The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and....

telegraph.co.uk ^

[Sub-Driver]

The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary

By Tim Stanley US politics Last updated: August 14th, 2013

Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh? Today it runs with a fascinating takedown of the Clinton Foundation – that vast vanity project that conservatives are wary of criticising for being seen to attack a body that tries to do good. But the liberal NYT has no such scruples. The killer quote is this:

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

Over a year ago Bill Clinton met with some aides and lawyers to review the Foundation's progress and concluded that it was a mess. Well, many political start-ups can be, especially when their sole selling point is the big name of their founder (the queues are short at the Dan Quayle Vice Presidential Learning Center). But what complicated this review – what made its findings more politically devastating – is that the Clinton Foundation has become about more than just Bill. Now both daughter Chelsea and wife, and likely presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton have taken on major roles and, in the words of the NYT "efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons’ charity work from Mr Clinton’s moneymaking ventures and Mrs Clinton’s political future." Oh, they're entangled alright.

[rhinohunter]

It is my contention that shrillery is NOT the lock to be the RAT nominee that many are portraying her to be. She may look invincible in the polls, but she has one big problem that the polls do not show. Her problem is that the demigod of the American left - baraq hussein obama - does NOT want her to be the nominee.

[Sub-Driver]

You’re challenging the integrity of these two?

I’m shocked!

[atc23]

har. - the NYT is such a moldering old relic they don’t even realize that only us “inside baseball” political junkies know who Dan Quayle is.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Yep- and guess who gets to be on the board - and “earn” a 6 figure salary?- Chelsea! I believe she was once asked what the foundation was doing - the look on horse face was priceless-

Hilarious! Also, a bit surprising. You'd think the first and only thing Chelsea would have to do is memorize a paragraph on the foundation's mission for just such a question.

[surrey]

Doesn’t look like Chelsea can make it in the real world so daddy had to give her a “real” job.

[Tupelo]

“Who is behind it. “

This is the key question. Who in the progressive camp benefits from diminishing the Clintons?

---

Probably the most profound statement/question of the day.

I sure wish I knew.

[Liz]

FR POSTED September 29, 2009

Clinton pictured above with ACORN founder Wade Rathke.
The tax-exempt Clinton Foundation had just donated $250,000 to ACORN.

The tax-exempt Clinton Foundation provided $275,000 in grants for ACORNS’S "Katrina Benefits Access project" and ACORN'S "Operation Hope Project; Restore Hope." The tax-exempt Clinton Foundation also helped secure private sector commitments for ACORN.

===============================================

The IRS has pinpointed tax-exempt "foundations and charities" as the locus classicus for tax evasion and money laundering. The BIGGEST tax-exempt fraud --- a tax-exempt foundation writing checks to a tax-exempt charity (the way crooks look "altruistic" as they siphon off tax-free money for personal uses). =================================================== IRS TOLL-FREE 1-800-829-0433----you may remain anonymous. EMAIL .......OAAG.Tax@tax.USDOJ.gov

REPORT POSSIBLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY: Conspiracy, collusion, government fraud; mishandling public property, falsifying official records, tax fraud, computer trespass, US Postal and electronic fraud. FBI TIP PAGE http://tips.fbi.gov/ (you may remain anonymous)

[Liz]

All of the Clintons' shady proclivities are unveiled in this story. Corruption, greed, entitlement, nepotism, cronyism.

They didn't have a pot to *** in in Arkansas---never even had a home to call their own. Now they're multi millionaires...

.....they really know how to game the system for themselves.....

There needs to be a thorough going-over of the Clinton Foundation funding. We need to know who pays/funds the Clinton's real lifestyle especially now that there is talk of Hillary running for prez. It is important to know to whom the Clinton's are truly indebted.

As President, Bill Clinton made policies that raised hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars for his obscenely-rich donor/pals.

His North American Free Trade initiative made it easy for, and even encouraged, corporations to outsource jobs and then import their products back into the U.S...... The repeal of Glass-Steagall on his watch sent Wall Street into the money-making frenzy that led to the Great Recession/Depression of 2008......and subsequent taxpayer bailouts.

