THE VEHICLE TO TRANSFORM ONCE BROKE FAMILY INTO MEGA-MULTIMILLIONAIRES

The Clinton Foundation’s donations have plummeted by $49.6 million since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election prompting the “pay to play” debate.

The Clinton Foundation has been in the news again after the entity’s tax records showed a new multi-million fall in donations. Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel explained the entity’s financial losses and why further scrutiny of the charity may expose new violations and conflicts of interests.

The Clinton Foundation’s 2018 tax return documents indicated a $16.8 million loss on revenue of $30.7 million in 2018. All in all the Clinton Foundation’s donations have plummeted by $49.6 million since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election prompting the “pay to play” debate

Neither a ‘Public Charity’ Nor Just a ‘Charity’

Wall Street analyst and investigative journalist Charles Ortel, who has been looking into the Clinton Foundation’s alleged fraud for more than four years, says that the answer to the question why the charity’s donations dropped 90 percent since 2014 is the loss of political power by the Clintons.

“To me, it seems clear that the steep drop off in government support for the Clinton Foundation is Hillary Clinton’s stunning loss during 2016, and then her petulant refusal to accept that she lost because she campaigned poorly and arrogantly, turning off voters in key states who were captivated by Donald Trump’s message and promises to change the status quo for the better,” Ortel notes.

However, the problem is bigger than just an alleged conflict of interests: the Clinton Foundation cannot be called a “public charity” or just a “charity” to begin with due to numerous violations of the IRS regulations concerning tax-exempt entities.

Ortel takes a walk down the memory lane recalling that “The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation” (the entity’s original name) was “granted federal tax-exemption status on 29 January 1998 retroactive to 23 October 1997 to store the records and other materials created or received during Bill Clinton’s two presidential terms, and to allow visitors to study these Presidential Records (a defined term under US law) in Little Rock, Arkansas.”

Since that time the organisation has considerably expanded the scope of its actions, including educational and healthcare initiatives while one cannot find any evidence IRS has “ever validly authorised” the entity “for any purpose outside of Little Rock, Arkansas” which is required under US laws. According to Ortel, some of organisation’s initiatives, such as the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), went beyond the scope of charitable activities.

On the other hand, a genuine “public charity” must be actually independent from its creators and cannot be dominated, at any time, by a particular family which, according to the public record, is obviously not the case with the Clinton Foundation, he notes.

“Instead, many pronouncements of numerous Clinton family members in press releases and other published media show that the organization served as a vehicle to transform a once financially ruined family (while Bill was President) into the mega-multi-millionaires they have since become,” he suggests.

Neither Validly Organised Nor Properly Audited

Furthermore, the entity was neither validly organised nor properly audited, according to the analyst.

“It was incorporated on 23 October 1997, but only adopted Bylaws on 23 December 1997,” Ortel explains. “This means, that for a crucial period in 1997, when Bill Clinton was president, and when Bill and Hillary ‘selected’ the Little Rock site of the Presidential Library (in early November 1997), there was no organisation because Trustees had not come together and adopted Bylaws or even obtained the crucial ‘Federal Employer Identification Number’ that is absolutely required in the United States to operate a lawfully constituted nonprofit corporation.”

In any other case such flaws would have caused the IRS to shut down the charity at inception, but not the Clinton Foundation, apparently because Bill Clinton was the US president through 20 January 2001, the analyst presumes.

Learn More At: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52629.htm