Wednesday, November 18, 2015
BUSTED! Clinton Foundation did not report $20 million in donations from foreign governments
From the Washington Free Beacon:
"The Clinton Foundation failed to report $20 million in donations from governments to the Internal Revenue Service, newly refiled tax returns show.
"Reuters reported that the foundation disclosed the $20 million it received from governments, most of them foreign, between 2010 and 2013 when it and a spin-off organization refiled tax returns from six years to fix errors.
"The Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation did not previously separate out its donations from governments on old tax returns as is mandated by the IRS.
"The foundation refiled tax returns from 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 and a charity spun off from the foundation, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, refiled its own returns from 2012 and 2013 after both were found to have made errors reporting funds from foreign governments. The revelations about inaccuracies came just as Hillary Clinton, a Democratic candidate for president, endured scrutiny for the millions of dollars that her family foundation has received from foreign governments."
The pending question is: How many hours of the Hillary’s trips during the time she was U.S. Secretary of State were official activities of the government? It looks like Hillary used part of her trips for private businesses.
By the way, when Clinton resigned as Secretary of State, a political analyst in a PBS-News panel said that Hillary was tireless traveler, but the results of her trips were not much.
We’ve all seen this movie before. Whitewater, The Vince Foster Affair, Travelgate; the Clinton’s are fodder for more yarns than the James Bond Franchise.
They’ve been in politics for decades and their attackers never seem to tire of writing books ‘hinting’ at dark, backroom deals, corruption and murder.
There’s simply no way they can’t be guilty, right? Yet they’re still here. Ever after Ken Starr’s epic fight to bring them down, they’re still standing. They even impeached Bill – but he got off on a technicality; the Republican led Senate failed to convict.
If you’re a Darwinist, we should probably send the Hillary to the White House just because the Clinton’s have survived and proven their political fitness in the process.
The problem with all of the diehard supporters of Hillary is that the Clinton’s mendacity rubs off on anyone blindly defending them. Can anyone honestly say that all the support is not bought and paid for by the foundation? Even if not true, why would anyone cast their own credibility into the pot to mix with such obvious ethical miscreants?
After 6+ years of Obama apologists, misguided sycophants and ideological lemmings, one would think the country is sick and tired of the political shenanigans, the stonewalling and the utter lack of transparency despite protestations to the contrary.
Most people when confronted as a suspect in an act of criminality would simply say “I didn’t do that. I’m not guilty of that!” Interesting that the Clinton’s and acolyte’s response is a predictable, “where’s the evidence?” In other words, parse the words, “I’m really guilty, but you can’t prove it!”
What I find surprising, and hopeful, is the fact that it’s not just the conservative media looking into and reporting on the Clinton Foundation scandal. The NY Times, Reuters, ABC, etc. are doing their own investigation and reporting.
This reminds me of how Watergate got started, only the Metro Section of the Washington Post initially reporting on the break-in and then following up with the burglars connection to the Republican National Committee and then linking to the Nixon Campaign Committee and then linking to the White House. By the time the links got to the White House the story was being reported, and investigated, by multiple national media.
The New York Times reported that:
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records* show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well."
I am no lawyer but I think I can say with some degree of confidence that the above constitutes more than enough circumstantial evidence to prove corruption, if not bribery. It seems Menendez went down for less. And I am guessing this is just the tip of the iceberg of what is available. Add to that the server has been wiped clean, perhaps destroyed, and you have a solid case against Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Those records are apparently from the Canadian tax department. Moreover, I now hear that the Clintons will redo their tax returns for the last few years and that one of the amounts they will now include is that $2.35 million of secret donations.
If you’re the Clintons and have spent your entire lives in government or seeking to influence it, except for a few minutes working for the Rose Law Firm of Little Rock, AR (and hating every one of those minutes), then you have to figure out a way to make money in government. After all, everyone needs to make his pile. Right?
I’m a little surprised that nobody has ever looked at the Bill’s tenure as the Governor of Arkansas. After all, antics such as those practiced by a subsidiary of Rosatom (the Russian atomic energy agency) in pursuit of a global role cornering uranium at a time when the Hillster was serving as Secretary of State and central to decisions about selling strategic U.S. resources, alongside beaucoup millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation and a $500,000 Moscow speech for her are not depths of finesse that just appear. They usually start in the crib.
Outraged critics have spent time and energy trying to convince Democrats that the Clintons are corrupt. The Democrats have known all along and it just has not mattered. What does it have to do with the issues they ask.
It is like the Senate Democrats who elected and re-elected Harry Reid. Reid took all the blame but he was elected by a Democrat caucus that could have voted for someone ethical if they were so inclined. Ethics have no practical political value.
Corrupt Democrats who elect these guys are just as guilty as the Clintons. I remember when Senator Joe Lieberman made a speech critical of Clinton and was widely congratulated for it. It was right before the impeachment and Senators Moynihan and Robert Kerry congratulated Lieberman. Then all three voted not guilty.
A crime boss might tell you that creating an organized crime machine isn’t the hardest part. Perfect crimes are committed every day. The hardest part of maintaining a criminal enterprise may be in maintaining the discipline to cover your tracks and execute the plan perfectly every time.
Like every organization, I imagine that the task of not getting caught relies on soldiers not making errors. Eventually someone in the crew is bound to slip up or something unexpected turns up, that could not have been planned for. A tax record here, a journal entry there. Not everyone involved in the caper may be as disciplined with their books.
Law enforcement investigation relies on applying pressure continuously, with hope of forcing an error in a well thought out enterprise, to bring down the whole house of cards. Some bosses conduct business their entire lives and never get caught.
Can the Clintons?
Jeff Immelt made the damming admission that he would not release the emails between GE and the State Department regarding the company’s dealings with Algeria, winning a power plant contract while Hillary was Secretary of State and GE gave money to the Clinton foundation. You almost don’t have to read the actual emails to imagine what they must contain. Obviously, if they were exculpatory, Clinton should be begging Immelt to release them.
BTW, if these were legitimate State Dept emails from GE, shouldn’t the State Dept have them? If not, did Hillary consider these personal too?
I look at Hillary Clinton as a Battleship. Large, formidable, heavily armored and capable of putting out a lot of firepower through her sycophants and acolytes.
However, she’s old, leaky, and she’s taken a number of hits, some of which were torpedo hits below the waterline. She’s not unsinkable and she’s taking on water but she seems to be able to pump that water back over the side as fast as it comes in. At the same time some of her bulkheads have become weak and it might not take much for them to give way and send her to the bottom.
I’ll be watching those who have been and continue to be her staunchest defenders, paying careful attention to the strength of their defense of her, the words they use, the fervor with which they defend her.
At some point, if her candidacy is to fail, if the scandals are going to sink her, it will be these defenders who will have to give up, to stop bailing her out. When I see signs of that happening I’ll know she’s toast.
What we do know is that the Clinton’s are forever tainted. Too many things happened at the same time resulting in certain donors and big payers for speeches getting some special favor that only Hillary could have helped with. Sure, just a random coincidence, and pigs really can fly. I’ll grant 1 coincidence – maybe, but all of these “coincidences”?
The only variable is if there are enough low information voters who will, once again buy, the “Right Wing Conspiracy” theory for all of these or will believe them when they discredit the messenger and try to utterly destroy his reputation.
Maybe, but I also wonder when the ever compliant Democrats are going to find some guts and develop a bit of disgust at the Clinton’s business as usual.