November 29, 2018 - A Clinton Foundation donor is charged for defrauding military contracts, illegal commerce and money laundering

Abdul Huda Farouki (Credit: Patrick McMullan}

(…) “In a Nov. 29 DOJ press release, three executives including Abul Huda Farouki were charged “for their roles in a scheme to defraud U.S. military contracts in Afghanistan, engaging in illegal commerce in Iran, and laundering money internationally.” Farouki was the CEO of Anham, a defense contractor based in the United Arab Emirates

This wasn’t the first time Farouki or his company have been involved in allegations of misconduct. In a 2013 article by The Daily Caller, headlined “Clinton Donors Get a Pass on Shady Contracting,” Farouki and his company were highlighted:

“In June 2011, the Defense Department’s Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) released a scathing report on a defense contracting company called Anham. The title of the report and its conclusion were the same: ‘Poor Government Oversight of Anham and Its Subcontracting Procedures Allowed Questionable Costs to Go Undetected.’”

The article then asked a simple question: Given prior violations, how was Anham able to secure an $8 billion contract in Afghanistan that “allowed it to illegally ship supplies through two Iranian border crossings and a seaport controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard?”

Huma Abedin appears to Farouki’s right at a Tomorrow’s Youth Organization Gala event in Washington, DC on October 21, 2010. (Credit: public domain)

The $8 billion contract, along with the illegal shipment of supplies, being cited in the 2013 article appear to be exactly the same violations being alleged in the 2018 DOJ indictment. So why weren’t Farouki and his company charged with these same, known violations back in 2013?

The answer may lie within Farouki’s many connections to the Democratic Party. The Daily Caller notes that Farouki is a longtime donor to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and donated to Obama for America in 2008. But Farouki’s closest ties lie with the Clintons and their Foundation.

Farouki, a member of the now-shuttered Clinton Global Initiative, participated in annual CGI meetings since the group’s formation in 2005 through at least 2010 and made multiple donations to the Clinton Foundation. Farouki also made donations to Terry McAuliffe and has been photographed with Huma Abedin. (Read more: The Epoch Times/Jeff Carlson, 11/30/2018)

December 11, 2018 - Opinion: State filings suggests the Clinton Foundation mislead the IRS

By: John Solomon

“When confronted by detractors, the Clinton Foundation often uses a common line of defense: The charity is one of the most scrutinized in history and no one has found anything wrong with it.

But state regulatory filings suggest that may not be true.

In December 2005, for example, the Utah Division of Consumer Protection flagged missing information in the Clinton Foundation’s federal tax filing with the IRS, known as a form 990. The state regulator specifically flagged money spent on professional fundraisers and consultants that were excluded from the required section of the filing.

The state regulator urged the charity to file “an amended IRS form 990 reporting professional fundraising/consultant fees on line 30.” In particular, officials questioned nearly a half-million dollars in consultant fees about which it wanted more detail.

The foundation’s tax filing for the year in question, 2004, showed zero dollars spent on the required line for fundraising consulting expenses, even though other documents filed with the IRS identified more than $400,000.

The review was standard for a charity seeking a license to operate in Utah. The response regulators got back, however, was not so standard: Former President Clinton’s charity declined to make the change, even though Utah was suggesting the foundation’s federal tax form was incomplete or misleading.

“The problem that the Foundation faces is the enormous expenses and undertaking it would be to amend its 990,” a law firm representing the Clinton Foundation wrote back.

“Given that obstacle, the Foundation has no choice but to withdraw its application to register to solicit the public in Utah.”

In lay words, the cost of properly informing the IRS and complying with federal tax law was too much, so the foundation just ditched its Utah licensing request. There is no record of amended 2004 tax form by the charity, which means Utah’s concerns about possible missing information for the IRS wasn’t addressed at the federal level.

Foundation officials confirm the episode but said they believed they did not mislead the IRS because other parts of their submission included fundraising consulting expenses in a category called “Other Expenses.” “Our 2004 Form 990 is complete by IRS standards as we fully disclose fundraising expenditures in Part II – Other Expenses,” the foundation said in a statement emailed to me.

The Utah episode, though a decade old, and other state regulatory issues involving the Clinton Foundation are gaining new attraction because they are included in thousands of pages of documents gathered in a whistleblower submission filed last year by a firm composed of former federal law enforcement investigators, called MDA Analytics LLC.

That submission made with the IRS and eventually provided to the Justice Department in Washington and to the FBI in Little Rock, Ark., alleges there is “probable cause” to believe the Clinton Foundation broke federal tax law and possibly owes millions of dollars in tax penalties. That submission and its supporting evidence will be one focus of a GOP-led congressional hearing Thursday in the House.

The foundation strongly denies any wrongdoing. But it acknowledges its own internal legal reviews in 2008 and 2011 cited employee concerns ranging from quid pro quo promises to donors, to improper commingling of personal and charity business.

Another of the issues the foundation’s own lawyers flagged: a culture of noncompliance.

Some issues with compliance are clear in a review of more than 2,000 pages of state regulatory filings and actions involving the foundation that were included in the whistleblower submission.

For example, the foundation entered into a consent decree in 2002 in Mississippi in which it admitted it had raised money in the state without a proper license. The foundation says it was simply an oversight, paying a small fine in the hundreds of dollars.

But the charity potentially engaged in false statements for years later, inaccurately declaring in numerous states that it had never been subject to an adverse regulatory action — while failing to disclose the Mississippi violation.

The whistleblower submission to the IRS identified more than 100 state forms in which the foundation inaccurately answered. The foundation conceded the errors to me but suggested they were akin to minor traffic violations, pointing to a column by a tax expert two years ago that made such a case.

Likewise, in 2008, the Clinton Foundation’s AIDs charitable arm had its license to collect donations in Massachusetts involuntarily revoked for failure to file the necessary paperwork.

Foundation officials blamed that action on paperwork failing to keep up with changes in the group, which altered its name and eventually spun off from the foundation. State regulators weren’t told the old group’s name had been allowed to expire.

