Politics

No More Free Passes For The Clinton Foundation

Published

8 years ago

January 9, 2018

Populist Wire Editorial Board

(Via Zerohedge)

A new Department of Justice probe of the email and charity fraud scandals won’t end well for Bill or Hillary…

Until recently, the Clinton Foundation has been monitored by the IRS, the Department of Justice, and the FBI, and multiple state government authorities that are seeded with persons loyal to either the Clintons or the Obamas.Every time, the Clinton Foundation got a free pass.But now it appears key authorities may finally be turning strict attention toward answering tough questions about public filings of Clinton “charities” inside and outside the United States. When these powerful organizations engage motivated minds, they will wish to concentrate on a few areas that have long gone begging for attention.

The first time the Clinton Foundation was investigated, between 2001 and 2005, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey, and others could not seem to find obvious and escalating frauds as a supposed presidential library complex in Little Rock, Arkansas, also “fought HIV/AIDS internationally” from unregistered offices in New York and Massachusetts without ever obtaining required audits of worldwide activities.

Strangely, as the first investigation wound down, evidence in the public domain suggests that the Clinton Foundation also defrauded the National Archivist by making demonstrably false representations in a binding legal agreement.

For example, there is no evidence the IRS provided final approval to the Clinton Foundation to “fight HIV/AIDS internationally” as a tax-exempt purpose by Nov. 18, 2004, the date the presidential archive was officially donated.

That Nov. 18, 2004, agreement is nowhere to be found today on the Clinton Foundation website and in public filings despite the charity’s more than 13 years of widespread solicitation across state and national boundaries using telephones, mail, and the internet.

The next major investigation started in December 2009 when the French government launched a detailed look into UNITAID, a multilateral international organization — primarily funded by France — that has sent more than $650 million to arms of the Clinton Foundation engaged, at least in theory, in fighting HIV and AIDS.

Reports concerning this investigation, written in French and published in 2010 and 2011, show that French government authorities, like their U.S. counterparts, missed the heart of the problem posed by the Clinton Foundation.

The foundation, by its own description, started soliciting funding for its fight against HIV and AIDS early in 2002, though its authorized charitable status didn’t change until March 2004, after the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Inc. was officially recognized on March 24, 2004, in Arkansas.

Applications made to the IRS, to various states and to foreign governments for tax exemption and solicitation rights to pursue this radically different mission, are not available on the central portal operated by the Clinton Foundation, nor forthcoming, yet, from the governments concerned.

Federal tax filings for this entity for the partial year in 2004 and for 2005 aren’t available on the Clinton Foundation website, perhaps because they show substantial activities that seem to fall far outside tax-exempt purposes approved by the IRS.

In addition, these and other tax filings fail to explain payments to members of the Clinton family for services received and for reimbursement of expenses by donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Even though there is no public record that the Clinton Foundation ever was authorized to control a supposed charity “fighting HIV/AIDS internationally,” the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Inc. was supposedly liquidated as of Dec. 31, 2005, with all of its worldwide activities and obligations supposedly taken over by the parent foundation. There is no evidence in the public domain that the merger was lawfully completed in each U.S. state and foreign country in which either entity operated.

From 2006 through 2009, the Clinton Foundation solicited funds and received a majority of its growing revenues, in theory, to fight HIV and AIDS internationally. Required audits were not prepared to strict U.S. requirements.

Moreover, versions of these audits on the Clinton Foundation website exclude key “combining” statements that show for 2007 through 2009 just how substantial HIV- and AIDS-specific financial amounts are compared to the combined total. The Clinton Foundation attempted to reorganize in 2009, but available public filings could place multiple individuals in significant jeopardy.

For example, claims made to the IRS in applications for federal tax exemption on Form 1023, under penalties of perjury, are false and materially misleading concerning numerous entities created after Sept. 4, 2009, to carry on unauthorized activities in which the Clinton Foundation had been engaged starting in 2002.

To get to the heart of the vexing problems that allowed the largest unprosecuted charity frauds ever attempted to flourish from January 2001 forward, one must ask many questions of central figures in federal, state and foreign governments.

How did Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, while U.S. attorney in Maryland, miss the fact that the Clinton Foundation was promoting use of potentially adulterated HIV and AIDS drugs from October 2003 forward, even as he took until May 2013 to help win a $500 million set of penalties against the Indian manufacturer of the generic drugs?

Why was an African-American selected for prosecution during her re-election campaign in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was left unscathed despite the many years of questionable charitable activities by the Clinton Foundation?

How did Rosenstein miss obvious errors in the Clinton Foundation tax filings for 2010 (originally submitted in 2011 with amended versions submitted in 2015) concerning a $37.1 million donation to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund at a P.O. Box address in Baltimore, Maryland, that was never declared, as required, in key states like New York?

Why did Rosenstein (and many other officials, including New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman), fail to require Laureate Education and the Clinton Foundation to explain how they organized the “Clinton Global Initiative University” and why the Clinton Foundation tax filings for 2010 through 2016 don’t explain what Bill Clinton did for the $17.6 million he was paid as part-time chancellor while he held key roles at the Clinton Foundation?

Former Congresswoman Corrine Brown, a Florida Democrat, reports to jail for a five-year term in federal prison following her conviction of being part of an $800,000 charity fraud. Why was this African-American selected for prosecution during her re-election campaign in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was left unscathed despite the many years of questionable charitable activities by the Clinton Foundation?

Former presidents in either the Democratic or Republican parties are not above the law. Now it’s up to President Donald Trump to make this fact abundantly clear.

