NRA getting sued

[DJQuag]

So even if we step back and say half of the prosecutors statement is false on the face of it (because sadly that's what prosecutors do these days) holy crap.

If even half of this is correct I'm sitting here thinking about the originator of the golden parachute glowing green with envy over "Why didn't I think of that?"

And apparently it's multiplied because they're a charitable organization? Holy *censored* hahaha who has ever thought the NRA was charitable. Not me. Never knew that.

Anyway I was mostly preempting the Crunch Facebook bot and the lawyer bot we all love and despise at the same time. There will be blurbs and catchphrases about how NY is soooo liberal and so this is BS but state's rights yo. If you're gonna do shady things in a certain pace you best remember the Feds aren't usually the worst enemy around.

[cherrypoptart]

It seems like Trump had a reasonable solution that would satisfy everyone.

"Departing the White House on Thursday, Trump called the lawsuit "a terrible thing" and suggested the NRA should “move to Texas and lead a ... beautiful life.” He said the group had been “decimated” by costs of recent legal actions and called it a “sad” situation.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton tweeted that the NRA would be welcomed "with open arms."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/06/nra-lawsuit-ny-attorney-general-sues-shut-down-nra-over-fraud/3309412001/

This is obviously political. She wants to dissolve the NRA instead of holding the people who may have abused their positions in it accountable and letting the organization continue it's advocacy for the American Constitution.

The conflict of interest takes away all credibility from Letitia James. It would be one thing if she came out as a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment and the individual's right to keep and bear arms but since she obviously opposes all that her attack on the NRA reeks of the very government tyranny we're all so concerned about. Her aim isn't to clean up the NRA but to get rid of it and that gives her true motivation away.

So having said all that, transparency in such organizations is a good thing. If there was graft and pocket lining that was either illegal or even just something contributors to the organization wouldn't approve of then that's all good to know and if crimes were committed then holding people accountable is fine. There would be no reason to dissolve the organization over any of that though. Surely there are provisions in such cases for new people to take over and hopefully do a better job than the last bunch or get held accountable themselves.

[TheDrake]

I'm struck again about the "bad apple" versus "bad org" argument. When somebody at ACORN royally screws up, its evidence of widespread conspiracy. When a cop screws up, its one bad guy. When somebody gets caught farming 30 votes, its evidence of a plot to destroy democracy. When someone in the NRA is unethical or lawbreaking, its a freak occurrence. If instead it had been the Clinton Foundation, then HEADS MUST ROLL!

[cherrypoptart]

But is she suing them because she is concerned that the contributors aren't having their money used in ways most effective at supporting the 2nd Amendment or is it because she doesn't agree that NRA members should have their power felt and voices heard through the power the NRA wields at all?

I'm not really seeing the comparisons here. These are just people accused of wasting money. It's not even a certainty yet the money was even wasted. If it was used to buy influence with powerful people then that's pretty much the purpose it was given for in the first place. If this ends up being another big nothing-burger it demonstrates again Democrats abusing their power to attack their political opponents just because they disagree with them.

[TheDrake]

But is she suing them because she is concerned that the contributors aren't having their money used in ways most effective at supporting the 2nd Amendment or is it because she doesn't agree that NRA members should have their power felt and voices heard through the power the NRA wields at all?

I'm not really seeing the comparisons here. These are just people accused of wasting money. It's not even a certainty yet the money was even wasted. If it was used to buy influence with powerful people then that's pretty much the purpose it was given for in the first place. If this ends up being another big nothing-burger it demonstrates again Democrats abusing their power to attack their political opponents just because they disagree with them.

So you're saying if it was a Soros charity and he was getting sued in Texas, you'd have the same first impression?

[cherrypoptart]

It's reasonable to be skeptical especially when it comes to politicians.

If you had a politician that supported the agenda of a charitable organization and was nevertheless suing them it would be difficult to question their motives. But when you have politicians suing charitable organizations and trying to destroy them when they disagree with their agenda then assuming their motives are pure and without a partisan political bias requires a great deal more effort.

I suppose it could just be a coincidence that she disagrees with the NRA and is suing them. Maybe she's suing a lot of other charitable organizations and going through fishing expeditions of their finances to look for anything shady.