The records also show the foundation received multiple deficiency notifications and had its license expire once in the state of Georgia, usually because of late paperwork. (Read more: The Hill, 12/06/2018)

December 13, 2018 - Critical testimony on the Clinton Foundation from whistleblowers/financial analysts

Lawrence Doyle (l) and John Moynihan testify to the House Oversight Committee on December 13, 2018. (Credit: CSpan)

December 13, 2018 was a day of anticipation for many that were waiting to hear from US Attorney John Huber about his findings on the Clinton Foundation. However, US Representative Mark Meadows, and financial analysts John Moynihan, and Larry Doyle all suggested he was not present at the hearing due to ongoing investigations into the Clinton Foundation. Interestingly, Moynihan and Doyle stated they sent documents to Huber’s office three times because his office stated they “misplaced” the documents. Meanwhile, they are confident that the FBI in Little Rock is in fact investigating the Clintons, and even have photos of the IRS and FBI loading a 757 plane with boxes of Clinton Foundation documents. When taking all of this information into consideration, it suggests that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation may have always resided with the FBI in Little Rock, and Huber may not even be involved in those specific investigations. It’s difficult to say at this point. One thing is for certain, it has been kept very quiet and without leaks.

On the same day as the hearing, It was later reported that Huber had been attending a media round table in Utah with FBI Special Agent in Charge Eric Barnhart, to alert the public to victims of child exploitation, and discussed other topics on gangs, drug activity, and violent crimes. Both Barnhart and Huber reported that offenders are likely to commit the same crimes after being released from even lengthy prison terms and the best treatment efforts. Huber stated that his office takes on some of the worst cases you can imagine, and one particular case involved 600 images of child pornography. He had this to say about it:

600 images of child pornography translate to 600 victims who have been raped, sodomized, and otherwise exploited for sexual gratification. That’s why these crimes are serious… this isn’t looking at a dirty magazine… this is harming children, exploiting them and passing on those images and videos.

It’s supply and demand, and there’s a great demand. I don’t know what we do as a society to cure that problem, to lessen that problem, but it is a growing demand and it’s ever present, and our children are, unfortunately, the fodder and the currency in that world.

The House Oversight Subcommittee hearing on the Clinton Foundation proceeded without Huber. Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch, Associate Professor of Law Phillip Hackney, and outside whistleblowers and financial analysts Larry Doyle and John Moynihan, were all in attendance to testify. Doyle and Moynihan had been meticulously working on the Clinton Foundation financials and taxes for three years, and had submitted documents to the FBI in Little Rock, as well as several jurisdictions on both local and state levels. Their testimony provided some key information. As of December 20^th, the transcript and video currently remain on c-span, but may one day be scrubbed. Corey’s Digs has preserved the video, should it ever need to be resurrected.

Key takeaways from the testimony of Moynihan and Doyle, per c-span transcript (type errors included):

• “We sent our appeal in with a FOE COE – photo copy of the FBI and IRS removing boxes from the Clinton Foundation after they brought a 757 down and taken the materials out of the Clinton Foundation in Little Rock, Arkansas. We sent that to demonstrate that your letter coming from Atlanta doesn’t reconcile with what’s going on in Little Rock.”

• “It was an open and ongoing investigation he couldn’t comment on. That would indeed indicate there’s an investigation.”

• “He stated (Clinton Foundation CFO Andrew Kessel) very specifically, and it took us both off guard, I’ve been doing this a long time, but when someone says, I know where all the bodies are buried.”

• “Overall it might have been 40% by our calculations, ended up going to programs, and 60% was administrative.” (This refers to the amount of CF funds that went to administrative, which is generally 15% for non-profits.)

• “Mr. Doyle, you said from $400 million to $2.5 billion might be subject to taxation. So you’re saying, worst case is in your opinion $400 million were improperly used in a charitable foundation named the ‘Clinton Foundation’, is that correct?” Doyle: “Yes.”

• “They were brokering money and brokering pharmaceuticals. They were an agent of money through these donors. They would take a fee, and broker the money and broker relationships with pharmaceutical companies. By the same token, they were brokering the pharmaceuticals and taking some.”

• “Our conclusions, in the interest of time, are this – foreign agent. The Foundation began acting as an agent of foreign governments throughout its life and continues to do so. As such, they should have registered under FARWA. The auditors acknowledged this fact and conceded in formal submissions that it did not operate as an agent.”

• Meadows: All right, so who approved the 501-C-3 status for the Foundation? Moynihan: Would have been the IRS. Meadows: Do you have the document? Moynihan: We have it. We’ve got the determination letters. Meadows: It was approved for what? Building a library or? Moynihan: The initial approval was simply for library. Meadows: Who modified it? Moynihan: We saw no modifications to the articles of incorporation. …. In order to go forward the application has a schedule G that asks you if CHAI is a successor organization to a previous one, so you have the library, then you have this CHAI running unapproved. You gotta get approved….. They go and make an application, and on the form schedule G, when it’s asked, is this a successor operation, they specifically and affirmatively answered no. That is a misrepresentation because it’s the same people doing the same thing.”

(Read more: Corey’s Digs, 12/20/2018)

December 13, 2018 - Former expert forensic government investigators testify: Clinton Foundation operated as foreign agent

Hillary Clinton (Credit: Getty Images)

“The Clinton Foundation operated as a foreign agent ‘early in its life’ and ‘throughout it’s existence’ and did not operate as a 501c3 charitable foundation as required by its and is not entitled to its status as a nonprofit, alleged two highly qualified forensic investigators, accompanied by three other investigators, said in explosive testimony Thursday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

John Moynihan and Lawerence W. Doyle, both graduates of the Catholic Jesuit College of the Holy Cross and former expert forensic government investigators, gave their shocking testimony before congress based on a nearly two-year investigation into the foundation’s work both nationally and internationally. They were assisted by three other highly trained experts in taxation law and financial forensic investigations. The forensic investigators stressed that they obtained all the documentation on the foundation legally and through Freedom of Information Request Acts from the IRS and other agencies.

(…) Doyle and Moynihan have amassed 6,000 documents in their nearly two-year investigation through their private firm MDA Analytics LLC. The documents were turned over more than a year and a half ago to the IRS, according to John Solomon, who first published the report last week in The Hill.

“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,” said Doyle, who formerly worked on Wall Street and has been involved with finance for the last ten years conducting investigations. “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.”

(…) The Clinton Foundation “began acting as an agent of foreign governments ‘early in its life’ and throughout its existence. As such, the foundation should’ve registered under FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act),” he said. “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.”

Doyle, who was also outlining a litany of violations by the foundation, noted that currently there are approximately 1.75 million nonprofits in the United States that annually generate nearly 2 trillion dollars, which is 9 percent of the U.S. GDP.

“Who’s minding the store, looking out for the donors and minding the rule of law,” said Doyle.

“On that note, we followed the money so we made extensive spreadsheets of their revenues and expenses, we analyzed their income statements and we did a macro-review of all the donors, which is a very (jumbled) sort of foundation,” said Doyle. “Less than 1/10th of one percent of the donors gave 80 percent of the money. So we follow the money.”

