Charles Ortel Lobs the First of 40 Bombs at the Clinton Foundation

originally posted by: 727Sky



Now that reply was a great work of fiction !

And does not address any of the items brought up by Mr. Ortel. I've been following his work for quite some time now and he has gone to extensive lengths to produce his report.

Expect either a smear campaign of Mr. Ortel, the end of his life by 'natural causes,' another happening of a distractive nature (and to distract from this, it will be a doozey), or some combination of these.

Blind sycophantic followers like the two (so far) in this thread will doom our country and smile the whole time because they've drunk the koolaid and are wearing the same clothes the empress dons.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

originally posted by: 727Sky



Now that reply was a great work of fiction !

And does not address any of the items brought up by Mr. Ortel. I've been following his work for quite some time now and he has gone to extensive lengths to produce his report.

Expect either a smear campaign of Mr. Ortel, the end of his life by 'natural causes,' another happening of a distractive nature (and to distract from this, it will be a doozey), or some combination of these.

Blind sycophantic followers like the two (so far) in this thread will doom our country and smile the whole time because they've drunk the koolaid and are wearing the same clothes the empress dons.

... er ... did you have anything to say about Ortel's claims about the Clinton foundation?

I am neither blind nor sycophantic. This country is not doomed, and your post is packed full of right-wing cliches.

Did I state that the Clinton Foundation is innocent of these charges? No.

Did I state that Hillary Clinton is innocent? No.

All I stated is the fact that these claims need factual review.

Someone has drunk the Kool-Aid here ... but it isn't me.

Want to dig into the claims? Or are you good to post the standard patter?

Ooops ... didn't get far into Mr. Ortel's report before finding a considerable problem with his presentation ...

From page one of the letter:

No attempt has been made to verify the accuracy of underlying source material; however, every reasonable effort has been made to direct readers to public filings and other documents evaluated and mentioned in the First Foundation Report, the Second Foundation Report, and these Exhibits.

So, selected items from public filings have been imported into this report, couched in fairly dramatic language (at least in the introduction) and no effort has been made to verify the factual nature of the primary materials used?

Heck, one doesn't even have to go that far ... here's the first sentence from Mr. Ortel's summary:

To informed analysts, the Clinton Foundation appears to be a rogue charity that has neither been organized nor operated lawfully from inception in October 1997 to date

Which "informed analysts" would that be? Is Mr. Ortel describing himself and his report in that way? LOL. Cheeky.

Lacking that information ... let's look at what non-partisan analysts say about the CF:

Independent Watchdog Group Charity Watch gives Clinton Foundation an A rating

Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said. We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.

Low Hanging Fruit from FactCheck

So, no all "analysts" don't concur with Mr. Ortel's opening statement ... by a long shot.

Further ...

Financial Documents

Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation's rating is based on CharityWatch's in-depth analysis of the following documents for the fiscal year represented:

Entity Document Type Tax Id # Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation Audited Consolidated Financial Statements Multiple

Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation IRS Form 990 31-1580204

Clinton Health Access Initiative IRS Form 990 27-1414646

Clinton Health Access Initiative & Subsidiaries Audited Consolidated Financial Statements 27-1414646

So ... no, "informed analysts" do not all agree with Mr. Ortel's fairly blatantly biased opening ... all this on just the first page ...

originally posted by: AboveBoard


We so want to know the truth, but I have strong doubts Mr. Ortel is the harbinger. He seems more like a part of the smoke-generation machinery. That's my opinion, however, and honestly, I don't have time to sift through the muck to see what, if anything, he says "sticks."

- AB

I would like to remind everyone that this document is just an outline of his findings. he will supposedly release proof in further updates of these accusations. I will reserve my judgement until I see it.

However, AboveBoard, you really take the cake.

You take the time to outline how this is some nefarious plot by Ortel and anti Clinton people to blow smoke, but then you admit that you can't be bothered to read his evidence.

How dare you accuse other people of falling for someone blowing smoke when you admit you can't even be bothered to read the evidence!

And another lie before we get off page one ... the claim that the Clinton Foundation is not authorized as a charity ...

Copy of IRS Determination Letter

and while we're at it, the Clinton Global Initiative letter of determination ... Link

and as for the apparent lie that the Foundation is not independently audited ...

