Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations

[jimnyc]

The hits just keep coming...

---

Hillary Clinton’s presidential run is prompting new scrutiny of the Clintons’ financial and charitable affairs—something that’s already proved problematic for the Democratic frontrunner, given how closely these two worlds overlap. Last week, the New York Times examined Bill Clinton’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board. Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.

Giustra strenuously objects to how he was portrayed. “It’s frustrating,” he says. And because the donations came in through the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP)—a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation he established with the former president—he feels doubly implicated by the insinuation of a dark alliance.

“We’re not trying to hide anything,” he says. There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP. “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.

Rest here - http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/clinton-foundation-failed-to-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The hits just keep coming...

---

Hillary Clinton’s presidential run is prompting new scrutiny of the Clintons’ financial and charitable affairs—something that’s already proved problematic for the Democratic frontrunner, given how closely these two worlds overlap. Last week, the New York Times examined Bill Clinton’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board. Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.

Giustra strenuously objects to how he was portrayed. “It’s frustrating,” he says. And because the donations came in through the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP)—a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation he established with the former president—he feels doubly implicated by the insinuation of a dark alliance.

“We’re not trying to hide anything,” he says. There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP. “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.

Rest here - http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/clinton-foundation-failed-to-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations

Will not matter. The fix is in, they will decide if she gets the nod--not the public.
Just as --"they"- decided to give it to the obama ....... twice...
Its not the voting citizens deciding anymore my friend. The maggot got over hundred percent of the vote in many dem districts--nothing was ever done about it.
Corruption put him in, kept him in and it will choose who follows.
This nation will fall!!! The public is either too dumb or too fearful to maintain the Republic as founded.
Only a revolution could possibly save us and myself I think we will not have one.. --Tyr

[Kathianne]

and lied about FEDERAL Canadian law:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/29/clinton-foundations-misleading-claim-about-canadian-laws-on-donor-info/


Fact Checker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker)Clinton Foundation’s misleading claim about Canadian laws on donor info


...

The Facts

CGEPartnership raises money for the similarly-named Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, one of the Clinton Foundation’s initiatives. There is no blanket prohibition on charities to ever release donor names. (Hat tip to Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist, who wrote a lengthy examination (http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/the-clinton-foundation-is-wrong-canadian-law-doesnt-prohibit-donor-id/) of whether a blanket federal ban exists.)

Canadian privacy law is quite complex, so we will spare our readers the minutiae.

In general, charities registered with the Canadian federal government are subject to provisions (https://www.priv.gc.ca/resource/fs-fi/02_05_d_15_e.asp) in the Income Tax Act, the federal privacy law, and any provincial laws that may apply.

The Income Tax Act regulates whether the Canada Revenue Agency (equivalent of the Internal Revenue Service) can disclose taxpayer information, including donor information. It does not regulate whether a registered charity can disclose donor information.

...


Three Pinocchios


https://img.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_3.jpg

[darin]

Democrats: They do something ILLEGAL they say "oops! Mistakes were made". And the public says "everyone makes mistakes! No BIG DEAL! More IMPORTANT STUFF to worry about!"

(shrug)

NOTHING will happen to this lying, evil woman as she runs for President. Nothing. Our citizens will NEVER demand she be held accountable.

[jimnyc]

Democrats: They do something ILLEGAL they say "oops! Mistakes were made". And the public says "everyone makes mistakes! No BIG DEAL! More IMPORTANT STUFF to worry about!"

(shrug)

NOTHING will happen to this lying, evil woman as she runs for President. Nothing. Our citizens will NEVER demand she be held accountable.

She's a Clinton, and I'll never understand why they wield so much power and influence. Most corrupt couple EVER. Based on this, and her own server, and deleted emails - she should be disqualified from serving the public in ANY capacity, IMO.

[aboutime]

Is there anyone here who will vote for Hillary...no matter what?

How bout taking a look at this link...And be Honest with Yourself.

http://conservativebyte.com/2015/04/clinton-foundation-caught-straight-up-lying-to-new-york-times-reporter/

[Jeff]

The Clinton foundation has been getting money from suspicious ( keeping it nice ) donators for ever, why they don't get a federal investigation going and just lock these legal thieves up, well the fact that they are legal thieves explains it.

[Kathianne]

The Clinton foundation has been getting money from suspicious ( keeping it nice ) donators for ever, why they don't get a federal investigation going and just lock these legal thieves up, well the fact that they are legal thieves explains it.

Indeed, now there is the start of some 'real investigating' and that has to do in large measure because of the book, "Clinton Cash." As you can see, not just with the Foundation, but also with 'reporting.'

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2563810?utm_content=buffer54ff7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


Conservative webmag goes to war with Clinton-connected fact-checker

BY T. BECKET ADAMS (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/becket-adams) | APRIL 29, 2015 | 10:18 PM

The Federalist and PunditFact have gone to war over a "mostly false" rating for radio host Rush Limbaugh, who said last week that the Clinton Foundation donates only 15 percent of the cash it raises to charity.

Limbaugh's source of his claim: The Federalist's Sean Davis.

Davis told the Washington Examiner's media desk that the PunditFact rating doesn't hold.

"PunditFact is funded in large part by the Ford Foundation, a significant Clinton Foundation donor and partner. I'll leave it to others to determine why they failed to disclose that fact in their article and how that financial relationship might impact their coverage of the Clinton Foundation," he told the ExaminerWednesday.

Limbaugh referenced Davis' work last week (http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/), saying in his radio program that, "Eighty-five percent of every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up either with the Clintons or with their staff to pay for travel, salaries, and benefits. Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary."

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised $500 million, and only 15 percent of that "went towards programmatic grants," Davis reported.
This is the figure to which Limbaugh referred.

However, although there's a "grain of truth" to Limbaugh's claim, according to PunditFact, which is connected to the Tampa Bay Times' PolitiFact, the radio host's statement is nevertheless "mostly false."

"There's a grain of truth here — roughly 85 percent of the foundation's spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits,"PunditFact's (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/) Louis Jacobson wrote Wednesday.
But there's more to the story than Limbaugh (and, by extension, the Federalist) lets on, Jacobson suggested.

"[T]he foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house, and it's not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work, which is what it would take for Limbaugh to be correct," he wrote.

A decidedly unimpressed Davis responded Wednesday, accusing PunditFact of "hackery" and "pathetic demagoguery."

First, he wrote, Jacobson told Davis in an email that his "demonstrably factual claim (http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/)" was both "clearly accurate" and "technically true."

...