Clinton.com Faces Accounting Woes

A long article on the Clinton Foundations accounting:

How Do You Spell Apparent Fraud? The Clinton Foundation, Shady Accounting and AIDS

The Clinton Foundation has until November 16 to amend more than ten years’ worth of state, federal and foreign filings, but it’s going to be virtually impossible to do so without acknowledging that it has engaged in massive accounting fraud since its inception.

. . . the problems appear set to catch up with the foundation (now formally known as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation), which has until November 16 to amend more than ten years’ worth of state, federal and foreign filings. According to Charles Ortel, a financial whistleblower, it will be difficult if not impossible for the foundation to amend its financial returns without acknowledging accounting fraud and admitting that it generated substantial private gain for directors, insiders and Clinton cronies, all of which is against the law under an IRS rule called inurement.

Inurement/Private Benefit - Charitable Organizations
A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization.imm 

While inurement may sound obscure to the layman, it’s an ancient legal principle and the IRS is very clear that it is verboten. If you are familiar with it, it becomes immediately clear that Bill Clinton – and arguably Hillary and daughter Chelsea as family members and fellow Clinton Foundation trustees – could have big problems come November 16. So, too, could Clinton cronies like Ira Magaziner (see below) and Doug Band, a Clinton administration and former Foundation insider who subsequently became a founding partner of a bipartisan business swamp called Teneo Holdings.

In terms of Bill Clinton, consider that he received a $6.3 million to write his 2007 book “Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World,” about his philanthropic activities and he made countless dollars more to give speeches on the topic. Not a bad deal, though admittedly that’s probably a bit less than the roughly $128 million the Clinton Foundation says it spent on all program services between 2001 and 2006, which includes its spending to provide relief to victims of the Tsunami in Asia and of Hurricane Katrina. The same pattern of taking in vast sums from donors and spending far less to help victims has continued ever since. . .

Since most of the money given to the tax exempt Clinton Foundation is going towards supporting Clinton's life style and ongoing political campaign, this is clearly illegal. Read the whole thing.

Don't expect the Obama Administration to pursue this, however, now that Slow Joe has bowed out of the White House race and the weight of democratic machine will have to coalesce behind Hillary:

 The FBI & Hillary’s e-mails: A Lois Lerner precedent?

On Friday, the Justice Department closed its two-year investigation into the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status and decided to charge . . . no one.
. . .
In a letter Friday, Justice told Congress: “We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.”

In other words, exactly what President Obama ordered up — er, predicted. Back when the “investigation” had barely started, Obama told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly there wasn’t “even a smidgen of corruption” in the case. On “The Daily Show,” he explained that the “real scandal” is that the IRS lacks the budget to do more audits.
. . .
Wondering what the FBI probe will conclude about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private account and server for all her State Department e-mails? Well, Obama already told CBS’s Steve Kroft that it didn’t make for a “national security problem. . . I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

If the Lois Lerner case is any precedent, the FBI might as well wrap up its Clinton probe right now.

But don't go thinking that you can break any law just because you support the democrats. You have to be pretty high on the food chain to get that kind of protection: Obama and Clinton fundraiser, Julian Castro patron indicted on fraud charges

Multimillion-dollar Democratic donor and Clinton and Obama fundraiser Mikal Watts was indicted on fraud charges this week. Federal prosecutors say his class-action suit against BP after the oil spill was built in part on phony clients.

Watts' attorney said the charges "are related to allegations that Watts committed fraud or forgery when he claimed to represent 44,000 clients in litigation against BP PLC," as the Associated Press puts it.

Watts, according to FEC records, has given $2.3 million to Democratic causes and candidates over the years, including nearly $90,000 to Barack Obama. He also bundled at least $500,000 for Obama and hosted multiple fundraisers in his San Antonio mansion for Obama.

But is it fair to hang this on Hillary and Barack?

Now, for a note on media bias:

The Washington Post's only story on Watts' indictment is an AP story, running under the headline "Defense Attorney: Texas Lawyer Indicted Over Oil Spill Fraud." The words "Obama," "Democrat," "Castro" and "fundraiser" never appear in the piece.

