The Bombardment of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation Continues-

The Bombardment of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation Continues–47ih ,b43

ARCHIVES—April 23, 2015

RUSH:  I’ll tell you, folks, the bomb bay doors remain open, and there are more bombs dropping on the Clintons even as we speak. … “Judicial Watch announced that it has received 126 pages of documents from the State Department related to Hillary Clinton’s possible conflicts of interest regarding her position as secretary of state. The initial Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was placed on May 2, 2011.” Four years ago, and the documents are being released today.

“The lawsuit is ongoing and had previously forced the disclosure of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflict-of-interest rulings that led to $48 million for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-connected entities during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.” The bottom line of this leak is Judicial Watch says, “The latest group of documents [reveal] Bill Clinton’s activities related to Saudi Arabia, and government concern about them.”

Bill Clinton could be totally innocent! He might have gone over and discussed women with the king.

Who knows?

But the release says that the government is concerned about Bill Clinton activities with Saudi entities.  Now, we already had the New York Times story where they detail Hillary Clinton facilitating Russia gaining control over the uranium market in exchange for at least $3 million of donations.  Remember, there are others.  The $2.3 million donation came just from the chairman of the Canadian uranium company, but there are others again.

Among the donors to the Clinton Foundation that had a role in the uranium deal in Canada: “Frank Giustra — $31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more. He built a company that later merged with Uranium One. Ian Telfer — $2.35 million — Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it. Paul Reynolds — $1 million to $5 million — Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger.”

He “[l]ater helped raise $260 million for the company.” All of these people gave money to the Clintons while she’s secretary of state.  So she looked the other way while all this was happening! She was paid off to look throw away (she was personally enriched, as was her husband) while Russia cornered the market, or tried to, on uranium.  Frank Holmes — $250,000 to $500,000 — Chief Executive of US Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011…”

I stopped editing this thing, and there are still 33 paragraphs left in it.  The Washington Post story details dozens of other lavish speech payments that Bill Clinton got from foreign entities, and they’re usually $500,000 or more just for a speech.  All of these entities paying Clinton to give a speech, had business with the State Department when Hillary ran it.  None of these, or the vast majority, were ever disclosed.  That’s what the stories were about.  None of these donations were disclosed.

The Clintons do not disclose anything.  That’s why the Reuters story is all about how the Clintons now are redoing all of their tax returns to finally report this stuff because they didn’t. They want Al Sharpton on the IRS.  Now that the cover is blown and all of this is being revealed, the Clintons are refiling all of their tax returns over the period of years involved here.  Headline, Washington Post:  “For Clintons, Speech Income Shows How Their Wealth Is Intertwined with Charity.

We know the people that run them, and they’re not wealthy.  They’re not any wealthier today than when the charity started.  The Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation has a pass-through of 99%.  You give a $1, and 99¢ goes to kids of Marines killed in action.  Leukemia & Lymphoma is pretty close to that.  There aren’t people that went from nothing to a net worth of between $250 million to $300 million simply by having a foundation.  The Clintons don’t even have a charity; it’s just a foundation.

Say you start a foundation with $500,000. You get the deduction $500,000 the year you put that money into it, and you have to donate at least 5% of it every year.  It can’t just sit there.  But you don’t have to donate much.  It can just sit there, and it can keep earning money, but it’s not yours anymore.  The money that other people donate to it is not yours, either.  You don’t get it.  That’s the whole point of it!  But the Clintons have this foundation that somehow they are the charity.

They go out and do a speech, raise money for the Clinton Family Foundation, $500,000 Clinton gets, he says (imitating Clinton), “Yeah, that’s right, Limbaugh, and that money goes straight to the foundation.”  Well, how the hell do you people have $300 million bucks?  Because all you do is give speeches.  And I know that Mrs. Clinton, she didn’t make anywhere near 10, 15, 20, whatever, $50 million as secretary of state, nobody does.  Where’d this money come from?

I mean, look, I’m not saying that every dollar donated to their foundation ends up in their back pockets, but something is awry here, something is really out of kilter.  I don’t know anybody who administers or runs, a CEO whatever, of a foundation, of a charity who essentially is the primary beneficiary of the thing.  Do you, Snerdley?  Do you know anybody that runs a foundation?  Look, the people that run the Ford Foundation do not have a net worth of $150 or 200 million because they run the foundation.  They may have it because of other things they’ve done in their lives or might have inherited it, but it’s just unheard of here.

