>>that was intended for the needy.
You’re quite the idealist, aren’t you?
The money was given expecting to buy influence, I doubt the givers expected any other side effects.
I am not a fool. We all know that the “charity” was nothing more than a bribery scheme. However, people have forgotten that it is called a charity and it is set up as such with the IRS. Donors deduct their taxes for money provided and the brochures talk about helping the needy.
We must frame the narrative about the “charity” in this manner because people hate charity scams. Tap into that and people will be disgusted just like we were when we saw Clinton Cash. That is why nobody mentioned their “charity” during the DNC convention - they have done everything to avoid it and the media has obeyed their masters, but we should talk non-stop about ten cents on the dollar. We should ask people why a charity that proclaims that donations go “directly to our life changing work” (taken directly from their site and brochure) spends more on travel for Billary and Chelsea than they provide the poor for whom the “money was donated.” This resonates with people and it is why her campaign has hidden it - they know it looks awful and people understand charity fraud.