[TheDrake]

The question isn't about motivation, it's about whether she is right. If I'm mad at my neighbor because his dog poops in my yard, it doesn't make me wrong to report them doing something illegal even if I might let it pass otherwise. Did you think that various inquiries into the Clinton Foundation were pure of heart and not politically motivated?

[cherrypoptart]

Well if we can all just admit this is mostly a politically motivated attack that would be fine.

To turn it around, just because you disagree with someone politically doesn't mean you should let them get away with criminal activity.

Now when you only go after the people on the opposite side of the political spectrum while letting the criminals on your own side slide, as a politician you should be called on it.

[Seriati]

Umm... wow.  You guys may know I routinely limit searches by date ranges to pull things from Google that are free from a pro- or anti-Trump bias.

Out of curiosity, I searched, "Letitia James cases against charities" time limited from Jan 1, 2010 through Dec 31, 2016.  I figured I may get some Trump charity overlap, but I wanted to see if she had a history of going after charities generally.  Now she's not been the AG that long, but I didn't know her history, so I thought maybe she was previously a prosecutor of some kind (turns out she wasn't).

Here's the disturbing part.  That search turned up over 10 pages of articles, the vast majority of which directly relate to the NRA case just filed, but showing search dates from years ago.  The articles are current if you follow the links, but the search dates have clearly been backdated. 

Here's one example:

New York Attorney General Moves to Dissolve NRA - news ...
searchandnews.com › player › category › news › article

Oct 16, 2014 - In a lawsuit filed on Thursday, Attorney General Letitia James claims that top NRA executives used charitable funds for personal gain, among other offenses.

This one may be my favorite:

MSNBC - On the New York AG filing a lawsuit against the ...
m.facebook.com › msnbc › posts

Oct 22, 2011 - New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit Thursday against the National Rifle Association seeking to dissolve the gun rights advocacy group and accusing top executives of "years of illegal self-dealings" that funded a "lavish lifestyle."

In any event, this is 100% political.  If it were not, she'd go after the executives directly not the charity.   By seeking to dissolve the charity she's trying to force it to waste is charitable assets immediately prior to the election on an expensive legal suit.

Again, this should be a no brainer for anyone with any sense of civil liberties or civil rights.  The remedy sought is completely out of line with the harm alleged and there is zero chance it would be pursued against someone that is not her political opponent.  Who are we kidding, her office has ignored bigger charitable crimes that are on her side, and spent an inordinate amount on a politically motivated investigation.  That seems to be the specialty of the NY AGs.

Hope everyone likes this tactic as much when the right copies it in the future.

I'm struck again about the "bad apple" versus "bad org" argument. When somebody at ACORN royally screws up, its evidence of widespread conspiracy. When a cop screws up, its one bad guy. When somebody gets caught farming 30 votes, its evidence of a plot to destroy democracy. When someone in the NRA is unethical or lawbreaking, its a freak occurrence. If instead it had been the Clinton Foundation, then HEADS MUST ROLL!

ACORN's purposes and methods were illegal.  If you believe Jones, the NRA was a victim of out of control executives.

When someone get's caught farming votes it's evidence that your meme "there's no real election fraud" is a lie.   We don't have any real ability to detect fraud, which is something the Democrats are counting on with this strategy.  The fact that we detect it all with a secret ballot and poor voter ID laws is more likely evidence that it's endemnic than that it never occurs. 

The Clinton Foundation was involved in far bigger illegal activities.  They'd never survive the kind of scrutiny the NY AG applied to the NRA (without much of a basis), but lucky for the Clinton Foundation, it's on the blue team and will never be investigated in such a manner no matter what evidence appears.

We no longer have a system of justice that applies to both sides evenly.  The left has weaponized prosecutors offices, correctly identifying that their discretion is unreviewable - no matter how egregiously applied.  They are free to release rioters no matter how legitimate the charges, not prosecute crimes solely for political reasons, and investigate their enemies and subject them to abuse, which they are routinely doing.  Lawfare at its grossest.  Like I told you when Obama was establishing the executive authority precedents, you may not like how the next guy uses them (and that was a massive understatement of a prediction), this too is a change that all of you personally are going to live to regret.

