Clinton Foundation charity is huge fraud--breaking story

[Apollonian]

Exclusive: Clinton charities ignore law requiring them to disclose millions from foreign donors​

AG who could force transparency chooses not to

Mark Greenblatt
Sep 6, 2016

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s64SJD9JkQ0

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has the power to force the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative to publicly disclose the names of foreign governments and the millions they donate each year to the charities but he’s not doing it, a Scripps News investigation has found.

Schneiderman’s failure to require compliance with New York law and written instructions from his own office keeps the public in the dark about whether the foreign governments that gave money to the Clinton charities also had special access to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state, experts in private foundation law say. New York state has long required more transparency from non-profits operating within its borders than many other regulators.

A Scripps Washington Bureau review of tax returns and regulatory filings found that year after year the Clinton charities have ignored New York law and related instructions. However, the office of Attorney General Schneiderman, a Democrat whom Hillary Clinton named to her campaign's “leadership council” in New York, did not respond to Scripps’ questions about the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), which has never publicly disclosed in New York filings the identity of its foreign government contributors or the amounts they give each year. Scripps also discovered CHAI did not report hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign government donations to the state.

However, Schneiderman’s office said it considers the Clinton Foundation, which is a separate charity, “in step” with state rules.

“He’s not doing his job in that case,” said David Nelson, an attorney and former partner at the accounting firm of Ernst & Young who served on the regulations and legislation committee of the Council On Foundations, the philanthropy industry’s equivalent of the American Bar Association.

In 2009, Secretary Clinton’s first year heading the State Department, the Clinton Foundation disclosed to New York only a lump sum of $122 million in foreign government donations, listing the amount on a required form that directs all charities to “list each government contribution (grant) separately.” The foundation continued to provide the lump sum disclosures for foreign governments in every year that followed.

Nelson said, “The Clinton Foundation cannot say they are in compliance with New York regulations.”

Here’s what you need to know

The Internal Revenue Service has long required charities to disclose on their federal tax returns the total amount of contributions they receive from all governments, foreign and domestic. The federal form does not require a charity to publicly identify its government contributors. However, any charity that wishes to operate or raise funds in New York must also, according to a state law, meet more rigid transparency requirements and publicly disclose “the name of each agency” and “the amount of each contribution” received from any government agency, every year.

A partial review by Scripps of charities registered in New York found inconsistent compliance with the instructions.

The New York Attorney General’s office published a set of detailed instructions for all charities to follow. It directs them to make sure the total amount of government contributions disclosed to the state is equal to what the charities report to the IRS. From 2010-2014, for every year it has filed disclosures with the state, the Clinton Health Access Initiative has ignored this direction.

The $225 million discrepancy

By 2010, Hillary Clinton was entering her second year as secretary of state and the Clinton Health Access Initiative had just split off from the Clinton Foundation as part of an agreement with the Obama administration. The separation was intended to help bring "greater transparency" to the Clinton charities during her tenure at the State Department, according to a memorandum of understanding with President Obama's transition team.

That year, CHAI reported only $242,099 in “Total Government Contributions” to New York regulators, and that number included only domestic grants. But for the same time period in 2010 it told the IRS it received $26,740,319 in foreign and domestic government grants.

By not telling New York about millions in foreign government grants it received that year, CHAI avoided the state’s more stringent disclosure rules that would have required the charity to itemize publicly each domestic and foreign government donation. In a letter written in November 2014, as Clinton began eyeing a run for the White House, CHAI itemized domestic government grants but told the New York attorney general’s office it “also received foreign government contributions and can provide those in more details if needed.”

Every disclosure CHAI has ever made since separating from the Clinton Foundation has come during Schneiderman’s tenure as attorney general. CHAI spokesperson Regan Lachapelle told Scripps that if Schneiderman’s office wants more information, it can ask for it.

“We believe that we are following instructions by recording the (domestic government grants) we receive on the New York form and indicating that we will provide them with foreign government donor information if they would like it,” Lachapelle wrote in an email. “We clearly state in our cover letter that we would provide details on funding from international governments upon request.”

The charity says it provided “aggregate” amounts of all government grants to New York that are found on its federal tax returns. “The officials in New York have never questioned our way of doing this,” Lachapelle said.

John Wonderlich, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog that has a special focus on the flow of political money, says the disclosure rules for all charities in New York are clear and the Clinton charity should follow them.

"It appears as though the Clinton Health Access Initiative is attempting to disclose less than the law requires, and to deflect blame onto the attorney general's office as though financial disclosure requirements are individually negotiated on a by-request basis," he said.

Between 2010 and 2014, with no one stepping in, records show a $225 million discrepancy between what CHAI told New York it received in government grants and what it told the IRS. The impact means, experts say, details on the foreign government donations remain out of public view for anybody who might wish to know which governments gave what, and when. The charity did tell New York it received $8.2 million in domestic government grants over the same timeframe, signaling the vast majority of its government money comes from overseas.

While public scrutiny of foreign donations flowing to Clinton charities has largely focused on the Clinton Foundation, tax records show the amount of foreign government money flowing to CHAI was more than six times the amount given to the foundation from 2010-2014, the years after the organizations split.

The Clinton Foundation recently pledged it would stop accepting foreign government donations if Hillary Clinton becomes president. CHAI, as a separate entity, has made no such commitment.

“CHAI’s Board will soon determine its next steps,” Lachappelle said in an email.

Chelsea Clinton is a member of CHAI’s board and her father, President Bill Clinton, is the chairman of the board. Ira Magaziner, the CEO of CHAI and vice chairman of the board, is a longtime Clinton devotee who served as senior adviser for policy development for President Clinton.

“We believe we are in compliance,” Lachapelle wrote. “The state of New York has not notified us otherwise.”

Keeping the details slim

Before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state and in advance of when CHAI split off, the Clinton Foundation disclosed to New York a lump sum amount in foreign government donations of $97 million for 2008 and $122 million for 2009, according to state filings. But records show the charity stopped disclosing even lump sum amounts during her second year at the State Department.

“Every instance where there was an opportunity to be more transparent or less they chose to be less transparent,” Nelson, the tax expert, said.

From 2010-2013, the foundation originally did not disclose to New York any foreign government grants. For three of those four years, it checked a box on regulatory forms signed by the foundation’s chief financial officer claiming it had no government grants. But this past January as Secretary Clinton was campaigning in the presidential primaries, the foundation filed revised disclosures in New York indicating it had in fact received $17.8 million in previously undisclosed foreign government grants from 2010-2013, along with several smaller domestic government donations. In the revisions, the foundation itemized domestic government grants but continued to provide only lump sums for foreign government money.

“It looks like they are being dragged kicking and screaming into any disclosure at all about their foreign (government) donors, and ultimately still failing to live up to the letter of the law,” said the Sunlight Foundation’s Wonderlich.

Balanced to the left?

The attorney general’s own website notes, in the second sentence of its biography for Eric Tradd Schneiderman, that “Eric has taken on the tough fights to protect New Yorkers – because he believes there has to be one set of rules for everyone, no matter how rich or powerful.”

No doubt, the Harvard law grad has made national waves since settling into his job, teaming up with California Attorney General Kamala Harris to push for tougher penalties for big banks following their illegal foreclosure practices and more recently taking on daily fantasy sports companies such as DraftKings and FanDuel that some have compared to gambling operations.

In August, Schneiderman won an important legal victory in federal court against the right-leaning organization Citizens United. A judge ruled the group must disclose key information about its major donors. “Today’s decision is a victory for common sense oversight of New York’s vast nonprofit sector,” Schneiderman said in a statement. “New Yorkers deserve to know their donations are protected against fraud and abuse, and today the court protected that right.”

