Exhibit 40: Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning 2010 and Prior Years

On 16 November 2015, the Clinton Foundation and its outside legal counsel made a variety of claims concerning certained amended IRS tax filings submitted for 2010 and subsequent years. In brief, the Foundation and Kathy Keneally, a lawyer with DLA Piper, asserted that Clinton Foundation entities were not technically required to correct any previous IRS filings, but that they had done so as part of special efforts to go beyond basic requirements.

In a letter dated 16 November 2015, Clinton Foundation President Donna E. Shalala essentially claimed that voluntary restatements of IRS Forms concerning 2010 (and subsequent years) had cleared up questions posed by many about historical filings of the Clinton Charity Network. ( https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/donnashalala_990letter.pdf) )

The letter submitted by President Shalala was, in theory, supported by a “Fact Sheet” that suggested work performed by an outside legal firm and an outside accounting firm “independently” confirmed key claims. ( https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/form990factsheet.pdf) )

Though no documentary evidence was included in the “Fact Sheet”, the following, noteworthy passage was included:

“This quote is attributable to Kathy Keneally:

‘I advised the Foundation that it had no legal obligation to file amended returns. I also advised the Foundation, as I would advise any client, that if it decided to file amended returns, those amended returns should correct any and all errors. The Foundation voluntarily undertook a thorough review of the returns for those years in which the line on the return concerning government grants was left blank. Foremost, we found nothing to suggest that the Foundation intended to conceal the receipt of government grants, which the Foundation reports on its website. Because foundations, like people, make mistakes, and because return preparers may differ on how best to present information, the review identified other items that the Foundation has decided to clarify or to correct. It is important to note that the review affirmed that the overall financial information — assets, liabilities and net assets — as they appear in Part I lines 20-22 were correct on the original returns and have not changed on the amended returns. The Foundation’s decision to file amended returns reflects an extraordinary commitment to disclosure and thoroughness.’”

Statements made in the letter (by President Shalala) and in the Fact Sheet (attributed to Ms. Keneally) do not square with the known public record from 23 October 1997 through 2011.

This Exhibit, together with Exhibits 1 through 39, explores and then rebuts these claims. In addition, this Exhibit explains why all outstanding filings covering the period 23 October 1997 through 31 December 2010 will need to be corrected and replaced with alternative filings.

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.

Individuals, corporations, and professional firms have never made complete​ disclosures of “related party transactions”, so the public does not yet have a full understanding of the magnitude of frauds and other illegal acts perpetrated in the guise of charity by the Clinton Charity Network.

Yet, governments that are charged with protecting the public from harm caused by an illegal charity network operated in the names of a prominent political family have, until recently, failed to hold Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton and their associates to account.

False Philanthropy: “Robin Hood in Reverse”

In many ways, a false-front charity seems a “perfect” vehicle for fraud.

In the United States alone, there are more than 1 million tax-exempt organizations--the Internal Revenues Service and U.S. State governments are too stretched to investigate and police more than a small number of cases annually. These authorities have particularly limited capabilities to regulate charities that operate and solicit internationally, as Clinton Foundation entities have done for years.

Trustees are selected , but they are not independent or even disposed to carry out their duties---in many cases, they are central actors in the fraud.