In a new story from Bloomberg News it’s
revealed that, contrary to their agreement with the White House and any
sense of transparency, the Clinton Foundation purposely chose not to disclose more than a thousand different foreign donations!
The problem is that when Hillary Clinton agreed to become Secretary of
State, she promised to disclose the names of every donor to the Clinton
Foundation as one of the conditions to her new position. Now we know she
(and her foundation) lied.
The Clinton family’s partner in this money making scheme, Frank Giustra, is now trying to play off this little problem by pretending that Canadian law will not allow the Canadian branch of the Clinton Foundation to disclose their donors. However, that is just not true.
The Clinton family’s partner in this money making scheme, Frank Giustra, is now trying to play off this little problem by pretending that Canadian law will not allow the Canadian branch of the Clinton Foundation to disclose their donors. However, that is just not true.
Giustra says that’s because
Canada’s federal privacy law forbids CGEP, a Canadian-registered
charity, from revealing its donors. A memo he provided explaining the
legal rationale cites CGEP’s “fiduciary obligations” to its contributors
and Canada’s Personal Information Privacy and Electronic Disclosure
Act. “We are not allowed to disclose even to the Clinton Foundation the
names of our donors,” he says.
Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasn't aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors' names. "There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors," he said. "It's entirely up to them."
Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasn't aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors' names. "There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors," he said. "It's entirely up to them."
The folks at the Federalist heard similar things from their Canadian tax experts.
Multiple Canadian tax and privacy law experts contacted by The Federalist, the Washington Post, and BloombergPolitics said there was no such blanket prohibition on public disclosure of charitable donor identities. While Canada does include a ban on the release of donor information in the course of commercial activity, it specifically exempts fundraising from that definition. And because the public disclosure of a donor’s name doesn’t include any transaction or consideration, it’s not considered to be commercial activity.
While Guistra and the Clinton Foundation can continue pretending that Canadian law is the reason that they chose to lie to the White House and the American people, Sean Davis at the Federalist has an altogether different theory about what is happening in Clinton land.
Multiple Canadian tax and privacy law experts contacted by The Federalist, the Washington Post, and BloombergPolitics said there was no such blanket prohibition on public disclosure of charitable donor identities. While Canada does include a ban on the release of donor information in the course of commercial activity, it specifically exempts fundraising from that definition. And because the public disclosure of a donor’s name doesn’t include any transaction or consideration, it’s not considered to be commercial activity.
While Guistra and the Clinton Foundation can continue pretending that Canadian law is the reason that they chose to lie to the White House and the American people, Sean Davis at the Federalist has an altogether different theory about what is happening in Clinton land.
It’s a money laundering scheme on a HUGE scale.
The Clinton Foundation’s deliberate misinterpretation of Canadian privacy law in order to rationalize its secrecy raises several questions, chief among them: why? Why go to all this effort to hide years’ worth of million-dollar donations from foreign citizens and foreign governments? Donations which were almost certainly being made while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State, and almost certainly with the intent to influence her decisions?
The answer is an easy one, albeit one that is highly uncomfortable: for the past several years, the Clinton Foundation has basically been a foreign money-laundering operation. The scheme works like this: collect millions of dollars in foreign money, dump it into a foreign charity, pretend that the law prohibits you from ever disclosing the identities of those foreign donors to the foreign charity, then have the foreign charity bundle all the cash and send it to the Clinton Foundation. Then, when the time comes–whether it be a Clinton Foundation conference or a lavish Clinton Foundation trip overseas–make sure those individuals get some me-time with the Clintons.
The Clinton Foundation’s deliberate misinterpretation of Canadian privacy law in order to rationalize its secrecy raises several questions, chief among them: why? Why go to all this effort to hide years’ worth of million-dollar donations from foreign citizens and foreign governments? Donations which were almost certainly being made while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State, and almost certainly with the intent to influence her decisions?
The answer is an easy one, albeit one that is highly uncomfortable: for the past several years, the Clinton Foundation has basically been a foreign money-laundering operation. The scheme works like this: collect millions of dollars in foreign money, dump it into a foreign charity, pretend that the law prohibits you from ever disclosing the identities of those foreign donors to the foreign charity, then have the foreign charity bundle all the cash and send it to the Clinton Foundation. Then, when the time comes–whether it be a Clinton Foundation conference or a lavish Clinton Foundation trip overseas–make sure those individuals get some me-time with the Clintons.
This is what we’ve come to in American
politics today. The Democrat Party favorite for President of the United
States has been running an international money laundering scheme on a
grand scale, and no one in the party seems to care. Even the grassroots
activists who seem to prefer other liberal candidates can’t help but
support Clinton, even as the evidence of her malfeasance piles up. They
pretend that this is some “right-wing” conspiracy theory, even as
reputable news outlets like the Washington Times, Bloomberg Politics,
CNN, NBC, Fox News, the New York Times and the Washington Post continue
to find more and more problems with the Clinton Foundation.
Here’s my advice to the Democrat Party… Pick Another Candidate. The one you’ve got now is an out of touch liar, schemer and crook.
Here’s my advice to the Democrat Party… Pick Another Candidate. The one you’ve got now is an out of touch liar, schemer and crook.
No comments:
Post a Comment