The Clinton Foundation says it has turned in a list of major donors, which remains confidential, to Schneiderman's office. But when it comes to the foundation's failure to publicly disclose all government grants every year, Wonderlich and Nelson look to Schneiderman to enforce the law evenly.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman speaks during a press conference at the office of the New York Attorney General, July 19, 2016, in New York City. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

The attorney general’s office did not respond to questions about Schneiderman’s role on the Clinton campaign’s leadership council or whether his office was operating in an unbiased manner. Last year, Schneiderman gave the Clinton campaign $2,700, the maximum personal contribution allowed under federal law.

In June, Scripps asked the attorney general’s office about the New York laws that require charities to itemize all government grants – domestic and foreign. The office responded on the same day the press secretary for Schneiderman was quoted as defending the Clinton Foundation’s filings in an article written by Politifact. The press secretary noted in the article that other charities, such as the Carter Center, also have filed disclosures by only providing a lump sum amount for foreign government donations. The attorney general’s office said the article “serves as any comment” for the attorney general, but added, the office was now working on clarifying the rules.

“We intend to provide guidance clarifying our disclosure rules in the months ahead,” the office said in a statement.

Wonderlich, of The Sunlight Foundation, says he is alarmed at the move to “clarify” the rules, which he believes could not be more clear. He says the problem is instead with lax enforcement, adding that changing the disclosure requirements now could rob the public of a valuable window into the operations of all charities, not just those operated by the Clintons.

Former Secretary of State and first lady Hillary Clinton speaks at a press conference announcing a new initiative between the Clinton Foundation, United Nations Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies, titled Data 2x on Dec. 15, 2014, in New York City. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

“Even if there have been other organizations that failed to disclose their foreign donors, that’s not an excuse for the Clinton Foundation to not disclose their foreign donors, and it’s not an excuse for Schneiderman’s office to fail to enforce the law,” Wonderlich said.

A Scripps check of filings from separate charities reveals others complied with New York’s instructions and itemized their foreign government grants.

Action Against Hunger disclosed a wide range of donations in 2010 including $8 million from the UK Department of International Development, and other donations from entities including the Canadian Government, Royal Norwegian Embassy, and the French Government. The Catholic Medical Mission Board told New York it received $140,038 in 2011 from Kenya. In 2013, The George W. Bush Foundation revealed it received just under $5 million from the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia and another $500,000 from the embassy of the state of Kuwait.

Brian Cookstra, director of media relations for the Clinton Foundation, did not directly address questions about the appropriateness of lump sum reporting, but he referred Scripps instead to the same Politifact article that quoted the attorney general’s press secretary.

Josh Schwerin, a spokesperson for the Clinton campaign, declined to answer questions and also referred Scripps to the article and the Carter Center’s practice of lumping foreign donations together for New York.

Neither the Clinton campaign nor the foundation responded to follow up questions about the state’s regulations or the attorney general’s published instructions to all charities, but the Carter Center did.

Phil Wise, vice president of operations and development for the Carter Center, explained that the center focuses on its charitable work, while contracting out to a private company all the regulatory paperwork various states require.

“We give them the detailed list of every government grant. They decide how best to disclose it,” said Wise, who added that going forward, the Carter Center will always file itemized disclosures with New York for government grants.

Within two hours of hearing from Scripps, Wise sent a detailed list of every domestic and foreign government grant the Carter Center received for fiscal year 2014.

“Basically, we are pretty transparent,” he said.

Limited disclosure

Click image to open documents for Original Clinton Foundation Filings, Revised Clinton Foundation Filings, and Clinton Health Access Initiative Filings

Both the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative do voluntarily provide on their web sites general disclosures about all donors, including governments. For instance, CHAI notes that Ireland and New Zealand gave somewhere between $5 million and $10 million at some time since CHAI began filing separately from the Clinton Foundation in 2010. It received $25 million or more from Norway, Australia and the United Kingdom.

The Clinton Foundation on its website offers similar broad ranges of donations over the “lifetime” of the foundation that give no window into when or how often the money rolled in, and in what amounts.

The Clinton charities do not reveal on their websites if donations from governments came all at once, in multiple contributions over time, during Clinton’s time as secretary of state or after. They also do not provide a window into how much money might have rolled in during specific years the governments could have had business before the secretary of state.

“The law requires foreign donors to be disclosed and the [New York] attorney general, the [New York] attorney general’s office is permitting them to go undisclosed,” Wonderlich said. “Voters deserve to have a full picture of what Secretary Clinton, and the Clintons together have created, and all the ways that that might be entangled in a presidency.”

 

[Apollonian]

 

[Apollonian]

 

[Apollonian]

HSBC case blows lid off Clintons' offshore empire​

Panama Papers suggest ties to massive money-laundering scheme

Published: 17 hours ago

Link: http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/hsbc-case-blows-lid-on-clintons-offshore-empire/

author-image Jerome R. Corsi About | Email | Archive


NEW YORK – The arrest of the head of global foreign exchange cash trading at HSBC bank may shed new light on suspicions the Clinton Foundation has been involved in illegal offshore money-laundering operations on a massive scale.

The investigation into HSBC currency trader Mark Johnson and associate Stuart Scott for their alleged role in a “conspiracy to rig currency benchmarks” by front-running customer orders has escalated to the point where the Department of Justice is threatening to tear up a 2012 agreement to fine HSBC a historic $1.9 billion for money-laundering violations in lieu of criminal prosecutions.

At issue is whether or not HSBC has honored the 2012 deferred-prosecution agreement in which the bank agreed to establish internal review procedures to catch and punish potentially criminal activities by employees.

Jerome Corsi’s “Partners in Crime: The Clintons’ Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit,” is available only at the WND Superstore!

The bank’s failure to discipline the two currency traders will make it difficult for HSBC to convince law-enforcement authorities that the massive Hong Kong-headquartered bank has complied with the 2012 agreement. An internal investigation in 2013 cleared them of any wrongdoing regarding a $3.5 billion currency trade that U.S. prosecutors now believe was criminally fraudulent.

HSBC money trail leads to Clintons

WND broke open the HSBC money-laundering case with a series of articles beginning in February 2012. More than 1,000 pages of customer records and secret audio recordings brought to WND by whistleblower John Cruz, a former HSBC employee, showed HSBC employees in Long Island were stealing the Social Security numbers of former bank depositors to create bogus “pass-through” accounts used to launder hundreds of millions of dollars for criminal enterprises such as Mexican drug cartels and Islamic terrorists.

WND reported in February 2015 Cruz told Senate Judiciary Committee staff preparing for the Loretta Lynch confirmation hearings that he considered the $1.9 billion fine DOJ imposed on HSBC in 2012 in lieu of criminal prosecution “a joke.” Cruz argued that a $1.9 billion fine of an international bank the size of HSBC amounted to no more than “a few days operating profit.” He described it as “a cost of doing business” once HSBC had decided to launder money for international criminals.

After the HSBC currency traders were arrested, WND conducted an investigation of the bank’s connections to the Clinton Foundation, uncovering a massive offshore financial network involving tens of thousands of transactions that extend far beyond HSBC.

The transactions surfaced in database searches of leaked offshore banking documents.

On Feb. 10, 2015, the London Guardian reported $81 million from seven wealthy international donors flowed to the Clinton Foundation through controversial Swiss tax-free HSBC accounts maintained in Geneva, as revealed by leaked HSBC files obtained by French newspaper Le Monde.

The evidence has been passed to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the Guardian, BBC Panorama and more than 50 other media outlets around the world.

Breitbart reported in April that key Clinton financial partners, including Canadian mining executive Frank Giustra and the Chagoury family of Nigeria, made use of the controversial Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca to move assets around the world.

Breitbart noted Giustra is one of the Clinton Foundation’s largest contributors, donating more than $25 million, while the Chagoury family in Nigeria has committed $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative.