Crime

Robert Mueller’s Health Prevents Testimony on Epstein

Published

2 weeks ago

September 1, 2025

Pepe Jones

As of September 1, 2025, the decision to withdraw a subpoena for former Special Counsel Robert Mueller to testify before the House Oversight Committee has been met with a mixture of understanding and curiosity. Mueller, a respected figure who led the FBI from 2001 to 2013 and later investigated ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, has reportedly been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease since the summer of 2021, according to his family’s statement. This health challenge, which has affected his speech and mobility in recent months, has understandably led to the committee’s decision to step back, allowing him the dignity to focus on his well-being. His decades of service to the nation, marked by integrity and dedication, deserve this respect, and many are hopeful for his comfort during this time.

The timing of this development, however, raises thoughtful questions among observers. Mueller was set to testify on September 2, 2025, as part of an investigation into the FBI’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case during his tenure, a topic that has stirred significant public interest and political scrutiny. The announcement of his health issues came just days before this scheduled appearance, following reports of his residence in a memory care facility and earlier concerns about his condition noted during his 2019 congressional testimony. While his family’s statement and the committee’s decision align with a genuine concern for his health, the coincidence with such a high-stakes inquiry prompts a cautious wonder about whether external pressures might have influenced the narrative, though no evidence suggests this outright.

This moment invites a balanced reflection on Mueller’s legacy and the ongoing pursuit of truth. His inability to testify, while a personal loss for those eager to hear his perspective, underscores the human side of public service, where age and health can impose limits. Yet, the abrupt nature of the withdrawal, paired with the gravity of the Epstein probe, leaves room for speculation about the full context. As the investigation continues with other witnesses, the focus remains on uncovering facts, with respect for Mueller’s past contributions tempered by a gentle skepticism about the timing, encouraging a thorough and transparent process moving forward.

Politics

President Trump: Nothing Can Stop What’s Coming

Published

2 weeks ago

September 1, 2025

Pepe Jones

President Donald Trump’s recent post on Truth Social from August 31, 2025, serves as a powerful beacon for those seeking justice amid years of entrenched corruption in Washington. The imagery and message in the post highlight a leader poised to unveil long-hidden truths, pointing directly to scandals that have plagued the political landscape. From the shadowy dealings exposed through leaked emails to fabricated investigations designed to undermine his presidency, Trump’s communication resonates with a promise that the veil of deception is lifting. This moment underscores his unwavering commitment to draining the swamp, where figures like John Podesta and Hillary Clinton have been central to narratives of elite misconduct, including the controversial handling of sensitive communications that raised questions about national security and personal agendas.

At the heart of this corruption lies the Wikileaks revelations, which brought to light a web of influence peddling and favoritism within the Clinton campaign, implicating Podesta in emails that suggested cozy relationships with powerful interests. Coupled with the Anthony Weiner laptop discovery, which contained thousands of Clinton-related emails and prompted a last-minute FBI review just before the 2016 election, these events painted a picture of systemic favoritism and potential cover-ups. The Obama administration’s role in the so-called Russiagate saga further exemplifies this injustice, where intelligence agencies allegedly pushed a baseless narrative of collusion to derail Trump’s campaign and presidency. These manufactured controversies, including surveillance on Trump associates, set the stage for ongoing attacks, revealing a deep state apparatus willing to bend rules to protect its own.

The injustices extend to the relentless assaults on Trump himself, from the politically motivated raids on his properties like Mar-a-Lago to a barrage of charges aimed at silencing his voice and preventing his return to power. Yet, as Trump’s post implies, the tide is turning, with growing evidence and public awareness poised to expose these machinations fully. The corruption that allowed figures like Clinton to evade accountability while weaponizing institutions against opponents will soon face the light of day, empowering a movement toward transparency and reform. Through his leadership, alongside allies pushing for truth, the American people can anticipate a restoration of justice, where the full extent of these scandals finally comes into sharp focus, ensuring that no one remains above the law.

Health

President Trump Calls for Covid-19 Vaccine Transparency, Sec. RFK Jr. Praises Move

Published

2 weeks ago

September 1, 2025

Pepe Jones

On September 1, 2025, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to express concerns about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines developed under his administration’s Operation Warp Speed. In his post, Trump highlighted “great numbers and results” from some pharmaceutical companies but demanded that they publicly release data to prove the vaccines’ success rates. He voiced frustration over the ongoing debate tearing apart the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), urging transparency to resolve what he called a “MESS.” This statement reflects Trump’s evolving stance on the vaccines, which he once hailed as a major achievement, now aligning with growing skepticism within certain political circles.

The COVID-19 vaccines, rolled out in late 2020, have been credited by public health experts with saving millions of lives globally by reducing severe illness, hospitalizations, and deaths during the pandemic. However, they have also faced criticism for side effects in rare cases, waning efficacy against new variants, and questions about long-term data transparency from manufacturers. Trump’s demand for proof comes amid broader discussions on vaccine mandates and public trust, with some studies showing high effectiveness in initial trials but real-world challenges like breakthrough infections. This has fueled a polarized debate, where supporters emphasize the vaccines’ role in ending lockdowns, while detractors call for more accountability from drug companies.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., known for his vaccine-skeptical views, has been a key figure in recent policy shifts, drawing both praise for advocating scrutiny and criticism from former CDC officials who argue it endangers public health. Trump’s post appears to support Kennedy’s efforts to review vaccine data, potentially leading to changes in federal guidelines. While this push for evidence could enhance transparency, experts warn it might erode confidence in proven public health tools. As the administration navigates this issue, the focus remains on balancing accountability with scientific consensus to inform future health strategies.