Founded in 1997, the globalist charity is finally currently under investigation by several agencies, including the FBI, IRS, and DOJ for a litany of reasons, including pay-to-play schemes and tax code violations. While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she had the State Department approve a $165 billion arms deal to 20 countries who had donated to the Clinton Foundation and hand over 20% of US uranium in a pay-to-play deal. Nearly every government or corporation that made a donation to the Foundation enjoyed some kind of kickback by the U.S. government, however contributions dried up by almost 90% in a three year period from 2014 ($214M) to 2017 ($22.8M) according to financial statements. Charles Ortel, considered by most the world’s best financial analyst, said that “based upon ongoing analysis of the public record begun in February 2015, …the Clinton Foundation entities are part of a network that has defrauded donors and created illegal private gains of approximately $100 billion in combined magnitude, and possibly more, since 23 October 1997.”
Charles Ortel, a Wall Street analyst who uncovered financial discrepancies at General Electric before its stock crashed in 2008, and whom the Sunday Times of London described as “one of the finest analysts of financial statements on the planet” in a 2009 story detailing the troubles at AIG, began in February 2015 digging into the Clinton Foundation’s public records, federal and state-level tax filings, and donor disclosures.
“The Clinton Foundation was originally organized as a ‘Presidential Library’ to be a repository for ‘Presidential Records,’ but it has never validly altered its controlling ‘Articles of Organization’ to engage in any other tax-exempt purpose,” Ortel stressed in an interview with Infowars. “Yet, it and people claiming to work with it have roamed worldwide soliciting more than $2 billion in cumulative declared donations.”
Speaking to Sputnik about reports of a new Justice Department probe into the Clinton Foundation over possible pay-to-play politics during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, philanthropy law expert Charles Ortel outlined why he believed the Clinton Foundation may very well be ‘the largest unprosecuted fraud in history’:
I started focusing on this in February of 2015. It took me about several weeks to figure out that this is the largest unprosecuted fraud in world history. By my calculations, the declared incoming amounts of the Clinton Foundations are about $2.3 billion, but when you consider all the affiliates around the world, it runs in the many hundreds of billions of dollars.
The great complexity of this charity, volatility in currency exchange rates, and lax controls, in the [sense] that so many of the trustees and donors are basically political allies of the Clintons who stand to benefit from payments from governments [and other entities make it] rife with potential for fraud.
My training is in banking and investment analysis. Under US law, a charity like this has to produce audited books that account and comply with auditing standards that are very strict. Anyone with a modicum of training can see that there is no legally compliant audit [of the Clinton Foundation] over a twenty year period.
The real question here is not ‘Is it a fraud?’ Of course it’s a fraud! The questions are: Why did so many governments around the world let this fraud go on for so long? And why didn’t [the FBI] see this fraud [in 2001-2005, when it was investigating the Foundation]? Why did they let it escalate? Those are the big questions in my mind.”
The Clinton Foundation is a “massive spider web of connections and money laundering implicating hundreds of high-level people,” according to a FBI insider who explained why FBI Director James Comey refused to indict Hillary Clinton over her private e-mail server. “The real point of interest is the Clinton Foundation, not the email server,” he said. “We received the server from Benghazi, then from the server we found data on the Clinton Foundation. Then we realized the situation is much worse than previously thought.”
Comey in particular wasn’t confident the FBI could face the “Clinton Machine” and the “rest of Washington D.C.” by itself. “…This case would explode into a million other cases if fully brought to light, and then we would be one agency competing against the entire government and a hoard of other interests,” the insider continued. “It is a very tense and uncomfortable position.”
“There is enough for her and the entire government to be brought down,” he revealed. “People do not realize how enormous this whole situation actually is.”
Ortel also says in another interview:
“I decided it would be fun to cross-check what their donors thought they did when they donated to the Clinton Foundation, and that’s when I got really irritated,” he said. “There are massive discrepancies between what some of the major donors say they gave to the Clinton Foundation to do, and what the Clinton Foundation said what they got from the donors and what they did with it.”
To be sure, Ortel’s efforts were to be commended: digging through the foundation’s numbers can not have been easy, considering that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put the Clinton Foundation on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits in 2015. Furthermore, the Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. That’s because the organization spent the vast bulk of its windfall on “administration, travel, salaries and bonuses”, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.