But this just smells.  And now the Drive-By Media is going full bore exposing all of this stuff and basically raising the same questions I’m raising here.  How the hell does this happen?  Who gets $500,000 for a freaking speech anyway?  You know, one of the big things that people misunderstand. Bill Clinton, we’re told that he’s a funny, lovable guy, has great charisma. He’s one of these guys that makes you think, when he’s talking to you, that you are the only one in the room.  How many women have we heard say that?

I don’t care how popular he is, Anastas Mikoyan from Kazakhstan is not giving Bill Clinton 500 grand ’cause he’s a good guy.  Anastas Mikoyan or whoever is giving Clinton 500 grand because he expects somehow that Clinton is gonna be in a position someday to pay that back that’s gonna be in some way favorable to Mr. Mikoyan, and largely that’s the assumption Mrs. Clinton is gonna be in the White House someday.

But they didn’t even have to wait for that.  She’s secretary of state, she can look the other away while the Russians try to corner the market on uranium, and who knows whatever else.  So give Clinton 500 grand, that’s a message to his wife, who is the secretary of state.  And this has been going on for years.  The point of this is, none of this is new.  What’s new is the reporting.  What’s new is the full bore nuclear bomb aspect of the reporting on this.

There now is sunlight being shined on all these things that everybody in the establishment in DC knows they’ve been doing all of these years anyway.  And they may not be the only ones, by the way.  But, I mean, they are defining how to do it.

RUSH: I mentioned to you mere moments ago that we have a post here from “The US Constitution Actually Bans Hillary’s Foreign Government Payola.” I mentioned that there actually is a clause in the Constitution which bans what she did, and the clause actually has a name. I’ll find it.  It’s not the point.  The story contains some relevant information.

Anyway, The Federalist reports — here’s the answer.  You know, I said the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, 99% pass-through. The Clinton Family Foundation pass-through is 15%.  The Federalist reports only 15% of the money donated to the Clinton Family Foundation went to actual charitable causes.  The bulk of the money donated to the Clinton Family Foundation went to travel, salaries, and benefits.  Sixty percent of all the money raised went to other expenses.

In other words, folks, 85% 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, and 60, a whopping six zero percent of all the money donated to and raised by the Clinton Family Foundation went to a category called “other expenses.”  And “other expenses” we are left to define ourselves.

Could “other expenses” mean salaries and benefits for the Clintons and their exhaustive hard work helping others?  Well, this is your answer.  There’s a 15% pass-through rate, the Clinton Family Foundation.  Fifteen percent of every dollar goes to a charity.  Eighty-five percent goes to enriching people that have anything to do with it.  And that’s why they’re refilling tax reports, tax forms, tax returns for all of these years.

RUSH: Every bit of this news that we are reporting today with the Clintons and the foundation and the money and the donors and the causes and so forth? This has all been known.  Another suspicious aspect of this is that the Drive-By Media waits until she has made her announcement.  They didn’t run with this stuff before she officially claimed she was seeking the presidency.

They could have. They could have run this stuff three weeks ago, a month ago, six weeks ago.  They sat on this stuff.  They sat on this stuff until Mrs. Clinton had finished all of her paid speeches.  Remember, it was even known that she was delaying her announcement until she finished the paid speech schedule, which ended in March.  They waited.  They waited until she committed before letting fly with all this.  If I were the Clintons, I’d be shell-shocked right now.

They obsessed over what they didn’t have. They envied what other people did have, particularly people they ran with.  I’m telling you, from the eighties… A leftist in the eighties didn’t think that rich people were legitimate.  They got it by chicanery, trickery, thievery, inside knowledge, knowing somebody.  It could not have been the result of hard work.  That’s what Whitewater was.

It was their feeble attempt to pretend they were big players in the real estate market.  I guarantee you, Hillary was behind that. I guarantee you. I could guarantee you exactly why all that happened.  In the old parlance, it was a get-rich-quick scheme ’cause that’s what they thought everybody else did.  She was sick and tired of Arkansas. There’s her husband. She gave up everything and her husband’s sitting there are governor of some hayseed state, 25 grand a year?

