Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Is the Clinton Foundation Now Scrambling for Money?

Is the Clinton Foundation Now Scrambling for Money?

“The Clinton days are over.”

During the election cycle, the Clinton Foundation and its funding were a significant issue:

After the election, reports were that the donations and the speaking fees were drying up. Perhaps that is why The New York Posts now notes that former President Bill Clinton is offering to match contributions to the foundation in an email plea?

Clinton Foundation chairman Bruce Lindsey, a longtime Clinton crony, announced the family’s latest move in an email Wednesday to supporters.

“As we prepare for a new year, President Clinton and Chelsea remain dedicated to our work providing everyone a chance to succeed,” Lindsey wrote.

The email message asked for donations, claiming Bill Clinton would personally triple “every gift” up to $200,000.

“Your contribution before the end of the year is so important that President Clinton is personally TRIPLING every gift to the Foundation, up to $200,000,” Lindsey said.


The New York Post
article indicated that no mention of failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was made in the fundraising request.

Think about it: The power and influence of the Clinton Machine is so reduced, Bill Clinton must use his own money. And the disappointment over Hillary is great, she isn’t part of the new effort.

There was an FBI investigation on the Clinton Foundation and pay-to-play allegations. The Daily Caller News Foundation reports that the New York field office is continuing with the probe.

The instructions ordered agents to “go forward” with their ongoing inquiry into the Clinton Foundation which is focusing on issues of corruption and money laundering, according to the source.

“There were no instructions to shut it down, to discontinue or to stand down on the investigation, but to continue its work,” the former official told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview.

It will be interesting to see where this investigation might go under Attorney General Jeff Sessions in 2017.

What about Hillary Clinton? I will let progressive pundit Van Jones answer that question:

The Clinton family’s grip on the Democratic Party has come to an end and it’s time for a new generation of leadership to lead the party, CNN political commentator Van Jones said.

“You have to understand, I think that the Clinton days are over,” Jones told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview that aired Sunday on “State of the Union.”

One final note: Pouting progressives are trying to arrange for the impeachment of Donald Trump before he is sworn in. Bill Clinton was impeached in December of 1998…and still stayed in office.

The fundraising email should be an intriguing test to see if Bill’s magic remains.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

It would certainly appear that since donations are drying up that those who donated in the past thought that they were buying influence and now, since there is no influence to buy, there are no more donations. Can there be any greater evidence of a pay-to-play scheme as this?

    UnCivilServant in reply to Cleetus. | January 4, 2017 at 8:17 am

    I came here to say more or less the same thing. Were this a charity, then there would not be such a dramatic drop-off with the demise of the political career of someone not even officially running it anymore. This is just yet another confirmation of malfeasance.

      How could they miss?

      Even if Hillary had been completely uninfluenced by the monies paid the Clinton Foundation, the mere acceptance of monies by the Foundation yields the appearance of impropriety, because this is exactly how business is done in most other countries, including much of the “first” world.

      The Germans got all upset because Angela Merkel sent 5M to the Clinton Foundation, which was treated by the Foundation as a donation, and not funds earmarked for a specific project.

      The US has long viewed emoluments to political office holders, their families and friends as bribes, and pernicious because such bribes ruin the decision-making process. Meanwhile, the State Department’s excuse was that Hillary did not actually make any State Department decisions. Those were made by the State Department as a whole (!?)

      When Yasser Arafat died, his widow was one of the richest women in the world. That is because monies given to his cause somehow found their way into his possession. One might think that the Clintons have been studying the Palestinians far too closely.

      Bill’s offer to triple each donation is pretty clever.

      Since the Clinton family and friends get about 94% of the foundation funds…do the math.

      His share goes right back to him, plus most of the new donation.

      The tripling by his personal donation is illusory.

    Cleetus: It would certainly appear that since donations are drying up that those who donated in the past thought that they were buying influence and now, since there is no influence to buy, there are no more donations. Can there be any greater evidence of a pay-to-play scheme as this?

    Um, no. Donations decreased even though Clinton was the likely Democratic nominee, and then likely next President. That’s because the Clintons were somewhat busy with the election.

      Barry in reply to Zachriel. | January 4, 2017 at 2:15 pm

      “and then likely next President.”

      LOL, I think you missed it a bit, Trump in a landslide.

      “That’s because the Clintons were somewhat busy with the election”

      Goodun Zachy! What would you say kept her the busiest? The endless press conferences? The multiple campaign stops in front of thousands?

      No, no, can’t be those. I got it, Time spent on an IV.

