Bill Clinton The Tax Cheat - How many years in prison for tens of millions of dollars?

Although the FBI reopening the Clinton Email Investigations yesterday is quite a bombshell, it seems to me that the real Big Story this week was how the Clinton Foundation being a money laundering front is now out in the open. Amidst thoughts of how convenient the timing of the email thing (distraction anyone?), it also occurred to me the apparent Big Story within the Big Story...

Bill Clinton The Tax Cheat

Here we're talking about tens of millions of dollars in recent years, also including a sort of annuity payment schedule of $66,000,000 over the next several years.

Well, I went and checked out the reported income from the Clinton Foundation AKA "Bill Clinton Inc.", and in the case presented by a fact checker (on if he's been getting paid) shows him a reporting taking home ZERO dollars.

Some Republicans have presented the embattled Clinton Foundation as serving one purpose: "lining the pockets of Bill and Hillary Clinton," as GOP Chair Reince Priebus put it.

Responding to such criticisms, Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen said the Clintons "take no personal benefit" from the foundation. She also pointed out the legitimate charitable work the foundation carries out, such as its programs addressing AIDS in Africa and storm recovery in Haiti.

"The Clinton Foundation is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it," Rosen said on NPR’s The Diane Rehm Show Aug. 24. www.politifact.com...

This in turn got me thinking about all those 'gifts' and such also lumped into the '500 conflicts of interests' Doug Band talked about in the WikiLeaks email:

Gifts from Foreign Person - IRS.gov
If you are a U.S. person who received foreign gifts of money or other property, you may need to report these gifts on Form 3520, Annual Return to Report Transactions with Foreign Trusts and Receipt of Certain Foreign Gifts. Form 3520 is an information return, not a tax return, because foreign gifts are not subject to income tax. However, there are significant penalties for failure to file Form 3520 when it is required.

General Rule: Foreign Gifts
In general, a foreign gift is money or other property received by a U.S. person from a foreign person that the recipient treats as a gift or bequest and excludes from gross income. A “foreign person” is a nonresident alien individual or foreign corporation, partnership or estate.

The IRS may re-characterize purported gifts from foreign partnerships or foreign corporations as items of income that must be included in gross income. Additionally, gifts from foreign trusts are subject to different rules than gifts other foreign persons.

Of course we know all about how the Clinton's just love gifts, from their White House days alone.

Viral image claims Clintons stole $200k in furniture, china and artwork from White House
The problem was, Mittman and a few others included on the list said they never intended their gifts to go to the Clintons. They thought they were donating to the White House itself as part a major remodeling project in 1993.

This is where the questions of provenance get muddy. Some gifts are intended for the government, and must stay in the government’s hands, while some are intended for the person living in the White House. But it’s not always as simple as "this is mine" and "that is Uncle Sam’s."

Within about two weeks of the publication of the Post article, public criticism escalated, and the Clintons announced that they would pay the government nearly $86,000 for items that were actually government property. A few days after that, they also returned about $48,000 worth of furniture (including the sofas, chair and ottoman from Mittman).

Add that up and the government got back $134,000 out of the $190,000 the Clinton’s had declared as gifts. But as an indication of how hard it is to determine ownership, the National Park Service, which oversees the White House property, later returned a chair and an ottoman to the Clintons.

How many years in prison for tens of millions of dollars?

Now that we have the dirty, lets see what kind of hard time other notable tax cheats have faced:

Wesley Snipes

Snipes, 50, was convicted of three misdemeanor counts back in 2008 for failing to file tax returns from 1999-2001. During the three-year period, Snipes cheated the government out of $7 million, reports New York's Daily News. He lost an appeal for a retrial in 2010, which resulted in his being sentenced to three years at a McKean Federal Correctional Institution in Pennsylvania, where he was housed with roughly 290 white-collar inmates. www.usatoday.com...

“Survivor” Richard Hatch

He survived the first season of Survivor, winning $1 million. But when it came time to paying his taxes, he stayed on the island and voted CBS off, claiming the network agreed to pay his taxes. In 2006, Hatch was found guilty of tax evasion and served part of a six-year prison sentence as a result. Then in March 2011, he returned for his third prison term for failing to file amended returns. Celebrity tax lesson: Don't “forget” to pay taxes on your income…especially before 51 million television viewers. www.legalzoom.com...

Ron Mix, a Pro Football Hall of Fame member

Is facing up to three years in prison after pleading guilty to a Missouri tax fraud charge. He agreed to pay the IRS about $50,000 for one count of making false statements on a tax return. The statements are related to illegal payments he submitted as a San Diego lawyer to a non-lawyer for client referrals. Mix donated about $155,000 over a three-year period to a charity the non-lawyer operated, and Mix reported the payments as charitable deductions. www.efile.com...

