The Clinton Scam ( pizzagate )

submitted by fogdryer

crosspost

****The Clinton Scam

The article linked below is a good, concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax free international money laundering scheme. It will probably eventually prove to be the largest political criminal enterprise in US history.

This is a textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and repackage it to be used for your own purposes. All tax free. Here's how it works:

  1. You create a separate foreign "charity". In this case one in Canada.

  2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, many sworn enemies of the United States, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did, contributing mega millions. I'm sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin's buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).

  3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.

  4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors. (As the article indicates. this is not true.)

  5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.

  6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these "clerical errors" and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.

  7. Net result - foreign money, much of it from enemies of the US, goes into the Clinton's pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.

https://archive.is/wTAhm

keepthefaith

Sanela Diana Jenkins!

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1524304

Are_we_sure

um no.

The "Clinton Scam" is only a scam because you've been lied to. This is completely false.

The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.

The Clintons take no money out of the Foundation. There is not a single expert who believes the Clinton Foundation spends only 10% of its expenses on charitable work. That was a lie pushed by political operatives, specifically this lie was started by Peter Schweizer knowing that most people don't wouldn't know the details. Schweizer is a professional liar as he has been repeatedly corrected on this by actual experts and but he still lying about this for over two years now.

Here's a tip, if you want to learn how the Clinton Foundation operates, you can read their 990 forms which is the tax form that 503c nonprofits need to file. You can read the Chronicle of Philanthropy to see how other charities work. You can also look at charitable watchdogs and see how the Clinton foundation is regarded.

Charity Navigator gives them 4 stars and scores them 94.74 out of 100.

Financial 97.50 Accountability & Transparency 93.00

Here's the truth of their expenses. They do not spend 10% on charity. They spent 87% on charitable programs last year. They spent 4% on fundraising and 9% on administrative overhead. So salaries are part of that 9% along with rent, supplies, travel, etc.

Clinton Foundation Program Expenses (Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs and services it delivers) 86.9%

EXPENSES Program Expenses $201,397,304 Administrative Expenses $20,619,878 Fundraising Expenses $7,610,237 TOTAL FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES $229,627,419

CharityWatch gives them an A and has them as Top Rating Charity. They calculate charitable programs at 88% of expenses. For comparion, the American Red Cross has an A- rating.

Jem777

Really! You want to be on record with that. If Peter Sshweizer was lying where is the lawsuit from the Rich lawyers? The world bank and US AID have already been implicted as part of a scheme used by CF in Haiti. There are attorneys, judges, & others involved who have the evidence. Might want to reconsider

Are_we_sure

Yes. Dude is a liar. There's no way he could honestly have screwed up his reporting on Uranium One has bad as he did. There is simply no way he could have written the story the way he did honestly. Because the facts are

A friend of Bill Clinton has a Uranium company, he sells in 2007. In 2008 he makes a lot of big charitable donations the Clinton foundation, same year Hillary Clinton loses her bid for the presidency. In an unanticipated move Obama asks her to be Secretary of State. In 2009Russia buys shares in a Canadian company primarily to get access to uranium deposits in Kahzakstan. In 2010, the seek enough shares to control the company. The company has a US subsidiary, so the US Government has to approve the sale. The entire Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States signs off on the deal because there's no national security issue, the US subsidiary would not to apply for an export license to sell the uranium outside the US. And Peter Schweizer claims this reflects badly on Hillary Clinton How.

He claimed she could have vetoed the deal. (She did not have veto power.) He implies she only approved the deal because of a financial donation to the Clinton Foundation. Except she was never involved at all in this decision in any way and the financial donation was two years before the deal, by a guy who used to own the company, but no longer did.

So it was a quid pro quo deal where the money was exchanged two to three years any possibility of a deal with Russia to buy the company arose and where Clinton wasn't involved in approved that sale in anyway. Sounds legit. That's some straight bribery.

Jem777

Really. That is your basis for substantiating the Clinton Foundation is not a scam. What you just posted? Seriously? And that they have an A- from Charity Navigator? Really?

Have you ever traveled to Haiti? Or any of the other countries that have donated? Do you know who Marc Rich Is? Do you know who BC really is? Do you know history?

Hell at this point do you know anything? You already lost your credibility here but this takes the cake. You are literally providing cover for horrible crimes and it is nauseating.

Are_we_sure

The "They only give 10% to charities" lie is build on a fact. The Clinton Foundation give about 10% of their expenses in grants to other charities. Does this mean they only spend 10% on charities?

No.