        Barry: LOL, I think you missed it a bit, Trump in a landslide.

        Not a all. The claim is that donations have dropped off since the election. In fact, donations had already dropped off when Clinton began her campaign. If it was pay-to-play, then the donations should have increased when she won the nomination, and was leading in the polls.

        Barry: Trump in a landslide.

        This isn’t relevant to the point, but Trump lost the popular vote, and was ranked 47 out of the last 49 electoral college victories. So, not a landslide.

        Sorry, that should be 46 out of 58 electoral college victories. Still, not a landslide by historical measure.

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | January 4, 2017 at 7:57 pm

          Sorry little child, the vote was 306 -232, a landslide.

          Nothing else you can conjure up counts. We have one election, the electoral count is it.

          If you wish to have a pretend election, lets eliminate California with their millions of illegal voters and trump wins the national vote count as well.

          Landslide. Get used to it. It’s a landslide at the presidential level, at the house level, at the senate, in the governors, in the state legislatures.

          You’re losing, badly. Go cry on mommy’s shoulder.

          Barry: Sorry little child, the vote was 306 -232, a landslide.

          As already pointed out, that would be 46th out of 58 electoral victories, or in the bottom 20%.

          Barry: We have one election, the electoral count is it.

          That’s right. Trump won the Electoral College by a historically weak margin.

      Merlin01 in reply to Zachriel. | January 5, 2017 at 7:14 am

      Donations dropped off because donors learned that Hillary’s e-mail had been exposed and that all their identities would also be exposed.

        Merlin01: Donations dropped off because donors learned that Hillary’s e-mail had been exposed and that all their identities would also be exposed.

        The first leaks from WikiLeaks occurred in July 2016.

        Donor names to the Clinton Foundation were already made public, even though that is not a requirement of the law.

They should probably ‘wand’ the both of them.

    UnCivilServant in reply to JohnC. | January 4, 2017 at 8:56 am

    They can’t afford to pay someone else to swipe the silver on the way out the door anymore?

American Human | January 4, 2017 at 9:04 am

I expect that the “triple” will only go down on the books in paper, not in reality. Reminds me of a Simpson’s episode when Krusty was competing against Zabo and promised to send everyone a check for $5. After he said this on the air there was a legalese announcement soto voce that said “checks will not be honored.”

Really, Bill Clinton spending his own money on something and remember, money is not important to Chelsea.

“The Clinton days are over.”
GOOD!

pablo panadero | January 4, 2017 at 9:08 am

This shows how well the Democrats understand economics. To match donations when the only source of income for the Clintons now is donations and non-exist at speaking fees is simply unsustainable.

Of course donations are drying up because there is no more influence to buy.

However, that probably has nothing to do with Bill’s offer to match. Matching is a typical nonprofit strategy used with the help of large donors. Bill was likely intending to give that $200,000 to the Foundation anyways. Their taxes showed that virtually all of their charitable contributions went to the Foundation in previous years. It is not required for him to give any donations, but it looks appropriate for him to donate to charity, the burden is greatly eased by the tax code, and if they fear prosecution one argument in their favor will be that they themselves donated to the charity (board members are not required to donate but are typically expected to).

Since Bill would already be donating, such an email soliciting donations for a matching program only makes sense. This is no evidence of tough times for foundation. Of course I do believe the foundation will dry up nevertheless if can’t serve as a conduit to bribery.

Let the bankruptcy countdown begin. First come “reductions in personnel”.

They must be desperate to find an office to run Chelsea for to keep the “charity” going.

FYI, the proposed match probably isn’t a real match. If you can and do cycle 100% of the money you put in back out to yourself to pay your own expenses (which is possible in a non-profit without paying taxes) then the match isn’t a real donation.

Just another grifter’s move.

    Tom Servo in reply to PrincetonAl. | January 4, 2017 at 10:24 am

    No bankruptcy, sadly. The foundation has more than enough money stored up to keep the Clinton’s comfortable for the rest of their lives, and to let Chelsea do whatever they want. It was never anything other than a money laundering operation with the perk of tax deductions, too, but they were savvy enough to hang onto a lot of the cash.

    And of course their donations are drying up, but their expenses are dropping dramatically too. They don’t have to keep paying off all of the hangers-on (John Podesta and David Brock hardest his) and they don’t need to pump out money to covertly try and keep expensive operations like Black Lives Matter going. What’s the point now? Clinton’s are only in it for themselves, have always only been in it for themselves. Good bye to all that, hello to just milking the remaining millions for the next couple of decades.

