The Clinton Foundation - warts and all

 

"Most notable among these files is the file called “Clinton Foundation Vulnerabilities Master Doc FINAL” which, as the title implies, is an extensive 42-page summary of how the Clinton Foundation views its biggest vulnerabilities based on mentions, references and attacks from the press.

Here are some of the section titles:

• THE CLINTON FOUNDATION RECEIVED DONATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS TIED TO SAUDI ARABIA WHILE CLINTON SERVED AS SECRETARY OF STATE
• AN EMBATTLED BUSINESSMAN WITH “TIES TO BAHRAIN’S STATE-OWNED ALUMINUM COMPANY” GAVE BETWEEN $1 MILLION AND $5 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION
• A VENEZUELAN MEDIA MOGUL WHO WAS ACTIVE IN VENEZUELAN POLITICS DONATED TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DURING CLINTON’S TENURE AS SECRETARY OF STATE
• GERMAN INVESTOR WHO HAS LOBBIED CHANCELLOR MERKEL’S ADMINISTRATION GAVE BETWEEN $1 MILLION AND $5 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, SOME OF WHICH WAS DURING MRS. CLINTON’S TENURE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
• THE CEO OF AN AMSTERDAM BASED ENERGY COMPANY DONATED AT LEAST $1 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND LATER ANNOUNCED AT THE 2009 CGI MEETING A $5 BILLION PROJECT TO DEVELOP ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY POWER GENERATION IN INDIA AND CHINA
• INDIAN POLITICIAN AMAR SINGH, WHO HAD DONATED AT LEAST $1 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, MET WITH HILLARY CLINTON IN SEPTEMBER 2008 TO DISCUSS AN INDIA-U.S. CIVIL NUCLEAR AGREEMENT
• THE CLINTON FOUNDATION RECEIVED ADDITIONAL DONATIONS FROM INDIAN BUSINESS INTERESTS PRIOR TO HER BECOMING SECRETARY OF STATE
• BILLIONAIRE STEEL EXECUTIVE AND MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN INVESTMENT COUNCIL IN KAZAKHSTAN LAKSHMI MITTAL GAVE $1 MILLION TO $5 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION BEFORE CLINTON BECAME SECRETARY OF STATE
• SOON AFTER SECRETARY CLINTON LEFT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE CLINTON
  FOUNDATION “RECEIVED A LARGE DONATION FROM A CONGLOMERATE RUN BY A
  MEMBER OF CHINA’S NATIONAL PEOPLE’S CONGRESS”
• …AND THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DEFENDED ITS PARTNERSHIPS WITH BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC CORPORATE INTERESTS
• POWERFUL AND CONTROVERSIAL CORPORATE INTERESTS BASED IN THE U.S. ALSO DONATED TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION
• AMONG THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DONORS REVEALED IN 2009 WERE SEVERAL FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WHO HAD GIVEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
• WHEN HILLARY CLINTON BECAME SECRETARY OF STATE IN 2009, BILL CLINTON AGREED TO STOP ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION FROM MOST FOREIGN COUNTRIES
• IN THE PAST, SOME OBSERVERS HAD LINKED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DONATIONS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND SECRETARY CLINTON’S WORK AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
• THE CLINTON FOUNDATION CAME UNDER INTENSE SCRUTINY IN FEBRUARY 2015 WHEN IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE FOUNDATION HAD ACCEPTED DONATIONS FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AFTER SECRETARY CLINTON LEFT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
• THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TIED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DONORS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION’S ENDOWMENT FUNDRAISING UNDER SECRETARY CLINTON
• CLINTON FOUNDATION ANNOUNCED THAT SHOULD HILLARY CLINTON DECIDE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, THE FOUNDATION WOULD FOLLOW APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES FOR ACCEPTING DONATIONS FROM FOREIGN DONATIONS, JUST LIKE IT HAD HAD UNDER SECRETARY CLINTON…
• REPORTS THAT STATE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS DID NOT EXHAUSTIVELY VET BILL CLINTON’S PAID SPEECHES DURING SECRETARY CLINTON’S TENURE RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ROLE CLINTON FOUNDATION DONATIONS MAY HAVE PLAYED IN ORGANIZING THOSE SPEECHES
• SOME CONSERVATIVES USED THE FOREIGN DONATIONS CONTROVERSY TO IMPLY THAT THE CLINTON FOUNDATION IS NOT A CHARITY AND QUESTION THE FOUNDATION’S CHARITABLE WORK
• THE CLINTON FOUNDATION HAS ACCEPTED DONATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS, SOME OF WHOM HAD TIES TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, DURING HER TENURE AS SECRETARY OF STATE
• THE CLINTON FOUNDATION RECEIVED MONEY FROM A FOUNDATION FORMED BY FORMER UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER VICTOR PINCHUK
• WALL STREET JOURNAL COLUMNIST MARY O’GRADY CITED A CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO CLINTON DONORS FOR HAITI AID AS EVIDENCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THE CLINTONS