The reason is because The Clinton Foundation Runs many of their programs themselves. They hire the people doing the actual work. The Clinton Health Access Initiative that provides lower cost AIDS medicine to millions of people has 1500 employees itself.

Other charities raise money and do almost all their charities expenses in the form of grants to other entities that do the work.

That is not the Clinton Foundation Model. If they spent 87% of the money on charity programs and 10% of their money on grants to other charity programs, that means 77% of their total expenses went to internal charitable programs.

Nana66

I have decided that the rich people word philanthropy is a code word for money laundering "foundations" which it is the IN thing you need when you have money to accept or use for atrocious things that only extremely wealthy people can get away with if they are caught.

reasonedandinformed

How do HRC and WJC obtain over $100M in wealth from her salary as Secretary of State, some book deals, and speaking fees? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2043776/what-is-hillary-clinton-net-worth/

If you add up the payments that should be on IRS filings, they do not come close to explaining where they got all their wealth. The answer: Influence peddling and money laundering via the Clinton Foundation, CGI, etc.

Are_we_sure

That might be because they don't have 100M in wealth. The Sun's method for coming up with their figures is just goofy.

When you list various assets on the Financial Disclosure form used for Presidential candidates You don't put a single figure, you indicate the range the number is within. For example you could have a valuation that looks like this

Home in DC 1 to 5 million Stocks 35,001 to 150,001 Bond 250,001 to 999,999

What Hillary Clinton reported was wealth within this range $11.3 million and $52.7 million.

The Sun's source decided to do a simple average which is boneheaded. Figuring Mrs. Clinton’s minimum and maximum assets gives an average Hillary Clinton net worth of $31,265,004. Then they added another 80 million for Bill Clinton. The person who did this did understand that the 31 million figure they averaged includes Bill Clinton's wealth

By law, his assets must also be disclosed on his wife’s federal filing.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-18/clintons-speaking-fees-decline-93-in-latest-disclosure http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/07/america-rising-now/pro-trump-super-pac-ad-wrong-clinton-wealth/

The Clintons’ net worth, as indicated on the form, is between $11.3 million and $52.7 million -- not including their multimillion dollar homes in Washington and New York, any federal government retirement accounts they may have, or personal items such as furniture and artwork. >The disclosure form requires reporting within wide ranges of values; the couple’s net worth totals didn’t change from the financial disclosure that Hillary Clinton filed in May 2015.

You can add in another $9 million of real estate for the Clintons that the form doesn't cover (1st and 2nd non rental homes) and say they could be possibly be worth as much as $60 million or the could be as low as $20.

So the Sun could have overestimated their wealth by a factor of five.

anonOpenPress

The Clinton Global Initiative is closing doors permanently in 10 days from now - Wondering what happens to all the money, they still have a lot addressed to Haiti earthquake victoms, as one example, somewhere in their backpockets. And that was what... in 2002?

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/15/controversial-clinton-global-initiative-closing-its-doors-for-good/

fogdryer

That money was to be sent thru a bank that mysteriously closed. hnbcs. ???

Are_we_sure

The Clinton Global Initiative was mainly a framework where people could present and implement charitable ideas and make a "commitment to action." CGI did not do the charitable work in this case. It was an entrepreneurial setting for finding solutions. The folks making these commitments were the ones who were going to fulfill it, not the Clinton Initiative. They were putting up their own money to make these "commitments to action". What they got out of it was a place to exchange of ideas, meet partners or sponsors and have their work publicized. They would measure people's progress. If you didn't meet your pledged commitment, you weren't invited back. It's a model that has been adopted by other charities. You could get up a present your idea and if other people liked it, you could be working with corporations or governments or donors to make it happen.

It's just one of the Clinton Foundations's programs. The Foundation is continuing so I'm assuming the money would stay with them.

anonOpenPress

The funds are awarded through CGI to those commitments. Why are you talking about their own money I don't know, I don't find that realted at all. Of course the commitments includes those with 100% own/other money, those partially funded by CF and those fully funded by CF. Not sure what's your point explaining otherwise.

Sure CF needs to find another route to address the already collected funds after they close CGI. That's exactly the thing I'm talking about. Haiti funds I used as an example have been held for 15 years, they should not disappear (if they didn't already). I guess we can agree on that.

Are_we_sure

CGI does not provide the funds.

CGI is not a funding organization, like the World Bank, and it is not an implementing agency, like WFP. It is unique in its mission and structure.