[Seriati]

The question isn't about motivation, it's about whether she is right. If I'm mad at my neighbor because his dog poops in my yard, it doesn't make me wrong to report them doing something illegal even if I might let it pass otherwise. Did you think that various inquiries into the Clinton Foundation were pure of heart and not politically motivated?

Now if you're mad about your neighbor's dog and you task a prosecutor's office to investigate their business, their taxes, their property records and their phone calls and then you prosecute them based on a criminal law that hasn't been enforced routinely because it turns out that their tool shed illegally encroaches on a protected wet lands, even though they didn't build it (the prior owner did), and your office then bankrupts them in legal defense costs for a charge that ultimately gets thrown out.  Then you'd be talking about the same kind of abuse as Jones is routinely wielding.

[TheDrake]

The Clinton Foundation was investigated by Trump's DOJ, and they didn't find any of these so obvious illegal things you allude to.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that after continuing on for more than two years, Huber's investigation “has effectively ended with no tangible results.” After combing through documents and conferring with federal law enforcement officials looking into the Clinton Foundation in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Post reports that Huber has “found nothing worth pursuing,” let alone any criminal charges. The U.S. attorney has not yet officially reported any results to the Justice Department, however, and the inquiry is technically still ongoing. But officials cited by the Post say that Huber's years-long investigation has by this point “largely finished”—and with nothing to show for it.

But I'm sure there's no political motivation there. Perfectly appropriate, I'm sure.

I'm not denying political motivation here, I'm just astonished that you think it is so one sided.

[Fenring]

I'm not sure what they thought they would find in the Clinton Foundation that an audit would reveal. I mean, at the extreme of anti-Clintonites there are murmurs of stuff like child trafficking and other things, "it's all through the Clinton Foundation!!" Cause I'm sure they'd put that on the books. The more moderate critics tend to believe that they were operating a pay-to-play scheme. So yeah, you'll see donations to the Foundation from shady countries who clearly don't give a crap about charitable contributions. How can looking at the books ever tell you whether it was a donation from the goodness of their hearts or whether something was expected in return?

[DJQuag]

Umm... wow.  You guys may know I routinely limit searches by date ranges to pull things from Google that are free from a pro- or anti-Trump bias.

Out of curiosity, I searched, "Letitia James cases against charities" time limited from Jan 1, 2010 through Dec 31, 2016.  I figured I may get some Trump charity overlap, but I wanted to see if she had a history of going after charities generally.  Now she's not been the AG that long, but I didn't know her history, so I thought maybe she was previously a prosecutor of some kind (turns out she wasn't).

Here's the disturbing part.  That search turned up over 10 pages of articles, the vast majority of which directly relate to the NRA case just filed, but showing search dates from years ago.  The articles are current if you follow the links, but the search dates have clearly been backdated. 

Here's one example:

New York Attorney General Moves to Dissolve NRA - news ...
searchandnews.com › player › category › news › article

Oct 16, 2014 - In a lawsuit filed on Thursday, Attorney General Letitia James claims that top NRA executives used charitable funds for personal gain, among other offenses.

This one may be my favorite:

MSNBC - On the New York AG filing a lawsuit against the ...
m.facebook.com › msnbc › posts

Oct 22, 2011 - New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit Thursday against the National Rifle Association seeking to dissolve the gun rights advocacy group and accusing top executives of "years of illegal self-dealings" that funded a "lavish lifestyle."

In any event, this is 100% political.  If it were not, she'd go after the executives directly not the charity.   By seeking to dissolve the charity she's trying to force it to waste is charitable assets immediately prior to the election on an expensive legal suit.

Again, this should be a no brainer for anyone with any sense of civil liberties or civil rights.  The remedy sought is completely out of line with the harm alleged and there is zero chance it would be pursued against someone that is not her political opponent.  Who are we kidding, her office has ignored bigger charitable crimes that are on her side, and spent an inordinate amount on a politically motivated investigation.  That seems to be the specialty of the NY AGs.

Hope everyone likes this tactic as much when the right copies it in the future.

