Clinton Foundation to refile taxes after errors emerge

Even Nixon didn't destroy the tapes.

 

Clinton Foundation took at least $1,250,000 from Qatar and its World Cup committee implicated in FIFA bribery scandal

• Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee' is the entity responsible for organizing the Gulf state's 2022 World Cup bid and the resulting preparations
• Clinton Foundation website discloses donations from the committee of between $250,001 and $500,000, including a donation in 2014
• Qatar itself has donated betwen $1 million and $5 million to the foundation, and did it before 2014
• The tiny Middle Eastern country won the rights to host the 2022 global soccer tournament in December 2010
• Clinton Foundation later said Qatar worked toward 'utilizing its research and development for sustainable infrastructure at the 2022 FIFA World Cup'

 

The Clintons aggressively supported the US bid for the 2022 World Cup and were expecting to see it awarded to the United States. Instead, it was awarded to a tiny country in the Middle East without hardly anything in the way of infrastructure for this event (Which FIFA says it values highly in considering these bids) and with 120 degree summers. It is actually not a very likely place to conduct an event like this.

Queue up the current corruption allegations, of which Qatar and FIFA are centrally involved. There was very little doubt that this award to Qatar was corruptly awarded. Bill Clinton was supposedly royally pissed that the US did not get awarded the games and no doubt FIFA and Qatar knew it.

Then all of the sudden, QATAR and FIFA decided it would be timely to start making large donations to the Clinton Foundation.

This for all the world appears to be hush money. These organizations did not want the Clinton's stirring up crap and making trouble for them. So it appears that they greased the Clinton's already very greasy palms.

While the justice department is looking into this, they should examine these payments specifically. In fact, it is hard to imagine that they are not currently doing that very thing. But with Hillary being the leading Democratic candidate for president, it would also not be hard to imagine Loretta Lynch and Barack Obama giving her a free pass, even if the Clintons were determined to have participated in wrong doing.

As we all know, Barack Obama promised the most transparent administration ever. Of course we also all know know that was possibly the biggest crock of B.S. ever, with the other candidates for the title also being utterances of Obama. Nevertheless, if he wants to recapture some small sliver of his lost credibility on this score, this is certainly a legitimate opportunity for him to do that.

Of course I will not be holding my breath.

 

No, they obviously do not want anyone stirring up crap. They likely assumed that nobody other than the Clintons would say anything because FIFA had gone on so long with their out of control corruption while remaining untouched by any international government.

Instead, it is the Obama administration stirring up crap, which makes sense, as it was on their watch that the US bid was rejected in favor of Qatar's clearly inferior and wildly corrupt bid.

Of course Obama has no problem with corruption, as we have all seen, at least when he or people he supports are the beneficiaries. However, as we can see here, being on the losing end appears to piss him and his team off just like it does virtually everyone else.

Even though this action is apparently motivated by the personal sense of betrayal and loss of Obama and his crew for having been in charge when the US lost this bid to Qatar in a corrupt and underhanded way, I am glad to see FIFA getting called to account here. This is good for the whole world and has needed to happen for some time now.

Hat tip to Barack Obama and his department of justice for pursuing this and arresting these apparently corrupt people, if the follow through and handle this in a completely transparent and unbiased way, which would include a thorough review of the financial contributions to the Clintons in the aftermath of this and a disclosure (at least a full leakage) of any findings of nefarious conduct that the Clintons were involved with here.

And this does very much appear to be a payoff of the Clintons in the aftermath of this. Surely you agree that this should at least be investigated in light of the current allegations and arrests surrounding the corrupt awarding of this bid?

 

Here is a great article published by Salon (a far left magazine) on the apparent payoffs and kickbacks that Hillary received through the Clinton Foundation during her time as Secretary of State, in exchange for the approval of increased weapons contracts and other arrangements to some of the most vile regimes the Earth currently has on its face:

The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for
The Clinton Foundation's business relationship with 20 foreign governments raises real questions about her judgment

Among all the rivers of money that have flowed to the Clinton family, one seems to raise the biggest national security questions of all: the stream of cash that came from 20 foreign governments who relied on weapons export approvals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Federal law designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In practice, that meant that Clinton was charged with rejecting or approving weapons deals — and when it came to Clinton Foundation donors, Hillary Clinton’s State Department did a whole lot of approving.

While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton’s three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American military contractors and their affiliates that donated to the Clinton Foundation — and in some cases, helped finance speaking fees to Bill Clinton — also got in on the action. Those firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of arms deals authorized by the Clinton State Department.

Under a directive signed by President Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to take foreign governments’ human rights records into account when reviewing arms deals. Yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department increased approvals of such deals to Clinton Foundation donors that her own agency was sharply criticizing for systematic human rights abuses.

As just one of many examples, in its 2011 Human Rights Report, Clinton’s State Department slammed Algeria’s government for imposing “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association,” tolerating “arbitrary killing,” “widespread corruption” and a “lack of judicial independence.”

That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and the next year Clinton’s State Department approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The jump included authorizations for almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment.” The State Department had not authorized the export of any of such items to Algeria the year before.

During Hillary Clinton’s 2009 Senate confirmation hearings, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar said the Clinton Foundation should stop accepting foreign government money. He warned that if it didn’t, “foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state.”

The Clintons did not take his advice. Advocates for limits on the political influence of money now say that Lugar was prescient.

“The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center.​

Everyone can easily imagine the lefties literally screaming on television about a a Republican presidential candidate - a recent former Secretary of State under the current administration - who had approved increases to weapons programs for these sorts of regimes at the same time this candidate was personally (through their foundation) taking large cash donations from these governments. And rightfully so.

Republican voters would not support such an apparent criminal as their nominee, and would be ashamed and scandalized to see such an outrageous kleptocrat using their party's banner as a flag to promote themselves with, and would insist this person withdraw from the contest, and that a federal investigation be opened into this conduct immediately. In fact, it is hard to imagine anyone like this trying to run for president as a Republican, in part because of the scrutiny and the criticism that they would get from their prospective constituents.

Leading Democrats on the other had, when actually faced with such a candidate, mumble brief comments and questions subtly conveying a mild insecurity with this sort of conduct, and then quickly reconfirm that this person is all but a mortal lock to win the Democratic nomination. This proposition is confirmed by recent polls which show that Democratic voters enthusiastically support her as their candidate to be president of the United States. And from the Democratic Attorney General, at least so far: Crickets.

This is not a hypothetical prediction, mind you. This surreal scenario is actually happening right now.

What is the matter with the Democratic party that the people who make it up would apparently support someone like this? What happened to you people?