FACT: The Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation do not fund or implement commitments. While the Wall Street Journal claims that CGI “arranged” and “set up” funding for this commitment, the fact remains that no funding from the Clinton Foundation went to finance this or any other commitment, and CGI has no role in implementing commitments that our members pledge. CGI is a marketplace where CGI members and participants often find funding from other CGI members to implement their commitments. Fostering these introductions is part of the goal of CGI.

anonOpenPress

A funny fact telling only a half of the truth. CGI uses money on "program services" to support their members commitments (so by the book you're right: not directly to commitments). The truth can be found via tax reports, here's a pick from 2015:

Describe the organization's [Clinton Foundation] program service accomplishments for each of its three largest program services, as measured by expenses. Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are required to report the amount of grants and allocations to others, the total expenses, and revenue, if any, for each program service reported.

  1. Clinton Global Initiative, expenses 25,792,034, revenue 1,136,696.

How the expenses are explained, CGI's mission is reported as:

The Clinton Global Initiative’s (CGI) mission is to inspire, connect, and empower solutions to the world’s most pressing challenges.

Regardin use of money in Haiti on 2015 (and a few salaries to compare with)

  • 468,000 to a Los Angeles company for reconstruction in Haiti
  • 190,000 to Development Fund (LLC) in Haiti
  • 394,000 to the Chairman of the Board
  • 261,000 to the CEO of CGI
  • 290,000 to the Director of sponsorship, CGI
  • something to all the other 20 employees of CGI

Above CGI, Clinton Foundation's fundraising expenses were $5,5M and their fund balance in the end of 2015 was $346M.

  • What makes things interesting is that CF had $1,531,656 temporary restricted assets for Haiti relief and recovery in 2014 dropping down to 0 in 2015 but I don't find that asset spent to Haiti on the tax report, nor as a change in Haiti related assets value.
  • Yet more interesting, CF had $3,232,193 asset released from restrictions for Haiti relief and recovery in 2014, down to $2,270,250 in 2015 but I don't see that $1M spent on Haiti either
  • (well, I'm not expert on reading tax reports. Maybe the money was given to some Haitian farmers somehow...)

Are_we_sure

A funny fact telling only a half of the truth. CGI uses money on "program services" to support their members commitments (so by the book you're right: not directly to commitments). The truth can be found via tax reports, here's a pick from 2015:

I don't understand what you are trying to point out and I don't see anything pointing to "half a truth." I don't think any thing you cited contradicted what I wrote. Yes. CGI spends money. It used to put on several major conference every year, does other works throughout the year, like track progress committments. As I said they provided the framework/space for the committments to happen. Of course, they spent money. I never said they didn't. Just putting on an annual three day meeting takes a ton of work and time. My wife works for a company that puts on two major shows a year and just her part takes months of prep. CGI had their big annual meeting in NYC, but also had a Winter Meeting in NYC and smaller events in Latin America, Africa and an American meeting in Georgia. Those would be part of the program services of the CGI

anonOpenPress

So you see nothing wrong anywhere. Have your opinion, by the book you were right and if you didn't get my point that's ok. I have no time to argue on these details, there are children to save including Haiti.

thisHoCwilltumble

Like the South Korean President

nomorepepperoni

This thread seems like a good time to remind everyone about this remark from FBIAnon:

"Sex rings are popular in all governments, but pedophilia is primarily in British parliament & Saudi Arabia, and that’s why HRC and BC love foreign donors so much. They get paid in children as well as money. Dig deep and you can find it. It will sicken you."

I wonder if we can locate this? We're already familiar with some of the traditional pay-to-play, but if we can even find something a little less overt (ie. Saudi Arabia, in some capacity, giving the Clintons access to work with kids someplace), it could net that ever-elusive smoking gun.

EDIT: Well! I forgot about this little nugget from Hillary's last debate with Trump...

http://m.democracynow.org/stories/16728

HILLARY CLINTON: There is a lot of evidence about the very good work—

DONALD TRUMP: It’s been very well studied.

HILLARY CLINTON: —and the high rankings—

DONALD TRUMP: And it’s a criminal enterprise, and so many people know it.

CHRIS WALLACE: Please let Mr. Trump speak.

HILLARY CLINTON: —that the children—that the Clinton Foundation have gotten for their work.

The children the Foundation have gotten? Freudian slip?

palmitespo910

This is a very nice synopsis of the Clinton Scum

fogdryer

thks

PizzagateBot

Hi! I created the following archive link(s) for this voat submission:

OriginLink ArchiveOrg ArchiveIS
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1770211 archive.org link archive.is link
https://archive.is/wTAhm archive.org link archive.is link