Exposing the Mind-Numbing Ignorance of Clinton Foundation Conspiracies

To believe anti-Clinton critics, you would think Bill and Hillary Clinton were more powerful, evil and diabolical than even the most over-the-top villain in your stereotypical spy movie. The Clintons have been accused of:

  • Being serial killers. (No, seriously, there are individuals out there who think they’ve killed well over 90 people.)
  • Money laundering and racketeering.
  • Covering up multiple rapes.
  • Raising Chelsea Clinton as their daughter — when she’s not really their daughter.
  • Running a drug-smuggling ring while Bill was governor of Arkansas.
  • Ordering Chelsea to get pregnant before Hillary ran for president to make her seem more likable.
  • Fixing a primary election via voter fraud, and also forcing minority voters to overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton.
  • Rigging an FBI investigation with a director of the FBI who’s not only a Republican, but worked for the Bush administration.

While those clearly aren’t all of them (there are plenty more), I think this paints a pretty good picture of just how absurd the propaganda against the Clintons has been during the last 20+ years.

That’s not even including the new “target” for Republicans: The Clinton Foundation.

While it’s not exactly “new,” painting the Clinton Foundation as some massive, global evil empire they use as their own “pay for play” scheme is clearly the new “thing” Republicans are going to go after considering their email and Benghazi witch hunts didn’t go how they wanted.

As I’ve said plenty of times before, for Republicans, this isn’t about proving any of these accusations. They don’t have to. They’re well aware that as long as they put these conspiracies out there, and the right-wing media runs with them, they will then become “true” to the vast majority of Republican voters.

For example, look at Benghazi. It doesn’t matter that multiple investigations, including several led by Republicans, debunked all the absurd conspiracy theories that had been pushed by the right (the stand down order, her sleeping through the attack, etc.) millions of Republicans will still believe all of it and nothing you show them — even the GOP’s own investigations — will change their mind.

What that all means is, no matter how many ridiculous lies are fabricated about the Clintons, as long as Republicans can muddy the waters enough to make people question what is or isn’t true (which really means people will simply pick and choose what they want to believe), then their anti-Clinton propaganda is successful.

Which brings me back to the Clinton Foundation.

Now, to listen to anti-Clinton folks, the foundation is nothing but some “front” for their unethical and corrupt activities. Clearly, based on all the other diabolical conspiracies people believe the Clintons have gotten away with, there’s no way they’d start a charity simply aimed at helping people all over the world.

But let’s think about this logically, shall we? I know that’s hard for many anti-Clinton people to do, but we should really try.

Here we have two apparent “evil geniuses” who are so crooked, corrupt and shady that they’ve supposedly orchestrated murders, rigged FBI investigations, organized drug-smuggling rings and pulled off illegal arms deals — who were dumb enough to create a pay-for-play “front” with their name written all over it? Not only that, but they created a foundation where donations could be tracked and known publicly by most anyone who wanted to know who (and how much) was giving to the foundation?

Is that what these conspiracy people are more or less saying?

Then, even though the Clintons obviously knew that anyone who wanted to see the donation records of the foundation could do so, they went ahead and decided to use the foundation with their name on it to supposedly launder money from foreign countries and other shady characters who donated money expecting to “get something” from them in return.

Now, maybe I’m just a little “nuts,” but if I were someone capable of covering up multiple murders; rigging FBI investigations; fixing primary elections; and the whole host of other horrific things the Clintons have been accused of, I think I would find something a little more “subtle” to set up a “pay-for-play” scheme centered around international crime that could potentially be linked all the way to the White House. You know, at least slightly more subtle than a foundation with my last name on it!

But that’s just me.

FYI, since this seems to be the biggest myth many anti-Clinton people believe about the foundation: No, Hillary Clinton did not accept money via the foundation as part of a deal that sent uranium to Russia. This is a conspiracy that’s been debunked numereous times for quite a while now.

Oh, and there’s no credible link toward donations and arms deals, either. If you don’t believe me, then just ask Fox News’ Chris Wallace who got the author of Clinton Cash to admit that there wasn’t.

And, by the way, according to a non-partisan website that simply tracks the ratings of charities, the Clinton Foundation has an “A” rating for their work helping people all over the world.