Ja Rule

In 2011, rapper Ja Rule — whose real name is Jeffrey Atkins — pleaded guilty to charges of failing to file tax returns from 2004 to 2006. He agreed to repay $1.1 million in unpaid taxes and was sentenced to 28 months in prison. That sentence ran concurrent with a two-year sentence for a gun charge stemming from a traffic stop in 2007. www.nydailynews.com...

Al Capone

After years of trying to nab the notorious gangster for his more serious crimes, authorities finally got Capone on income tax evasion. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison, some of which he served at the infamous Alcatraz island prison.

thefederalist.com...

As with all of the stuff I write, by all means please feel free to repost my work far and wide.

The wiseguys know that laws are for the common chump citizen. When it comes to the power elite, the "rules are more like guidelines" and if you're not caught "bending" the rules, then no problem. If you are caught, then call up some favors, pull some strings or assemble the dream team of lawyers to get yourself off the hook. If you're really smart, blackmail works wonders.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Good work. This would also be a bombshell if everyone didnt already know the CF was a money-laundering machine but damn they bring in a sh!t-ton of money.

I used to think i would never find a family i hated more than the Bushes but GD the Clintons simply bring home the bacon and give corruption a new name. I hate you Clintons! Kiss my ass!

Trump in just one year of losing close to a billion dollard evaded paying more taxes than bill clinton has all is life.

But great colorful graphics and fake trigger words, at least you didint resort to using the nazy reference.

Yawn, you must be tired with all the great work lol your doing these days, keep up the propaganda work the fatherland, oups the homeland would be proud.

So for all the claims about Trump's taxes, with zero evidence of any wrong doing, it turns out the Clinton's were blaming their enemy for what the do themselves - again.

Clinton's. Tax cheats.

I love the smell of RICO in the morning! Smells like burnt coconuts.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Ever hear how in business capital investments and capital losses are tax deductible?

What was Bill Clinton's "business" again, oh, that's right, "Bill Clinton Inc.".

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Ever hear how in business capital investments and capital losses are tax deductible?

What was Bill Clinton's "business" again, oh, that's right, "Bill Clinton Inc.".

Yes, ever heard of propaganda 101, be as vague as possible and use colorful graphics and words but dont bring concrete proof of what you post, you should know by now, try harder where not all idiots online.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Trump has already Won.

The Truth hurts doesn't it.

Oh well you'll get used to it.

Oh, apologies, I forgot the news clips, for those that don't get feeds from our loving MSM:

Wikileaks Explodes MSNBCWSJNYTimesWashPost Media Blackout Ending Chelsea Comes Clean

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

If you're intent on challenging the CF = "Bill Clinton Inc." claim (the basis for this taxes analysis here), I already provided the link to that topic thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That one is even the mud pit where you can call me a propagandist without worry of trouboh,

Here I hoped we could have a rational, non-ad hominem discourse on the deeper issue.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Perhaps you don't understand how corporations work. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt.

1. Donations to the CF or CGI are not income to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is not the Clinton Foundation (or CGI) as they are two separate legal entities. ("Bill Clinton Inc." On the other hand, is nothing but a sort of snide nickname given by an employee).

2. Your next comment "we're talking about tens of millions of dollars" and "a sort of annuity payment over 10 years" has no substantial basis. Let's see if you back that up before the end of your little ready made presentation.

3. You skirt the requirements of ATS T&C by using "graphics" (assumed to be snips of screenshots) and you provide no reference or citation or backup for those images. Just a note to credibility as we move through.

4. The Clinton's don't take any income from the Clinton foundation according to "Pundit Fact" ... okay.

5. Then you insert another little snippet from Politifact seemingly to substantiate that the Clintons dont take salaries but you start it out with Reince and Wash Priebus making a wholly unsubstantiated accusation that the CF is just a money laundering scheme. Typical for you, but let's move on.

6. Another screenshot, this time from a Twitter account (no link). Yes, we all know that every tweet is absolutely factual. In fact, we don't even know that you (or whoever provides these graphics to you) didn't alter the statement because, again, you didn't provide a source-link.

7. Doug Band is an unquestionable source then? More allegations with no proof. Again no source for your graphic.

8. Oh goody, something official looking! (And an actual working link for a change.). Yes, the IRS does have rules for how gifts domestic or foreign affect income. Surprise.

9. Ah yes, Punditfact again (thanks for a working link this time). Your source states clearly that goods in question were either returned or paid for by the Clintons ... so aside from the typical right-wing slur that the Clinton's "stole" from the White House, this is just your version of sauce-for-the-goose. For most of us, that's just BS. Take-away: The Clintons didn't steal anything.

But you're trying to make a case about "gifts" right? At least loosely? When are you going to talk about that?

10. "Now that we have the dirty" you say ... what??? You haven't proven ANYTHING aside from there was confusion when the Clintons left the WH as to what had been given to them and what had been given to the government. They returned and/or paid for anything under contention. You haven't shown anything about "the dirty."