Moynihan added that the foundation “did pursue programs and activities for which it had neither sought nor achieved permission to undertake.”

Particularly, he noted the case of the Clinton Presidential Library in 2004. He noted that the foundation’s role before and after the library was built was a misrepresentation to donors “of the approval organizational tax status to raise funds for the presidential library programs therein. In these pursuits, the foundation failed the organizational and operational task 501c3 internal revenue code 7.25.3.” 

Additionally, Doyle stated that the foundation’s intentional “misuse of donated public funds.” He stated that the foundation “falsely attested that it received funds and used them for charitable purposes which were in fact not the case. Rather the foundation pursued in an array of activities both domestically and abroad.” 

“Some may be deemed philanthropic, albeit unimproved, while other much larger in scope are properly characterized as profit-oriented and taxable undertakings of private enterprise again failing the operational tests philanthropy referenced above,” Doyle said.” (Read more: Sara Carter, 12/14/2018)

December 20, 2018 - Federal Court refuses to unseal documents justifying FBI raid on reported Clinton Foundation whistleblower

“A federal court refused to unseal government documents that permitted the FBI to raid the home of a reportedly recognized whistleblower who, according to his lawyer, delivered documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One to a presidentially appointed watchdog.

The U.S. District Court of Maryland’s Chief Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner, a Clinton appointee, also sealed her justification for keeping the documents secret in a single-page Dec. 20 order.

On Nov. 15, federal Magistrate Judge Stephanie Gallagher authorized the raid on Dennis Cain’s Union Bridge, Maryland, home. She sealed the government documents justifying it.

The Daily Caller News Foundation asked Gallagher on Nov. 29 to unseal the documents, noting that Cain’s attorney has said his client, a former employee of an FBI contractor, is a recognized whistleblower. The documents should be released in light of “an urgent public interest” surrounding the case, TheDCNF wrote.

Attorneys and experts who defend government whistleblowers told TheDCNF the court should disclose whether prosecutors told Gallagher that Cain was a protected whistleblower under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act.

Cain enjoyed his whistleblower status as early as last summer when he handed over documents to Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, according to Cain’s lawyer, Michael Socarras. Horowitz instructed a top aide to personally hand-deliver the documents to the House and Senate intelligence committees, the attorney said.

The documents reportedly show that federal officials failed to investigate potential criminal activity regarding the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, the Russian company that purchased Uranium One. (Read more: The Daily Caller, 1/27/2019)

January 17, 2019 - Charles Ortel Opinion: The 'Benghazi' scandal likely involves national security offenses, money laundering, campaign-finance crimes, charity fraud, and public corruption

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (Credit: Manuel Balce Ceneta/The Associated Press)

“The recent ruling by US District Judge Royce C. Lamberth may become a breakthrough in the 5-year long Clinton email scandal, Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel told Sputnik, asking how it happened that the Obama administration, the CIA and FBI had apparently overlooked “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

“The ‘Benghazi’ scandal likely involves national security offenses, money-laundering, campaign-finance crimes, charity fraud, and public corruption”, says Wall Street analyst and investigative journalist Charles Ortel, commenting on a US federal judge ordering former Obama officials to answer the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch’s (JW) questions on Hillary Clinton’s private email issue and the Benghazi scandal.

On 15 January, US District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that former national security adviser Susan Rice, former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, fmr. secretary of state Clinton’s former senior advisor and deputy chief of staff Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap must answer the watchdog’s written questions about the State Department’s response to the deadly 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya.

March 11, 2019 - Clinton Foundation Whistleblowers Doyle and Moynihan petition for trial with a U.S. Tax Court

LarryDoyle and John Moynihan appear before the House Oversight Committee on December 13, 2018. (Credit: CSpan)

“In a December 2018 Congressional hearing on Not-for-Profit Charities with a Specific Case Study on the Clinton Foundation, our nation was introduced to two private individuals who had undertaken a multi-year investigative probe of the 43rd President’s foundation.

Larry Doyle and John Moynihan informed those observing that they filed a formal Whistleblower Submission replete with a hundred-plus formal exhibits in excess of 6,000 pages of evidence with the Internal Revenue Service on the Clinton Foundation in August 2017. They further testified that they had submitted the same materials to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and selected US Attorneys in the Department of Justice as well and that their documents included:

• reviews of the foundation’s tax returns and those of the foundation’s donors
• reviews including audits of the foundation’s programs and operations, foreign and domestic
• email exchanges between foundation executives and foreign government officials
• contracts with foreign governments and engagements with other public and private entities
• reviews of partnerships with an array of private companies, private universities, and other 501c3 public charities
• interviews with both current and former senior Clinton Foundation officials
• reviews of state registration materials
• documents covering the foundation’s own internal reviews

(…) These whistleblowers informed those watching that the IRS had issued a Preliminary Denial of their Submission shortly before they provided their riveting testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee during that December 13, 2018 hearing. During that hearing, Moynihan specifically emphasized that their submission was “a tax claim”. Moynihan also informed those on the committee that depending on how the IRS ruled that the two whistleblowers would have other causes of action that they could and would pursue including filing an appeal to the US Tax Court if, in fact, they received a Final Denial from the IRS.

Well, it appears that these two ‘financial bounty hunter’ whistleblowers have done just that. How is that appeal playing out? It looks like over the course of the last few months Doyle and Moynihan have been in the midst of an extensive array of motions and responses, many filed under seal, going back and forth with IRS Counsel in the course of their having their day in the US Tax Court v the Internal Revenue Service.  Those interested in the case can track it via this US Tax Court site.” (Read more: Zero Hedge, 2/10/2020)  (Archive)

March 23, 2017 - Crowdstrike co-founder and donor to the Clinton Foundation, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments

Dmitri Alperovitch (Credit: Sebastian Gabriel/picture alliance)

“The cyber security firm outsourced by the Democratic National Committee, CrowdStrike, reportedly misread data, falsely attributing a hacking in Ukraine to the Russians in December 2016. Voice of America, a US Government funded media outlet, reported, “the CrowdStrike report, released in December, asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine’s war with Russian-backed separatists. But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report.