So, for someone to honestly believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton use their foundation as a front for their international crime ring where they help set up arms deals, support illegal wars and a bunch of other illegal activity — that means they believe that they were capable of getting away with every outlandish conspiracy that they’ve been accused of for the last 20+ years — but were dumb enough to set up this highly complex international crime organization masquerading as a charity with their name on it where everyone would know that it was their foundation and who was donating to it. 

This all reminds me of a question I often ask these people — especially conspiracy theorists: Do you actually listen to the things you say?

I know this much, the Clintons are smart enough to know that their foundation is the last place they would want to try to conduct any sort of shady behavior. After 20+ years of their enemies spending hundreds of millions of dollars scrutinizing and digging into anything and everything they do, a foundation with their name on it would probably be the dumbest place for them to attempt to get away with anything corrupt.

Again, do these conspiracy people actually listen to the stupid things they say?

When you actually take a moment to think about all of this nonsense rationally, it sure as heck doesn’t seem like they do.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Trinity4

    If 90% of the CF donations go to administrative expenses why have it? They should shut it down is not worth the headache!

    • rolen

      Where did you get that figure? Oh I know it was noted that 10% goes to other charities and that was taken to mean 90% went in the Clinton’s bank account. The fact is that the Clinton Foundation does its own charity work and spends about 80% directly on projects worldwide. That leaves 10% for administration,,project managers, staff etc and an A+ rating. All of this can easily be looked up, a closed mind is not what one should aspire to.

      • Trinity4

        The figure comes from the 2013 990 IRS Form filed. (The CF is amending their last 5 years filings as there are millions in question)
        In 2013 they reported
        8.5 Millions in Traveling
        4.8 Million in Office Supplies
        3.7 Million in Employee Fringe Benefits
        2.1 Million in IT
        9.2 Million in Conferences and Conventions
        Most of the grant work the used to do at the beginning of the Foundation was almost nonexistent by 2013. Also, I read an article where the IT’S guy in charge of the allocations was quoted as saying the back up for the expenses was not included and almost nonexistent in recent years, therefore the amendments were need it.
        This 2013 figures are being questioned by IRS .

      • rolen

        Per Factcheck quoting a premier rating organization, CharityWatch, in 2013 out of $222.6million $196.6million was spent on charitable purposes. That is the 89.5% of which 10% went as grants to other charities. In addition, part of the travel etc could be classified as a part of charitable purpose. The grants became much less as the foundation became a public charity running its own programs.
        Finally, the 89,5% compares to the average of 75% which is a reason for its high rating.

      • Trinity4

        I got my figures from the IRS Filings. Hopefully everything will be clarify once the amendments are filed

      • rolen

        There’s nothing wrong with your figures. What is wrong is going from them to saying that grant work had fallen off to almost nonexistent with no mention of where the rest was going, which seems to imply that a lot of money went into someones pocket or wasn’t doing what it should. Obviously that was not and is not the case as shown by the high ratings enjoyed by the Clinton Foundation.

      • Trinity4

        Remember when the housing market meltdown happened and all those loans had a Triple A rating? Exactly!
        The amendments have been requested by the IRS because there is no sufficient back up to justify the expenses. And it goes back 5 years.

      • Mick Mena


        The mortgage ratings vs. charity ratings is a bit of a stretch.

        Not only are calculations transparent when you rate a charity. You are comparing apples to oranges.

        A little less Rush Limbaugh with your coffee, please.

      • Trinity4

        Apparently you have no idea how ratings work.
        In a nutshell, They are fake!!! That’s exactly what the mortgage crisis prove. You need to do a little bit of reading
        Rush? Really?plz!!!

      • John Baron Miller

        Now you are just slinging feces here little fella….LMAO

      • Mick Mena

        You missed my point.
        Real Estate ratings agencies base their scores on how they assess risk.

        Charitable Institution ratings are based on how efficiently contributions are used vs. expenses through administration.

        Coming up with conspiracy theories and fear mongering is easy.

        Actually having solutions to real world problems is the hard part, not because it’s hard to figure out, but because people are too lazy to think for themselves, AND choose to let radio talk show hosts do all the thinking for them.

