>>>I don't know where you get your information from but it most certainly does not agree with what I have seen:
>
>As I said, I got it from the American Institute of Philanthropy’s Charity Watch on 24 August.
>
>I believe the disconnect is the self-serving interpretation of "grants" as the entire output of the charity. Rather than just a small part of it.
>
>Not only does the highly-regarded American Institute of Philanthropy approve of the Clinton Foundation, but some of my buddies in Africa confirm that that Foundation single-handedly reduced the price of AIDS medications internationally. You're not going to find that sort of detail only looking at $ given in grants.
>
>Sheesh, gotta say it: that foundation also is promoting male circumcision in Africa as a way to reduce AIDS - which is causing a kerfuffle in some quarters including more than a few medical authorities, with compensatory behavior by circumcised males also blamed for increased AIDS rates in Zimbabwe. Any moment now, HRC no doubt will be accused of mutilating tens of millions of black youths to infect the African continent with AIDS. That's the level to which partisan MSM is stooping these days.

A handful of times now, you've projected/speculated what the MSM will say.

Let us all agree that the CF has improved the lives of many overseas. The CF has also contributed to special outreaches that help little girls/young women in areas where the treatment of females has been appalling and sickening.

So even with the debates about how much has actually gone to those initiatives, we can/should agree that much good has been done.

But there is also little question that some of the donors have expected a "quid pro quo". There is also zero question that donors have included foreign leaders/oligarchs from countries that participate in the very kind of human rights violations that lead to conditions the CF states that they intend to address. The conflict of interest here is just too high.

More and more I'm hearing a suggestion that the Bill/Melinda Gates Foundation should essentially run the CF. Neither Bill nor Melinda Gates has expressed (to my knowledge) any serious interest in running for political office. Given that the odds of HRC winning the election are probably better than 50-50, the smartest thing the Clintons can do is just turn everything over to the Gates.