I'm struck again about the "bad apple" versus "bad org" argument. When somebody at ACORN royally screws up, its evidence of widespread conspiracy. When a cop screws up, its one bad guy. When somebody gets caught farming 30 votes, its evidence of a plot to destroy democracy. When someone in the NRA is unethical or lawbreaking, its a freak occurrence. If instead it had been the Clinton Foundation, then HEADS MUST ROLL!

ACORN's purposes and methods were illegal.  If you believe Jones, the NRA was a victim of out of control executives.

When someone get's caught farming votes it's evidence that your meme "there's no real election fraud" is a lie.   We don't have any real ability to detect fraud, which is something the Democrats are counting on with this strategy.  The fact that we detect it all with a secret ballot and poor voter ID laws is more likely evidence that it's endemnic than that it never occurs. 

The Clinton Foundation was involved in far bigger illegal activities.  They'd never survive the kind of scrutiny the NY AG applied to the NRA (without much of a basis), but lucky for the Clinton Foundation, it's on the blue team and will never be investigated in such a manner no matter what evidence appears.

We no longer have a system of justice that applies to both sides evenly.  The left has weaponized prosecutors offices, correctly identifying that their discretion is unreviewable - no matter how egregiously applied.  They are free to release rioters no matter how legitimate the charges, not prosecute crimes solely for political reasons, and investigate their enemies and subject them to abuse, which they are routinely doing.  Lawfare at its grossest.  Like I told you when Obama was establishing the executive authority precedents, you may not like how the next guy uses them (and that was a massive understatement of a prediction), this too is a change that all of you personally are going to live to regret.

The Chewbacca Defense as seen in the wild.

[cherrypoptart]

Seriati nailed it when he pointed out that if it wasn't political she would just criminally charge any NRA leadership and prosecute them.

Here is the same point made along with some other good ones:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-lawless-nra-lawsuit-013331448.html

"If Wayne LaPierre or other NRA executives have committed a crime, then indict them and present the evidence in a criminal court. The attempt to legally dissolve the NRA instead is pure political score-settling, and an assault on the First Amendment, the rule of law, and democracy itself.

And we have seen too much of that in recent years: Consider the list of preposterous indictments from a single Democratic prosecutor’s office in Texas, which hung felony cases on Tom DeLay, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Rick Perry — all of which were obvious hooey, and all of which ultimately were dismissed, but not before imposing ruinous expenses and extraordinary personal costs on the victims of those political prosecutions. That is what Letitia James is up to in New York.

It may be the case that Wayne LaPierre is not a fit steward of NRA members’ resources — but it certainly is the case that Letitia James is not a fit steward of the rule of law in New York."

The author makes some other good points about the compensation packages at other non-profits.

[wmLambert]

I'm not sure what they thought they would find in the Clinton Foundation that an audit would reveal. I mean, at the extreme of anti-Clintonites there are murmurs of stuff like child trafficking and other things, "it's all through the Clinton Foundation!!" Cause I'm sure they'd put that on the books. The more moderate critics tend to believe that they were operating a pay-to-play scheme. So yeah, you'll see donations to the Foundation from shady countries who clearly don't give a crap about charitable contributions. How can looking at the books ever tell you whether it was a donation from the goodness of their hearts or whether something was expected in return?

You're correct about that. The politicians have written laws over the years that allow them to skate what is not appropriate. While it may not be illegal for charities to take all the money supposedly given to help those who are in need and instead use it for the personal use of the directors , it is certainly dishonest. Calling anything a charity protects it from legal threat, it seems. The Clintons used the Foundation as a personal source of income, paying for their homes, Chelsea's wedding, and travel expenses, and huge salaries for doing virtually nothing. Chelsea was signed on as Vice-Chairman of the Foundation, and Hillary's staffers called it "Chelsea"s "nest egg." Th Foundation took in $250 million before Hillary announced her run for President, and the payouts to contributors was legendary.