      • Trinity4

        The foundation did good ’till 2013, when it stop most of her charitable work, therefore to keep the rating they have to show and prove charitable work has been done.

      • Mick Mena

        I don’t know where you’re getting your figures, but what they cut back on (not stopped) was handing out checks to everyone.

        They manage their own projects and have the results to backup the records.

      • Trinity4

        I am getting my figures from the IRS, The fact that some programs stopped completely, others scale down and administrative cost grew to allegedly stratospheric figures triggered the audit

      • Barbara D Holtzman

        “all those loans had a Triple A rating”

        No, they didn’t. You’re making stuff up now. Nonprofits are the most regulated organizations in the country, the bigger they are, the more scrutiny. You’re just wrong.

      • Trinity4

        Yes they did!!! One of the main reasons Banks had to paid millions to investors, they were lied to when the loans were presented as a healthy product. Everybody from
        JP Morgan to BofA to
        Freddie and Fannie (The Government) lied to them. If you don’t read at least watch “The Big Short”

      • John Baron Miller

        You mean the GOP/Bush crash?

      • Cardaddy

        You mean the Demtard/Clinton/Frank crash don’t you? Well of course you did, you’re just a “little confused”. AND, what does that have to do with IRS filings that Trinity was referring to?? Typical libtard tactic, sidestep, deflect and accuse. Liberalism, an incurable disease.

      • John Baron Miller

        What? At what point will repubes ever accept responsibility for things that happen on their watch? What happened to the party of personal responsibility? Repubes are now the blame sprinkler party. What exactly have repubes ever done right? I seriously can’t point to a single thing. 9/11/01, all repube. They had total control of POTUS, House, Senate, everything and were asleep at the wheel….then they lied us into a war. Why didn’t Dumbya and his minions do anything to mitigate the crash while they had total control for 6 years? Typical repube, you know nothing.

      • dianna

        Could you help me please? I’m unable to find any resource showing figures from IRS filings as you have noted. I did find that there was a refiling and an internal audit which resulted in further transparency by the Foundation. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/clinton-foundation-refiles-tax-returns-215959

      • dianna
      • dianna
      • Bill

        Your numbers add up to 27 million more or less of 223 Million rec’d that leaves about 196 million going to charity work, the red cross, and Untied Way run about 75% sot 196 over 223 or 88% is pretty good. My last company spent neatly 15 million on a lot less in receipts (about 120 mill) last year. More for IT as well. Got any more?

      • Trinity4

        My figures are for 2013
        According to the 990 IRS form filed by the CF only 8.8 million went to charitable grants That is 10% of the total taking in the year 2013.
        The Foundation took 252 millions between 2011-2013 only 9.9 million went to charitable grants.
        2 weeks ago, the CF announced they will be am mending 5 years of tax returns as millions have not been accounted for. All this figures are on their 990 IRS forms. Their figures, not mine

      • John Baron Miller

        I love the way you pretend that you read their IRS forms! Great work! LMAO

      • Trinity4

        You can read them too
        They are available for anyone interested
        Next time you collect your check from the DNC go check’em out!

      • John Baron Miller

        Pretty sure you are the one who has claimed to have read them…..Nice attempt at dodging!

      • Trinity4

        I am not claiming. I read them, it must look monumental to you but is easy. I love how you trolls try to deflect

      • Cardaddy

        John Baron Miller is troll sitting in his mommy;s basement pretending to be a “blogger. He can’t type more the one line per snipe and barely has the ability to read muchness comprehend anything you are posting. He hasn’t once, using any facts, been able to refute anything you have said. Therefore he gets the troll of the thread award!

      • Trinity4

        I noticed. He knows nothing, probably one of those being paid by the DOC to push back. Just today a memo was leaked from Hillary’s email discussing the Uranium One sale and how The Podesta Group was hired to do the lobbying to Congress, Home Land Security, The Federal Reserve etc., (9 people had to sign on the deal By Law, including Obama and Hillary ) John Podesta was the head of that organization and is now Clinton Campaign Manager. LOL! Talk about Russian ties, Hillary’s got ’em!

