During a panel discussion on Tuesday's Hardball related to both the dangers and opportunities of Hillary Clinton's campaign tacking to the left in the primaries, MSNBC's Chris Matthews picked a fight with the lone Republican on set, who was highlighting the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton's left-wing populist attacks on the wealthy given how she and her husband amassed wealth and influence via the Clinton Foundation.
Matthews snarled that the Foundation was truly a charitable enterprise -- "helping people" was "what they do" he insisted -- although tax records show that in recent years, roughly just one-tenth of Foundation revenues get converted to charitable grants.
Unfortunately for viewers at home, however, the Republican pundit on the panel, Cherylyn Harley Lebon, was ill-prepared for verbally fencing with Matthews on that point, failing to raise The Federalist's reporting on the matter.
Here's the relevant transcript:
MSNBC
Hardball
June 9, 2015CHERYLYN HARLEY LEBON: Well, I find it interesting, because to run to the left, everything we've seen in terms of what the [Clinton] Foundation is doing, the money that they have, it's so inconsistent with the Left's narrative. How is she going to relate to someone who makes $10 an hour? And if in fact she --
CHRIS MATTHEWS: How does the Foundation not square with helping people in need? That's what they do at the Foundation.
LEBON: But the point is, where are they getting their money from? There's been a lot of controversy about that. Almost every day you can see a story about the money coming from Saudi Arabia. Let me give you another example --
MATTHEWS: What's wrong with robbing the rich and giving to the poor?
LEBON: But the point is, if you in fact are arguing and saying that you are for the rights of women and girls, yet you're taking money from countries that in no way are supporting the rights of women and girls.
MATTHEWS: Give me a list of things that the Republican presidents of recent history have done against, for the right of women in Saudi Arabia.
LEBON: But we're talking about Hillary Clinton running to the left.
MATTHEWS: No! Give me an example. No, this is a lot of hypocrisy here. This conservative concern about women in Saudi Arabia is fairly new, like last week. When has your party ever voiced a concern about women in Third World countries?
LEBON: But, Chris--
MATTHEWS: I'm just asking, because you're bringing it up now.
LEBON: Listen. Well, I'm bringing it up because it is important, and I think if she's going to be running to the left, she should be able to answer for what the type of money she's taken in. Why shouldn't she?
Here's a damning excerpt from Sean Davis's April 27, 2015 story (emphasis mine):
In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.
While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.