All charities seem to do this to one degree or another. The new laws allow them to get away with only using a small fraction of donations for where it was intended. Red Cross, Cancer Foundation, UNICEF, United Foundation all put most contribution into the wallets of their directors. The only charity the line officers and researchers I knew at the Criminal Justice Institute only donated to, was the Salvation Army: the one charity that was always there on the street during emergencies with blankets, food, and help for the victimized. Their experience was that the Red Cross would appear hours later with clipboards, and no real help.

The other aspect of the Clinton Foundation was to attain power. As Secretary of State, Hillary was given control of all national fundraising for nations in crisis, and the United Nations appointed Bill Clinton to handle all international fundraising for the crisis in Haiti, on the basis of the status of his foundation. To this day, wherever the Clintons appear Haitian protestors appear who spotlight that money never got to the people who needed it, but only went to the friends of Clinton sponsors and fundraisers on the undamaged side of the island. One example was how portable shelters that were ordered destroyed because of the asbestos-walled structures owned by friends of the Clintons, ended up on the beaches of Haiti unable to be used, but paid for by charitable donations. The people are still living in cardboard huts.

You can't nail these charities with simple audits, because morality is not a paper asset.

[cherrypoptart]

Just looked it up and the internet says that if a charity is using "only" up to 25% of donations for overhead then that's actually pretty good. So for a $250 million charity if it was spending up to $62.5 million or so on whatever and the rest on what it's supposed to then the internet would say that's actually not so bad for a charity.  10% overhead is considered outstanding but that would still leave $25 million for other things, which is a lot of weddings and travel and five star hotels.

This is 2011 but it's a pretty good overall view:

https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Guide-to-Giving/America-s-Top-50-charities-in-2011-How-well-do-they-rate

Here are a bunch of interesting numbers but I'm not sure how to parse them all. And I don't see the NRA listed. It would be nice to know what the NRA's expense/charity ratio is.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/12/nra-discloses-spending-on-foreign-fundraising/

One thing I do notice is that the NRA is reaching out for international donors including foreign gun manufacturers so having numerous meetings on foreign soil like in a tropical island paradise doesn't seem so outlandish. If they get more in donations and form lasting partnerships it could be money well spent. Also, one has to wonder how much the current deficit may be related to the Covid-19 crisis. I'm not sure but with so many out of work and the economy the way it is not to mention if the donations come from more elderly Americans, tens of thousands of whom have now died, that certainly can't be helping their financials and if that's the case, which perhaps it isn't, but if it is this is really kicking someone when they're down. Just looking at the charity being in the red at a time like this when so many others are suffering financially may not make a lot of sense. Perhaps the NRA should pull back on its expensive junkets then? Well if they are wooing big donors that could backfire too and end up costing them even more money.

[cherrypoptart]

I found another example of a charity being shutdown by New York so that's an example that works in favor of the prosecutor here.

https://www.charitywatch.org/charity-donating-articles/reported-charity-salaries-may-not-tell-the-full-story

"Donors who are overly impressed with low salaries may be disappointed to learn that charities “F”-rated by CharityWatch tend to report far lower salaries than “A”-rated ones. For example, the recently dissolved National Vietnam Veterans Foundation (NVVF) reported salaries of only $65,000 a piece to its President/Chairman and Treasurer/CFO in 2014. NVVF had been consistently “F”-rated by CharityWatch prior to being permanently shut down in 2016 as part of a settlement with the New York Office of the Attorney General (OAG). The former founder and President, John Thomas Burch, Jr., admitted that NVVF had paid 90% of its donations to its fundraisers. Some of the remaining funds ended up being spent by Burch on his personal expenses and entertainment pursuits, according to the OAG. For example, Burch used NVVF funds to pay for foreign and domestic travel; to frequent night clubs and expensive restaurants; and to lavish gifts on women. Burch also misused NVVF’s discretionary “Emergency Assistance Fund” by making payments to his relatives, friends, and personal acquaintances, while legitimate claims by veterans for emergency assistance grants were denied or limited in dollar amount. Had NVVF’s salary reporting included all forms of compensation to Burch, his total earnings would have far exceeded his $65,000 reported salary."

[DonaldD]

Just looked it up and the internet says that if a charity is using "only" up to 25% of donations for overhead then that's actually pretty good. So for a $250 million charity if it was spending up to $62.5 million or so on whatever and the rest on what it's supposed to then the internet would say that's actually not so bad for a charity.  10% overhead is considered outstanding but that would still leave $25 million for other things, which is a lot of weddings and travel and five star hotels.