(…) The investigation methods used to come to the conclusion that the Russian Government led the hacks of the DNC, Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta, and the DCCC were further called into question by a recent BuzzFeed report by Jason Leopold, who has developed a notable reputation from leading several non-partisan Freedom of Information Act lawsuits for investigative journalism purposes. On March 15 that the Department of Homeland Security released just two heavily redacted pages of unclassified information in response to an FOIA request for definitive evidence of Russian election interference allegations. Leopold wrote, “what the agency turned over to us and Ryan Shapiro, a PhD candidate at MIT and a research affiliate at Harvard University, is truly bizarre: a two-page intelligence assessment of the incident, dated Aug. 22, 2016, that contains information DHS culled from the internet. It’s all unclassified — yet DHS covered nearly everything in wide swaths of black ink. Why? Not because it would threaten national security, but because it would reveal the methods DHS uses to gather intelligence, methods that may amount to little more than using Google.”

Hillary Clinton accepts the Atlantic Council’s 2013 Distinguished International Leadership Award. (Credit: YouTube)

In lieu of substantive evidence provided to the public that the alleged hacks which led to Wikileaks releases of DNC and Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta’s emails were orchestrated by the Russian Government, CrowdStrike’s bias has been cited as undependable in its own assessment, in addition to its skeptical methods and conclusions. The firm’s CTO and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments that is funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who also happened to donate at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

In 2013, the Atlantic Council awarded Hillary Clinton it’s Distinguished International Leadership Award. In 2014, the Atlantic Council hosted one of several events with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who took over after pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in early 2014, who now lives in exile in Russia.” (Read more: CounterPunch, 3/23/2017)

April 5th & 30th, 2019 - Overstock CEO, Patrick Byrne, delivers emails and text messages to the DOJ, regarding origins of Russia investigation and FBI operation into Clinton

Patrick Byrne (Credit: public domain)

“Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne delivered to the Department of Justice a number of documents, including emails and text messages, in April, regarding both the origins of the Russian investigation, and an FBI operation into Hillary Clinton with which he was personally involved during the first months of 2016, according to a U.S. official who spoke to SaraACarter.com.

Byrne has also confirmed the account.

Byrne claims the documents, which have not been made public and are currently under investigation by the DOJ, are allegedly communications he had with the FBI concerning both the Clinton investigation and the origins of the Russian investigation. SaraACarter.com did not review the documents, which are now under review by law enforcement.

He approached the DOJ and met with lawyers on April 5th and 30th. The first meeting was without counsel in Washington D.C. A source directly familiar with the interviews confirmed Byrne’s account of the meetings.

DOJ officials said they could not comment on Byrne’s allegations.

“I gave to the DOJ documents concerning both the origin of the Russian probe and the probe into Hillary Clinton, both of which I was involved in, and both of which turned out to be less about law enforcement than they were about political espionage,” Byrne told SaraACarter.com Monday.

He noted that the communications will prove that the FBI also had an operation into Clinton Foundation that he was directly involved in.

“This is going to become the greatest political scandal in US history,” he said.

“If we survive it, and if Rule of Law returns to America, it will be due to one man: Bill Barr.”

Several weeks ago, FBI officials told SaraACarter.com that they declined to comment on Byrne’s allegations.

Byrne said the investigation into Clinton was one of the main reasons he came forward. This reporter first published Byrne’s story about his relationship with now convicted Russian gun right’s activist Maria Butina. She pleaded guilty in 2018 for failing to register as a foreign agent in the U.S. and is now serving out her sentence, which ends in October.

Byrne’s claims regarding the Clinton Foundation investigation are not without parallel. According to numerous officials the FBI had an ongoing investigation. Whistleblower and former government informant William Campbell was interviewed in 2018, by bureau agents from the Little Rock, Arkansas’ field office. According to Campbell, who first spoke to this reporter in 2017, he was asked by FBI agents whether donations to the Clintons charitable organization from Russia were used to influence U.S. nuclear policy during the Obama Administration. Specifically, he was asked about the sale of 20 percent of Uranium One.

As also reported in 2018, by John Solomon with The Hill, the “agents questioned him extensively about claims the Russians made to him that they had routed millions of dollars to an American lobbying firm in 2010 and 2011 with the expectation it would be used to help President Clinton’s charitable global initiative while major uranium decisions were pending before Hillary Clinton’s State Department.”

Byrne, told SaraACarter.com that the FBI was also investigating Clinton’s charitable organizations in the first half of 2016, and that he was directly involved in one of the operations being conducted by the FBI. He did not give details regarding the operation saying but said it directly dealt with Clinton and whether or not there was pay for play.

On Monday, Byrne appeared on Fox Business Network with David Asman, revealing his claims about the Clinton investigation.

“I ended up in the center of the Russian and the Clinton investigations,” said Byrne.

“I have all the answers. I have been sitting on them waiting for America to get there. Last summer I figured out… what they all are is all about political espionage. It had nothing to do with law enforcement, it was all political espionage. Here’s the bottom line. There is a deep state like a submarine lurking just beneath the waves of the periscope depth watching our shipping lanes. And a nuclear icebreaker called the USS Bill Barr has snuck up on them and is about to ram midship.”

“That’s about to happen and I think we’re about to see the biggest scandal in American history as a result. But it was all political. Everything you think you know about Russia and Clinton investigations is a lie,” Byrne told Atman.

“It’s all a cover-up. It was all political espionage.”

Connecticut attorney John Durham, who has been appointed by Justice Department investigator Attorney General William Barr is probing the FBI’s handling of the investigation into Russia probe, and according to several sources is investigating the full extent of Byrne’s claims and the documentation he provided in April. (Credit: Zero Hedge, 8/12/2019)

May 17, 2019 - 7 Reasons Why the Uranium One Scandal Won’t Go Away

“The mainstream press has repeatedly declared the Russian purchase of Uranium One a “debunked conspiracy theory.” But it’s no theory, nor has it been debunked. The Uranium One deal was complicated and had many moving parts, which also explains why misinformation about it has spread widely. Claims such as “the Russians gave Clinton $145 million” and “Clinton sold American uranium to the Russians” are great soundbites, but are factually inaccurate.

It’s true that the Clinton Foundation received undisclosed millions from Uranium One stakeholders—such as the $2.35 million from board Chairman Ian Telfer. The Obama administration did allow the Russians to acquire domestic nuclear assets critical to U.S. national security. But minor inaccuracies in the soundbites have allowed self-appointed fact-checkers such as PolitiFact and Snopes to selectively “debunk” the larger story without critically examining the full set of facts.” (YouTube, 5/17/2019)

May 31, 2019 - AG William Barr gives a clear explanation of the various "investigations of the investigators" carried out by the Justice Department

Michael Horowitz (l), John Huber (c) and John Durham

In an interview with CBS’s Jan Crawford, Barr described what tasks U.S. Attorney John Durham, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and U.S. Attorney John Huber have been assigned regarding the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation and the conduct of the DOJ and FBI as they carried it out.

