Connect with us

Politics

Billionaire Donors To The Clinton Foundation Like Bill Gates & Warren Buffet Should Be Worried About Investigations

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

The revived FBI and continuing IRS investigations will eventually realize due diligence has been lacking from the start…

So the FBI is again investigating the “Bill, Hillary & Clinton Foundation.” That should make Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, and other affluent Americans who have given to the Clinton Foundation wish they had asked more questions before writing those checks.

Here’s why: “Due diligence” doesn’t end when the Clinton “charities” cash your check.

The FBI agents and forensic accountants probing the Clinton Foundation must go all the way back to Oct. 23, 1997, and examine precisely how a public charity, organized to hold federal records of the Clinton presidency, somehow evolved by 2002 to “fight HIV/AIDS internationally,” plus a raft of additional tax-exempt purposes that were never properly authorized in the foundation’s Articles of Incorporation.

The FBI should train its sights on the Dallas office of the IRS. On May 19, 2015, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives called on the federal tax agency to investigate the Clinton Foundation. The IRS treated this solidly grounded request dismissively.

It was not until July 22, 2016, following a second congressional request led by Blackburn, that then-IRS chief John Koskinen said agency officials in Dallas would open a review of the multiple issues flagged by the Republican members of Congress.

Records already held by the IRS concerning the main Clinton Foundation and its affiliates are voluminous and include key information the public does not have, such as the names and precise amounts donated by major contributors each year from 1998 through 2016.

The IRS also has the ability to cross-check declarations made by the Clinton Foundation with declarations made by donors such as the Gates Foundation that are private foundations. The Clinton charity is a public foundation, and there are significant differences involved.

The FBI should review the IRS’s work from July 22, 2016, forward to determine how comprehensively the tax agency examined Clinton Foundation filings and to spot the multiple massive defects in the charity’s official reports, including false statements and noncompliant financial audits.

Big trouble for big donors to the Clintons. Without access to a Nov. 18, 2004, agreement signed by the Clinton Foundation, investigators will not know the foundation is required to remain a “public charity” as long as federal records of the Clinton presidency are kept in its Little Rock, Arkansas, presidential library.

Note here that a “public charity” must be supported broadly by members of the public and cannot be controlled by a single family. Then further note that as of Nov. 2, 2013, the Clinton Foundation violated its presidential library agreement with the National Archives by amending its bylaws to create Class A and Class B directors.

This fact has yet to be shared as required with all of the regulators in all of the states where the Clintons solicit charitable contributions, perhaps because the amendments gave Class A directors unchallenged authority to dominate the Clinton Foundation. The amendments specifically named as Class A directors Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

That created major league tax problems for the Clinton Foundation and its private foundation donors such as the Gates, beginning in 2013 when the charity switched auditors from BKD, LLP to PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Why? Because both the Clinton Foundation and its multiple affiliates ceased being validly organized and operated public charities as a result of the Class A/Class B amendment. This is key for both the IRS and FBI investigators, and such donors as the Gates and Buffett.

Clock ticks for Clintons’ private foundation donors. A private foundation may not contribute money to an entity claiming to be a public charity when the recipient is not in fact a validly organized and operated public charity. Such grants are treated by the IRS as “taxable expenditures.” A longstanding pattern and practice of making taxable expenditures can provoke stiff penalties and even lead to winding up of a private foundation donor.

The Clinton Foundation and many large private foundations operate in New York State where charities must register and where they are required to report “material changes” in their legal status and operating structures within 30 days.

Starting in 2001, the Gates Foundation made numerous donations to the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates as can be seen through careful review of Gates Foundation public filings. The Gates and Buffett foundations have experienced and highly intelligent persons who should have spotted the raft of defects evident in filings of the Clinton Foundation charity network.

Why have the Gates and Buffett worked so closely with a set of charities whose public record is so deeply flawed and that now is under investigation by the FBI and IRS?

Problems for foreign governments, too. Why have so many foreign governments contributed large sums to the Clinton Foundation, while not seeming to care about obvious defects in the public record? And why did it take so long for the IRS to spot many obvious red flags in Clinton Foundation filings?