In the preliminary Executive summary released by Charles Ortel in September 2016, he exposed the pay-t-play scheme for what it truly is:
Understanding the Clinton Foundation Public Record in Proper Context: 1997 to Present
To informed analysts, the Clinton Foundation appears to be a rogue charity that has neither been organized nor operated lawfully from inception in October 1997 to date–as you will grow to realize, it is a case study in international charity fraud, of mammoth proportions.
In particular, the Clinton Foundation has never been validly authorized to pursue tax-exempt purposes other than as a presidential archive and research facility based in Little Rock, Arkansas. Moreover, its operations have never been controlled by independent trustees and its financial results have never been properly audited by independent accountants.
In contrast to this stark reality, Bill Clinton recently continued a long pattern of dissembling, likening himself to Robin Hood and dismissing critics of his “philanthropic” post-presidency, despite mounting concerns over perceived conflicts of interest and irregularities.
Normally, evaluating the efficacy of a charity objectively is performed looking closely into hard facts only -specifically, determining whether monies spent upon “program service expenditures” actually have furthered the limited, authorized “tax-exempt purposes” of entities such as the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, its subsidiaries, its joint ventures, and its affiliates (together, the “Clinton Charity Network”).
But, popular former presidents of the United States retain “bully pulpits” from which they certainly can spin sweet-sounding themes to a general audience and media that is not sufficiently acquainted with the strict laws and regulations that do, in fact, tether trustees of a tax-exempt organization to following only a mission that has been validly pre-approved by the Internal Revenue Service, on the basis of a complete and truthful application.
This Executive Summary carries forward a process of demonstrating that the Clinton Foundation illegally veered from its IRS-authorized mission within days of Bill Clinton’s departure from the White House in January 2001, using publicly available information which, in certain cases, has been purposefully omitted or obscured in disclosures offered through the Clinton Foundation website, its principal public portal.
Getting to Reality
The question of whether a federally authorized nonprofit corporation has been validly organized and operated is a question of fact, best answered through close review of the record.
Without having access to helpful corroborative materials (including board minutes, donor solicitation presentations, after-action reports to donors, management representation letters to accountants, internal memoranda, and communications with key counterparties), this Executive Summary previews 40 detailed Exhibits that dissect portions of the public record concerning activities of the Clinton Charity Network.
Determined review of these 40 Exhibits that deal primarily with the period 23 October 1997 (when the Clinton Foundation was organized) through 2011 (when attempts to re-organize the Clinton Foundation were most active) demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the Clinton Charity Network was neither organized nor operated lawfully.
As the following IRS publication states clearly, a nonprofit corporation must pass both an “organizational test” and an “operational test” to be legitimately exempt from federal income taxes.
“The Dual Test: Organized and Operated
1. IRC 501(c)(3) requires an organization to be both “organized” and “operated” exclusively for one or more IRC 501(c)(3) purposes. If the organization fails either the organizational test or the operational test, it is not exempt. Reg. 1.501(c)(3)–1(a)(1).
2. The organizational test concerns the organization’s articles of organization or comparable governing document. The operational test concerns the organization’s activities. A deficiency in an organization’s governing document cannot be cured by the organization’s actual operations. Likewise, an organization whose activities are not within the statute will not qualify for exemption by virtue of a well written charter. Reg. 1.501(c)(3)–1(b)(1)(iv).”
The Clinton Foundation and each part of the Clinton Charity Network fails either the organizational test, the operational test, or both of these tests. The consequences for failing to meet either the organizational test or the operational test are severe. In normal circumstances, a charity would have its tax-exempt status revoked retroactively.
The “charity” would then have to refile its tax returns and pay corporate income taxes upon any profits earned from the date its authorization is revoked, forward to the present.
Donors who took tax deductions in the relevant time periods would owe personal income taxes on contributions they had made.
And, a raft of criminal as well as civil sanctions would likely ensue, whose financial consequences might, or might not be mitigated by insurance.