(…) Barr said Huber “was essentially on standby” in the event that Horowitz “referred a matter to him to be handled criminally.” That apparently has not been necessary, as Barr said: “he has not been active on this front in recent months.” Barr said Durham would now be taking over Huber’s role in handling any criminal referrals from Horowitz and Huber’s involvement with Trump-Russia matters was done.

Sessions had also asked Huber in 2017 to look into issues related to the sale of Uranium One and allegations that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been improperly involved in the process, as well as broader claims of corruption at the Clinton Foundation. Barr seemed to suggest that what evidence Huber found, if any, may soon be revealed.

“The other issues [Huber has] been working on relate to Hillary Clinton” are “winding down and hopefully we’ll be in a position to bring those to fruition,” Barr said.

In regards to the DOJ inspector general investigation, Barr said he would not describe Horowitz’s role as small, but rather as very specific. “He’s looking at a discrete area that is, you know, important, which is the use of electronic surveillance that was targeted at Carter Page,” Barr said. Page was a former Trump campaign adviser who was surveilled by the DOJ and the FBI for months beginning in October 2016.

(…) Barr, who has said that Horowitz’s probe should be ending in May or June, called him a “superb government official” in this latest interview, but pointed out that Horowitz “has limited powers.”

“He doesn’t have the power to compel testimony, he doesn’t have the power really to investigate beyond the current cast of characters at the Department of Justice,” Barr said. “His ability to get information from former officials or from other agencies outside the department is very limited.”

That’s why Barr said he selected Durham, a U.S. attorney for Connecticut, to head up DOJ’s newest inquiry. Barr was recently given broad declassification authority by Trump, and Durham will have greater investigative powers than Horowitz has at his disposal. Barr praised Durham, saying, “He has, over the years, been used by both Republican and Democratic attorneys general to investigate these kinds of activities. And he’s always gotten the most laudatory feedback from his work. So there’s no doubt in my mind that he’s going to conduct a thorough and fair review of this.”

Barr defended his scrutiny of the actions of the DOJ and FBI in his interview, saying, “I think it’s important to understand what basis there was for launching counterintelligence activities against a political campaign, which is the core of our … First Amendment liberties in this country.”

“And what was the predicate for it? What was the hurdle that had to be crossed? What was the process? Who had to approve it? And including the electronic surveillance, whatever electronic surveillance was done? And was everyone operating in their proper lane?” Barr asked.” (Read more: Washington Examiner, 5/31/2019)

July 24, 2019 - Jeffrey Epstein visited the Clinton White House multiple times in the early ’90s

Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein (Credit: Sarah Rogers/The Daily Beast/Getty Images)

(…) “How Epstein entered Clinton’s orbit remains unclear. When the president released his initial statement on Epstein, he did not explain the multiple other trips he appears to have taken on the financier’s plane—including one flight to Westchester with Epstein, his alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell, and an “unnamed female.”

Clinton also failed to mention the intimate 1995 fundraising dinner at the Palm Beach home of Revlon mogul Ron Perelman, where Clinton hobnobbed with the likes of Epstein, Don Johnson, and Jimmy Buffett. (Nearby, at Epstein’s own Palm Beach mansion, the money man allegedly abused hundreds of underage girls.)

Clinton and Epstein were on the guest list for a “small dinner party” hosted by Revlon mogul Ron Perelman to raise funds for the Democratic National Convention in 1995.

The two were clearly chummy by the early Clinton Foundation years, as attested to by a 2002 photo of Epstein and Clinton in Brunei that appeared in Vicky Ward’s 2003 profile of the financier. In a 2002 piece for New York magazine about the Africa trip, Clinton praised Epstein as a “highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist.”

Bill Clinton is pictured with Jeffrey Epstein’s social fixer, Ghislaine Maxwell, at Chelsea’s wedding in 2010. (Credit: Getty Images)

Politico recently claimed that Clinton and Epstein connected in the first few years after the president left office. Citing “people who know those involved,” the article pegged Maxwell as the glue connecting the two men, and Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, as the tie between the president and the British socialite. Politico noted that Maxwell had vacationed with the Chelsea in 2009, attended her wedding in 2010, and participated in the Clinton Global Initiative as recently as 2013. (A Clinton spokesperson denied Chelsea and Ghislaine were close.)

Documents in the Clinton Library, however, attest to much earlier links between Maxwell, Epstein, and the Clinton White House.

In late September of 1993, Bill and Hillary Clinton hosted a reception for supporters who had contributed to recent White House renovations. The nearly $400,000 overhaul—which included new gold draperies and a 13-color woven rug for the Oval Office—was funded entirely by donations to the White House Historical Association, a private organization that helps preserve and promote the White House as a historical monument.

The reception took place at the White House residence from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m., according to a copy of the president’s daily schedule. White House Social Secretary Ann Stock—who appears in Epstein’s little black book of phone numbers—was listed as the point of contact. According to multiple attendees, the evening included an intimate tour of the newly refurbished residence, followed by a receiving line with the president and first lady. Dessert was served in the East Room, where the couple thanked everyone for attending and announced the Committee for the Preservation of the White House.

Guests for the event, according to the invitation list, included the journalist and philanthropist Barbara Goldsmith, heiress Jane Engelhard, political consultant Cynthia Friedman, and “Mr Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell.” Epstein and Maxwell do not appear on the ‘regret list,’ and there is a letter ‘A’ next to both of their names, indicating they planned to attend. A press release from the event, put out by Hillary Clinton’s office, lists Epstein as a White House Historical Association donor.

Attorneys for Epstein did not respond to repeated requests for comment. (Read much more: The Daily Beast, 7/24/2019)

November 4, 2019 - The Clinton Foundation continues to list Epstein's former charity as a donor

Epstein’s former charity, the C.O.U.Q. Foundation, donated $25,000 to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charity, according to C.O.U.Q.’s 2006 tax return. The group is listed among past and present donors on the Clinton Foundation’s website. (Photo Illustration by Lyne Lucien/The Daily Beast)

(…) The constant trickle of bad press has resulted in some charities and political candidates keeping their distance from the perverted hedge-funder.

In 2006, former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he’d distribute Epstein’s $50,000 campaign donation to charities throughout the state, while New York’s gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer and attorney general hopeful Mark Green returned donations of $50,000 and $10,000, respectively, from the billionaire.

In 2015, nonprofits including Florida’s Ballet Palm Beach told Reuters they’d no longer accept Epstein’s money following Giuffre’s headline-grabbing allegations. “The further I can keep myself from anything like that the better,” the ballet’s founder said.

When Epstein tried donating to House Democrats last October, they quickly returned a $10,000 offering from the political pariah. One spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee told The Daily Beast, “Without second thought, the DCCC immediately refunded this unsolicited donation.”

Still, others have quietly welcomed Epstein’s cash. His former charity, the C.O.U.Q. Foundation (also known as the Florida Science Foundation), donated $25,000 to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charity, according to C.O.U.Q.’s 2006 tax return. The group is listed among past and present donors on the Clinton Foundation’s website.

Harvard also kept a $6.5-million check from Epstein to fund the university’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, the Harvard Crimson reported in 2006. (Read more: The Daily Beast, 11/04/2019)  (Archive)

(Timeline editor’s note: As of the date this timeline entry was published on October 28, 2021, the C.O.U.Q. Foundation is still listed on the Clinton Foundation website as a donor.)

November 22, 2019 - Rudy Giuliani sends a letter to Senator Graham outlining acting U.S ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor's efforts to block witnesses

Bill Taylor (Credit: Fox News)

“It was evident several weeks ago that U.S. chargé d’affaires to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, is one of the current participants in the coup effort.  It was Taylor who engaged in carefully planned text messages with EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland to set-up a narrative helpful to Adam Schiff’s political coup effort.

Bill Taylor was formerly U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine (’06-’09) and later helped the Obama administration to design the laundry operation providing taxpayer financing to Ukraine in exchange for back-channel payments to U.S. politicians and their families.

Rudy Giuliani (Credit: Anthony Devlin/Shutterstock)

Today Rudy Giuliani has released a letter to Senator Lindsey Graham outlining how Bill Taylor has blocked VISA’s for Ukrainian ‘whistle-blowers’ who are willing to testify to the corrupt financial scheme.   Unfortunately, Senator Graham, along with dozens of U.S. Senators currently serving, may very well have been a recipient for money through the aforementioned laundry process.  So, good luck with the visas.

U.S. senators write foreign aid policies, rules, and regulations thereby creating the financing mechanisms to transmit U.S. funds.  Those same senators then received a portion of the laundered funds back through their various “institutes” and business connections to the foreign government offices; in this example Ukraine. [ex. Burisma to Biden]

The U.S. State Dept. serves as a distribution network for the authorization of the money laundering by granting conflict waivers, approvals for financing (think Clinton Global Initiative), and permission slips for the payment of foreign money.   The officials within the State Dept. take a cut of the overall payments through a system of “indulgence fees”, junkets, gifts and expense payments to those with political oversight.

If anyone gets too close to revealing the process, writ large, they become a target of the entire apparatus.  President Trump was considered an existential threat to this entire process.  Hence our current political status with the ongoing coup. The letter.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, because, well, in reality, all of the U.S. Senators (both parties) on the Foreign Relations Committee [Members Here] are participating in the process for receiving taxpayer money and contributions from foreign governments.

Mitch McConnell (Credit: Getty Images)

A “Codel” is a congressional delegation that takes trips to work out the payment terms/conditions of any changes in graft financing.  This is why Senators spend $20 million on a campaign to earn a job paying $350k/year.  The “institutes” is where the real foreign money comes in; billions paid by governments like China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Ukraine, etc. etc.  There are trillions at stake.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell holds the power over these members (and the members of the Senate Intel Committee), because McConnell decides who sits on what committee.  As soon as a Senator starts taking the bribes lobbying funds, McConnell then has full control over that Senator.  This is how the system works.

The McCain Institute is one of the obvious examples of the financing network.  And that is the primary reason why Cindy McCain is such an outspoken critic of President Trump.  In essence, President Trump is standing between her and her next diamond necklace; a dangerous place to be.

So when we think about a Senate Impeachment Trial; and we consider which senators will vote to impeach President Trump, it’s not just a matter of Democrats -vs- Republican.  We need to look at the game of leverage, and the stand-off between those bribed Senators who would prefer President Trump did not interfere in their process.

McConnell has been advising President Trump which Senators are most likely to need their sensibilities eased.   As an example, President Trump met with Lisa Murkowski last week.  Senator Murkowski rakes in millions from the Oil and Gas industry, and she ain’t about to allow horrible Trump to lessen her bank account any more than Cindy McCain will give up her frequent shopper discounts at Tiffany’s.

WASHINGTON DC – Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) is getting a high-profile perch as he joins the Senate during his latest clash with President Trump.

Romney was named on Thursday to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, giving him an opening to wade into several looming foreign policy battles between Congress and the White House.  (link)

Now do you see how McConnell works?

Oh yeah, about those recess appointments…. Once you see the strings on the Marionettes you can never go back to a time when you did not see them. (Conservative Treehouse, 11/23/2019)

The following day, Giuliani tweets:

(Republished with permission.)

December 8, 2019 - OAN Lutsenko interview outlines Marie Yovanovitch perjury; George Kent impeachment motive; Lindsey Graham motive to bury investigation

In a fantastic display of true investigative journalism, One America News journalist Chanel Rion tracked down Ukrainian witnesses as part of an exclusive OAN investigative series. The evidence being discovered dismantles the baseless Adam Schiff impeachment hoax and highlights many corrupt motives for U.S. politicians.

Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress.

What is outlined in this interview is a  problem for all DC politicians across both parties.  The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko were not done independently.

Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously protecting Joe Biden and his family.  This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch.

Imagine what would happen if all of the background information was to reach the general public?  Thus the motive for Lindsey Graham currently working to bury it.

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

You might remember George Kent and Bill Taylor testified together.

It was evident months ago that U.S. chargé d’affaires to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, was one of the current participants in the coup effort against President Trump.  It was Taylor who engaged in carefully planned text messages with EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland to set-up a narrative helpful to Adam Schiff’s political coup effort.

Bill Taylor was formerly U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine (’06-’09) and later helped the Obama administration to design the laundry operation providing taxpayer financing to Ukraine in exchange for back-channel payments to U.S. politicians and their families.

In November Rudy Giuliani released a letter he sent to Senator Lindsey Graham outlining how Bill Taylor blocked VISA’s for Ukrainian ‘whistle-blowers’ who are willing to testify to the corrupt financial scheme.

Unfortunately, as we are now witnessing, Senator Lindsey Graham, along with dozens of U.S. Senators currently serving, may very well have been recipients for money through the aforementioned laundry process.  The VISA’s are unlikely to get approval for congressional testimony, or Senate impeachment trial witness testimony.

