“The bigger the lie, the more likely the buy-in” — that must be the theory underlying a plan relentlessly executed by Bill and Hillary Clinton to suck money from the public in support of a supposed “charity” currently known as “Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.”
Unlike the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that was originally funded primarily by the Gates family, the Clinton Foundation was meant to take money from the general public, and from governments.
So, affairs of the Clinton Foundation were never supposed to be directed by the Clinton family. But public records apparently prove that strict rules governing the conduct of public charities are not applied when it comes to long-time “public servants” such as the Clintons.
Incorporated but not Organized
Incorporated on Oct. 23, 1997, just as word started to leak of Bill Clinton’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and while doubts crested concerning foreign funding for the Clinton legal defense effort, the main Clinton charity was originally named “The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation” in papers filed with the Arkansas Secretary of State by three lawyers.
However, to qualify for federal tax-exemption, a charity must be formally organized not simply by lawyers but by, at least three truly independent directors, who needed to adopt articles of incorporation and bylaws in a formal organizational meeting before the entity conducted official operations. Bylaws for this entity may not have been formally adopted by initial directors (referred to as “Trustees”) until Dec. 23, 1997 as you can see for yourself by reviewing these materials available through the main Clinton Foundation website.
A reasonable question to ask is: what did “The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation” do, if anything, prior to adopting bylaws, and how did they accomplish these actions before becoming formally ”organized “?
“Formless aggregations of individuals” are not “organizations”
Well before Dec. 23, 1997, Clinton allies laid groundwork required to erect the Clinton Foundation in a portion of Little Rock that had long been run-down, depressing local property values.
However, the IRS explains that only “organizations” are eligible for exemption from taxes, not “formless aggregations of individuals”:
“An individual, partnership, or formless aggregation of individuals, however, cannot qualify for exemption under IRC 501(c)(3). If it is determined that no organization exists, the applicant will be advised that no ruling or determination letter can be issued [emphasis added].”
Newspaper accounts, court records and other publicly available information show that early efforts on behalf of the “Clinton Foundation” were not conducted in corporate form, but instead loosely and informally, chiefly by Clinton political supporters.
For example, on Nov. 7, 1997, City of Little Rock public meeting notes state:
“[Little Rock] Mayor Dailey said he received word from Skip Rutherford, local coordinator for the Presidential Library at 7:00 AM, that President and Mrs. Clinton has selected the site along the Arkansas River in Little Rock as the location for the proposed William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library [emphasis added].”
In 1997, and for years afterward, Bill and Hillary Clinton were not lawfully designated directors, trustees, officers, or agents of the purported legal entity that was supposed to operate the presidential library and research center only in Little Rock.
How did Bill and Hillary Clinton have lawful authority to pick the site for Bill’s presidential library?
Moreover, did The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation even exist as a lawfully organized corporate entity in 1997?
Admissions Against Interest
Under siege late in 1997, in 1998, and then safely through the Impeachment trial by early 1999, the Clinton team must have been sure that loyal elements within the Arkansas Attorney General’s office, the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Attorney General’s office would never prosecute those responsible for operating the Clinton Foundation illegally so long as the Clintons remained resident inside the White House.
Though required to do so, the Clinton Foundation never filed an informational return (on Form 990, or 990EZ) for the “short period” from Oct. 23, 1997 through Dec. 31, 1997. This is important because, somehow, the Clinton Foundation acquired financial resources sufficient to pay lawyers and fund operations starting late in October. And a key unanswered question remains: “who advanced them the money?”
In a report to Michigan government authorities, filed in July 1998, Rutherford explained why the Clinton Foundation did not file an IRS Form 990 or 990EZ for 1997 because:
“The organization [was] not in existence last fiscal year–[Not Applicable] [emphasis added].”
In the second informational return the Clinton Foundation ultimately did file with the IRS for 1999, on Nov. 20, 2000, an officer of the entity admitted, under penalties of perjury:
“The Foundation began operations in 1998 [emphasis added] and is in the early stages of raising funds to meet the exempt purposes. Program development is in the very early planning stage and no significant program service expenses have been incurred.”
So, The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation did not exist in 1997, even as elements within the IRS rushed to grant federal tax-exemption to the entity back to Oct. 23, 1997 as this “Determination Letter,” found on the Clinton Foundation website clearly states.
Times were certainly different from 1997 through 2000, but we remember when the IRS rigorously and ruthlessly enforced key charity laws and regulations under President Obama.
Are former Presidents above the law?
Stillborn in 1997, the Clinton Foundation has managed to grow into a network of entities, none of which has ever lawfully been organized or operated. This allegation is now supported by some 200 podcasts, averaging two hours in length each, most of which are accompanied by pull-down slide presentations that readily take viewers and should take investigators into details of what seems to be the largest set of unprosecuted charity frauds in history:
Bob Mueller, James Comey and Rod Rosenstein may have “missed” the early development of this scam, from 2001 through 2005 when the FBI and DOJ “investigated” the Clinton Foundation as these redacted records reveal.
And, on the 10th anniversary of devastating disasters that flattened portions of Haiti, Hillary Clinton actually crowed about US Attorney John Huber’s unconfirmed decision to wind down the latest “investigation” of potential Clinton Foundation crimes:
This week, the Justice Department determined that the lies that were peddled about me, my family, & @ClintonFdn are without merit.
I couldn’t be more grateful to everyone that stuck with us while we continued to focus on the work. Let’s keep going.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 12, 2020
The Clinton Foundation’s record of exploiting natural disasters to source funds for which they never account is as long as it is shameless.
Americans across the political spectrum must push our government authorities to hold operators of the Clinton charity scam network to account.
“Bleachbit” notwithstanding, overwhelming evidence of unprosecuted charity frauds dating to Oct. 23, 1997 hides in plain sight
Check applicable laws, then check facts for yourselves and remember these words from John Adams:
“Facts are stubborn things [emphasis added]; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
During the 2016 election cycle, the mainstream media failed to probe the heart of the more recent Clinton Foundation scandal — how the Clinton family may have exploited Hillary’s position as Secretary of State and her standing as presidential frontrunner through November 2016.
Building fortunes through operating charities is a monstrous affront to decent, law-abiding people of all political persuasions, so it is not a partisan thing, here, to attack the Clintons for their known public record of transgressions.
In fact, a better question might be to wonder why Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, are not much more insistent that ongoing Clinton charity scams be fully exposed, and aggressively prosecuted by state, federal and foreign governments.