What the Public Record Reveals about Clinton Foundation Entities
To understand the full extent of illegal activities involving Clinton Foundation entities and personnel, you must resist unvetted words and numbers published in press releases, marketing brochures, and filings to state, federal, and foreign governments, the latter having been submitted under penalties of perjury.
Instead, you must concentrate upon “stubborn facts”–information whose veracity you can confirm, for yourself.
Though allies of the Clinton family, and some extended family members believe otherwise, in truth: “…whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, you cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
What does available evidence reveal about the scale and scope of frauds committed and ongoing by the Clinton Foundation Charity Network?
At this point, Ortel previews the 40 detailed Exhibits which will be published starting September 7 on www.charlesortel.com. As a preview of the extensive analysis contained in these Exhibits, “these Exhibits document an escalating pattern of lawlessness and suggest that trustees of entities in the Clinton Charity Network exhibited gross negligence and reckless disregard in performance of their solemn duties.”
The exhibits can be read in their entirety in this pdf.
Instead, we fast forward to Ortel’s conclusion:
The scope and scale of illegal activities carried out by trustees, executives, significant donors, and professional advisors in the names of Clinton Foundation entities are only evident when you consider abundant information in the public domain and then read the body of laws that serves as a framework for regulating charities and their solicitation efforts.
All told, declared donations to Clinton Foundation entities from 1997 through 2014 are greater than $2 billion; but this vast amount is likely a pittance when compared to sums sent to affiliated “charities” and relief efforts around the world. Though required by strict laws, no part of the Clinton Charity Network (including affiliates and joint ventures) has ever procured a comprehensive, independent, and compliant audit of its financial results.
No part of the Clinton Charity Network is controlled by experienced and independent trustees who can defend against conflicts of interest–in consequence Clinton charities regularly are used illegally to create substantial “private gain”, and to advance the political interests of the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party.
Unless and until an independent conservator is appointed by the Arkansas State Attorney General, the public will not know the true dimensions of a fraud that started in Bill Clinton’s home state and in Washington, D.C., then metastasized, and spread around the world.
His stunning summary: “An educated guess, based upon ongoing analysis of the public record begun in February 2015, is that the Clinton Foundation entities are part of a network that has defrauded donors and created illegal private gains of approximately $100 billion in combined magnitude, and possibly more, since 23 October 1997.”
* * *
Ortel leaves us with some critical questions:
- Why was the Clinton Charity Network allowed to expand the scope of its illegal activities between 20 January 2001 and 20 January 2009, when George W. Bush served as president?
- Why has the administration of Barack Obama allowed the Clinton Charity Fraud Network to grow even more, in bold violation of state, federal, and foreign laws from 20 January 2009 to present?
- Why did Valerie Jarrett and the Obama Administration bother with the pretense of signing a legal document, late in 2008, purporting to regulate potential conflicts of interest between Hillary Clinton in her role as Secretary of State , and the Clinton Foundation, when this document was false, misleading, incomplete, and manifestly unenforceable?
- Why is the IRS still resisting full-scale audits of the Clinton Charity Network?
The answer is surprising and simple–once again, Americans and regulators around the world appear to have fallen victim to the “Big Lie” strategy.
In an October 2017 interview with Infowars, Ortel pointed out that the available Clinton Foundation regulatory filings are riddled with what appear to be intentional ommissions.”
Take 2009 results , for example, completed during 2010,” Ortel argued. “You will not find combining results for the Clinton Foundation, by “Initiative” on the Clinton Foundation website as these are purposefully omitted. But you will find these key results on versions of the required audit that are obtained here in New York (punch in EIN: 31-1580204) and look at the 2009 filing.”
Ortel draw attention to the audit page towards the end of the filing for 2009 called “Combined Statement of Activities.”
“These show total contributions (normally these are from the general public) of $82.9 million and total grants (normally these are from governments and from foundations) of $162.9 million,” he continued. “Focus on the column “CHAI” (Clinton Health Access Initiative) that shows contributions of $15.5 million (19% of the combined total) and $159.7 in grants (98% of the total). Clearly “CHAI” existed during 2009 as a material portion of the Clinton Foundation.”
But, Ortel asks, who contributed $159.7 million to “CHAI” in 2009?
