Clinton Foundation donors running away from the slush fund

By the end of the general election campaign season even the anti-Donald Trump media stopped defending the Clinton Foundation. The so-called "charity" was always a slush fund and an influence peddling operation.

From the New York Observer:

Clinton Foundation scandals emerged as a major blow to Hillary Clinton's campaign this past election, as emails released by WikiLeaks and from FOIA requests revealed pay-to-play schemes and overt conflicts of interest between the Foundation and Clinton's State Department. Though the Clintons and their supporters staunchly defended the Foundation, pointing to the charitable work it produced to defend any criticisms, such claims of corruption were proven correct.

It now appears that Norway, one of the most prolific foreign Clinton Foundation donors, is decreasing its annual donation from $20 million in 2015 to $4.2 million this year—a significant drop suggesting the foreign government had expected to receive benefits in return for its generous donation. Norway's move also provides further evidence that the Foundation serves more as a front to sell access to the Clintons than as an organization focused on philanthropy. While the Foundation may have conducted some charitable work, its greater purpose has always been to boost the Clinton brand, market the Clintons on the highly paid speech circuit, and offer donors access to the Clintons and their prolific network of elite and corporate connections.

In 2015, IBTimes conducted an investigative report revealing foreign governments who gave large contributions to the Clinton Foundation—including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Algeria, Oman, UAE and Bahrain—received exponential increases in U.S. weapons exports from the State Department while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

"Because neither Clinton will occupy a prominent role in government in the immediate future—curtailing the willingness of at least some big donors to try and curry favor with the foundation by writing large checks," reported CNBC on November 19. “Because Hillary Clinton is no longer seen as a president in waiting, contributors may look elsewhere and the foundation may have to rethink its scope and priorities,” philanthropy experts told CNBC. The Clinton Foundation refused to respond to numerous requests from CNBC for comment.

I wonder if any of these governments will demand a refund?