This led WND to begin an extensive investigation into the major leak of offshore banking documents, known as the “Panama Papers,” a giant leak of more than 11.5 million financial and legal records from the files of the Mossack Fonseca law firm that was archived by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

The Panama Papers database contains information on some 214,000 offshore entities connected to people in more than 200 countries and territories. It reveals major financial institutions, including HSBC, involved in the creation of hard-to-trace companies in offshore havens that form a complex international network involved in tax evasion and money-laundering schemes.

Video: Hillary Clinton Wins New York Primary

Offshore transactions

In a series of searches of the ICIJ Panama Paper’s database of leaked documents, WND has uncovered tens of thousands of transactions that surface for Bill Clinton under his own name as well as for various shell companies he has created using his initials, WJC.

Searches of the names Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton uncovered tens of thousands of additional offshore transactions via offshore investment companies established for both.

Additionally, tens of thousands of offshore transactions are recorded in searches for the Clinton Foundation and its various subsidiaries, including the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

The surfaced transactions tied to the Clinton family begin to appear in 1989 and extend through 2015, when the ICIJ database of Panama Papers offshore leaks was published.

Transactions linked to the Clinton Global Initiative have occurred in countries such as Panama, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, British Anguilla, the Bahamas, Switzerland, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, Guernsey, Jersey, Malta, Luxembourg, Monaco, Gibraltar, Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Turkey, Cyprus, France, Belgium, Italy, Canada, China, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Israel, Singapore, Thailand, Mauritius, Ecuador, Guatemala, Uruguay, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Samoa and Vanuatu, as well as various “undisclosed” and “undetermined” locations.

“The cache of 11.5 million records shows how a global industry of law firms and big banks sells financial secrecy to politicians, fraudsters and drug traffickers as well as billionaires, celebrities and sports stars,” the ICIJ writes about the Panama Papers.

Ties to foundation donors

The McClatchy Washington Bureau, an ICIJ participant, reported in April that while the Panama Papers have revealed direct connections with the Mossack Fonseca law firm in Panama – including ties to Marc Rich, the international fugitive pardoned by Clinton in his final days in office and to firms tied to Ng Lap Seng, the Chinese billionaire implicated in a major Democratic Party fundraising scandal while Clinton was president – the Clintons themselves do not appear as Mossack Fonseca law firm clients.

“The Clintons themselves do not appear to be in Mossack Fonseca’s database, nor does it appear that their daughter, Chelsea, or her husband, Marc Mezvinsky, who co-founded a hedge fund, are listed,” the McClatchy Washington Bureau reported.

“But Bill and Hillary Clinton’s connections to people who have used offshores is fuel for her Democratic rival, Bernie Sanders.”

While the transactions identified in an ICIJ database search correspond to records that detail the nature of the transactions, the ICIJ has not typically released transactional details because of concerns over privacy laws in the various jurisdictions, including the United States. So, for instance, while it’s known that WJC LLC is associated in the Panama Papers database with thousands of transactions recorded in the ICIJ database, WND is unable to determine if the transactions involved Bill Clinton personally or only associates of Bill Clinton.

•A database search for Clinton Global Initiative reveals what appear to be Clinton-affiliated entities registered offshore, such as Clinton Development Company S.A., a company incorporated in 1996 by Mossack Fonesca in the small South Pacific island nation of Niue (deactivated Dec. 16, 1999); Clinton Investments Limited, incorporated by Mossack Fonesca in the British Virgin Islands in 1990 (deactivated May 23, 1991); Clinton Holdings Limited, incorporated by Mossack Fonesca in the British West Indies in 1989 (deactivated April 30, 1993); and Clinton, Inc., incorporated by Mossack Fonesca in the Bahamas in 1993 (deactivated Jan. 3, 2001).

•Similarly, a database search for Chelsea Clinton Investments lists Chelsea Enterprises Limited Company, incorporated in 2001 by Mossack Fonesca in Nevada (deactivated March 20, 2009); Chelsea Resort Ltd., incorporated by Mossack Fonseca in Seychelles in 2005 (deactivated Dec. 5, 2014); Chelsea Manor Ltd., incorporated by Mossack Fonesca in Seychelles in 2005 (listed as active); Chelsea House Ltd., incorporated by Mossack Fonseca in Seychelles in 2006 (deactivated Jan. 8, 2010); Chelsea Crystal Limited, incorporated by Mossack Fonseca in Seychelles in 2006 (deactivated Nov. 9, 2010); Chelsea International Limited, incorporated by Mossack Fonseca in 2001 (deactivated Dec. 20, 2002); Chelsea Holdings Overseas S.A, incorporated by Mossack Fonseca in Panama in 2007 (deactivated Jan. 6, 2010); and Chelsea Group Ltd., incorporated by Mossack Fonseca in 1994 (deactivated Oct. 9, 2014).

For most of these Mossack Fonseca-registered corporations using the “Clinton” name, shareholders are listed simply as “bearer,” a designation that does not permit identifying with certainty whether the parties backing the formation of the corporation were the Clinton family, a Clinton family designee or an unrelated third party simply exploiting the Clinton name.

Yet, there is evidence within the ICIJ database that Clinton-formed corporations have offshore banking connections.

The Clintons or agents working on their behalf incorporated five shell companies, the Washington Free Beacon reported in April, that generate thousands of hits in the Panama Papers offshore entity database.

The corporations include WJC LLC, which Bill Clinton incorporated in 2008 as a “pass-through” for his consulting fees, as well as ZFS Holdings, incorporated in 2013, one week after Hillary Clinton left the State Department, apparently as a vehicle for her publisher Simon & Schuster to pay a $5.5 million advance for her 2015 book “Hard Choices.”

The other three Clinton-formed shell companies incorporated in Delaware are:

•The Acceso Fund LLC, a Delaware corporation that Bill Clinton formed in 2009, to be used by the Clinton Foundation, supposedly to funnel money to the Clinton Foundation’s Colombia-based private equity fund, Fondo Acceso.

•The Acceso Worldwide Fund Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2013, supposedly to be used by the Clinton Foundation in working with Fondo Acceso.

•The Haiti Development Fund LLC was registered in 2010, again as a vehicle for the Clinton Foundation to raise charitable donations supposedly targeted for the relief of the victims of the 2010 earthquake.The Delaware limited liability companies such as WJC LLC are not required to file annual statements disclosing their directors or owners, according to the Free Beacon. The Clintons registered both companies in New York after they were established.

A search of Acceso Fund LLC in the Panama Papers offshore database produces hits for 1,604 offshore entities. There are 3,436 hits for Acceso Worldwide Fund LLC and 8,719 for the Haiti Development Fund LLC

A search for ZFS Holdings LLC produces hits for 24,086 offshore entities.

Moreover, the public record shows the Clintons are no strangers to offshore banking. The Daily Caller noted Jan. 12, for instance, that Bill Clinton was a partner in Ron Burkle’s Yucaipa Global Partnership, registered in the Cayman Islands, from which Bill Clinton was paid an estimated $10 million, as originally reported by the Washington Post in 2008.

WJC LLC

The Associated Press in August 2015 broke the story that Bill Clinton had created and used a shell corporation, WJC LLC, and a shell bank account to hide an undisclosed amount of money from public reporting and accountability.

The AP reported that the disclosure came in response to questions the news wire had posed regarding financial files the Clintons had released as a legal requirement for Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign. The answers were provided by Clinton officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The officials leaking the information confirmed that WJC LLC was a “pass-through” account, designed to collect fees for consulting, possibly for speeches, and conceivably to receive payment on commercial “deals” in which the Clinton had delivered services, possibly including political favors in return for payment.

WJC LLC is the type of company that gun-running and drug-dealing criminals involved in international money-laundering create and operate to avoid law-enforcement detection.

As exposed in the book “Partners in Crime: The Clintons’ Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit,” by emptying the account to zero following each payment, the Clintons avoided having to make public disclosure of the account, since the rules require candidates to declare only family assets worth $1,000 or more.