There is much more in the full document presented below (link)."  Hang the bankers 

http://www.hangthebankers.com/clinton-foundation-hacked-documents/

******

"HOW DOES THE CLINTON GIUSTRA ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP (CANADA) WORK WITH THE CLINTON FOUNDATION?

The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) does not provide general operating support to the Clinton Foundation, but rather we contract with the Clinton Foundation to execute specific programs and we provide ongoing instruction on the use of our resources, holding the Clinton Foundation accountable for reaching established philanthropic goals that help further our charitable purpose(s).

The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) contracts with the Clinton Foundation to carry out this work based on the Clinton Foundation’s capacity, resources, specialized skill sets, knowledge, as well as established networks needed to successfully execute economic development activities in sometimes challenging environments.

ARE THE NAMES OF ALL THE CANADIAN DONORS THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE CLINTON GIUSTRA ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP (CANADA) PUBLIC INFORMATION? 

No. Under Canadian laws and charitable best practices, charitable donors have a right to privacy. When a donor gives money to a Canadian charity in confidence, and in the process provides his or her personal information, under Canadian law a fiduciary relationship is established between the Canadian charity and the donor concerning the use of private information that the donor has provided. To maintain the fiduciary relationship between Canadian donors and the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) with regard to disclosure of donor information, prior consent must be first obtained from each and every Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) donor agreeing to disclose their donor information to any other person or organization."  Posted FAQs of the CGE partnership 

http://cgepartnership.com/media/faqs/

--------------

 Well, pilgrims.   It seems that the Clinton Foundation is an exotic bird.

The first section above is from the DNC's file concerning Hillary's political liabilities.  This was hacked by Guccifer 2, a Romanian recently appeared on the scene.  God knows what or whom he really is.

The second quote is from the posted explanations (FAQs) of a Canadian charity that is welded at the hip to the Clinton Foundation (USA) through "contracts.  Under Canadian law donors to a CANADIAN charity have an absolure right to "privacy" unless they individually consent to public disclosure of their particulars.  The donations are tax deductible as is he Canadian foundation itself.  Once "contract" moneys for charitable purposes cross the border into the hands of the Clinton Foundation USA they are also tax free and need only be described in US tax reporting as coming from the Canadian Foundation.

As an old spook I have a hard time imagining a smoother way to launder money.  If one were doing that - 1. The money would go to a Canadian donor.  2. The Canadian would make a privacy protected contribution to the Canadian charity.  3.  A benevolent contract would transfer the tax free money to the US foundation.  4.  After that ...

None of this really requires much commentary on my part.  pl

Comments

[William R. Cumming]

Thanks for this post!

[pj]

"FBI 'REVOLT OF WATERGATE PROPORTIONS' IF HILLARY SKATES"

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/fbi-revolt-of-watergate-proportions-if-hillary-skates/#!

[Edward]

I have a hard time imagining a legitimate reason a charity might want an arrangement like this. What other charities are set up this way?

[Dubhaltach]

Would a prosecutor be able to invoke the RICO legislation?

[Harry]

Can't get the help these days

[Bobo]

This answers a lot of questions as to what is taking the Justice Depatment so long in either bringing charges or not regarding the E-Mail issue as this indicates that HRC is being looked at for Political Corruption & more. For the DNC to have all these points
on file ready to refute, questions the ethical actions of that organization.
Looks like Slick Willie & Crooked Hillary may have to do some time in the Pokey while letting, old Buddy, Donald get the Big House, the white one I mean.

[Nancy K]

Interesting post indeed. I'm still voting for her warts and all because I cannot even imagine Trump as president.

[turcopolier]

Nancy K

Cling to that thought. I do not know whom, if anyone, I might vote for for president since Webb chose to sulk in his tent before the walls of Troy pl

[turcopolier]

Harry

Yes. Some of my ancestors might have said, "Who are these wretches?" pl

[turcopolier]

Dubhaltach

Perhaps a state prosecutor, certainly not a federal one. pl

[Walter Jeffers]

"I cannot even imgaine" - a true symptom of social justice warrior. Vote for HRC and you get demographic change on a scale not even seen under BO. Massive amnesty that signal the death knell of the America as we know it. But hey, a lot of democrats can get elected since the amnestied illegal love big government and free handouts.

