New York Magazine is reporting that team Clinton unsuccessfully attempted to strong arm Charity Navigator into changing its lousy rating of the Clinton Foundation.
The [Clinton] Foundation has demanded they extend the Clintons special treatment.
They also allege the Foundation attempted to strong-arm them by calling a
Navigator board member. “They felt they were of such importance that we
should deviate from our normal process. They were irritated by that,”
says [former Charity Foundation CEO] Berger.
Apparently the Foundation was warned they would be added to the “watch list” on March 11th based on pre-“Clinton Cash” reports of possible Foundation/State Dept. quid pro quo deals in late February.
It didn’t work. During a tense phone conversation on the afternoon of March 17, Pally and Berger argued over the merits of the media’s claims about the Foundation. Pally said they were without substance; Berger insisted that since the newspapers published the articles, they were relevant. “Our whole thing is, if major media outlets say there’s something here that you should be aware of, we’re not going to be judge and jury on what the media says,” Berger later told me. “We felt there had been enough questions.” As a matter of practice, the Navigator doesn’t conduct its own investigations. On its website, they state: “Charity Navigator … takes no position on allegations made or issues raised by third parties, nor does Charity Navigator seek to confirm or verify the accuracy of allegations made or the merits of issues raised by third parties that may be referred to in the CN Watchlist.”
…Unfortunately for Hillary’s campaign, the Navigator’s policy is that charities that land on the list stay there for a minimum of six months. Sandra Miniutti, the Navigator’s spokesperson, told me that, in order to get off the list, the Clintons need to publicly address each of the controversies raised by the media with a convincing response.
Funny, the American public has been asking for the same exact thing.