As noted in “Partners in Crime,” the existence of WJC LLC as a corporation or as a shell bank account has never been mentioned in any Clinton Foundation audited financial statements or IRS Tax Form 990 since the foundation’s inception in 1997. Because the WJC LLC bank account never showed up with a positive balance in banking records reported to bank regulators, the Clintons also avoided disclosing the existence of the account in their income tax filings.

•A search of the ICIJ database of the Panama Papers for WJC LLC produced a list of hits that included 1,011 offshore entities, 446 officers, 72 intermediaries and 143 different addresses.

•Among the “offshore entities” that surfaced in the search for WJC LLC was the still active WJC Investment Group Ltd., a corporation registered in the British Virgin Islands on Oct. 6, 2005, by the Singapore-based Asian wealth manager Portcullis Trustnet, that the Panama Papers list as registered in the British Virgin Island as a trust company. 
The ICIJ reports that about a third of the offshore entities in the Panama Papers were incorporated through Portcullis Trustnet (now Portcullis) and Commonwealth Trust Limited, two offshore service providers that were made public as part of the ICIJ’s 2013 “Offshore Leaks” exposé.

The information on Portcullis Trustnet was added to what has become the Panama Papers database in June 2013, when it was produced in conjunction with the Costa Rican newspaper La Nación.

WJC Investments LLC

As exposed in Chapter 8, “The India Scam,” of “Partners in Crime,” until the Obama 2008 presidential campaign opposition research became public, the Clintons had managed to keep the existence of WJC Investments LLC completely secret.

On May 27, 2015, following the AP’s discovery that Bill Clinton used WJC LLC as a shell company, Jennifer Epstein noted in Bloomberg Politics that Bill Clinton also owns WJC International Investments GP LLC, as well as WJC International Investments LLC.

The establishment media, generally protective of the Clintons, has neglected to investigate Bill Clinton’s WJC limited liability corporate holdings, even since the Washington Post in 2014 reported the general partnership WJC International Investments GP LLC was created by Bill Clinton in 2006.

As pointed out in “Partners in Crime,” there are many legitimate reasons to create and operate LLC structures, including tax planning, an additional advantage deriving to the benefit of the Clintons is secrecy.

Unlike public corporations, the filing and disclosure requirements for LLC benefits those, such as the Clintons, who want to maximize privacy by avoiding public disclosure requirements. How many investments have the Clintons derived from connections established with donors to the Clinton Foundation and/or members of the Clinton Global Initiative?

The American public may never know. The likelihood is WJC LLC, as well as WJC International Investments LLC and WJC Investments LLC were created and maintained as limited liability corporations – with WJC LLC being nothing more than a shell corporation – precisely so that questions could never be answered.

Variations of WJC Investments LLC produced thousands of hits in the ICIJ offshore leaks database.

•A search of the ICIJ database of the Panama Papers for WJC Investments LLC produced a list of hits that included 19,372 offshore entities, 3,396 officers, 215 intermediaries and 316 addresses. The database also produced 38,934 offshore entities associated with WJC Investments Group LLC, plus 50,407 offshore entities identified with WJC International Investments LLC, as well as 68,188 offshore entities identified with WJC International Investments Group LLC.

•WND also searched the ICIJ database of the Panama Papers for William J. Clinton and found the name was associated with 433 offshore entities, 1,380 officers, 250 intermediaries and 363 addresses.

Hillary, Chelsea Clinton and Clinton Foundation

A search of the ICIJ database also produced thousands of hits for Hillary Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and HRC Investments LLC, as well as thousands of hits for various listings under Chelsea Clinton’s name and thousands of hits for the Clinton Foundation and its various subgroups, including the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

A search for the Clinton Global Initiative surfaced 5,505 associated offshore entities, with several in the top listings including the “Clinton” name in the offshore entity’s title.

Similarly, a search for Hillary Clinton Investments turned up hits for 18,450 offshore entities, with several in the top listings including the name “Hillary” or “Clinton.”

Again, given the nature of the ICIJ Panama Papers database, it is not possible to determine if Hillary Clinton was personally involved with the 18,450 offshore entities listed.

HILLARY CLINTON INVESTMENTS

Among the offshore entities listed in the search for Hillary Clinton Investments, Mossack Fonseca incorporated several, including Hillary S.A., incorporated in Niue in 1997 (deactivated Dec. 27, 1999); Hillary Finance Services LTD, incorporated in 1997 in the British Virgin Islands (deactivated Oct. 31, 1998); and Hillary Equities Corp., incorporated in 2003 in Panama (deactivated Feb. 12 2010).

Trump in Panama Papers

While Donald J. Trump’s name shows up on 3,540 of the Panama Papers leaked documents, the GOP presidential candidate does not appear to be a direct owner of any company formed by Mossack Fonseca, the McClatchy Washington Bureau reported April 29.

“Early in his career, Trump developed properties,” McClatchy noted. “Over the decades, he has increasingly let others invest the capital and take the risks. He sells them his name and reputation, and is paid millions in return.”

The newspaper said that seems to be the case with the Trump Ocean Club International Hotel & Tower in Panama, noting that in the Mossack Fonseca files, it is the most frequent association with Trump’s name, “since his business partners in the project appear as buyers of condo units, some of whom create offshore shell companies with Mossack Fonseca for the purchase.”

McClatchy cited two instances of others seeking to capitalize on Trump’s name that were responsible for hits in the Panama Papers database:

•Trump Wise Investment Ltd. was created by the Hong Kong firm Instant Companies Limited and registered in the British Virgin Islands from 1998 to late 2005. “The secret documents show Mossack Fonseca did not even know who the shareholders were,” McClatchy reported.

•Similarly, Trump World Capital Ltd in the British Virgin Islands was opened in late 2006 by Mossack Fonseca’s Singapore office. It remains active, with shareholders listing addresses in Palembang, Indonesia. “One shareholder is a young woman whose LinkedIn profile describes her as merchandising supervisor at a small clothing retailer,” McClatchy reported.

“Neither of these appear to be connected to Trump in any way,” McClatchy concluded.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/hsbc-case-blows-lid-on-clintons-offshore-empire/#4IomXhzT22Fj2160.99

 

[Apollonian]

Clinton Foundation Spent Less Than 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014​

The tax-exempt organization's grants to charitable organizations declined by 40 percent between 2013 and 2014.

September 16, 2016 By Sean Davis

Link: http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/16/clinton-foundation-spent-6-percent-charitable-grants-2014/

[tables at site link, above]

The Clinton Foundation spent less than 6 percent of its budget on charitable grants in 2014, according to documents the organization filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2015.

During the 2014 tax year, the tax-exempt foundation spent a total of $91.2 million, but less than $5.2 million of that money, or 5.7 percent, was granted to charitable organizations, the group’s tax filings show. The Clinton Foundation raised nearly $178 million in 2014. The organization’s charitable grants also declined significantly when compared to its donations in 2013. Compared to its 2013 charitable grants of $8.8 million, the Clinton Foundation’s grants in 2014 declined by more than 40 percent, even as its revenue over the same period increased by 20 percent. According to the tax filings, the Clinton Foundation is currently sitting on $354 million in assets, including $125 million in cash or cash equivalents and $108 million in property or equipment.

The tax records, which were filed with the IRS in November of 2015, show that the Clinton Foundation spent far more on overhead expenses like travel ($7.9 million) than it did on charitable grants in 2014. The group also spent more on rent and office supplies (a total of $6.6 million) than it did on charitable grants. The Clinton Foundation’s IRS forms show that even its depreciation expense ($5.3 million) — an accounting classification that takes into account the wear and tear of an organization’s assets — exceeded the tax-exempt organization’s charitable grant outlays.

clinton-foundation-2014-990

Supplemental tables within the Form 990 filed with the IRS show that the Clinton Foundation’s largest charitable grant was a $2 million payment to the Alliance for a Healthier Generation (AHG), a joint project founded by the Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association. Bruce Lindsey, the board chairman for the Clinton Foundation in 2014, also served on AHG’s board that year, according to the organization’s 2014 tax filings. Of the $16.3 million AHG organization spent in 2014, only $349,022, or 2.1 percent, was spent on charitable grants, the group’s tax filings show.

alliance-healthier-generation-2014-990

The Clinton Foundation’s largest single charitable grant to an organization not founded by the Clinton Foundation or managed by one of its board members was a $700,000 check to the J/P Haitian Relief Organization, a non-profit founded by actor Sean Penn. That organization reportedly spent more than $126,000 on first-class flights for the actor. Other charitable grants from the Clinton Foundation included $200,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation and $37,500 for the Sesame Workshop in New York City.

Clinton Foundation defenders say the total amount of its charitable grants is irrelevant and argue that the bulk of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is done by salaried employees. A review of the organization’s tax filings and statements from its own executives about the group’s “commercial proposition,” however, suggests that this may not be the case.

The Clinton Foundation’s three largest charitable “program service accomplishments,” according to its tax reports, are the Clinton Global Initiative ($23.2 million), the Clinton Presidential Library ($12.3 million), and the Clinton Climate Initiative ($8.3 million). The Clinton Global Initiative, which exists to organize and produce a lavish annual meeting headlined by former president Bill Clinton, was characterized by the New York Times as a “glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities,” hardly a portrait of the kind of charitable work that directly impacts the lives of the needy.

Ira Magaziner, a top former Clinton Foundation executive, also explicitly rejected that the group’s climate change activities were charitable in nature. “This is not charity,” Magaziner told The Atlantic in 2007. “The whole thing is bankable. It’s a commercial proposition.”

In fact, the bulk of the charitable work lauded by the Clinton Foundation’s boosters — the distribution of drugs to impoverished people in developing countries — is no longer even performed by the Clinton Foundation. Those activities were spun off in 2010 and are now managed by the Clinton Health Access Initiative, a completely separate non-profit organization.

 

[Apollonian]

Clinton corruption: 10 facts about the Clinton Foundation​

October 1, 2016

lINK: http://www.hangthebankers.com/clinton-corruption-10-facts-clinton-foundation/

Just a few weeks back we introduced you to the work of Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel who spent the past year and a half digging into the Clinton Foundation and subsequently labeled it as a “Charity Fraud Of Epic Proportions” (see our full post on the findings here: ““Clinton Foundation Is Charity Fraud Of Epic Proportions”, Analyst Charges In Stunning Takedown“).

As many of our readers know, Ortel is the analyst that uncovered financial discrepancies at General Electric before its stock crashed in 2008, and was described by the Sunday Times of London as “one of the finest analysts of financial statements on the planet” in a 2009 story detailing the troubles at AIG.

hillary-clinton-corruption-10-facts-clinton-foundation

After a year and a half of looking into the Clinton Foundation, Ortel summarized his findings as follows:

“An educated guess, based upon ongoing analysis of the public record begun in February 2015, is that the Clinton Foundation entities are part of a network that has defrauded donors and created illegal private gains of approximately $100 billion in combined magnitude, and possibly more, since 23 October 1997.”

With that, here’s 10 more things that the Trump campaign thinks you should know about the Clinton Foundation.

* * *

Here Are Ten Facts Everyone Should Know About The Massive Conflict Of Interest And Corruption Issues Facing The Clinton Foundation.

FACT ONE – There Are Major Overlaps Between Clinton’s Campaign Donors And Her Foundation Donors, Raising Ethical Red Flags:

According To The Washington Post, Nearly Half Of The Major Donors To Ready For Hillary And Nearly Half Of Her 2008 Campaign Bundlers Have Given At Least $10,000 To The Foundation. “Nearly half of the major donors who are backing Ready for Hillary, a group promoting her 2016 presidential bid, as well as nearly half of the bundlers from her 2008 campaign, have given at least $10,000 to the foundation, either on their own or through foundations or companies they run.” (Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Steven Rich, “Clintons’ Foundation Has Raised Nearly $2 Billion — And Some Key Questions,” The Washington Post, 2/18/15)

“The Clintons Have Relied Heavily On Their Close Ties To Wall Street, With Donations From The Financial Services Sector Representing The Largest Share Of Corporate Donors.”(Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Steven Rich, “Clintons’ Foundation Has Raised Nearly $2 Billion — And Some Key Questions,” The Washington Post, 2/18/15)

The Foundation “Has Given Contributors Entree, Outside The Traditional Political Arena, To A Possible President.” “The financial success of the foundation, which funds charitable work around the world, underscores the highly unusual nature of another Clinton candidacy. The organization has given contributors entree, outside the traditional political arena, to a possible president. Foreign donors and countries that are likely to have interests before a potential Clinton administration — and yet are ineligible to give to U.S. political campaigns — have affirmed their support for the family’s work through the charitable giving.” (Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Steven Rich, “Clintons’ Foundation Has Raised Nearly $2 Billion — And Some Key Questions,” The Washington Post, 2/18/15)

The Washington Post’s Review Of The Foundation’s Seven Biggest Donors Found “That There Is Strong Overlap Between The Family’s Political Base And The Foundation,” And That A Substantial Number Of Its Donors Are Based Outside Of The U.S. “The review found that there is strong overlap between the family’s political base and the foundation and that a substantial number of the foundation’s largest donors — those who have given at least $1 million — are based outside of the United States. Financial institutions also make up the largest portion of the foundation’s corporate giving.”(Rosalind S. Helderman, “Here Are The Seven Biggest Donors To The Bill, Hillary And Chelsea Clinton Foundation,” The Washington Post, 2/19/15)

Bill Allison Of The Sunlight Foundation: “The Clinton Foundation Is A Unique Non-Profit That Can’t Be Separated From The American Political System.” “Bill Allison, senior policy analyst at the Sunlight Foundation, a campaign finance watchdog group, says the Clinton foundation is a unique non-profit that can’t be separated from the US political system. ‘If there is foreign money coming into the Clinton Foundation, it will raise the question of – is the president going to be doing favors for a foreign business, a foreign government, a foreign individual? And you just cannot have that in the American system of government, where the president is supposed to represent the American people,’ Allison said.” (Julianna Goldman, “Chinese Company Pledged $2 Million To Clinton Foundation In 2013,” CBS News, 3/16/15)

FACT TWO – Several Major Clinton Foundation Donations Came From Companies Lobbying The Federal Government:

The Wall Street Journal Headline: “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

As Secretary Of State Clinton “Was One Of The Most Aggressive Global Cheerleaders For American Companies…” “Among recent secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton was one of the most aggressive global cheerleaders for American companies, pushing governments to sign deals and change policies to the advantage of corporate giants such as General Electric Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

“At The Same Time, Those Companies Were Among The Many That Gave To The Clinton Family’s Global Foundation…” “At the same time, those companies were among the many that gave to the Clinton family’s global foundation set up by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

“At Least 60 Companies That Lobbied The State Department During Her Tenure Donated A Total Of More Than $26 Million To The Clinton Foundation…” “At least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public and foundation disclosures.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

“At Least 44 Of Those 60 Companies Also Participated In Philanthropic Projects Valued At $3.2 Billion That Were Set Up Though A Wing Of The Foundation Called The Clinton Global Initiative…”“At least 44 of those 60 companies also participated in philanthropic projects valued at $3.2 billion that were set up though a wing of the foundation called the Clinton Global Initiative, which coordinates the projects but receives no cash for them.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

“As Secretary Of State, She Created 15 Public-Private Partnerships Coordinated By The State Department, And At Least 25 Companies Contributed To Those Partnerships.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