She has to work at the Rose Law Firm for 106 grand a year, and they’re hanging around with the Tomlinsons, who are multimillionaires and everybody else?  Not for long, buddy!  So, hello, Susan McDougal and Jim what’s-his-face over at Whitewater and all this started a train rolling.  And that gave us John Huang, Charlie Trie, dubious Chinese barbecue place in Little Rock. I mean, it all adds up.

“Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation data. The amount, about one-quarter of Clinton’s overall speaking income between 2001 and 2013…” Clinton made over $100 million making speeches.

The Washington Post says a $26 million of that “demonstrates how closely intertwined Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable work has become with their growing personal wealth.” See, that’s why people are now starting to call this a crime family operation.  “Now that she has formally entered the presidential race, the family may face political pressure and some legal requirements to provide further details of their personal finances and those of the foundation, giving voters a clearer view of the global network of patrons that have supported the Clintons and their work over the past 15 years.”

This is clearly influence buying, and it’s buying it on the come.  Everybody’s known that Hillary’s gonna run in 2016, particularly the Democrats, particularly the Clintons.  So Bill’s out there giving speeches and she’s secretary of state. They are raising money from foreign entities, and the New York Times has blown the whistle on a big one about helping the Russians and Vladimir Putin become power players in the global uranium market.  That is not a good deal.

And then Reuters, ladies and gentlemen, has a story talking about how the Clinton Family Foundation is having to go back and refile years and years worth of tax returns because of the information that has been made public this week shows it’s significant the amount of tax returns they’re having to refile.  They are altering, they are changing, they’re recategorizing income into different categories.

I mean, it’s a clear admission that they tried to get away with something.  So it’s the New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, the Federalist,, which comes right out and says that all of this is essentially a crime family operation.  And then Ron Fournier, who is at the National Journal, says, “I don’t know what’s in Peter Schweizer’s book. But I know what the Clintons are capable of.”  Here’s how he starts this thing:

“Gennifer Flowers. Cattle futures. The White House travel office. Rose Law Firm files. The Lincoln Bedroom. Monica Lewinsky. And now, the Clinton Foundation. What ties these stories together is the predictable, paint-by-numbers response from the Bill and Hillary Clinton political operation. 1. Deny: Salient questions are dodged, and evidence goes missing. The stone wall is built. 2. Deflect: Blame is shifted, usually to Republicans and the media. 3. Demean: People who question or criticize the Clintons get tarred as right-wing extremists, hacks, nuts, or sluts.

“The errors, which have not been previously reported, appear on the form 990s that all non-profit organizations must file annually with the Internal Revenue Service to maintain their tax-exempt status. A charity must show copies of the forms to anyone who wants to see them to understand how the charity raises and spends money.” That’s how it has been discovered that they have a pass-through rate of 15%.  They can’t hide that.

“For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero…” Oh, now, this is big. For three years in a row beginning in 2010,” which would be ’10, ’11, ’12, “the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and US governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years. Those entries were errors, according to the foundation.”

:  Ladies and gentlemen, let me go back to this Washington Post story for one more detail.  I did not make it clear enough, because… Well, the Post makes it somewhat confusing.  They talk about $26 million that Clinton made from speeches, but then they get to the $100 million figure over 12 years.  But the point is — it’s a crucial distinction to make here — the hundreds of millions of dollars that both Bill and Hillary got for their speeches went right to their pockets.

None of it went to the Clinton Foundation.

There was zero pass-through on that money.  That money did suffice as their income.  So it’s not that the money went to the foundation and they siphoned some of it back; it never went to the foundation.  Now, I don’t know if they were pledging that it would go to the foundation as a cover for these donors, but regardless. The donors, the payees, were nevertheless expecting something for it.  That’s the real point of the Washington Post article.

It’s not really about the donations to the foundation; it’s about the millions that Bill got for his speeches and the donors that Bill and Hillary hid, including foreign and domestic fat cats who definitely had business before the State Department.  While they were slipping Bill Clinton 500 grand a pop for a speech (some of these groups gave Bill several million), there was also some side money it went to the foundation.


source-rush, windows media, judicial watch, nyt, wash post, reuters, the, breitbart, ben shapiro, michael walsh,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s