U.S. senators write foreign aid policy, rules and regulations thereby creating the financing mechanisms to transmit U.S. funds.  Those same senators then received a portion of the laundered funds back through their various “institutes” and business connections to the foreign government offices; in this example Ukraine. [ex. Burisma to Biden]

The U.S. State Dept. serves as a distribution network for the authorization of the money laundering by granting conflict waivers, approvals for financing (think Clinton Global Initiative), and permission slips for the payment of foreign money.   The officials within the State Dept. take a cut of the overall payments through a system of “indulgence fees”, junkets, gifts and expense payments to those with political oversight.

If anyone gets too close to revealing the process, writ large, they become a target of the entire apparatus.  President Trump was considered an existential threat to this entire process.  Hence our current political status with the ongoing coup.

Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator John McCain meeting with corrupt Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko in December 2016.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, because, well, in reality, all of the U.S. Senators (both parties) are participating in the process for receiving taxpayer money and contributions from foreign governments.

A “Codel” is a congressional delegation that takes trips to work out the payment terms/conditions of any changes in graft financing.  This is why Senators spend $20 million on a campaign to earn a job paying $350k/year.  The “institutes” is where the real foreign money comes in; billions paid by governments like China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Ukraine, etc. etc.  There are trillions at stake.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 12/08/2019)

January 21, 2020 - Peter Schweizer's new book - "Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elite"

“For over a decade, the work of five-time New York Times bestselling investigative reporter Peter Schweizer has sent shockwaves through the political universe.

Clinton Cash revealed the Clintons’ international money flow, exposed global corruption, and sparked an FBI investigation. Secret Empires exposed bipartisan corruption and launched congressional investigations. And Throw Them All Out and Extortion prompted passage of the STOCK Act. Indeed, Schweizer’s “follow the money” bombshell revelations have been featured on the front pages of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and regularly appear on national news programs, including 60 Minutes.

Now Schweizer and his team of seasoned investigators turn their focus to the nation’s top progressives—politicians who strive to acquire more government power to achieve their political ends.

Can they be trusted with more power?

In Profiles in Corruption, Schweizer offers a deep-dive investigation into the private finances and secrets deals of some of America’s top political leaders. And, as usual, he doesn’t disappoint, with never-before-reported revelations that uncover corruption and abuse of power—all backed up by a mountain of corporate documents and legal filings from around the globe. Learn about how they are making sweetheart deals, generating side income, bending the law to their own benefits, using legislation to advance their own interests, and much more.” (Amazon)

January 29, 2020 - Is AIDS US $90b in taxpayer dollars a global slush fund?

(Credit: Corey’s Dig)

“Well over a hundred billion dollars has siphoned through the hands of individuals with scandalous histories, with over $90 billion from the U.S. Government (taxpayers) alone, via PEPFAR.

• The U.S. Government’s PEPFAR is the largest funder of any nation to a single disease in the world, and the largest donor to the Global Fund, to the tune of over $90 billion to date. Despite this, due to the fact that the Global Fund is located in Geneva, Switzerland, it is not subject to U.S. taxation, jurisdiction, or law. George W. Bush’s 2006 executive order afforded the Global Fund additional exemptions, privileges, and immunities.

• Three U.S. Presidents, over 35 governments, the UNDP, the Global Fund, GAVI, and over two dozen major non-profits along with countless smaller ones, have been cashing in for nearly two decades.

• Bill and Melinda Gates, Jeffrey Sachs, Kofi Annan, and Amir Attaran are listed as the founders of The Global Fund, but who really strategized and implemented its structure, its funding, and its “immunity” status?

• In 2015 USAID awarded Chemonics $9.5 billion to fund these supply chain programs. Only 7% of the drug shipments were delivered on time and in full. This is just one example. There are countless scandals throughout this book.

• There are allegedly 23.3 million people on HIV treatment. The new three-in-one pill runs $75/year per person in developing countries. The Clintons, among others, are cashing in on this new drug. An almost identical therapy in the U.S. runs $39,000 per person, per year. The global HIV drugs market exceeded a value of $24.7 billion in 2018.

This is potentially one of the biggest, ongoing slush funds of our time, perpetrated by over 35 governments, “philanthropists,” politicians, so-called elites, and celebrities, while preying on the weak at heart to donate their hard-earned money to the “Global Fund” that helps children and adults beat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. But does it really? How much of the money is going toward this and how many people are the meds really reaching? Reports raise serious concerns. We are talking about BILLIONS of dollars changing hands among governments and the wealthy, in addition to “Acts”, “Bills”, and “Executive Orders” all strategically aligning for this operation to function full throttle – across three former U.S. presidencies. Scandal after scandal has rocked this “cause” – a cause that should most definitely be under investigation, but with all of its immunities and safeguards in place, who will investigate?

The Global Fund is an octopus with many arms, including the UNDP receiving funds and acting as an implementing partner in numerous countries. Once a few “elites” and governments orchestrated the structure, everyone joined in. Scores of NGOs lined up, and celebrities quickly jumped aboard in their “ambassador roles” and organized their foundations, including Bono’s ‘RED’ and ‘ONE’ campaigns which beg and shame the public into purchasing their products because the funds allegedly “help save lives.”

Just think what $90 billion dollars could have done to save the homeless, the sick, veterans, single parents, and those in need in the U.S. Just think how many people in developing countries have been exploited.

In order to disclose all of this “open sourced” information and show how it all connects, it is pertinent to understand the timeline before getting into the multitude of actors and the scandal itself. Why? There are many reasons that will become obvious as you read, such as the involvement of three US presidents, and a particular couple that has been very involved with AIDS since the 70’s, and not by way of humanitarianism. Quite the opposite.

Due to how expansive this network is, this book has been broken down into numerous chapters which will be available for download in PDF format in The Bookshop. It begins with the timeline, which will give a very brief breakdown of events and some of the actors involved, just to establish their strategy and the basis for subsequent chapters, which will be rolled out over time. The timeline acts much like a road map and is absolutely mandatory reading to see the strategy involved.” (Read more: Corey’s Digs, 1/29/2020)  (Archive)

February 21, 2020 - New details revealed in interview with Clinton Whistleblower, Nate Cain

“Nate Cain is a Patriot. He risked everything to reveal the active cover-up of FBI Director Comey and his efforts to protect the Clinton Global Crime Network. Comey suppressed huge troves of FBI investigative files; Nate found them and turned them over to Rep. Devin Nunes and IG Michael E. Horowitz. This is Nate’s story, many of the details never before disclosed.

