Private investigators have presented evidence that the Clinton Foundation may have evaded millions, perhaps even billions, in taxes over the years. But there are further concerns that the ever-sketchy Clintons were running a pay-for-play racket with foreign agents. And these questions must be followed up with all diligence. That is, if America is more than just a banana republic for corrupt politicians.
John Moynihan and Lawrence W. Doyle are two seasoned private investigators looking to earn an IRS bounty for finding damning evidence of tax evasion by the Clinton Foundation. They have compiled a dossier on the organization that concludes the Clintons owe what they estimate to be between $400 million and $2.5 billion in taxes and suggest that figure could be even higher if the IRS concludes the foundation wasn't really a charity. The two investigators revealed that the foundation spent some 60% of its income on administrative expenses such as salaries and travel.
But, more gravely, Moynihan and Doyle testified before the House Oversight Committee on December 13 that their research has found the Clinton Foundation existed to enrich Bill and Hillary Clinton, and did so through contributions from foreign agents.
Bogus Charity?
“The investigation clearly demonstrates that the foundation was not a charitable organization per se, but in point of fact was a closely held family partnership," Doyle told the committee:
"As such, it was governed in a fashion in which it sought in large measure to advance the personal interests of its principles as detailed within the financial analysis of this submission and further confirmed within the supporting documentation and evidence section."
Moynihan explained how the Clintons advanced their personal interests. The foundation "began acting as an agent of foreign governments 'early in its life' and throughout its existence," he testified. "As such, the foundation should've registered under FARA (the Foreign Agents Registration Act).
"Ultimately, the foundation and its auditors conceded in formal submissions that it did operate as a (foreign) agent, therefore the foundation is not entitled to its 501c3 tax-exempt privileges as outlined in IRS 170 (c)2."
One can see how this ties into problematic tax issues. But it also suggests influence peddling for personal financial gain. Investigative reporter John Solomon wrote up more details of Moynihan and Doyle's findings in an article for The Hill. Solomon asked several former federal investigators what they thought of the whistleblowers' report. "It is a very good roadmap for investigation,” retired FBI supervisory agent Jeffrey Danik told him. "When you have the organization's own lawyers using words like ‘quid pro quo,’ ‘conflicts of interest’ and 'whistleblower protections,’ you have enough to get permission to start interviewing and asking questions," he said.
That conclusion echoes the words of Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations. He cited reports of the foundation's precipitous decline in donations received after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election as indicative of a cash-for-access operation drying up due to the sellers no longer having a direct connection to power.
“Now several reports suggest that the decrease in donations could reflect a 'pay to play' activity in the years prior to the decline in donations,” Meadows said.
Well Runs Dry
The Center for Responsive Politics reports donations to the foundation plummeted "to a 15-year low in 2017," the year after Hillary's crushing defeat. The center reports the Clinton Foundation netted $38.4 million in total revenue in 2017, compared to a whopping $249 million garnered during Hillary's first year as secretary of state in 2009. Gee, what changed between 2009 and 2017 to explain that startling drop?
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton testified before the committee that the foundation had received between $18 million and $50 million from Saudi donors alone. "While Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, Bill Clinton gave two speeches in Saudi Arabia earning a total of $600,000," Fitton testified.
“Less than 1/10th of 1% of the donors gave 80% of the money."
“Less than 1/10th of 1% of the donors gave 80% of the money. So we follow the money," Doyle told the committee.
A hint as to what that small fraction of well-heeled donors were looking for in return for their money is found in a 2011 report by a law firm hired by the Clinton Foundation itself to give an internal "decadal review." That report by Simpson Thacher found that "some interviewees reported conflicts of those raising funds or donors, some of whom may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts." And now the money is drying up with the Clintons seemingly having far less to offer in terms of potential influence. Funny how that works.
Is this going to lead to a full and open investigation into the Clintons and their foundation? Or will seemingly key questions be swept away and disappear without a trace? Only one thing remains clear: The more people dig into the operations of the Clinton circle, the more suspicion and disquiet builds.