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) prepared the original and amended returns for 2013 and the 2014 Forms 990 and 990T. PwC also performed the independent audit of the Foundation’s consolidated financial statement for 2014 which includes the accounts and activities of the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI).

Source - Clinton Foudnation - Audits, Financial Information

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

originally posted by: 727Sky

Now that reply was a great work of fiction !

And does not address any of the items brought up by Mr. Ortel. I've been following his work for quite some time now and he has gone to extensive lengths to produce his report.

Expect either a smear campaign of Mr. Ortel, the end of his life by 'natural causes,' another happening of a distractive nature (and to distract from this, it will be a doozey), or some combination of these.

Blind sycophantic followers like the two (so far) in this thread will doom our country and smile the whole time because they've drunk the koolaid and are wearing the same clothes the empress dons.

... er ... did you have anything to say about Ortel's claims about the Clinton foundation?

I am neither blind nor sycophantic. This country is not doomed, and your post is packed full of right-wing cliches.

Did I state that the Clinton Foundation is innocent of these charges? No.

Did I state that Hillary Clinton is innocent? No.

All I stated is the fact that these claims need factual review.

Someone has drunk the Kool-Aid here ... but it isn't me.

Want to dig into the claims? Or are you good to post the standard patter?

So let's wait and read the detail contained in the 40 instalments to come, shall we?

Based on your following few posts, it seems that you will be taking the "debunker" approach, as opposed to detachedly reviewing and considering the information presented - and then drawing conclusions as to the veracity of individual items presented, and the work overall.

Left wing bias is as real as right wing bias.

a reply to: Grambler

I like cake, but I didn't take any.

Look, I appreciate that this could be a real scandal, and have real juicy facts to back it up. It's just that I doubt it highly based on the patterns I've seen in the past during elections.

The pattern is real, and the allegations often go up in the very smoke they hope to demonstrate is a fire. Did anything come of Trump's Birther attacks and his "investigators" he sent up to Hawaii (and where were all the die-hard Birthers when Ted Cruz was a possible candidate?)? This is another example of "smoke blowing." Did anything come out of Whitewater? No, the Clintons were exonerated. This list goes on endlessly.

Sorry you don't like my take on it. It probably should have gone in the Rant forum as I am sick up to my eyeballs with this whole election cycle, and frankly, terrified of Trump, so forgive me for having my own bias to look through.

I don't think Clinton is a pure and shiny Saint. I do think there is a lot of manufactured BS being thrown at her. I have a lot of respect for the OP, and I hope they will do due diligence in their investigation of the allegations summarized.

I SUSPECT this of happening, though I am not accusing anyone here of doing that. The "evidence" must indeed be properly reviewed.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Bias or facts?

Can you dispute the facts I provided that put the lie to Ortel's claims in his "summary introduction"?

That'd be the place to start ... unless you're categorizing yourself under "right wing bias."

The Clinton Foundation IS recognized as a charitable organization.

The Clinton Foundation IS independently audited.

Two LIES and we're not off the first page?

/shrug

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... the accusation is enough for conviction?

No one wants to vet or review the information for accuracy?

Oh, that's right, it's what the right-wing sheep have been led to believe already.

My baaaad.

A literal smoking gun in her hand with a dead body at her feet wouldnt sink this hellspawn.

No amount of accuracy and fact can break the grip this succubus has.

Well, you certainly sound like a totally objective person looking for the facts of the matter ...

... no preconceived notions on your part, no sirree.

(PS, the discussion is about the Clinton FOUNDATION not Hillary.)

She has provided me with all the notions I need and then some.

Odd that you try and make a distinction between her and the foundation.

Does the head of the snake not guide the body?

a reply to: 727Sky

Sigh. Yes. Yes. That's it. All fiction...

It couldn't possibly be true.

What was I thinking??? I guess Kerry was never Swiftboated by Bossie then, too...and Bossie never was fired for making up crap in his "investigations" of the Clintons, and it's all just confusion on my part. And Ortel couldn't possibly be doing something like that during a heated election where the only solid hope the right's candidate has is to make their opponent look significantly worse than him, which is kind of a big job...