Bards Of War Podcast explores politics, culture, economics, faith, war, and human nature by building context through story and narrative. Effective research will cross-reference material to create a hybrid map built on qualitative and quantitative data cycling. This allows narratives to be developed, assessed and analyzed. This is the foundation of cultural analysis.

The podcast episodes are presented by Scott Kesterson, a U.S. documentary filmmaker, backpack journalist, researcher and writer.”

March 27, 2020 - The Clinton Foundation, Gates Foundation, Global Fund, WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and possible fraud

Tedros Anhanom Ghebreyesus and Bill Gates attend a Rotary convention to discuss WHO and the Gates Foundation’s collaborative initiatives focusing on primary health care on June 13, 2017. (Credit: Tedros AdhanonGhebreyesus/Facebook)

The current head of WHO is a Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, formerly the head of the Ministry of Health in Ethiopia, a speaker at the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, and named chair of the board of the Global Fund in July 2009: Global Fund Board appoints Minister of Health of Ethiopia as Chair

The Global Fund is an independent Geneva-based financing entity launched in 2002 to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The US government provides 1/3rd of its funding totaling $18B to date since inception:

The U.S. & The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

This updated fact sheet examines the key role played by the United States in the Global Fund, an independent, multilateral financing entity designed to raise significant new resources to combat HIV…

Not widely known or broadcasted is the fact that the Clinton Foundation and Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (an unauthorized and unapproved program by IRS codes) has been a sub-recipient of Global Fund money (pages 8, 9, 11, 25, 51): Independent Progress Report Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative in Indonesia 

During Tedros Adhanom’s tenure as board chair of the Global Fund, the organization gets rocked by claims of fraud and misappropriation of funds. The US House Committee on Foreign Relations drafts a report:

Fraud and Abuse of Global Fund – Investments at Risk Without Greater Transparency

“…to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to correct and prevent the misuse of Fund resources.”

(page 6/10) The Congressional report and other reviews minimize the size of the fraud and misappropriation of funds. Others with a more discerning eye had a more critical take.

A full 67% of money spent on an anti-AIDS program in Mauritania was misspent, the investigators told the fund’s board of directors. So did [sic] 36% of the money spent on a program in Mali to fight tuberculosis and malaria, 30% of grants to Djibouti”

How Did the Global Fund Fire Its Inspector General and Then Claim He Worked Without Interference?

The problem here — the loophole the Congress left open and the State Department drove its certification process through — is secrecy.

Who was minding the purse strings of USAID which was the source of funds that went from the US State Dept to the Global Fund at this juncture? Documents we sourced from the State Department show that none other than Secretary Hillary Clinton herself oversaw the USAID funds.

How did the State Department view this fraud at the Global Fund?  From a letter we sourced written by the Government Accountability Project on April 22, 2016, we learned:

“…this documentation strongly indicates an irregular and improper collusion between the Global Fund and the State Department in Washington that cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in the succeeding years. It is tantamount to fraud.”

At the same time, the Clinton Fdn and Clinton HIV/AIDs and Clinton Health Access Initiative were collecting millions in fees, the Global Fund and also other recipients of Global Fund money who in turn were donors to the Clinton Foundation (classic money laundering). These donors include the governments of the Dominican Republic, Rwanda, and Lesotho. Where was the State Department IG while all this was going on? Oh, yes, that’s right there was no IG for the State Department during HRC’s tenure. How does that happen? Perhaps the same way a Secretary of State sets up a secret server. Rule of law, anybody?

State Department Lacked Top Watchdog During Hillary Clinton Tenure

The State Department had no permanent inspector general during Hillary Clinton’s entire tenure as secretary, leaving in place an acting inspector who had close ties to agency leadership.

So when you hear from @BillGates and the World Health Organization @WHO and the Global Fund @GlobalFund and a host of others about WHO leader Tedros Adhanom and for another version of the Global Fund to battle coronavirus, please retweet this thread.” (Financial Bounty Hunters/USA @LWDoyleUSA, 3/27/2020)  (Archive)

(Timeline editor’s note: The Twitter thread that includes this source material has been reformatted for an easier read.)

April 18, 2020 - At a Clinton Global Initiative University event, Bill Clinton and Gavin Newsom discuss an "army of contact tracers" that will be tracking American citizens

On April 18, 2020, the Clinton Global Initiative University hosted a Coronavirus event to discuss the following:

“Today, President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton held a virtual convening of students, government leaders, and health experts from around the world for the 12^th annual Clinton Global Initiative University (CGI U) meeting. Since its launch in 2007, CGI U has brought together 10,000 college students from around the globe to tackle the world’s most pressing challenges – building “Commitments to Action” that address challenges on their campuses, in their local communities, and around the world.

Today’s program included opportunities for students to hear from government and health leaders, have their questions answered by President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, collaborate with other students, and respond to a new challenge to build Commitments to Action that respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the program, students came together in virtual breakout sessions to discuss their Commitments to Action and responses to the pandemic with peers who are in the same region.

President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton also announced the formation of the CGI U COVID-19 Student Action Fund,(link is external) funded by Founding Partner, Kevin Xu and colleges and universities that comprise the CGI University Network. This fund will provide over $100,000 in funding to student projects that aim to fight the pandemic, including awareness and prevention campaigns; disease monitoring and response systems; support projects for public health practitioners, and other programs.

Part of this event also included a virtual conversation between Bill Clinton and California Governor Gavin Newsom, discussing the “need” to track people “who are positive” with the Wuhan Coronavirus aka COVID-19, and describing the effort in terms of an “army” of young people. “Should we have a contact tracer corps, even if we call it something more elegant?” Clinton asks.

Newsom’s response to Clinton is an affirmative yes, explaining in no uncertain terms:

“The predicate for getting back to some semblance of normalcy is our ability to identify individuals through testing; to be able to trace their contacts; to isolate individuals that have either been exposed or quarantine people that are testing positive.”

The video clip below has been removed by YouTube and was tricky to recover from Twitter. It now has a permanent spot in the Clinton Foundation timeline, for posterity’s sake.

(Credit: Resurrection Europa@WolfishHead/Twitter)

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said at his coronavirus briefing on April 30, 2020, that the state will hire thousands of contact tracers as part of the system being developed to help the state return to everyday life.

Not to be outdone, on April 28, 2020, during a virtual town hall with 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton says regarding the coronavirus pandemic, “this is a high stakes time because of the pandemic” and later said, “this would be a terrible crisis to waste.”

On May 4, 2020, we learn California’s Ventura County is hiring “contact tracers” and implementing the program.