http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/08/clinton-cashs-peter-schweizer-pushes-stat-that/203580
Peter Schweizer, whose book Clinton Cash has been criticized for numerous errors and for reading "like a hatchet job," is now claiming the Clinton Foundation gives just "10 percent" of its budget "to other charitable organizations, the rest they keep for themselves." But Schweizer's cherry-picked statistic is so deceptive that even Fox News called it "incredibly misleading."
During a recent appearance with radio host Bill Bennett, Schweizer attacked the Clinton Foundation for giving the impression that they do "hands-on" work in developing countries when "they only give about 10 percent of their income to other charitable groups." Bennett replied with shock, asking Schweizer: "You're telling me 10 percent goes to the recipients?" Schweizer replied: "Yeah, 10 percent is what they give to other charitable organizations, the rest they keep for themselves."
Schweizer's "10 percent" number has been a favorite talking point during his Clinton Cash book tour. For example:
On the May 8 broadcast of CSPAN's Washington Journal, Schweizer attacked the Clinton Foundation for failing to "do a lot of hands-on work with people" in Asia and Africa, citing that "they give about ten percent of their money to other charitable organizations."
During a May 7 interview with WNYM's John Gambling, Schweizer claimed the Clintons "give probably about 10 percent of their total budget every year to charities that are actually doing hands-on work. The rest of it goes to pay salaries for this large infrastructure that they've built up." Gambling replied: "That's criminal."
On the May 5 edition of WIND's Chicago's Morning Answer, Schweizer was asked by co-host Dan Proft asked if he knew what percentage of donations goes to "philanthropic endeavors." Schweizer replied: "Yes, it's around 10 percent in terms of money that they actually give to other charities."
Schweizer's "10 percent" talking point is a good example of how to lie with statistics.
i don't know why this guy is still around when he first started pumping his compilation of hyperbole as fact that he too like the rest of republicans and right wing zealots admit to having no proof but continue on with their fantasy as if it were fact. knowing up front this guys affiliation with Breitbart and Fox should have squelched any perception of honesty given both's track records on real factual reporting.
the persistence in pushing misinformation is a right wing staple "say it over and over somebody will believe it". could it all be about trying what they unsuccessfully tried to do to Pres. with Hillary and their propensity to lie and forgetting their losses history dictates they should fall short of this latest smear tactic of same game against another name.