Clinton “Has A Web Of Connections To Big Corporations Unique In American Politics—Ties Forged Both As Secretary Of State And By Her Family’s Charitable Interests.” “As Mrs. Clinton prepares to embark on a race for the presidency, she has a web of connections to big corporations unique in American politics—ties forged both as secretary of state and by her family’s charitable interests.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

“Those Relationships Are Emerging As An Issue For Mrs. Clinton’s Expected Presidential Campaign As Income Disparity And Other Populist Themes Gain Early Attention.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

FACT THREE – The Clinton Foundation Accepted Millions From Foreign Governments:

clinton-foundation-corruption-foreign-governments

“Rarely, If Ever, Has A Potential Commander In Chief Been So Closely Associated With An Organization That Has Solicited Financial Support From Foreign Governments.” “Rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments. Clinton formally joined the foundation in 2013 after leaving the State Department, and the organization was renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.” (Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Foreign Governments Gave Millions To Foundation While Clinton Was At State Dept.,” The Washington Post, 2/25/15)

FACT FOUR – The Clinton Foundation Accepted Millions From Other Foreign Sources While Clinton Served As Secretary Of State:

“More Than 40 Percent Of The Top Donors To The Clinton Foundation Are Based In Foreign Countries.” “More than 40 percent of the top donors to the Clinton Foundation are based in foreign countries, according to an analysis by McClatchy.” (Anita Kumar, “Clinton Foundation Limits Foreign Donations,” McClatchy, 4/15/15)

According To The Wall Street Journal, While The Clinton Foundation “Swore Off Donations From Foreign Governments,” It Was Still Raising Millions From “Foreigners With Connections To Their Home Governments. “The Clinton Foundation swore off donations from foreign governments when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That didn’t stop the foundation from raising millions of dollars from foreigners with connections to their home governments, a review of foundation disclosures shows.” (James Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15)

While Bill Clinton Promised The Obama Administration To Stop Accepting Money From Foreign Governments, The Agreement Did Not “Place Limits On Donations From Foreign Individuals Or Corporations.” “Former President Bill Clinton promised the Obama administration the foundation wouldn’t accept most foreign-government donations while his wife was secretary of state. The agreement didn’t place limits on donations from foreign individuals or corporations.” (James Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15)

The Donors Have Personal, Familial, And Business Ties To Foreign Governments. “Some donors have direct ties to foreign governments. One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities. Their professed policy interests range from human rights to U.S.-Cuba relations.” (James Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15)

During Clinton’s Tenure At The State Department, Foreign Donors And Their Organizations Accounted For Between $34 And $68 Million In Donations And $60 Million In Commitments To The Foundation. “All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show. Some donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million.” (James Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15)

FACT FIVE – Last Week The Clinton Foundation Announced They Wouldn’t Take Foreign Or Corporate Money If Clinton Is Elected, But Other Charities Still Will Be Allowed To:

Last Week Bill Clinton Said The Clinton Foundation “Would Only Accept Contributions From U.S. Citizens And Independent Charities” If Hillary Clinton Is Elected President. “The Clinton Foundation will no longer accept foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton is elected president. … Bill Clinton said if Hillary Clinton wins the White House, the family’s foundation would only accept contributions from U.S. citizens and independent charities.” (Ken Thomas, “Clinton’s Foundation To Alter Donations Policy If Elected,” The Associated Press, 8/18/16)

Other Clinton Charities Will Continue To Take Foreign And Corporate Donations Should Clinton Become President. “Big chunks of the Clinton family’s charitable network would be exempt from a self-imposed ban on foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, loopholes that highlight the complexity of disentangling her from the former first family’s myriad potential conflicts of interest.” (Annie Linskey, “Not All Clinton Charities Bound By New Set Of Rules,” Boston Globe, 8/20/16)

These Charities Include The Clinton Health Access Initiative, The Alliance For A Healthier Generation And The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership. “The most prominent of the exceptions applies to the Boston-based Clinton Health Access Initiative, which in 2014 accounted for 66 percent of spending by the Clinton network of charities. … They include the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, an entity cofounded by the American Heart Association and the Clinton Foundation, and the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, a joint venture between Bill Clinton and Canadian mining billionaire Frank Giustra.” (Annie Linskey, “Not All Clinton Charities Bound By New Set Of Rules,” Boston Globe, 8/20/16)

FACT SIX – The FBI Wanted To Open An Investigation Into The Clinton Foundation, But The Effort Was Scuttled By The Obama Administration:

The FBI And Department Of Justice Met In Early 2016 To Discuss Opening A Public Corruption Case Into The Clinton Foundation. “Officials from the FBI and Department of Justice met several months ago to discuss opening a public corruption case into the Clinton Foundation, according to a US official.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)

Three FBI Field Offices Wanted To Investigate If Suspicious Banking Activity From A Foreigner Was Involved A Criminal Conflict Of Interest With The State Department And The Clinton Foundation. “At the time, three field offices were in agreement an investigation should be launched after the FBI received notification from a bank of suspicious activity from a foreigner who had donated to the Clinton Foundation, according to the official. FBI officials wanted to investigate whether there was a criminal conflict of interest with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton’s tenure. The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book ‘Clinton Cash,’ but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)

Obama’s Department Of Justice Pushed Back Against Opening A Case. “As a result, DOJ officials pushed back against opening a case during the meeting earlier this year. Some also expressed concern the request seemed more political than substantive, especially given the timing of it coinciding with the investigation into the private email server and Clinton’s presidential campaign.”(Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)

The FBI Field Offices Were “Waved Off” By The DOJ. “Accusations that Clinton has committed crimes, and gotten away with them, have colored Republican campaigns for decades. They’ve picked up since the FBI announced that it would take no further steps to investigate her ‘careless’ use of a private email server after a year-long probe; they’ve gained more steam after reports that three (of 56) FBI field offices wanted to probe the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation over a foreign donation but were waved off by a DOJ that had come up empty in a similar probe.” (David Weigel, “‘Lock Her Up’ Sentiment Comes To A Congressional Campaign,” The Washington Post, 8/12/16)

FACT SEVEN – Clinton’s Chief Of Staff At State Had A Deep And Simultaneous Involvement In The Clinton Foundation:

CNN Headline: “Top Clinton State Department Aide Helped Clinton Foundation” (Drew Griffin, “Top Clinton State Department Aide Helped Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/26)

It Was Discovered That Clinton’s Chief Of Staff At The State Department Cheryl Mills Went To New York In 2012 To Interview Executives For A Top Position At The Clinton Foundation. “A CNN investigation found that Clinton aide Cheryl Mills was involved in the Clinton Foudnation while she was also employed as Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State. On a trip to New York in 2012, Mills interviewed two executives for a top position at the Clinton foundation. The State Department said she was on personal time. Mills’ attorney says she was, doing ‘volunteer work for a charitable foundation. She was not paid.’” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)

“The Fact That The Aide, Cheryl Mills, Was Taking Part In Such A High Level Task For The Clinton Foundation While Also Working As Chief Of Staff For The Secretary Of State Raises New Question About The Blurred Lines That Dogged The Clinton As Secretary Of State.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)

The State Department Has Been Stonewalling Congressional Investigators On This Matter. “The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, has tried to get answers about Mills’ New York trip as well. Grassley sent Secretary of State John Kerry a letter in January asking the purpose of Mills’ trip. The State Department did not officially respond to the letter.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)

FACT EIGHT – Sidney Blumenthal Collected $10,000 A Month From The Clinton Foundation While Providing Libyan Intelligence To Clinton:

Clinton Wanted To Bring Blumenthal On Board To The State Department In 2009, But The Hire Was Turned Down By The Obama White House Because Of His “Harsh Attacks” In The Democratic Primary. “As White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel was the one to bring the hammer down on Sidney Blumenthal. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wanted to hire Mr. Blumenthal, a loyal confidant who had helped her promote the idea of a ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ more than a decade ago. But President Obama’s campaign veterans still blamed him for spreading harsh attacks against their candidate in the primary showdown with Mrs. Clinton last year. So Mr. Emanuel talked with Mrs. Clinton, said Democrats informed about the situation, and explained that bringing Mr. Blumenthal on board was a no-go.” (Peter Baker and Jeff Zeleny, “Emanuel Wields Power Freely, And Faces The Risks,” The New York Times, 8/15/09)

Blumenthal “Earned About $10,000 A Month As A Full-Time Employee Of The Clinton Foundation” While At The Same Time He Provided Intelligence On Libya To Then-Secretary Clinton. “Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant of Bill and Hillary Clinton, earned about $10,000 a month as a full-time employee of the Clinton Foundation while he was providing unsolicited intelligence on Libya to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to multiple sources familiar with the arrangement.” (Kenneth P. Vogel, “Clinton Foundation paid Blumenthal $10K per month while he advised on Libya,” Politico, 5/28/15)

Politico Headline: “Clinton Foundation Paid Blumenthal $10K Per Month While He Advised On Libya”(Kenneth P. Vogel, “Clinton Foundation Paid Blumenthal $10K Per Month While He Advised On Libya,” Politico, 5/28/15)

Blumenthal Was Added To The Clinton Foundation’s Payroll In 2009, “Not Long After Advising Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign — At The Behest Of Former President Bill Clinton…”“Blumenthal was added to the payroll of the Clintons’ global philanthropy in 2009 — not long after advising Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — at the behest of former president Bill Clinton, for whom he had worked in the White House, say the sources.” (Kenneth P. Vogel, “Clinton Foundation Paid Blumenthal $10K Per Month While He Advised On Libya,” Politico, 5/28/15)

Some Clinton Foundation Officials “Questioned” Blumenthal’s “Value And Grumbled That His Hiring Was A Favor From The Clintons.” “While Blumenthal’s foundation job focused on highlighting the legacy of Clinton’s presidency, some officials at the charity questioned his value and grumbled that his hiring was a favor from the Clintons, according to people familiar with the foundation.”(Kenneth P. Vogel, “Clinton Foundation Paid Blumenthal $10K Per Month While He Advised On Libya,” Politico, 5/28/15)

“When The Clintons Last Occupied The White House, Sidney Blumenthal Cast Himself In Varied Roles: Speechwriter, In-House Intellectual And Press Corps Whisperer.” “When the Clintons last occupied the White House, Sidney Blumenthal cast himself in varied roles: speechwriter, in-house intellectual and press corps whisperer. Republicans added another, accusing Mr. Blumenthal of spreading gossip to discredit Republican investigators, and forced him to testify during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. Now, as Hillary Rodham Clinton embarks on her second presidential bid, Mr. Blumenthal’s service to the Clintons is again under the spotlight.”(Nicholas Confessore and Michael S. Schmidt, “Clinton’s Friend’s Memos On Libya Draw Scrutiny To Politics And Business,” The New York Times, 5/18/15)

Blumenthal’s Work With Clinton Has Been “Wide-Ranging,” “Complicated,” And Embodied “The Blurry Lines Between Business, Politics And Philanthropy That Have Enriched And Vexed The Clintons And Their Inner Circle For Years.”“But an examination by The Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons and their inner circle for years.” (Nicholas Confessore and Michael S. Schmidt, “Clinton’s Friend’s Memos On Libya Draw Scrutiny To Politics And Business,” The New York Times, 5/18/15)

“It May Be Difficult To Determine Where One Of Mr. Blumenthal’s Jobs Ended And Another Began.”“But interviews with his associates and a review of previously unreported correspondence suggest that — once again — it may be difficult to determine where one of Mr. Blumenthal’s jobs ended and another began.”(Nicholas Confessore and Michael S. Schmidt, “Clinton’s Friend’s Memos On Libya Draw Scrutiny To Politics And Business,” The New York Times, 5/18/15)

“[T]he Clintons’ Past Does Provide Some Evidence That When It Comes To Friends And Politics, They Prize Loyalty Over All Else.” “Why didn’t Clinton do either of those things? Who knows. But, the Clintons’ past does provide some evidence that when it comes to friends and politics, they prize loyalty over all else.” (Chris Cillizza, “Hillary Clinton Is Defending Her ‘Loyal Old Friends.’ Here’s Why That’s A Mistake.,” The Washington Post, 5/19/15)

FACT NINE – The Clinton Foundation Failed To Disclose $26.4 Million In Speaking Honoraria While Clinton Was Secretary Of State:

Politico Headline: “New Clinton Speech Disclosures Reveal Foundation’s Take”(Josh Gerstein, “New Clinton Speech Disclosure Reveal Foundation’s Take,” Politico, 5/21/15)

In May 2015, The Clinton Foundation Reported That It Has Received As Much As $26 Million In Previously Undisclosed Speaking Fees. “The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups … The money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.” (Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,” The Washington Post, 5/21/15)

“The Clinton Foundation Confirmed Thursday That It Received As Much As $26.4 Million In Previously Unreported Payments From Foreign Governments And Corporations For Speeches Given By The Clintons.”(Alexandra Jaffe and Dan Merica, “Clinton Foundation Didn’t Disclose As Much As $26M In Speaking Fees,” CNN, 5/21/15)

The Disclosure Came As The Foundation Faced Questions “Over Whether It Fully Complied With A 2008 Ethics Agreement To Reveal Its Donors And Whether Any Of Its Funding Sources Present Conflicts Of Interest. “The disclosure came as the foundation faced questions over whether it fully complied with a 2008 ethics agreement to reveal its donors and whether any of its funding sources present conflicts of interest for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she begins her presidential campaign.”(Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,” The Washington Post, 5/21/15)

The Disclosure Of Speaking Fees Was “The Latest In A String Of Admissions From The Foundation That It Didn’t Always Abide By A 2008 Ethics Agreement To Disclose Its Funding Sources Publicly.” “It’s the latest in a string of admissions from the foundation that it didn’t always abide by a 2008 ethics agreement to disclose its funding sources publicly. That agreement, penned as Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, is certain to continue the headache that the foundation’s work and donors have become for Clinton as she makes another run at the White House.” (Alexandra Jaffe and Dan Merica, “Clinton Foundation Didn’t Disclose As Much As $26M In Speaking Fees,” CNN, 5/21/15)

The Clinton’s Paid Speaking Honorariums Included Six Figure Speaking Fees From Foreign Companies And Wall Street Banks. “The paid appearances included speeches by former president Bill Clinton to the Nigerian ThisDay newspaper group for at least $500,000 and to the Beijing Huaduo Enterprise Consulting Company Ltd., an investment holding company that specializes in the natural gas market, for at least $250,000. Citibank paid at least $250,000 for a speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton.” (Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,” The Washington Post, 5/21/15)

Clinton Herself Delivered 15 Speeches On The Foundation’s Behalf, “Including One Address To Goldman Sachs And Another To JPMorgan Chase.” “But the new disclosure indicates that the former president has also spent considerable time speaking on the foundation’s behalf — 73 times since 2002. Hillary Clinton has delivered 15 such speeches, including one address to Goldman Sachs and another to JPMorgan Chase.” (Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,” The Washington Post, 5/21/15)

FACT TEN – Since 2003, The Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel:

The New York Post Headline: “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel Expenses” (Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)

From 2003 To 2012, The Clinton Foundation Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel. “Bill Clinton’s foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003, an analysis of the non-profit’s tax forms reveal.” (Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)

In Just 2011, The Clinton Associated Foundations Spent $12.1 Million On Travel. “The web of foundations run by the former president spent an eye-opening $12.1 million on travel in 2011 alone, according to an internal audit conducted by foundation accountants. That’s enough to by 12,000 air tickets costing $1,000 each, or 33 air tickets each day of the year.” (Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50M On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)

The William J. Clinton Foundation Spent $4.2 Million On Travel In 2011. “That overall figure includes travel costs for the William J. Clinton Foundation (to which Hillary and Chelsea are now attached) of $4.2 million on travel in 2011, the most recent year where figures are available.” (Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50M On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)

“The Clinton Global Health Initiative Spent Another $730,000 On Travel In 2011, While The Clinton Health Action Initiative (CHAI) Spent $7.2 Million On Travel.”(Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50M On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)

SOURCE

 

[Apollonian]

Leaked Email: Hillary Knew Saudi Arabia and Qatar Were Funding ISIS - Yet Took Millions From Both​

Link: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=55642

Chris Menahan
InformationLiberation
Oct. 11, 2016

Hillary Clinton took over 30 million dollars from the nations of Saudi Arabia and Qatar--yet a new leaked email from Wikileaks shows in private she knew they were funding ISIS.

