Connect with us

Politics

No More Free Passes For The Clinton Foundation

Published

on

(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.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Immigration

Majority of Americans Support Mass Deportation – CBS Poll

Published

on

In a recent CBS poll, it has been found that 62% of Americans support the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants from the United States. This result reflects the growing public sentiment in favor of stricter immigration policies and the enforcement of existing laws.

The poll, conducted by CBS, surveyed a diverse group of American citizens to gauge their opinions on various issues related to immigration. The findings indicate a significant shift in public opinion, with a majority of respondents expressing their support for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.

The results of the poll are not entirely surprising, given the ongoing debates and discussions surrounding immigration reform in the United States. Many Americans believe that the current immigration system is flawed and that stricter measures are necessary to address the issue of illegal immigration.

Proponents of mass deportation argue that it is a necessary step to protect the country’s borders and ensure the safety and security of American citizens. They believe that undocumented immigrants pose a threat to the nation’s economy, social services, and national security.

However, critics of mass deportation argue that it is an inhumane and impractical solution to the problem of illegal immigration. They point out that many undocumented immigrants have lived in the United States for years, contributing to their communities and the economy. Mass deportation, they argue, would result in the separation of families and would be detrimental to the well-being of those affected.

The findings of the CBS poll are likely to fuel further discussions and debates on immigration reform in the United States. As the issue continues to be a contentious topic, it remains to be seen how policymakers will respond to the growing public support for mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.

In conclusion, the recent CBS poll indicates that a majority of Americans support the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. This finding reflects the growing public sentiment in favor of stricter immigration policies and the enforcement of existing laws. As the debate on immigration reform continues, it is crucial for policymakers to consider the diverse perspectives and opinions of the American people in order to find a balanced and effective solution to the issue of illegal immigration.

Continue Reading

Health

mRNA COVID-19 Injections Not Vaccines – Ninth Circuit Rules

Published

on

In a recent decision that has stirred up discussions across the nation, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the COVID-19 mRNA injections do not qualify as vaccines under traditional medical definitions. This decision was made in a lawsuit brought by the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The court’s decision could potentially expose pharmaceutical companies to future liability lawsuits, as it challenges the legal protections typically afforded to vaccine manufacturers.

The lawsuit against LAUSD was based on the claim that the district’s vaccine mandate infringed upon the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. The court, in a majority opinion authored by Circuit Judge R. Nelson and supported by Judge Collins, asserted that the mRNA shots, marketed as vaccines, do not effectively prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely reduce symptoms in those who contract the virus. This distinction, the court argued, means that the injections should not be considered vaccines under traditional medical definitions.

The implications of this ruling are significant. If mRNA injections are not considered vaccines, then they may not be subject to the same legal protections as traditional vaccines. This could potentially open the door to liability lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that have produced and distributed the injections.

The court’s decision has sparked a range of reactions on social media. Some users have expressed relief and support for the ruling, viewing it as a step towards greater transparency and accountability in the handling of the pandemic. Others have criticized the decision, arguing that it undermines public health efforts and could discourage the use of potentially life-saving treatments.

The ruling has also reignited debates about the handling of the pandemic and the promotion of alternative treatments. Some have questioned the effectiveness of the mRNA injections, while others have pointed to the rapid development and deployment of these treatments as a remarkable achievement in the face of a global crisis.

As the legal implications of this ruling continue to unfold, it is likely that the debate surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of vaccines in public health will continue to evolve. The Ninth Circuit’s decision serves as a reminder of the complex legal and ethical issues at the heart of public health policy.

Continue Reading

Politics

President Trump: No More Tip Taxes!

Published

on

In a recent rally in Las Vegas, former President Donald Trump announced his intention to eliminate taxes on tips for service industry workers if he were to be re-elected. This proposal, which would allow workers to keep their entire tip amount without taxation, has been met with enthusiasm and support from many Americans, particularly those in the service industry.

Trump’s pledge to abolish tip taxes is a bold move that could have a significant impact on the lives of millions of Americans. Service industry workers, including those in restaurants and hospitality, often rely heavily on tips as a significant portion of their income. These workers are typically not highly paid and often face financial instability. By promising to eliminate taxes on tips, Trump is positioning himself as an advocate for the working class, addressing a specific economic concern that directly affects their livelihoods.

The proposal also touches on broader debates about tax policy and economic inequality. While the elimination of taxes on tips could be seen as a populist move to help the working class, it also raises questions about the fairness of the tax system and the distribution of the tax burden. However, Trump’s pledge is a clear indication of his commitment to supporting American workers and addressing the economic challenges they face.

Critics argue that while the policy may benefit service industry workers, it could also lead to unintended consequences, such as encouraging employers to shift more of their employees’ compensation to tips, potentially leading to reduced wages. However, these concerns should not overshadow the potential benefits of Trump’s proposal.

In conclusion, Trump’s pledge to abolish tip taxes is a bold move that could have a significant impact on the lives of millions of Americans. By addressing a specific economic concern that directly affects the livelihoods of service industry workers, Trump is demonstrating his commitment to supporting American workers and addressing the economic challenges they face. While there are concerns about potential unintended consequences, the potential benefits of this proposal should not be overlooked. Trump’s pledge to abolish tip taxes is a clear indication of his commitment to making America great again for all Americans.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

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