The Post's 2013 story on BP's accusations against Watts also omitted his prominent role in the Democratic world.

In contrast:

Timothy Durham was a Republican fundraiser and donor who had given about $800,000 to Republicans. In 2011, federal prosecutors indicted him "on suspicion of operating a Ponzi scheme that bilked investors out of $200 million," as the Washington Post put it.

"A Republican Fund-Raiser is Indicted in a Ponzi Scheme," blared The New York Times headline. The lead: "A prominent Republican fund-raiser was charged Wednesday ..." The second paragraph began, "The fund-raiser, Timothy Durham, 48, was arrested early in the morning ..." Later in the piece, "Mr. Durham donated more than $800,000 to the Republican Party and candidates in Indiana, including almost $200,000 to Gov. Mitch Daniels."

Yep, it's fair.

And from the 1%er files: Manhattan glitterati support Hillary Clinton at star-studded fundraiser hosted by Anna Wintour at designer Vera Wang's luxurious New York home

• Anna, Vera, Marchesa's Georgina Chapman, and her husband producer Harvey Weinstein organized the A-list event
• Tickets to the fundraiser cost a donation of at least $2,700

. . . Co-hosts and power couple Georgina Chapman and Harvey Weinstein arrived separately. Earlier this year, Harvey was involved in a groping scandal with a young model and headlines purported that it wasn't the first time he made inappropriate advances outside of his marriage.

I can see why he might support Bill; but Hillary?

Googling about I noticed that Hillary attended a lot of fundraisers where the donation was "at least $2,700"

An individual may give a maximum of: $2,700 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.2 Notice that the limit applies separately to each election. Primaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections. $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC.

Hillary Clinton Is Finally Inevitable, And That’s Bad News For Democrats

Yesterday’s Benghazi hearing is being hailed by the mainstream media as a triumph for Hillary Clinton. But then again, what choice do they have? If she is the inevitable Democratic nominee, then it’s TINA time: There Is No Alternative. So they had their narrative planned in advance.

But there are two new things we’ve gotten out of this hearing that indicate why she’s going to be a vulnerable candidate in the general election.

First, it underscored the degree to which she was primarily responsible for pushing the U.S. into the war in Libya — and that she did so with no plan for what to do afterward. Haven’t Democrats just finished a decade of blaming everything on George W. Bush because he did the same?

But the big news from yesterday’s hearing is that she knew all along that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate, not a spontaneous demonstration about a YouTube video. Three e-mails unveiled by the Benghazi investigation — one to her daughter and two that are notes of her phone conversations with the leaders of Libya and Egypt — show that she knew and acknowledged the truth in private while at the same time she was telling a different story to the American people. Yet all her responses to this sort of question can be summed up in the ultimate Hillary Clinton meme: the real-life “shruggie.”

Yes, I know. “Hillary Clinton Lies” — and in other news, “Dog Bites Man.” But a party’s primaries are supposed to be the arena in which you test your candidates, probe for weaknesses, and see how bad they are before you reach the general election. By failing to find and consider any real contenders, Democrats aren’t doing this.

If Republicans can put forward a candidate who makes a plausible commander-in-chief — which still remains to be seen — then Democrats may come to regret that they left themselves no other alternative.

Clinton: 'I will go as far as I can, even beyond Obama' to welcome illegal immigrants

"If we can not get comprehensive immigration reform as we need, and as we should, with a real path to citizenship that will actually grow our economy then I will go as far as I can, even beyond President Obama, to make sure law abiding, decent, hard working people in this country are not ripped away from their families," she added.

I'll give you "comprehensive immigration reform". Deport every illegal alien you can lay your hands on, regardless of family. It's not like they're not using the welfare system to support their US born children anyway. Enforce the enployment laws forbidding the hiring of illegals, and enforce border security. Get rid of, or at least enormously reduce the H1b visa program which is being used to supress wages in the tech sector too.

Is that comprehensive enough?