HRC is not acceptable to a rational person.

[BabelFish]

Seriously contemplating the Libertarian Party. Never thought I would ever write those words.

[Dubhaltach]

In reply to turcopoliern 23 June 2016 at 02:05 PM

Thank you, now I need to go away and do some research to find out why only state prosecutors would do so. I thought RICO was for federal prosecutors only - plainly I was wrong about that.

[Joe100]

All -

An earlier post comment cited very detailed analysis work on Clinton Foundation as a "charity fraud" by Charles Ortel at http://charlesortel.com

This is the most thorough work I have seen to date and it appears quite credible.

I have felt for some time that potential HRC "pay for play" situations while she was SOS are more likely to "stick" with the public and take her down than the email criminality, as it is much easier for most to understand financial corruption in public service.

[turcopolier]

Typepad HTML Email

Federal prosecutors work for the president. Several states have own RICO laws. Pl

 

[Tyler]

Clinton News Network trying to spin Trump bringing up Clinton Cash so hard its about to get its own gravitational force.

[Fred]

I wonder if any of the courageous members of the press will be asking the Prime Minister about the "Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada)".

http://cgepartnership.com/who-we-are/founder-executive/?founder=1162

"Frank Giustra is CEO of Fiore Group of Companies, a private firm managing a broad portfolio of private equity investments..."
That wouldn't be a hedge fund now would it? Maybe just a bank bailed out by Barrack in 2008?

"The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada)... Since 2007, the work of the Canadian charity has been carried out under an Agency Agreement with the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation (the Clinton Foundation)."

Oh look, Chelsea's in there too. Doesn't her spouse run a hedge fund that lost more money than Donald Trump?

[William R. Cumming]

While it may have tax exempt status at all levels in fact IMO no federal agency regulates private charitable foundations thus self-dealing rampant.

[Tony]

The sad part is that we know how crooked Clintons are, but she may (with a high probability) be elected as the next president.

[Haralambos]

Col. Lang,
I supported Webb and would have gladly voted for him, but Achilles, I think he is not. I would opt for Philoctetes. There are many lessons to be learned in Sophocles' play of that name involving the methods of persuasion: force, fraud and logical appeals, Aristotle's three. Ultimately, the aging Philoctetes is persuaded by example in a deus ex machina by Hercules. You will know this better than I, I imagine, but I think paradeigmata of virtue (in the ancient sense of virtue) are what many folks are looking and hoping for, but, unfortunately, there are none on offer.

[JohnH]

If you don't live in a battleground state, you can vote third party without affecting the result, since the outcome is already virtually certain in all but about a dozen states--they are reliably Democratic or Republican.

Voting third party sends a message of disenchantment with the two party duopoly. Not voting is interpreted as apathy.

If enough people voted third party, the two parties would have to stop taking voters for granted.

BTW I am NOT advocating any third party. Voting third party is what is important here.

[Edward]

Is there still a special prosecutor law? This seems like a case for a special prosecutor. If H.C. is forced out of the presidential race how will the democrats choose a replacement?

[JohnH]

The questions that beg answers: "Given all the foundations in the world with established track records, what would motivate donors to suddenly hand out enormous sums of money to the Clinton Foundation? Is their work especially unique or expert? If so, how so? Or is the sudden largess due to some tacit or covert quid pro quo?"

After reviewing the Clinton Foundation's initiatives, I don't see that they are doing anything that others were not already doing.

[Keith Harbaugh]

I am certainly no fan of the Clintons or much of what they stand for,
but all the asserted leaks of supposed emails and files makes me wonder:
What gives these leaks any credibility whatsoever?
Why should we not think anything from, say, "Guccifer2"
is a total fabrication by, say, some organization working for Putin?
It would not be the first time disinformation has been spread by such parties.
Is that not so, Colonel?
But that said, thank you very much for your post and your comments,
especially your observations on the way the Clintons have carefully arranged things
to make the money flow into their clutches so untraceable.
Too bad Eliot Spitzer didn't have their wiles!

[Kooshy]

Sorry, if you really think this is the reason for the DOJ not to bring charges, or requesting for an independent fact finding commission, then you must like the island I have for sale in Manhattan. Common now, I bet no one be allowed to touch the Borg' favorite couple. What we are seeing is just a good day for cleaning some old dirty cloths, since it's not getting to any MSM.