It's irrelevant whether the overhead is 15%, 20% or 25% - if the 'overhead' turns out to be illegal, then it's illegal.

[TheDrake]

I'm not sure what they thought they would find in the Clinton Foundation that an audit would reveal. I mean, at the extreme of anti-Clintonites there are murmurs of stuff like child trafficking and other things, "it's all through the Clinton Foundation!!" Cause I'm sure they'd put that on the books. The more moderate critics tend to believe that they were operating a pay-to-play scheme. So yeah, you'll see donations to the Foundation from shady countries who clearly don't give a crap about charitable contributions. How can looking at the books ever tell you whether it was a donation from the goodness of their hearts or whether something was expected in return?

I'm fascinated, please define the "shady countries" and then take a holistic non partisan view of who's charities or for-profit businesses have interactions with them. And please check your unfounded QAnon in the coat room. Quid pro quo is ALWAYS about proof. You know like when a president wants an investigation into a political rival as a condition of receiving military aid?

As for not dissolving the org, and going after the execs, that could totally happen. If the board of directors stepped in. Which they won't because they think it is fantastic to book charter flights and drink pappy van winkle.

[Fenring]

I'm not sure what they thought they would find in the Clinton Foundation that an audit would reveal. I mean, at the extreme of anti-Clintonites there are murmurs of stuff like child trafficking and other things, "it's all through the Clinton Foundation!!" Cause I'm sure they'd put that on the books. The more moderate critics tend to believe that they were operating a pay-to-play scheme. So yeah, you'll see donations to the Foundation from shady countries who clearly don't give a crap about charitable contributions. How can looking at the books ever tell you whether it was a donation from the goodness of their hearts or whether something was expected in return?

I'm fascinated, please define the "shady countries" and then take a holistic non partisan view of who's charities or for-profit businesses have interactions with them. And please check your unfounded QAnon in the coat room. Quid pro quo is ALWAYS about proof. You know like when a president wants an investigation into a political rival as a condition of receiving military aid?

As for not dissolving the org, and going after the execs, that could totally happen. If the board of directors stepped in. Which they won't because they think it is fantastic to book charter flights and drink pappy van winkle.

You're fascinated with why I would call Saudi Arabia and QATAR as shady countries, to be donating to an American charity? Are they giving to Greenpeace and the SPCA also? Gee, I wonder why countries like that would give millions to the Clinton Foundation...

As for your demand for proof, see my above post. There is not and can never be proof in the way you describe of quid pro quo of this sort. We are not talking about a treaty or deal made with Ukraine, we are talking about a private arrangement between two people. You will never even get proof of things like that in regard to business alliances that are perfectly legal, no less illegal activities.

[TheDrake]

As far as Saudi goes, Presidents from Reagan to Trump always gave them a backrub free of charge. We should not give them a single dollar, they spawn the Wahabbists, murder journalists and are generally evil. To support your premise, you show me how the Trump administration did anything more against them than the supposedly corrupt quid pro quo you assert.

[Fenring]

As far as Saudi goes, Presidents from Reagan to Trump always gave them a backrub free of charge. We should not give them a single dollar, they spawn the Wahabbists, murder journalists and are generally evil. To support your premise, you show me how the Trump administration did anything more against them than the supposedly corrupt quid pro quo you assert.

I'm not talking about supporting them or anything like that, you've got it backward. I'm talking about why would these supposed Wahabbist evil people be donating to nice charitable foundations in the U.S.? You asked me to define 'shady countries' and so I did. Are you going to revisit my original statement now that you and I had contributed toward an answer to that question?

[TheDrake]

Fenring, thank you for the detail. As I understood your premise, SA put some cash into the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favors. My request is that you demonstrate that they got bang on the buck versus every other American administration.

[Fenring]

Fenring, thank you for the detail. As I understood your premise, SA put some cash into the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favors. My request is that you demonstrate that they got bang on the buck versus every other American administration.

