The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column gave the Clinton Foundation three Pinocchios, on a scale of four, about its explanation for not disclosing individual donors to a Canadian charity affiliated with Bill and Hillary Clinton’s nonprofit.
A score of three Pinocchios represents "significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions."
The donations investigated by the Post specifically addressed the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership
— CGEP
— a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation.
The New York Times last week published a story examining President Bill Clinton’s relationship with Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier who sits on the Clinton Foundation board and has donated millions to the organization.
Giustra’s generosity,
according to Bloomberg, may have played a role in his company securing a "lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received 'a flow of cash' to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million."
The Times story explained that Kazakhstan mines are among the most lucrative in the world and the Giustra deal put the Russians in control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.
"Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton," the Times said.
On Sunday, the Clinton Foundation’s acting chief executive, Maura Pally, issued a statement saying that while the CGEP is publicly listed as a donor on the Clinton Foundation’s website, its individual donors are omitted because under Canadian law "all charities are prohibited from disclosing donors without prior permission from each donor."
Pally’s statement, according to the Post, implies a blanket Canadian law prohibiting charities from disclosing donor information without permission.
Not so, according to Fact Checker writer Michelle Ye Hee Lee.
"The charity’s own memo says it is operating under federal obligations and its fiduciary duty for its board of directors," she writes. "The federal law does not explicitly ban charities from disclosing individual donor names without permission. In fact, it only applies to commercial use of personal information. The public release of donor names for a non-commercial purpose is not prohibited. The charity, however, interprets the release of donor records as 'bartering,' which experts have questioned."
Hillary Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency, has come under fire for the foundation’s failure to disclose donors. A 2008 agreement between the Obama administration and Clinton, the former secretary of state, requires her to publicly do so, according to the newspaper.
Critics, including Peter Schweizer, author of the upcoming book "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich," contend that donor contributions may have resulted in a quid pro quo situation with Hillary Clinton.
A Canadian charity lawyer told the Post that the explanation for not disclosing the CGEP donors was a "rather shaky … and an extremely conservative view" of the law.
"It is difficult to see how releasing the list would be bartering, given that there seems to be no payment or consideration for the release of the list," said the lawyer, Adam Aptowitzer.
Mark Blumberg, a Toronto-based charity lawyer, said donor consent is commonplace in "boilerplate language" used by Canadian charities when soliciting donations.
"Many organizations ask, 'Do you wish to remain anonymous?' This is pretty common stuff," Blumberg said.
The Clinton Foundation "offered no comment" on the matter to the Post.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.