      Steve_in_SoCal in reply to Tom Servo. | January 4, 2017 at 10:44 am

      I agree mostly with your comment. The only thing I would add is that the “Clinton lifestyle” will take a hit.

      Sure they will cut personnel, some expenses, etc. But these hanger-ons for the last 2-3 years immediately after her tenure at state and before the ramp up of 2016 campaign will need to go somewhere. Huma, Cheryl, various IT folks, need to go somewhere.

      The “lifestyle” the Clintons had will not be matched in the future. If for no other reason than there will many fewer “hanger-ons” tasked with making the Clintons happy.

      Tom Servo: The foundation has more than enough money stored up to keep the Clinton’s comfortable for the rest of their lives, and to let Chelsea do whatever they want.

      The Foundation is audited annually, and their tax records are public. There’s no evidence that the Clintons have profited monetarily from their Foundation. Indeed, they have donated large sums to the Foundation, which among other things helps provide life-saving medicine to millions of people.

        Valerie in reply to Zachriel. | January 4, 2017 at 11:11 am

        http://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2016/10/23/wikileaks-clinton-foundation-misled-employees-results-internal-audit/

        “The Clinton Foundation gave incomplete and misleading information to its own employees about their feedback given during a corporate review, according to a memo seen in the latest Wikileaks release of John Podesta’s purported emails.”

        “Jennifer Reynoso, a New York lawyer who conducted the review in 2011, disseminated talking points for a Clinton Foundation staff meeting to John Podesta, Cheryl Mills, Chelsea Clinton, and Bruce Lindsey in January 2012. The memo covered up embarrassing data about the staffers’ ranking of the organization’s efficiency and downplayed their concerns as “constructive criticisms.” ”

        **************************

        An audit is a tool. It is only a defense when the results of the audit are clean, or the entity takes action to correct deficiencies that surface during the audit.

          Valerie: “The Clinton Foundation gave incomplete and misleading information to its own employees about their feedback given during a corporate review, according to a memo seen in the latest Wikileaks release of John Podesta’s purported emails.”

          So? You do realize an internal opinion poll isn’t an audit? In any case, the memo discusses both positives and negative reviews.

          Valerie: It is only a defense when the results of the audit are clean, or the entity takes action to correct deficiencies that surface during the audit.

          The memo discusses actions to correct deficiencies revealed by the survey, including instituting stronger internal controls, and guidelines to minimize conflicts of interest.

have they stuffed garlic flowers in their mouths, sewn them shut, then cut their head off?

If not then they will be back.

“‘President Clinton and Chelsea remain dedicated to our work providing everyone a chance to succeed,’ Lindsey wrote.”

In a post-script Lindsey added, “The foregoing reference to ‘everyone’ means of course exclusively Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea.”

The “charitable contributions” from the foundation have included paying for all of the Clinton travel expenses, including stays at resort hotels, and constant payoffs to all of their political allies. Less than 10% goes to what any honest person would actually call “charity”. (you know, giving money to poor people, not yourself and your friends)

It has been the virtual definition of a “slush fund”. Passing an audit is trivial, all that means is that no one did anything without the Boards express approval (and no one claims that happened) and second, that you had inhouse legal counsel provide a stamp of approval saying “yes, this was a donation”.

The trick is to define in advance everything you do as charitable, like traveling around the world in support of whatever the cause du jure is, say global warming, and then hiring an inhouse counsel who will sign off on that. Pull that simple trick, and any audit will say you were perfect because you lived up to all of your own rules.

It comes down to this; it all depends on what the meaning of “Is”, is. Once you control that, you’re free to financially do anything you want, and the Clinton’s have.

Henry Hawkins | January 4, 2017 at 3:40 pm

Ms. Leslie, could you add a link to the Clinton Foundation donations page for those of us who might want to make a donation?

Hell just froze over.

Bill Clinton must use his own money

“Bill Clinton must use his own money” Probably has an interest free loan from the foundation. The loan will, undoubtedly, be converted to a grant, as soon as the amount of President Clinton’s largess is established.

“The email message asked for donations, claiming Bill Clinton would personally triple “every gift” up to $200,000.

“Your contribution before the end of the year is so important that President Clinton is personally TRIPLING every gift to the Foundation, up to $200,000,” Lindsey said.”

Hmmm. . . .Bill and Hillary have consistently pain paid $400-$500 thousand dollars for a 30 minute presentation of presidential platitudes to the intellectual and entertainment elite.

So. . . . for Monica’s ex-boyfriend to contribute up to $200,000 would have required. . . . 15 minutes of speaking to our intellectual betters!

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend