FBI launches new Clinton Foundation investigation

How naive. Do you really think that L.E would even consider getting info from a conspiracy theory forum?

So, that is why you feel so threatened by us exposing the truth about your cultish idol?

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soberbacchus


Nah, it isn't creating anything. It is called doing some basic research and taking reasonable means to verify your facts.

Oh, perhaps try this then.
This is why Don Jr. is going to get "cracked like an egg" as Bannon put it.
His dad is not far behind.

“Set aside Putin and follow the money”
www.vox.com...

Lawyer Probing Russian Corruption Says His Balcony Fall Was ‘No Accident’
www.nbcnews.com...

'The offer was too good to refuse': A major Russian money-laundering case was unexpectedly settled in New York
nordic.businessinsider.com...

June 2016
Don Jr. secretly meets with the Lead Lawyer defending the Russian Money Launderers (Laundering Money in NYC Real Estate)

June 2016
DNC Leaks by Russia

March 2017
Preet Bharara, The Lead Prosecutor in NYC in the Russian Money Laundering case is inexplicably fired by Trump after assurances he would be kept.

June 2017
DOJ offers a settlement in the Money Laundering case with shockingly generous terms and requiring no admission of guilt.
This surprised everyone on both sides as the Case was about to go to trial in NYC and the governments case looked really strong.

It was a gift of settlement and unsolicited and unexpected by the defense.

No one at DOJ has explained why the generous settlement was offered and the case dropped.

Expect this case to be prominent in Mueller's conclusions.

a reply to: soberbacchus

"But, but, Don Jr!" from the same people who whine if you bring up Clinton in a Trump thread. Nice deflecting.

Yet more off topic drivel from those who wish the investigation into the Clinton Foundation were not happening.

Here is another interesting email:

The Clinton Global Initiative's fifth birthday celebration this week

...

Yet the most important speech at the event may not be delivered by either the current or the former president but by Mrs. Clinton herself. She has said the State Department is going to forge new partnerships with philanthropists to achieve America's foreign policy goals (and has already started work on a new initiative around the Middle East peace process). Her speech is an opportunity to announce a radical new departure in the way America gives aid.

...

The aid business in crisis

...

The CGI is not about the old government-to-government aid model. Its members aim to deliver smart aid, based on partnerships between business, philanthropists, and social entrepreneurs. Mrs. Clinton's speech is the perfect opportunity to show that government is ready to work with the CGI crowd to rethink how it does aid.

C05764903(direct .pdf link)

So it seems as though the 5th anniversary of CGI was used to tout how non-profits were to step in to the process of handling aid given to poor countries as a middleman as opposed to having the aid be passed directly from government to government.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

So it seems as though the 5th anniversary of CGI was used to tout how non-profits were to step in to the process of handling aid given to poor countries as a middleman as opposed to having the aid be passed directly from government to government.

That can actually be a good thing if people are concerned that the aid would only be used as a tool by the heads of corrupt governments that receive that aid.

The CGI bypassed that issue, did a lot of the direct work themselves and helped ensure the resources went much more directly to helping people, not dictators.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

So it seems as though the 5th anniversary of CGI was used to tout how non-profits were to step in to the process of handling aid given to poor countries as a middleman as opposed to having the aid be passed directly from government to government.

That can actually be a good thing if people are concerned that the aid would only be used as a tool by the heads of corrupt governments that receive that aid.

The CGI bypassed that issue, did a lot of the direct work themselves and helped ensure the resources went much more directly to helping people, not dictators.

Normally I would agree but when the nonprofits are linked to the CGI / Clintons and the money doesnt reach where it is supposed to go and instead ends up paying for Chelsea Clinton s wedding one has to question it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

So it seems as though the 5th anniversary of CGI was used to tout how non-profits were to step in to the process of handling aid given to poor countries as a middleman as opposed to having the aid be passed directly from government to government.

That can actually be a good thing if people are concerned that the aid would only be used as a tool by the heads of corrupt governments that receive that aid.

The CGI bypassed that issue, did a lot of the direct work themselves and helped ensure the resources went much more directly to helping people, not dictators.

Normally I would agree but when the nonprofits are linked to the CGI / Clintons and the money doesnt reach where it is supposed to go and instead ends up paying for Chelsea Clinton s wedding one has to question it.

The CGI has poured millions in to projects all around the world.

So where did the money go?

a reply to: introvert

Which makes it much easier for funds to be slushed into a non-accountable organization in which Hillary herself was involved while she was responsible for where aid was directed via USAID.

But no, there's no conflict of interests there at all, I'm sure.



Another item of interest:

You may recall that we met late last year when Secretary Clinton received Bernard Schwartz and me to discuss our proposal to raise a significant amount of private funds (without her involvement) to enable Baruch College to re-name and expand its School of Public Affairs as the 'Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Public and International Affairs" and to establish, in parallel, the "Hillary Rodham Clinton Library' to house her correspondence as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State.

...

We are, in fact, eager to coordinate closely (and quietly) with you and the Secretary's other key staff as her thinking and planning evolves over the coming months.

C06135588(direct .pdf link)

So here we have the president of Barauch College indicating that they want to work with Secretary Clinton and her staff on the down low in re-branding a part of the college under Hillary Clinton's name.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Do you have proof of wrongdoing, or do you just insinuate as much, hoping to push an agenda you can't actually prove?

a reply to: Sillyolme

She left the office of S.O.C. Feb 1 2013. They have a few weeks to investigate and bring charges.

