Where is your information? I'm reading the Breitbart article right now.
I read some articles from November about foreign governments cutting back or eliminating donations. Nothing about Kuwait or that other beacon of human rights Saudi Arabia, but I'm sure they're still paying "us" for weapons and protecting them from Iraq for a decade. When major donors cut back or eliminate their funding after their link to the WH is broken the implications are obvious.
Of course it didn't matter if Hillary won or lost, the "big money" will flow more to the GOP and Trump now. Thats how our corrupt system works, the 2 parties argue back and forth from their moral high ground while their politicians steal our money... And our weapons, like the republican god Ronald Reagan. He stole our weapons and sold them to Iranian terrorists and used some of the money to fund central american terrorists. And he did that shortly after Iran's likely involvement with blowing up our marines in Beirut. Can you believe that? We had an arms embargo on Iran and Reagan was selling them our weapons! And they call Snowden and Manning traitors? Sorry, I'm rambling again...
As for 2014-15, donations probably declined because Hillary left State to run and the coming election was increasing scrutiny on the foundation with accusations of pay for play. That would naturally shine a light on the major donors who'd be stuck explaining why they're supporting the foundation. If she had won the election the Clinton's were planning on addressing the problem by eliminating any conflict of interest

Regarding CGI, I dont have much faith in what Bill Clinton said. I imagine he was trying to get her elected and CGI was just another obstacle. He should have probably prefaced his prognosis with "if Hillary loses", but that wouldn't remove the obstacle too well. If they had won I doubt CGI would have cut back or ended, its an annual gathering of bigshots to talk about the planet's needs. Seems to me that 'imperative' would increase with Hillary in the WH. I dont know how important those meetings were to the foundation, but it does appear to be the first casualty in the foundation's decline.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...s/news-story/219577919ed8dfbd79cf808321234eba
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/19/clin...llary-clintons-dashed-white-house-dreams.html
I'm not a fan of Hillary, and her entire foundation may indeed may be closing down, but the evidence for that just isn't here yet. Not to say it won't be there in the future.
Bureaucracies and charities rarely disappear, they find new causes. But they got plenty of money to kick around for a while, hell, they could survive off the investments and Bill and Hillary will be free to make their speeches for oodles of money. Well, their stock just went down so maybe Chelsea will have to run for the Senate.
He has no interest in evidence. Breitbart just tells him what he wants to hear and he loyally parrots it on.
He has no interest in evidence.
Clinton just tells him what he wants to hear and he loyally parrots it on.
You dont see any irony there? Apparently you've read Breitbart, not me, and you're the one repeating what both Breitbart and the Clinton Foundation told you.
The OP criticizes right wing political correctness, you ignored that to call me a constantly deceitful right wing sycophant because I added a criticism of the corruption in Washington attached to the Clintons. I dont even visit those sites and they didn't invent the 'narrative'. A drop in donations from power brokers following an election loss 'invented' the narrative. If you're gonna use (alleged) false statements to accuse others of lying, you'd do well to avoid filling your arguments with them.