      • John Baron Miller

        Sorry bud, but you got these numbers from a right wing whackadoo site, “The Federalist.” Good luck in your delusions of adequacy……

      • dianna

        Could you help me with you source please? Here’s what I found:

      • Sue Buerger

        Right wingers lie. Educate yourself

      • dianna
    • Desperate Liberals fun fun fun!!!

      It is shocking amazing how tools for the Globalists you all are.

      Here is another example of the Clinton Foundation Money laundering scheme:

      According to their 2014 990, they gave a WHOPPING 2.9% IN grants to actually, well maybe, help people. Or just more donations to other sham charities off-shore.


      As an example of an Actual Charity that Actually helps people, Such as Physicians for Reproductive Health, 85.6% goes to programs that provide health services.

      Unlike the Clinton Foundation, where no one has an actual idea what they do, besides host expensive conferences and lavish fund-raisers/parties (Like spending $16 million dollars on Bill Clinton’s Birthday), Legitimate charities should at worse spend over 50% of their revenues on their good work.

      Liberals are so funny. They get totally taken advantage of, and then say, “Thank you Ma’am, may I have another?”

      • Trinity4

        Why r u attacking me? I am saying the CF numbers just don’t add up. As per IRS records even the money they claimed went to Office Supplies don’t have enough back up, therefore the reason for amendments for the last 5 years. The IRS is saying the CF claims 90% of the money they got goes to administrative cost.

      • John Baron Miller

        Except that the Clinton Foundation has a higher rating than the Red Cross according to orgs that actually know and track things like this….

        “The Clinton Foundation spends between 80-90 percent on program services, which experts say is the standard in the industry to define charitable works. It spends the majority of its money directly on projects rather than through third-party grants.”

        oops….I guess you got it wrong…again. I guess you should learn how to actually read IRS documents and stop regurgitating right wing lies….kind of sad really.

    • John Baron Miller

      Did you get those numbers from voice #1, 2 or 3 in your head? Woohoo….

      • Trinity4

        At least try and make an intelligent comment.

      • John Baron Miller

        You first

      • Trinity4


      • John Baron Miller

        Seriously, when you latch onto a coherent thought, shoot me a note.

      • Trinity4

        Look at you, you know how to spell coherent, oh, I get it, automatically done!

      • John Baron Miller

        That wasn’t one. HTH

      • John Baron Miller

        BTW, that is not a difficult word….well, maybe for you. LMAO

    • Sue Buerger

      Stupid. Thats the part that they dpend on charity. Read again might take you several times if you didnt go to school

  • Napoleon Trombonopart

    The media is so on the tank for Hillary,
    Funny how none of our illustrious criminal element in DC has ratted out the killer of Seth Rich for 45 grand.
    Maybe Assange knew his 20000 was a safe bet and no run of the mill DC criminal was the culprit

    • Nancyjkuiper4

      <<hp. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ir303m:….,….,..

    • John Baron Miller

      Are you ok? You might want to up the meds if you believe anything you took the time to type. Wow. Or maybe you just haven’t been paying attention for the last 25 years or so….

  • Rex Sterling

    This article paid for by the Clinton Foundation.

  • Mo

    Both BJ and HiLIARy ROTTEN to the Core Clinton are alumni in high standing with a PhD from the McKinley Morganfield school of turgid, turbidity!
    Both BJ and HiLIARy ROTTEN to the Core Clinton are alumni in high standing with a PhD from the McKinley Morganfield school of turgid, turbidity!

  • Diana Haddy

    Read any good books lately? The only thing I agree with you about is the incredulousness of it all. I think they’re a couple of narcissists. . .psychopaths; and I pray she loses this election.

  • evilsdouble

    Tell me what % of their donations go towards actual charity and you will have proved my point

  • CA_Reader

    So far there has been NO PROOF of, or even a shadow of, impropriety in the world’s dealings with the Clinton Foundation. In contrast, Trump’s fraudulent “Charity” has been shown to be used by the Crybaby Loser for everything from buying pictures of himself to paying off penalties for his own failures. In addition, it wasn’t even a real charity because it has been told by the State of New York to “cease and desist” any fund-raising activities.

    I think the donations by foreign entities have been done because of admiration for the good work done by the foundation and the liking that most people in the world have for both Mr and Mrs Clinton. A wide difference between the Clintons and the Pasty-faced Whiner, isn’t it?