Peter1469
10-16-2016, 02:27 PM
Chelsea realized that her parents were corrupt (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/chelsea_agonistes_wikileaks_reveals_the_moment_a_d aughter_starts_to_realize_her_parents_are_corrupt. html)
Maybe she is a decent human.
The biggest human interest story so far of the Wikileaks hack is the story of Chelsea Clinton’s discovery in 2011 that her parents’ nonprofit was full of conflicts of interest. They had set up a charity that allowed donors to get their way. At first, she tried reform, only to lose out to the entenched cronies. What emerges, in the context of Chelsea’s actions in the next few years, shows us how she reconciled herself to the realities of the Clinton Organization.
A tranche of the Wikileaks revelations released Tuesday revealed, as Richard Pollock of the Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/bombshell-chelsea-privately-declared-war-on-clinton-foundation-in-2011/) put it:
Chelsea Clinton’s bold decision in 2011 to launch an “internal investigation” into the finances of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative…. (snip)
Two emails — one dated Nov. 12, 2011 and another dated Jan. 4, 2012 — show Chelsea was aggressively looking into the foundation’s money flows and talking to others about it.
It sounds as though the then-31-year-old Chelsea, accustomed to dismissing everything negative about her parents coming from the Clinton-haters, started seeing actual internal data and was able to put two and two together. Keep in mind that at this time in her life, she had just been awarded a masters degree in public health and was beginning work on her doctoral dissertation at University College, Oxford. The dissertation (https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Global_Fund.html?id=QFLeoQEACAAJ) was not completed until 2014, when she was awarded her doctorate. The abstract (https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:657c56dd-82cc-42c1-8453-33993a4a760f) of the 712-page thesis reveals that donors exerting control over a nonprofit organization was her major discovery. The specific organization she studied, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/), does not appear to be an offshoot of the Clinton organizations. Here are the conclusions, from the abstract, couched in terms of the relevant academic theories:
Read the rest at the link.
Maybe she is a decent human.
The biggest human interest story so far of the Wikileaks hack is the story of Chelsea Clinton’s discovery in 2011 that her parents’ nonprofit was full of conflicts of interest. They had set up a charity that allowed donors to get their way. At first, she tried reform, only to lose out to the entenched cronies. What emerges, in the context of Chelsea’s actions in the next few years, shows us how she reconciled herself to the realities of the Clinton Organization.
A tranche of the Wikileaks revelations released Tuesday revealed, as Richard Pollock of the Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/bombshell-chelsea-privately-declared-war-on-clinton-foundation-in-2011/) put it:
Chelsea Clinton’s bold decision in 2011 to launch an “internal investigation” into the finances of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative…. (snip)
Two emails — one dated Nov. 12, 2011 and another dated Jan. 4, 2012 — show Chelsea was aggressively looking into the foundation’s money flows and talking to others about it.
It sounds as though the then-31-year-old Chelsea, accustomed to dismissing everything negative about her parents coming from the Clinton-haters, started seeing actual internal data and was able to put two and two together. Keep in mind that at this time in her life, she had just been awarded a masters degree in public health and was beginning work on her doctoral dissertation at University College, Oxford. The dissertation (https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Global_Fund.html?id=QFLeoQEACAAJ) was not completed until 2014, when she was awarded her doctorate. The abstract (https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:657c56dd-82cc-42c1-8453-33993a4a760f) of the 712-page thesis reveals that donors exerting control over a nonprofit organization was her major discovery. The specific organization she studied, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/), does not appear to be an offshoot of the Clinton organizations. Here are the conclusions, from the abstract, couched in terms of the relevant academic theories:
Read the rest at the link.