From The Daily Caller:

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton sent an email to her campaign chairman John Podesta in 2014, who was then-counselor to President Barack Obama, that said Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both giving financial and logistical support to the Islamic State and other extremist Sunni groups, according to a recent Wikileaks release.

Clinton sent the email on August 17, 2014 to Podesta. It was an eight-point plan to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Clinton’s email said that the United States should support Kurdish forces on the ground with U.S. military advisers and avoid the use of a conventional ground operation.

“While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” Clinton wrote.

The former secretary of state added: “This effort will be enhanced by the stepped up commitment in the [Kurdish Regional Government]. The Qataris and Saudis will be put in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure.”

[...]Qatar has given between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia has donated upwards of $25 million dollars to the Foundation.

The Clinton campaign has not replied to a Daily Caller inquiry about whether the Clinton Foundation will return donations from these two nations that, according to Hillary Clinton, fund ISIS.

In 2010, Clinton’s top aide said that the up to $60 billion weapons transfer of fighter jets and helicopters to Saudi Arabia was a “top priority.” The Clinton campaign did not give comment when The Daily Caller asked if Hillary was elected would she cede military support to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

This should completely disqualify her from the presidency. This woman knew the Saudis and Qataris were funding ISIS yet took their money through her crooked foundation! This witch wants to feign outrage over Trump's dirty talk yet she's knowingly taking money from the funders of ISIS???

 

[Apollonian]

 

[Apollonian]

After John Durham bombshell, judge breathes new life into Clinton Foundation whistleblower case​

Link: https://justthenews.com/accountabil...ham-bombshell-judge-breathes-new-life-clinton

U.S. Tax Court asks for new motions this summer from whistleblowers, IRS in aftermath of precedent-setting rulings.

By John Solomon
Updated: May 30, 2023 - 11:26pm

• Article
• Dig In

Just a few weeks after Special Counsel John Durham revealed significant failures to investigate allegations against Hillary Clinton’s family charity, a U.S. Tax Court judge has once again breathed new life into a years-long whistleblower case alleging IRS improprieties involving the controversial Clinton Foundation.
U.S. Tax Court Judge David Gustafson has already once before denied an IRS request to dismiss the whistleblower case, first brought in 2017. And three years ago, he ordered the tax agency to reveal whether it criminally investigated the foundation, citing a mysterious "gap" in its records.
The IRS filed a new motion to dismiss, and all parties filed arguments over the last year. But on Monday, Gustafson postponed ruling on those motions, instead asking for new arguments in light of three recent precedent-setting court rulings, once again frustrating IRS efforts to make the case go away.
The three recent rulings in other tax cases "may affect the parties’ positions as to the pending motions," Gustafson wrote. "We will order further filings so that the parties may address those recent opinions."
File
ClintonFoundationMay302023Ruling.pdf
The judge gave whistleblowers John Moynihan, a former federal agent, and Larry Doyle, a corporate tax compliance expert, until June 30 to update their arguments and the IRS until July 28 to respond. That means the case will almost certainly stretch on for many more months.
The judge also noted the IRS hasn’t responded to a request to update the court record with new evidence.
Monday’s ruling adds new intrigue in a case that first surfaced nearly five years ago when Doyle and Moynihan, two respected forensic financial investigators, revealed the existence of their 2017 IRS whistleblower complaint against the foundation during a congressional hearing.
Moynihan and Doyle testified to a House committee in December 2018 that they believed the foundation wrongly operated as a foreign lobbyist by accepting overseas donations, then trying to influence U.S. policy.
The foundation "began acting as an agent of foreign governments early in its life and throughout its existence," Moynihan testified at the time. "As such, the foundation should've registered under FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act). Ultimately, the foundation and its auditors conceded in formal submissions that it did operate as a (foreign) agent, therefore the foundation is not entitled to its 501c3 tax-exempt privileges as outlined in IRS 170 (c)2."
The foundation has acknowledged that past internal audits revealed compliance problems with some of its practices but insisted those have been fixed and that it always complied with the law, strongly disputing the whistleblowers' allegations.
In October 2020, Gustafson first allowed the whistleblower case to proceed, rejecting an IRS motion for summary judgement. He cited nonpublic evidence the FBI and IRS may have worked jointly on a criminal investigation focused on the foundation. Months later, the judge suggested the IRS whistleblower office may have evidence it had not disclosed to the court in the case.
"There are facts and information, uniquely within the knowledge of the Whistleblower Office that need to be considered in connection with the resolution of the petitioner's claim," he wrote in May 2021.
Some of that evidence burst into public earlier this month when Durham divulged in his 306-page final report that the FBI had four ongoing investigations during the 2016 election into Bill and Hillary Clinton’s business and philanthropic activities. The probes involved the bureau's Washington, New York and Little Rock, Ark., field offices.
Three of those probes were started during the 2016 election and were focused on allegations that the foundation was at the center of "criminal activity" that included "fraud and corruption allegations."
One of those most serious allegations was that a corporate industry "likely engaged a federal public official in a flow of benefits scheme, namely, large monetary contributions were made to a non-profit, under both direct and indirect control of the federal public official, in exchange for favorable government action and/or influence," Durham wrote.
"Beginning in late 2014, before Clinton formally declared her presidential candidacy, the FBI learned from a well-placed [source] that a foreign government was planning to send an individual to contribute to Clinton’s anticipated presidential campaign, as a way to gain influence with her should she win the presidency," he also said.
All four of the probes were shut down as the 2016 presidential election was drawing to a close, and senior FBI and Justice Department officials were involved in the effort to slow or stop the probes, Durham wrote, based on evidence he collected from cooperating FBI agents.
"Both senior FBI and department officials placed restrictions on how those matters were to be handled such that essentially no investigative activities occurred for months," he noted.
You can read the Durham report here.
File
Durham Report
Judge Gustafson’s new request gives Moynihan and Doyle a fresh opening to incorporate Durham’s bombshell allegations in their court filings due next month.
The judge also called attention to a specific recent ruling in a Tax Court case titled Berenblatt vs. IRS Commission that he said might be relevant.
In that ruling last week, the court decided that IRS whistleblowers may be entitled to discovery they ordinarily would not be granted if they could show the agency had engaged in earlier bad faith conduct to keep information out of the case.
"Whistleblowers may be granted limited discovery if they make a significant showing that there is material in the IRS’s possession indicative of bad faith on the IRS’s part in connection with the case or of an incomplete administrative record compiled by the IRS," the court ruled.
File
USTaxCourtBarenblatt2023Ruling.pdf

RELATED ARTICLES​

FBI formally refuses to produce Biden probe memo to Congress, Comer to hold Wray in contempt

IRS whistleblower provides Congress origins of Biden probe, evidence of political interference

New Jersey Democrat Sen. Menendez under investigation for expensive gifts, including DC apartment