Did you read the story? Calling them "whistleblowers" is a stretch. In fact, the link never even uses the term. Instead, it refers to the two as "private investigators." Basically, it sounds like someone wanted to find dirt on the Clinton Foundation and brought in a pair of hired guns to go over the foundation's papers to see if they could make any kind of claim against the charity. As they were paid to do, the pair then put together the best case they could -- in this case, a claim that the Clinton Foundation operated outside the bounds of its IRS approval.
They said nothing about Clinton using the foundation as his piggy bank, as you dishonestly claimed. If anything, it's the opposite. According to the P.I.s, the Clintons were actually approved to accept funds for Clinton's presidential library, but their supposed misdeed was being in talks about health programs that weren't part of the library's mission.
This smear campaign is actually really slipshod work. For example, they say ".... about 60 percent of the foundation’s income was spent on things like salaries, travel, and grants." Obviously, that tosses together overhead and charitable giving (grants), without telling us how much is for each. Then one of the PI's says he personally feels like a "good charity" would only spend about 15 percent on such things. What the basis of that feeling is, is never explained.
Where did you see anything about the foundation being run as a "private enterprise"?
Where did you see anything supporting that claim?
Be specific, please.
