Its sort of a stalinesque approach to disclosure =

    “One conveniently-deleted email is a tragedy, but a mountain of lies are just a ’rounding error'”

  15. Sorry, I’m having trouble keeping track of the derp talking points on this one. Is this a “right-wing conspiracy” still, scandal-mongering, or an innocent mistake because why do the RepugliKKKans need to see her private emails!!!! Or has it been long enough to claim that the republicans overreached?

    1. They are just picking on Hillary. They take a simple technical mistake and try to make it look like she is hiding something. There is no proof she took any bribes. So none of this stuff matters.

      That about cover the talking points?

      1. Thanks. Unequivocal smoking gun evidence of criminality is the standard of proof for Hillary. Even where she destroyed the only evidence. Gotta remember that or i’ll lose my license to derp.

        1. The idea that there is such a thing as an appearance of impropriety or that the cover up could be worse than the crime are just part of the patriarchy’s attempt to keep a woman out of the White House.

    2. Yes.

  16. And yet however reasonable this belief, it does not appear to be the case.

    The Clintons in a nutshell.

  17. The Clintons have been so blatantly corrupt for so long that it doesn’t even hurt them any more. Its just who they are. Why deny it, or fight it, or even make a token attempt to cover it up? They’ve gotten with daylight felonies for three decades now, so why would they, or us, suddenly expect them to change, or even be punished for it?

    Clinton corruption is like the weather. A fact of life. No wonder nobody is surprised or scandalized.

    1. If you’re a Clinton, you flagrantly defy the law, lie about it, destroy the evidence while claiming transparency, and let some poor schmoe take the fall for you. It’s what you do. If you switch to Geico, you can save hundreds on car insurance. It’s what we do.

    2. Yeah I don’t really see how another “Vince Foster” in their closet is going to hurt them in the long run.

      1. “That’s a private matter, and will stay that way.”

  18. “[…]n perhaps related news, multiple recent polls have found that a majority of the public does not consider Hillary Clinton to be particularly honest or trustworthy.”

    The same numbers found pigs to be dirty and turd to be a liar. Surprise!

  19. It’s like Jim Henson knew Hillary, Bernie, Fauxcahontas, et al would all be running…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0BynGVctHc

  20. I must not be enlightened enough to see it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.