Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations

Let’s see if we can contextualize this for you: You already know that the Clinton Foundation failed to report tens of millions in foreign donations in their tax documents, a revelation that has forced the organization to re-file at least five years’ worth of returns. You also already knew that some of those many undisclosed donations (which violated Hillary’s transparency pledge) were related to a troubling transaction in which (a) the Russian government obtained the rights to a large chunk of US uranium interests, (b) investors and magnates connected to the deal profited handsomely, (c) the Clinton Foundation (and the Clinton themselves) pocketed millions, and (d) Hillary’s State Department signed off on the whole thing — before “repeatedly breaking” promises to mitigate national security concerns. Bloomberg and Fox News are reporting that a Clinton Foundation-tied group led by a man at the center of the uranium deal didn’t disclose more than 1,000 foreign donors:

There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP…The reason this is a politically explosive revelation is because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the Clinton Foundation signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama White House agreeing to reveal its contributors every year. The agreement stipulates that the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” (as the charity was then known) is part of the Clinton Foundation and must follow “the same protocols.” It hasn’t. Giustra says that’s because Canada’s federal privacy law forbids CGEP, a Canadian-registered charity, from revealing its donors.

Mexican national faces federal charges after CBP finds $238K in fentanyl inside electric moped

NYPD cop found guilty of chokehold in first conviction since restraint tactic banned after George Floyd death

Detransitioners reveal how doctors pushed them toward life-altering treatment as teens

White House exposes ‘Transshipment Scam’ costing US up to $26B, points finger at China

Live bullet found aboard United flight forces passengers off plane for security sweep at Denver airport

Woke Colorado School District Teaches 5-Year-Olds Sexual Anatomy Using Images So Bad We Refuse to Post Them – By Age 7, It Gets Far Worse

Marco Rubio gets 68 new jobs in epic White House birthday gift inspired by viral meme

Watch: Bystander Appears to Capture New B-21 Raider Stealth Bomber Flying Low Over Wichita

HHS warns Texas hospitals against denying life-saving care to newborn with disability

Exclusive: Oklahoma Police Chief Cancels City’s Flock Safety Contract After Citizens Raise Privacy Concerns

Gun rights groups capitalize after judge reverses decades-old restrictions: ‘Monumental’

Federal appeals court restores Texas mail ballot ID requirements in major election integrity ruling

Legal Expert: Don Lemon’s Legal Battle Could Have Devastating Unintended Consequences for Abortion Clinics

Watch: NBC Broadcasts Dead Air – Twice – As Literally Speechless Election Analyst Learns Results Are Missing from 5 of 9 USB Drives in Blue City

JD Vance and RFK Jr. Refer Hospitals and Clinics to DOJ in Response to ‘Wolves in White Coats’ Report

As we noted yesterday, a review by The Federalist exposed the ‘Canadian law’ excuse as inaccurate, an assessment confirmed by the Washington Post’s fact-checker, which awarded Clinton, Inc. “three Pinocchios” for the claim. A Sunlight Foundation official has referred to the Clintons’ network as a “slush fund,” and a former Clinton Foundation official told a reporter in 2007 that the organization is “not charity — it’s all bankable.” Sean Davis wonders, not without reason, if the whole thing amounts to an “international money laundering scheme:”

The Clinton Foundation’s deliberate misinterpretation of Canadian privacy law in order to rationalize its secrecy raises several questions, chief among them: why? Why go to all this effort to hide years’ worth of million-dollar donations from foreign citizens and foreign governments? Donations which were almost certainly being made while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State, and almost certainly with the intent to influence her decisions? The answer is an easy one, albeit one that is highly uncomfortable: for the past several years, the Clinton Foundation has basically been a foreign money-laundering operation. The scheme works like this: collect millions of dollars in foreign money, dump it into a foreign charity, pretend that the law prohibits you from ever disclosing the identities of those foreign donors to the foreign charity, then have the foreign charity bundle all the cash and send it to the Clinton Foundation. Then, when the time comes–whether it be a Clinton Foundation conference or a lavish Clinton Foundation trip overseas–make sure those individuals get some me-time with the Clintons.