“By going here, we find that a Swiss NGO called UNITAID may have contributed $85 million during 2009 (see column for 2009 and row marked “Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative, Inc.” at page 30),” he continued.
“Then look at the Clinton Foundation link at “Schedule B” that lists (without identifying) amounts given by each specific, major donor. These show small cash grants of $73.7 million, small stock grants of $5.2 million, and unidentified cash grants of $115.4 million, $$9.1 million, $7.1 million, $15.9 million, $7.1 million, and $7.8 million.”
Ortel concludes: “There is no $85 million grant from UNITAID listed and there is no grant listed in 2009 that may have been routed through CGSGI from Russia or from any other source–in fact the combining statement shows $100 (not a typo) in contributions, and only $1.5 million in grants for ‘CGSGI.’”
He explained to Infowars.com that he considers it shocking the true financial picture is not told in existing Clinton Foundation filings for 2009 that have circulated in the public domain, around the world, for 7 years.
“Now the IRS has had much more detailed information on this ever since 2010 when the Clinton Foundation filed their Annual Report for 2009 on Form 990,” Ortel continued.
He pointed out that IRS officials know the specific identities of each major donor and, for U.S. donors, they can readily pull tax forms to determine how much each donor claimed it sent towards Clinton entities.
“There are many major U.S. charities worth looking at in forms relating to 2009 include,” he pointed out. “These include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (U.S.) (there is also a U.K. version, and then other large cumulative contributors through December 2008, some of whom likely continued donating in 2009.” Ortel pointed out, stressing that each of the foundations contributing to the Clinton Foundation may face serious civil and possibly criminal liabilities should the U.S. Congress and the U.S. legal system find the Clinton Foundation guilty of charity fraud.
“The Clinton Foundation and its network of affiliates has been operated for more than 20 years as a vast conspiracy to defraud the United States Government (see U.S.C. §371),” he noted.“Close examination reveals numerous potential counts of mail fraud in connection with disaster relief (see U.S.C. §1341) and wire fraud in connection with wire relief (see U.S.C. §1343). Trained lawyers should see many more potential felony violations of federal laws, as well as violations of state and of foreign statutes,” he pointed out.
Saudi Arabian Influence:
When Clinton first took office in 2008, the foundation disclosed that Saudi Arabia donated between $10 to $25 million, with some donations coming as recently as 2014 when Clinton prepared her run for the presidency. The foundation received an additional $1 to $5 million donation from the “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” which was cofounded by a Saudi prince. Critics question the ethics of taking such vast sums of money from individuals and a government with one of the worst human rights records in the world.
King Of Moroccan Meeting:
Emails released by WikiLeaks, in a likely attempt to influence the U.S. election, also reveal Clinton arranged for her foundation to host a meeting in Morocco in return for a $12 million donation from the country’s king. The donation came from a Moroccan state-owned mining company, which later received a $92 million loan guarantee while Clinton served as secretary of state.
“This was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request. The King has personally committed approx. $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting,” Clintons aide Huma Abedin wrote in a leaked email to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Indonesian Tobacco Magnate:
The Clinton Foundation’s ties also extend to powerful individuals seeking assistance from the U.S. government, with the help of the Clinton network. Indonesian tobacco magnate Putera Sampoerna donated and worked with the foundation before he “got the U.S. government to underwrite millions in loans offered by the foundation and secured high-profile support for its activities from Sec. Clinton and other senior federal officials,” according to a report by The Washington Free Beacon.
Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman:
The Clinton Foundation further accepted donations from several foreign governments while Clinton served as secretary of state, including Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman.
On Jun. 29, 2010, just two days after the Cisco/Intel/Google $1 billion donation, Moscow-based Renaissance Capital paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech even though Renaissance was the lead analyst covering recommending a “buy” on Uranium One. On Mar. 30, 2011, Russian oligarch Yuri Milner overpaid $100 million for a gaudy mansion in the center of Silicon Valley in an ostentatious display of a rogue C.I.A.-inspired arrogance, after his $200 million private Facebook investment. In 2015, conservative author Peter Schweitzer published a blistering story in The New York Times uncovering Clinton’s connections to and benefits from the 2010 Uranium One purchase.
Continued on next page..
