Clinton Foundation Donations Fall Precipitously After Trump’s Election

Friday, 25 November 2016

Clinton Foundation Donations Fall Precipitously After Trump’s Election
http://therightscoop.com/wp-content/...money-cash.jpg
Thanks to revelations by Charles Ortel, Peter Schweizer, Dinesh D’Souza, WikiLeaks, and Judicial Watch, the use of the Clinton Foundation by the Clinton family as its own personal piggy bank has been exposed. Donations began dropping off as early as 2014 but they have all but disappeared since Hillary failed to gain the White House.

The “quid-pro-quo” tacit agreements were exposed by the mainstream media with the Washington Post’s revelation in February 2015 that the Clinton Foundation “has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political limits.” Additional confirmation of financial shenanigans came from Charles Ortel, a Wall Street financial analyst who has devoted 15 months of his life investigating the foundation in all of its complexity. He concluded that “a substantial portion of Clinton Foundation activities is certainly not ‘charitable’ or ‘tax-exempt’ in the accepted legal sense” and that it instead has operated “in [the] guise of charity right from the beginning … all the way to the present.”

Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash, published last year, documented how, “during Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions ... with foreign governments, corporations and private financiers.” Schweizer revealed how the donors benefited, including the Russian acquisition of American uranium assets, obtaining access to U.S. nuclear technology, influencing Middle East policy, approving controversial energy projects, and the allocation of billions of taxpayer funds overseas.

The latest revelation has come from Dinesh D’Souza, producer of the documentary Hillary’s America. D’Souza is travelling the country under the auspices of Young Americans for Freedom, speaking at college campuses and offering insights into exactly how that “quid-pro-quo” arrangement worked. First, Bill would get paid an exorbitant sum ($500,000 to $750,000) to give a speech to a party interested in obtaining influence in Washington. That, said D’Souza, was just a “down payment.” Once the change in policy or the award of a contract was completed, that party would complete the deal with a vastly larger contribution to the Clinton Foundation. The three-step process worked well for all parties: the Clinton Foundation received millions, most of it siphoned off to pay for Clinton family expenses including Chelsea’s excessively lavish lifestyle. The deal was largely tax free, and it fell well under the radar, so the implications of impropriety were hidden successfully from public view for years. And the donor received the special treatment requested.

Those parties to the scam included Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain (who received exponential increases in U.S. weapons exports while Hillary was secretary of state); Robert Congel (a New York real estate developer whom Hillary reported helped gain access to millions in taxpayer dollars for his mall project); Steven Spielberg and his wife, Kate Capshaw; movie director Stephen Bing; insurance magnate Peter Lewis; the Soros Foundation; and Denise Rich, ex-wife of Marc Rich who fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for 51 counts of racketeering but who was pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001, his last day in office.

Other governments have sought to take advantage of the scheme as well, including Germany, Australia, Norway, the Dominican Republic, and Algeria.

Donations began to shrink in light of these revelations, beginning in 2014 when “contributions” plunged 37 percent, to $108 million, from the year before. And Bill’s income from speaking has all but disappeared, dropping from $36 million in 2014 to just $357,500 so far this year.

Norway just announced that it has cut its donation to the Clinton Foundation from $20 million to just $4.2 million this year, giving further evidence that previous donations were obviously part of an effort to gain access and influence to the likely incoming president. With Hillary’s defeat, however, she won’t be able to complete her part of the deal, and so Norway is redirecting its contributions elsewhere. In addition, the foundation reported only five new donors between July 1 and September 30.

When the Clinton Foundation was initially established, it was “to alleviate poverty, improve global health, strengthen economies and protect the environment.” Now that its cover has been blown and its real purpose exposed, observers now know just whose “economies” were strengthened and whose “poverty” was relieved.

The only question remaining now is: With Hillary out of office and unable to complete her part of the deal, will those previous donors start demanding the return of their “contributions”?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ump-s-election