1) It's not my premise per se, it's what may be seen as a reasonable hypothesis. 2) I can't demonstrate that as even if there was pay to play how would I know what favors were exchanged, and therefore how worth it they were? 2b) Presuming that the Saudis for example were doing similar deals with previous admins, I suppose it wouldn't matter so much to me how much more or less effective it was during a particular admin; it would be more relevant merely to establish that it was happening at all. In any case my original point is that an audit proves nothing either way, just that donations were made. Personally I find it hard to believe these were out of charitable goodness, but regardless all I was saying was that an audit would be a poor method of investigating this particular type of activity.

[cherrypoptart]

How much did Saudi Arabia donate to the Clinton Foundation after she lost the election?

[wmLambert]

How much did Saudi Arabia donate to the Clinton Foundation after she lost the election?

Good point. It has been widely reported that the donations to the Clinton Foundation dried up after her loss to Trump. In the past few years, I wouldn't be surprised to see some donations as a means to fight Trump, and is another reason for the attacks on Trump.

[TheDeamon]

How much did Saudi Arabia donate to the Clinton Foundation after she lost the election?

Well, if you believe the Clinton Foundation website, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated more than $10 million, but less than $25 Million in 2019. So they're still donating. Australia and Norway also remain as donors in the same tier.

The Netherlands and Kuwait are in the $5 million to $10 million bracket.

But other reporting does indicate their revenues dropped by over half in 2017, and have continued to drop since then. Of course, to further confuse things, the Clinton has stood up at least two other smaller charities in the interim so the new charities are likely siphoning some of the donations away towards themselves. (And of course, allows for the Clinton's to collect more pay for "services rendered" to those organizations)

[LetterRip]

There are a number of possibilites regarding donations

1) Quid pro quo - Clinton's promised favors in exchange for donations.  There is really no reason to think they'd have any motivation for this.  They have combined earnings of more than 240 million since Bill retired.  Either Clinton could have a book ghost written and make 5 million per book at a minimum.  The Foundation gets regular audits and defrauding a charitiable foundation for serious money only can be done easily in a few ways - 1) license an asset to the foundation way over value (ie if they licensed the Clinton name for fund raising at 20 million per year - this is how Ikea's founder does it - he licenses the name for essentially all of their revenue); 2) provide services to the foundation way over value (ie 'fund raising services' where 90% of the value raised is kept by the company doing the fund raising; similar scams exist for 'water drilling', house building, providng foods and medicines and other goods etc; renting venues or office space etc. at drastically above market rates;.) 3) have the foundation accept 'donations' at vastly inflated values that are then tax deducted

2) Thinking US works like many kleptocracies - people in countries that are kleptocracies just assume (like you are) that it must be a corrupt front and therefore assume that donating will corruptly influence the Clintons

3) Social networking and peer pressure- have you ever 'bought' or donated to a fund raiser to be neighborly?  Ever donated because it was something that a friend was involved in? Ever donated to a fund raiser being held or supported by a boss?  Did you continue donating and purchasing from those same causes after you were no longer in contact with people involved with those charities?  The Clinton's will have had regular contact with heads of state and talked about their Charity and thus inevitably there will be some social pressure to donate to 'not look like a jerk'.  Similarly with reduced social contact will come decreased likelihood of donating.

4) fear of vindictiveness - there may not be an expectation of favor, but rather of 'disfavor' if they don't donate.

5) They could just think it is a worthy and effective charity.

The hypothesis Clinton haters seem to favor is by far the least likely and frankly absurd with strong evidence against it.  By far the most likely is 3 - followed by 2 and 4, and lastly 5, 1 isn't even slightly rational.  If donations dropped off after Hillary was no longer a Presidential candidate - then the likelihoods remain the same with a slight decrease for 5.

[TheDrake]

In a sunlit ballroom Sunday morning at the Tuwaiq Palace in Saudi Arabia, Ivanka Trump's proposed Women Entrepreneurs Fund -- a concept she first shared during her own inaugural international trip as first daughter last month to Berlin, Germany -- was promised a combined $100 million by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates specifically to help women in the Middle East.

But maybe Saudi Arabia just passionately believed in women's rights.