President Donald Trump will soon attend the World Economic Forum at Davos, along with representatives of advocates for unregulated “globalism,” many of whom benefit from loosely controlled charities that are in fact slush funds for the rich and powerful.

Meanwhile, former Rep. Corrine Brown, an African-American Democrat from Florida, will shortly report to federal prison for her part in running an $800,000 charity as a personal piggy bank. How long till accounting firms realize clients who donated to the Clinton Foundation have huge potential tax problems constituting “material changes” reportable in New York, California, and other states?

And how much longer will the Clinton Foundation charity network be allowed to solicit funds? The issue of effectively regulating and disciplining illegally organized and operated charities is about to become front of mind worldwide.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Biden Lies About Israel’s Involvement in Palestinian Genocide

Published

on

President Biden Says Israel is Not Committing a Genocide in Gaza, Denounces the ICC Arrest Warrant Against Netanyahu and Gallant

In a move that has stirred controversy and sparked debates across the globe, the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Karim Khan has applied for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The request is in relation to alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity linked to the war in Gaza. The move has drawn sharp criticism from U.S. President Joe Biden, who has denounced the ICC’s decision as “outrageous.”

The warrants have been sought following a months-long investigation into both Hamas’ October 7 terrorist attack on Israel and Israel’s military response in the Gaza Strip. The ICC’s decision to target the top leaders of a close ally of the United States is unprecedented and marks a significant escalation in international pressure against Israel.

President Biden has firmly stated that Israel is not committing a genocide in Gaza. He has condemned the ICC’s decision to seek arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, labeling the move as “outrageous” and asserting that there is no equivalence between Israel and Hamas. This stance aligns with the U.S.’s historical skepticism towards the ICC, arguing that the court should not exercise any jurisdiction over citizens of countries that are not a party to the founding treaty that established the ICC.

The ICC’s announcement on Monday is separate from the case that is currently being heard by the the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over an accusation from South Africa that Israel was committing genocide in its war against Hamas following the October 7 attacks. This case further complicates the situation, adding another layer of international scrutiny to Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The decision by the ICC has been met with mixed reactions. While some see it as a necessary step towards accountability for alleged war crimes, others view it as a politically motivated move that could damage the court’s relationship with the U.S. and other nations. The ICC’s decision to target both Israeli leaders and Hamas leaders in the same set of arrest warrants has also raised questions about the court’s approach to the conflict and its implications for future international justice efforts.

As the situation continues to unfold, the world watches closely to see how the U.S. and other nations will respond to the ICC’s decision and the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The controversy surrounding the ICC’s actions and President Biden’s response highlights the complex and often contentious nature of international justice and diplomacy in the face of ongoing conflict and human rights concerns.

Continue Reading

Politics

President Trump’s Paxton Plan For U.S. Attorney General

Published

on

In a recent turn of events, former President Donald Trump has hinted at considering Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for the role of U.S. Attorney General if he were to win a second term in the White House. This announcement, made during a conversation with Fox 4 Dallas-Fort Worth at the National Rifle Association convention, has sparked a flurry of speculation and discussion among political circles.

The potential appointment of Paxton to the U.S. Attorney General position raises several questions and concerns. Critics point to Paxton’s legal battles and controversies, including accusations of bribery and abuse of office, which led to his impeachment by the Texas House. These allegations were dismissed in the Senate, but they remain a point of contention.

On the other hand, Paxton’s supporters praise his legal battles against the Biden administration and his unwavering support for Trump. They see him as a strong candidate who would vigorously defend conservative values and push back against perceived liberal overreach.

This potential appointment also raises the question of how it would affect the dynamics within the Republican Party. Some Republicans, like Senator John Cornyn, have been critical of Paxton, suggesting that a Paxton nomination could lead to intraparty battles.

Trump’s consideration of Paxton is not just a political move but also a strategic one. It signals a continuation of his policies and a commitment to his base. It also underscores the importance of loyalty in Trump’s political calculus, a trait he clearly values in Paxton.

