Breaking…Newly Uncovered Documents Show Potential Massive Fraud by Clinton Foundation



In 2005, the William J. Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Foundation HIV Aids Initiative were separate entities legally and were require to file individual IRS returns as separate 501(v)(3) charitable tax exempt foundations.

New documents obtained by Michael Smith News suggest that the Directors of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative Inc. may have falsified a merger agreement and backdated documents by more than 12 months to deceive the IRS, donors and others about the Foundation’s HIV activities.

This has the potential of being a very big deal.

The Clinton Foundation appears to operate outside the confines of the law to arrange parties for donors and launder money with the purpose of furthering the Clinton lifestyle and political careers.

It has never operated legally, according to one financial expert. It was only approved to operate as a charity in Arkansas for the purpose of building a presidential library. The Clinton Foundation has not submitted to audits and money donated does not always show up on their books. Read more at

Mr. Ortel is a financial expert who has made it his mission to expose fraud in The Clinton Foundation.

Mr. Ortel discussed the find with Mr. Smith Monday and said it was “monumental”. This wasn’t accidental, he said, “it was buried for Hillary’s 2006 Senate re-election”.

Fraud, forgery, perjury and theft on a grand scale, Mr. Smith writes.

As mentioned, Mr. Ortel is on a mission to expose what he believes is outright corruption. He calls his finds, 40 exhibits, 40 pieces of evidence:

An exposé by Current Affairs dot org is a must-read for those interested in the Foundation excesses.

A few excerpts might get you interested.

Agencies that rate charities found it did not meet even minimum standards.

The Clinton Health Access Initiative has refused to allow the charity evaluation organization GiveWell [sic] to analyze its outcomes, and the Better Business Bureau has listed the Clinton Foundation as failing to meet the basic standards for reporting the effectiveness of its programs. Bill Allison of the pro-transparency Sunlight Foundation has gone much further, and said that the organization operates as a “slush fund for the Clintons.”

The Foundation appears to be a party machine.

Indeed, certain Foundation expenditures have appeared unduly lavish, and difficult to justify. The Foundation spends $8 million in annual travel expenses (the Clintons fly on private jets), bought a first-class plane ticket to bring Natalie Portman (and her prized Yorkie) to an event, and funds a “glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.” Some costs are outsourced to others, and universities that invite Bill Clinton to speak can find themselves hit with unexpected invoices for $1,400 hotel phone bills and $700 dinners-for-two.

It may be about power and money. It’s hard for the ordinary person to understand people who want extreme wealth and power but that is what the Clintons seem to seek.

Journalist Carol Felsenthal, who has extensively examined Bill Clinton’s post-presidency, suggests that he feels the need to appear to be involved in charity as part of a “striving for respectability” aimed at restoring his image after the public disgrace that marked his last years in office. Clinton, she says, has made no secret of the fact that with his Foundation work, he is “angling for the Nobel Peace Prize”; he is a person who “feeds off public acclaim,” and therefore needs a successful charity to helm. Indeed, the Foundation certainly brings Bill Clinton himself both luxury and adulation.

The accusation has been that the money is not spent on charity, but on staff and travel. [It’s reminiscent of the National Vietnam Veterans Foundation that collected $29 million and spent every dime on advertising and telemarketers.]

But what about the Foundation’s domestic programs? These constitute the bulk of its work; despite the Clinton Foundation’s prominent promotion of its “global” programs, only 1/3 of its spending is on initiatives outside the United States. But here, too, Foundation work seems to disproportionately spend on staff rather than actual aid.

Read the story here…

What do you think? Something fishy going on?

Did Robin Hood enrich himself? Maybe I have the story wrong and the Sheriff of Nottingham was the good guy. Bill Clinton said this weekend that he’s Robin Hood but he looks to be exactly the opposite. He steals money meant for the poor in places like Haiti and gives to himself.


Leave a Reply