11. Ah ... nice. Some actual links! To "tax cheats" ... that does bulk up your post eh? Makes it look credible? Except you haven't proven one single thing about a Bill Clinton "tax cheat" yet. You're puffing like an industry professional here ... you're claiming that you've demonstrated something that you obviously have not.

12. Another graphic, now throwing back to the ridiculous and ignorant claim that the CLinton Foundatrion only donates six percent to charity ... the Foundation has an A rating from Charity Watch, and the work that the CF does is service oriented, i.e. It's not a clearing house for donations, the Clinton Foundation (and CGI) are in the field doing the work. Again, this garden-variety slur has NOTHING to do with Bill Clinton's supposed income, gifts, or any "Tax evasion."

I'd never bothered to work my way through one of your long, drawn-out presentations, because my instincts told me I'd find just what I have ... this is typical tabloidism. You mesh words and images together that have no reliation to each other. You provide graphics (screenshots) that for the most part are unsourced.

Back to my observation #2. You never clarify what "tens of millions of dollars" you're talking about nor what kind of "annuity payment, sort of" that Clinton is supposed to be receiving.

You'd like to see your "work" reposted far and wide... so what, you think you're working on a "alternative journalism" career or something? Sure, with a little tightening up, you might make the cut at Breitbart but even their standards are higher than this.

I'd say you're already good to go for The National Enquirer or [i]The Star[/i].

Might want to check with ATS about using their content though.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
3. You skirt the requirements of ATS T&C by using "graphics" (assumed to be snips of screenshots) and you provide no reference or citation or backup for those images. Just a note to credibility as we move through.

I'm trying to go to bed, but I'll put this to rest. I'm either using Twitter screenshots, which do have the sources of the tweets, and if you look close above it even has the detriotfreepress.com was the article the person was tweeting.

In other cases I take screen shots of the title sections, and then I go to the trouble of adding the source logo's into the image, manually. This general method generally provides the photo of the 'person', and nice clean high contrast for the title / subtitle (the lack of contrast in this site), the actual authors, the date/time, etc. All that on one nice clean image files, thus relieving code content load.

Then, when I first post one of these images I usually include a quote from the source article the with the link below it.

Doing too good of a job has always been my thing in life. My latest little gfx techniques are but one of the latest examples of it.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Gryphon66
3. You skirt the requirements of ATS T&C by using "graphics" (assumed to be snips of screenshots) and you provide no reference or citation or backup for those images. Just a note to credibility as we move through.

I'm trying to go to bed, but I'll put this to rest. I'm either using Twitter screenshots, which do have the sources of the tweets, and if you look close above it even has the detriotfreepress.cm was the article the person was tweeting.

In other cases I take screen shots of the title sections, and then I go to the trouble of adding the source logo's into the image, manually. When i first work one of these images I usually include a quote from the source article the with the link below it.

Doing too good of a job has always been my thing in life. My latest little gfx techniques are but one of the latest examples of it.

Aside from blowing your own horn (and your ability to use Snipper) you're not following the protocol of backing up your absurd claims. Also, you're admitting that you're altering the images. Thanks for your honesty. Period, end of story.

Have a good sleep.

Is ok the Clintons foundation make sure that their income is none taxable.

They are conniving enough to make sure of that.

originally posted by: marg6043
Is ok the Clintons foundation make sure that their income is none taxable.

They are conniving enough to make sure of that.

Hillary Clinton has provided about 40 years of tax returns.

Can you back up your statement with any facts?

The fact that the Obamas stand behind and have been campaigning for/with the Clintons tells us everything we need to know about both of them.

Corruption is all we've seen for 15 from the WH. This must end here and now!

Down with the establishment picks!

originally posted by: six67seven
The fact that the Obamas stand behind and have been campaigning for/with the Clintons tells us everything we need to know about both of them.

Corruption is all we've seen for 15 from the WH. This must end here and now!

Down with the establishment picks!

Another string of empty BS claims. What kind of "corruption" are you trying to cite the OBamas with again?

Down with the Establishment! Sure, as long as it's not just "one side" of it like most of you mooks are calling for around here.

a reply to: six67seven

Corruption of one sort or another is what the Oval Office has traded in since 1913, if you want to be objective, rather than subjective about it.

Some of that corruption is tax related, some of it is purely about the machinations of the people who own the country, and some of it is relating to the real reasons for war in this place or that place. To suggest that you have had honest, decent presidents since the Fed, is sort of like saying that the crime rate dropped when the Mafia came to town. It did not, but the rate of reporting did.

originally posted by: blackadder01
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Trump has already Won.

The Truth hurts doesn't it.

Oh well you'll get used to it.

Lol someone will be eating crow soon.