And that is what they are doing. They had to wade through the swamp to be able to do it.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

It's strange that the Clinton Family Attorneys have been non-existent in all the reports. Every crime family has at least one loyal consigliere who knows everything. Maybe he/she will be subpoenaed.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical


Just imagine if Hillary had won.

*shudder*

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
Yet more off topic drivel from those who wish the investigation into the Clinton Foundation were not happening.

What investigation?

You have a propaganda threat story leaked by "anonymous sources" claiming an Arkansas field agent talked to someone about the Clinton Foundation?

Hilariously desperate delusion to hide from the very real multiple investigations into your hero's criminal and treasonous path to the Whitehouse.

Congrats! Trump talked someone into leaking a BS story to try and distract from the crap-storm of evidence piling up on his doorstep and multiple cooperating witnesses.

a reply to: soberbacchus

What investigation?

This one:

The Clinton Foundation dismissed the investigation as politicized.

“Time after time, the Clinton Foundation has been subjected to politically motivated allegations, and time after time, these allegations have been proven false,” Craig Minassian, a spokesman for the foundation, said in a statement.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, added: “Let’s call this what it is: a sham. This is a philanthropy that does life-changing work, which Republicans have tried to turn into a political football. It’s disgraceful, and should be concerning to all Americans.”

New York Times

Deny all you want, the truth of the matter is plain to see for anyone not wearing blinders.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: soberbacchus

What investigation?

This one:

The Clinton Foundation dismissed the investigation as politicized.

“Time after time, the Clinton Foundation has been subjected to politically motivated allegations, and time after time, these allegations have been proven false,” Craig Minassian, a spokesman for the foundation, said in a statement.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, added: “Let’s call this what it is: a sham. This is a philanthropy that does life-changing work, which Republicans have tried to turn into a political football. It’s disgraceful, and should be concerning to all Americans.”

New York Times

Deny all you want, the truth of the matter is plain to see for anyone not wearing blinders.

Even the Foundation has acknowledged there's an investigation, but the Clinton lackeys on here are still in denial. It's really been a rough year for them. I can't imagine how bad it's gonna be when the Mueller probe wraps up and Trump is still in the White House. When the realization hits home that he's not getting impeached they're really gonna lose it.

"You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt." - Hillary Clinton

Amazing that a career politician who in her own words went broke in the whitehouse. Now has a net worth of 45 million according to Forbes. These 501c3 foundations are some of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on the American people, funny how the Clinton Foundation has been laying people off in 2017, where did all the money go? It's almost like her "charity" was somehow tied to her political position, hmmmmm.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

So it seems as though the 5th anniversary of CGI was used to tout how non-profits were to step in to the process of handling aid given to poor countries as a middleman as opposed to having the aid be passed directly from government to government.

That can actually be a good thing if people are concerned that the aid would only be used as a tool by the heads of corrupt governments that receive that aid.

The CGI bypassed that issue, did a lot of the direct work themselves and helped ensure the resources went much more directly to helping people, not dictators.

Normally I would agree but when the nonprofits are linked to the CGI / Clintons and the money doesnt reach where it is supposed to go and instead ends up paying for Chelsea Clinton s wedding one has to question it.

The CGI has poured millions in to projects all around the world.

So where did the money go?

Any reason you ignored my comment on where money went?

By the way the Clintons have more than just the CGI. Their last tax filings showed they donated a large amount of cash to charity - their own. This is not the first time the Clintons used a front company to launder money / outright steel money.

Research Arkansas Development Finance Authority.

That setup in Arkansas from when Bill and Hillary were the Governor / first lady is the exact same thing they are doing now with the CGI.

A massive shell game to launder money through multiple non profits while keeping crap records so when an audit / investigation does occur its almost impossible to see what is going on.

Finally to answer your question of where the money went you tell me. The tax filings show that 80% of their funds goes toward in house initiatives. Also making it easier to hide illegal activity. In one case money from the CGI went to pay for Chelsea Clintons wedding. A large chunk also went to private planes for Bill and Hillary.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical


The very same one

a reply to: jadedANDcynical


jaded, they probably want everyone to refer to the criminal investigation against Hillary Clinton as "the matter" again

So Bill Clinton via Doug Band submits a request (direct .pdf link) to determine if there would be a conflict of interest if Bill should do consulting work for Teneo Strategy LLC.

The answer back says that there is no problem with the arrangement from one Richard C. Visek:

Richard C. Visek joined the Office of the Legal Adviser in 1999 and became a Deputy Legal Adviser in 2011 and the Principal Deputy Legal Adviser in 2016. He previously served as the Assistant Legal Adviser for European and Eurasian Affairs and as the Assistant Legal Adviser for Employment Law. Prior to being promoted into the Senior Executive Service, he served in L offices advising on issues related to law enforcement and intelligence, appropriations, and legislation. Before joining the Office of the Legal Adviser, Mr. Visek worked at the U.S. Department of Justice and at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson in Washington, DC. He received his BA from Stanford University, his JD from Georgetown University and his LLM from Cambridge University.

Any guesses on who else worked at the same law firm?

Cheryl Mills

Guess who else used to work there?

Loretta Lynch

Nothing fishy about this, is there?