This is a conspiracy site, my friend. My tin foil hat is firmly on, thank you. As I mentioned though, and my apologies to the OP, whom I respect greatly, this probably should have gone in the Rant forum...

peace,
AB

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... the accusation is enough for conviction?

No one wants to vet or review the information for accuracy?

Oh, that's right, it's what the right-wing sheep have been led to believe already.

My baaaad.

A literal smoking gun in her hand with a dead body at her feet wouldnt sink this hellspawn.

No amount of accuracy and fact can break the grip this succubus has.

Well, you certainly sound like a totally objective person looking for the facts of the matter ...

... no preconceived notions on your part, no sirree.

(PS, the discussion is about the Clinton FOUNDATION not Hillary.)

She has provided me with all the notions I need and then some.

Odd that you try and make a distinction between her and the foundation.

Does the head of the snake not guide the body?

Odd that I state an obvious fact? Yes, I'm sure in the depths of your belief-based outlook, relying on facts IS odd.

And oh look, more meaningless metaphor ... is Hillary Clinton in charge of the Clinton Foundation?

Or not?

a reply to: AboveBoard
I too have biases, we all do. I am sick of hearing unfounded attacks on both candidates such as who does the KKK like more. But I am still willing to look at facts as they come out, even if they go against my bias.

It is tiresome, but if I am going to have an opinion, I would like it to be as informed as possible.

a reply to: Grambler

I agree that is a good way to look at it. I will be following along and seeing what is found, with my fingers and toes crossed that my assessment is actually true.

It is a wait-see. Will my "fantasy scenario" be vindicated? Maybe. Maybe not.

I'm placing a bet on the side of "smoke," that's all.

- AB

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... the accusation is enough for conviction?

No one wants to vet or review the information for accuracy?

Oh, that's right, it's what the right-wing sheep have been led to believe already.

My baaaad.

A literal smoking gun in her hand with a dead body at her feet wouldnt sink this hellspawn.

No amount of accuracy and fact can break the grip this succubus has.

Well, you certainly sound like a totally objective person looking for the facts of the matter ...

... no preconceived notions on your part, no sirree.

(PS, the discussion is about the Clinton FOUNDATION not Hillary.)

She has provided me with all the notions I need and then some.

Odd that you try and make a distinction between her and the foundation.

Does the head of the snake not guide the body?

Odd that I state an obvious fact? Yes, I'm sure in the depths of your belief-based outlook, relying on facts IS odd.

And oh look, more meaningless metaphor ... is Hillary Clinton in charge of the Clinton Foundation?

Or not?

Who wears the pant suit in that relationship?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mobiusmale

Bias or facts?

Can you dispute the facts I provided that put the lie to Ortel's claims in his "summary introduction"?

That'd be the place to start ... unless you're categorizing yourself under "right wing bias."

The Clinton Foundation IS recognized as a charitable organization.

The Clinton Foundation IS independently audited.


Two LIES and we're not off the first page?

/shrug

1) I believe that his assertion is that the Clinton Foundation does not pass either the "organizational test" or the "operations test", as a charitable foundation - and thus should not be recognized as a charitable organization...that it currently is recognized is not in dispute, I think.

Determined review of these 40 Exhibits that deal primarily with the period 23 October 1997 (when the Clinton Foundation was organized) through 2011 (when attempts to re-organize the Clinton Foundation were most active) demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the Clinton Charity Network was neither organized nor operated lawfully.

As the following IRS publication states clearly, a nonprofit corporation must pass both an “organizational test” and an “operational test” to be legitimately exempt from federal income taxes. “The Dual Test: Organized and Operated 1. IRC 501(c)(3) requires an organization to be both "organized" and "operated" exclusively for one or more IRC 501(c)(3) purposes. If the organization fails either the organizational test or the operational test, it is not exempt. Reg. 1.501(c)(3)–1(a)(1). 2. The organizational test concerns the organization’s articles of organization or comparable governing document. The operational test concerns the organization’s activities. A deficiency in an organization’s governing document cannot be cured by the organization’s actual operations. Likewise, an organization whose activities are not within the statute will not qualify for exemption by virtue of a well written charter. Reg. 1.501(c)(3)–1(b)(1)(iv).”

He claims that this will become obvious, after reading the 40 instalments to follow.

