Let me start of by saying that I don't think there's a single person who gave money to the Clinton Foundation who saw the organization as a charity. No one gives money to the Clintons thinking it's charity, at least, not primarily. It's pay-to-play. It's the same reason NBC gave Chelsea Clinton a $600,000 job that required no actual experience and even less in the way of performance.

The Clinton Foundation is a slush fund used to provide a source of cash to allow the Clintons to live the kind of lifestyle they enjoyed in the White House in Bill's post-presidential years.

This is all obvious by looking at the foundation's tax filings, which the mainstream media isn't interested in, because that would likely result in Hillary not talking to them (as if that's not normal).

While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.

But the worst part of it is when the fact-checkers get involved. On the plus side, NPR surprisingly does a fairly honest job of it; identifying Chelsea's claim that the foundation is the "most transparent" as, well, a lie.

"What the Clinton foundation has said is that we will be kind of even more transparent," said the former first daughter, now vice chairman of the foundation, at an event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. "Even though Transparency International and others have said we're among the most transparent foundations, we'll disclose donors on a quarterly basis, not just an annual basis."

The problem with that, though, is Transparency International never cited the Clinton foundation. It did award Hillary Clinton its 2012 TI-USA Integrity Award when Clinton was secretary of state for "recognizing her contributions as secretary of state in raising the importance of transparency and anticorruption as elements of U.S. policy," Claudia Dumas, president of Transparency International, told NPR. (The organization put out a fuller statement Monday.)

"I am very honored to be here and delighted to be supporting the work of Transparency International-USA," Clinton said on March 22, 2012. She added, "Corruption and the lack of transparency eats away like a cancer at the trust people should have in their government."

She never mentioned the Clinton foundation, and Dumas' organization is focused on promoting government transparency.

"We do not do an examination or any ranking of foundations," said Dumas, who noted that Chelsea Clinton may have simply made an innocent mistake.

NPR then followed up with this:

The Clinton foundation discloses all of its donors, and, as Chelsea Clinton noted, it is now doing so more frequently as Hillary Clinton is running for president. That's more than other presidential libraries and foundations.

Which didn't last two days.

“We’re not trying to hide anything,” he says. There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP.  “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.

But, in a display of hackery that could only be aspired to by the likes of Media Matters for America, Punditfact decided that "True" is "Mostly False."

So what we have from [hack Lou Jacobson] is not a fact check, but an implication check. He likes the implications of agreeing with people on the Clinton payroll, so he trusts them, even when actual facts, history, and common sense contradict their assertions. Jacobson does not like the implications of facts that show the Clintons and their allies in a poor light, so he declares them to be false.

This is not journalism. This is not fact-checking. This is pathetic demagoguery, and a remarkably unimpressive display of it at that.

“Let me stop you at ‘while technically true,'” I told Jacobson via e-mail, “because that’s really the only standard that matters when judging whether something is true or not. Whether you happen to like a fact is irrelevant to whether it’s true. So when you tell me that the truth of a statement is not the primary factor in determining whether something is true [or] not (“I don’t expect it to be a full True”), it tells me that you have an agenda that’s separate from determining whether something is true. That’s disappointing.”

It’s also vintage PunditFact.