We guess criminal birds of a feather flock together. In this case they’re both turkeys.
A Democratic fundraiser who had planned to bundle money for Hillary Clinton now says he’s ‘on the fence’ over charges of impropriety that have been levied at her family foundation.
The influential money man, Jon Cooper, told the Washington Times he has put on hold his plans to contact 10,000 possible donors on Clinton’s behalf.
‘It’s just the drip, drip, drip that is a little concerning, and I just wish that there would have been a more forceful response from the Clinton campaign to some of this,’ he said, referring to both the controversy involving the Clinton Foundation and the former secretary of state’s emails.
Cooper said ‘there are some valid questions that are being raised by good people,’ and Clinton’s camp needs to ‘have better answers to some of these questions.’
An influential government watchdog meanwhile said that it had put the Clinton Foundation on a ‘watch list’ – where it joins Al Sharpton’s National Action Network – while a senior staffer at another oversight organization said the non-profit is operating as a ‘slush fund’ for the Clintons, one of America’s most powerful political families.
The backlash comes as the acting chief executive of the global charity acknowledged over the weekend that the organization made mistakes in disclosing its donors.
After reports surfaced about previously unknown gifts from foreign governments and a donor who was selling his uranium company to a Russian state agency at the same time the State Department had to approve the sale, the foundation’s acting CEO Maura Pally defended the global charity’s work and reaffirmed its commitment to transparency.
She described its policies on donor disclosure and contributions from foreign governments as ‘stronger than ever.’
The fund had been under growing scrutiny as Hillary Clinton opens her presidential campaign, and its sloppy financial reporting is already threatening to derail her ride to the top of the political pyramid.
Pally said the foundation expected to refile some of its tax forms, following a voluntary external review, because it had ‘mistakenly combined’ government grants and donations.
She said the foundation would ‘remedy’ any errors but stressed the total revenue was reported accurately and that grants were properly broken out on audited statements on its website.
What she needs to remedy is why less than 10% of the money raked in has gone to charity.