Now, let’s delve into why Trump should pick Paxton for the U.S. Attorney General position.

Firstly, Paxton’s track record as Texas Attorney General demonstrates his commitment to conservative values and his willingness to fight for them. He has been at the forefront of legal battles against the Biden administration, challenging policies on issues such as immigration and voting rights. His actions have made him a popular figure among conservatives, a fact that Trump would certainly be aware of.

Secondly, Paxton has shown unwavering loyalty to Trump. He has filed lawsuits to defend Trump’s policies and has been a vocal supporter of the former president. This loyalty is something Trump values highly, as evidenced by his past appointments.

Thirdly, Paxton’s potential appointment would send a strong message to the Republican Party and to the country as a whole. It would signal a continuation of Trump’s policies and a commitment to his base. It would also serve as a reminder of Trump’s influence within the party and his ability to shape its direction.

Finally, Paxton’s potential appointment would likely be well-received by Trump’s base. His conservative credentials and his legal battles against the Biden administration would be seen as a strong endorsement of Trump’s policies and a promise to continue fighting for them.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about Paxton’s past controversies, there are also strong arguments in favor of his potential appointment as U.S. Attorney General. His conservative credentials, his loyalty to Trump, and the message his appointment would send to the Republican Party and the country as a whole make him a strong candidate for the position.

Continue Reading

Military

Lucas Gage Returns to X After Exposing Palestine Atrocities & Ban Over Alleged Harassment

Published

on

In today’s digital age, social media platforms serve as vital tools for raising awareness and advocating for causes. However, they also present challenges such as harassment and censorship. Recently, actor and activist Lucas Gage faced these challenges head-on when his X account was suspended for several months following harassment from certain groups unhappy with his efforts to expose war atrocities in Palestine. Now, after a prolonged absence, Gage has returned to X, ready to resume his important work of shedding light on crucial issues.

Lucas Gage, known for his roles in various television shows and films, has also been vocal about social justice issues, particularly regarding the Palestinian cause. His advocacy drew the ire of individuals and groups who disagreed with his stance. Gage utilized his platform on X to spotlight the human rights violations and war atrocities occurring in Palestine, which led to backlash from some pro-Israeli factions.

The backlash against Gage escalated into harassment, predominantly from individuals identifying themselves as Zionists. He faced a barrage of abusive messages, threats, and attempts to undermine his activism. Despite his efforts to report and block the harassers, the situation persisted, taking a toll on Gage’s mental well-being and sense of safety.

In a controversial decision, X suspended Gage’s account, citing violations of its community guidelines. Many criticized X for what they perceived as a failure to address harassment effectively, especially given the circumstances surrounding Gage’s case. The ban sparked debates about freedom of expression, censorship, and the responsibilities of social media platforms in safeguarding users from harassment and abuse.

After a hiatus spanning several months, Lucas Gage has made his comeback to X. His return has been met with an outpouring of support from fellow activists, fans, and individuals concerned about censorship and human rights. Gage expressed gratitude for the overwhelming solidarity he received during his absence and reiterated his dedication to advocating for justice and raising awareness about the plight of the Palestinian people.

The incident involving Lucas Gage underscores the significance of advocacy and the hurdles activists encounter, especially when addressing contentious issues. It also highlights the complexities of navigating social media platforms where differing viewpoints often clash, sometimes resulting in hostility and censorship.

As Gage resumes his activism on X, it is imperative to continue discussions about online harassment, censorship, and the necessity for improved mechanisms to shield users from abuse. Social media companies must reevaluate their policies and enforcement strategies to ensure that platforms remain spaces for constructive dialogue and activism, rather than avenues for harassment and stifling dissenting voices.

Lucas Gage’s return to X serves as a testament to the resilience of individuals committed to social justice causes despite facing obstacles and adversity. His experience sheds light on broader issues surrounding online harassment and censorship, prompting important conversations about the role of social media platforms in shaping public discourse. As Gage continues his advocacy, his story serves as inspiration for others to speak out against injustice and strive for positive change.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.