In exchange for these obscene gifts of corporate welfare, at the expense of America's middle and working classes, you'd think the Clintons' rich friends would have no trouble coughing up a mere $250 million endowment for the foundation.

I guess the captains of crony capitalism just don't feel they have enough money to help their old friends Bill and Hillary secure their so-called "legacy."

[Liz]

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks are required to establish, implement and maintain programs designed to detect and report suspicious activity indicative of money laundering and other financial crimes.

“The Bank Secrecy Act was enacted to protect the public from harm by identifying and detecting money laundering from criminal enterprises, terrorism, tax evasion or other unlawful activities,” the special agent in charge for Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, explained.

L/E needs to examine the bank accounts used to pay for foundation activities.....and the number of wire transfers and requests for withdrawals.

NOTE WELL The “Bank Secrecy Act” was passed to protect the public from harm by identifying and detecting criminal enterprises, money laundering, tax evasion or other unlawful activities.

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks are required to establish, implement and maintain programs designed to detect and report suspicious activity that might be indicative of govt fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, and other financial crimes.

<><> Joint bank accounts might be used to facilitate the transfer of of govt funds. Govt monies may pay for personal and private expenses, credit cards, real estate sunsidies and vehicle purchases.

<><> To cover their tracks, fake invoices might be created to show that money deposited into accounts was being used for legitimate govt purposes.

The scheme might be advanced by issuing phony statements of payments from federal and state sources that actually covered the transfer of funds for govt employees own use.

<><> L/E is directed to get ahold of: (1) copies of checks, (2) wire transfers, (3) account statements, (4) invoices, (5) bills, (6) delivery tickets, (7) correspondence including e-mail, contracts, loan agreements, and, (8) any other books or records. L/E should also explore (a) monies paid to brokers, sub-brokers, (b) family members, (c) mortgage brokers, (d) financial managers, and, (e) real estate agents, brokers, and developers.

<><> L/E should scrutinize bank accounts for suspicious activites: (A) large deposits, (B) funds transferred from one account into another, (C) frequent requests for withdrawals.

<><> Bank records might also show diversions to secret LLC other accounts, to operate personal businesses. Govt fraud can also be facilitated by withdrawals, gift cards purchases, credit card purchases and intrabank transfers from govt accounts into personal accounts.

<><> A huge tipoff is whether bank withdrawals support luxurious lifestyle including payments for real estate, investment and stock holdings, jewelry, luxury vehicles, resort travel and gifts from luxury outlets for wives and mistresses.

Taxpayers demand the Bank Secrecy Act be used to prosecute foundation fraud, tax evasion and govt fraud, pronto.

[Colonel_Flagg]

(the queues are short at the Dan Quayle Vice Presidential Learning Center).

Bahaha. You're killing me.

Bet the queues are even shorter at the Baraq Obama School of Ethics.

[Candor7]

I dont even know what this means. Who is behind it. Jarrett?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Its the next nail in Hillery’s coffin. Benghazi was the first, cortesy of Barrack Hussein Obama.

Obama has an annointed one and it is not Hillery. Guess who?

[nascarnation]

Not sure who Baraq II will be. Interested to see your pick.

[Candor7]

The problem is , you see, all the touted successors are , errrr.....em.....ahhh...”white.”

That will never do.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

the touted successors are , errrr.....em.....ahhh...”white.”

Yabut yabut, she's the wife of the first black president.

[Chickensoup]

the Clintons never ran anything with a budget and rules. They would have no idea on how to manage without taxpayer endless dollars.

[BradyLS]

The key question is: Why aren’t Bill, Hillary and Chelsea running their foundation in an honest and above-board fashion? The question transcends politics and goes straight to the matter of integrity and character.

I totally agree, but the citizens had the goods on them on that account back in '92. Fat lot of good it did, too. They just keep re-electing, appointing, and sending them cash, year after year...

[Cementjungle]

In the unlikely event that any of this comes up during her campaign season, the NYT will simply say “we covered all this back in 2013, it’s an old story and not worth rehashing”.

[Rocky]

The Clinton Foundation is a fine example of what the Government would look like under Hillary. (And as a bonus, the definition of irony: The New York Times criticizing any organization for being poorly run.)