2) He states:

Though required by strict laws, no part of the Clinton Charity Network (including affiliates and joint ventures) has ever procured a comprehensive, independent, and compliant audit of its financial results.

The fact that the Clinton Foundation has an auditor, does not necessarily preclude the possibility that this Firm did not conduct comprehensive forensic audits of the Foundation and all of its affiliates (many of which are located in foreign jurisdictions). In addition, a standard audit only tests an organization's financial record keeping system, and does random verification of source documents.

A standard audit is not "forensic" in nature...one intended to actively look for fraud, hidden books, the truthfulness of source documents coming from 3rd Party entities, etc.

Again, I believe that his claim is that the Clinton Foundation is a multinational criminal enterprise that uses a web of Companies and so-called Charitable organizations around the world, designed to hide its true nature and activities - and to help to cover up its criminal actions.

Let's wait and see if he has the facts to back up these very serious charges...

a reply to: mobiusmale

So ... it is Ortel's OPINION that the Foundation doesn't meet the criteria and his OPINION (put to the lie with facts) that there hasn't been an independent audit? That's just not what he stated.

A forensic audit? Are you saying that it is standard business procedure to conduct an annual forensic audit? Are you intentionally moving the goalposts?

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... the accusation is enough for conviction?

No one wants to vet or review the information for accuracy?

Oh, that's right, it's what the right-wing sheep have been led to believe already.

My baaaad.

A literal smoking gun in her hand with a dead body at her feet wouldnt sink this hellspawn.

No amount of accuracy and fact can break the grip this succubus has.

Well, you certainly sound like a totally objective person looking for the facts of the matter ...

... no preconceived notions on your part, no sirree.

(PS, the discussion is about the Clinton FOUNDATION not Hillary.)

She has provided me with all the notions I need and then some.

Odd that you try and make a distinction between her and the foundation.

Does the head of the snake not guide the body?

Odd that I state an obvious fact? Yes, I'm sure in the depths of your belief-based outlook, relying on facts IS odd.

And oh look, more meaningless metaphor ... is Hillary Clinton in charge of the Clinton Foundation?

Or not?

Who wears the pant suit in that relationship?

If you get beyond spurious metaphors, let me know.

/shrug

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... the accusation is enough for conviction?

No one wants to vet or review the information for accuracy?

Oh, that's right, it's what the right-wing sheep have been led to believe already.

My baaaad.

A literal smoking gun in her hand with a dead body at her feet wouldnt sink this hellspawn.

No amount of accuracy and fact can break the grip this succubus has.

Well, you certainly sound like a totally objective person looking for the facts of the matter ...

... no preconceived notions on your part, no sirree.

(PS, the discussion is about the Clinton FOUNDATION not Hillary.)

She has provided me with all the notions I need and then some.

Odd that you try and make a distinction between her and the foundation.

Does the head of the snake not guide the body?

Odd that I state an obvious fact? Yes, I'm sure in the depths of your belief-based outlook, relying on facts IS odd.

And oh look, more meaningless metaphor ... is Hillary Clinton in charge of the Clinton Foundation?

Or not?

Who wears the pant suit in that relationship?

AND now it has become stupid. I really hope you can see that your "argument" was bad.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mobiusmale

So ... it is Ortel's OPINION that the Foundation doesn't meet the criteria and his OPINION (put to the lie with facts) that there hasn't been an independent audit? That's just not what he stated.

A forensic audit? Are you saying that it is standard business procedure to conduct an annual forensic audit? Are you intentionally moving the goalposts?

Correct, it is Ortel's opinion (or the conclusion he has personally reached). Whether or not others...including you and I...reach the same conclusions will depend on the evidence yet to be presented, and our personal interpretations of same.

No, it is not standard business practice...that would be far too expensive and time consuming. It would only be warranted if/when there was some indication that something was amiss...which can sometimes be indicated by something that you come across in a normal audit (funds seeming to be missing for example), or as a result of a whistle blower's report, or arising from the findings of an independent investigator (like a journalist).

Assuming (for sake of argument) that 10-15% of what Ortel says is true on the face of it (from examination of the public records presented), then a full blown forensic audit, followed by an investigation by the IRS and the FBI would certainly be warranted.