Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media is part of t...



In late 2008 we became vi...

Banking In Australia Today

Banking In Australia Today

Visit Banking in Austra...

Donate Please

Donate Please

We need your support. ...

Prev Next
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
Welcome to the Kunena forum!

Tell us and our members who you are, what you like and why you became a member of this site.
We welcome all new members and hope to see you around a lot!

TOPIC: Pay to Play?

Pay to Play? 1 year 4 months ago #3322

  • DesiredUserName
  • DesiredUserName's Avatar
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 785
  • Thank you received: 7
  • Karma: 0
Michael Smith's Submission for an Inquiry into Pay-To-Play Donations

Australian Senate Enquiry into Australian Government Donations to the Clinton Foundation
Sunday, 04 September 2016

I have asked several Senators to cause our Senate to use its powers to order an Enquiry into the "pay to play" allegations concerning the Clinton Foundation and the Australian Government's donations to it.

Here is some of my submission.

Senate Enquiry into “Pay to Play” donations from the Australian Government to the Clinton Presidential Library

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 5.28.30 am
Executive Summary

Since 2006, the Australian Government has donated around $100 million directly to the Clinton Foundation, one of America's 13 Presidential Libraries.

The 13 libraries were established and are operated under the following US legislation:

Presidential Libraries Act of 1955
The Presidential Libraries Act (PLA) established a system of privately erected and federally maintained libraries.
Freedom of Information Act
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), enacted in 1966, generally provides that any person has the right to request access to federal agency documents or information.
Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974
Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA) applies only to the Nixon Presidential Materials.
Presidential Records Act of 1978
The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978 governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents created or received after January 20, 1981.
Presidential Libraries Act of 1986
The Presidential Libraries Act of 1986 made significant changes to Presidential Libraries, requiring private endowments linked to the size of the facility.
Executive Order 12958
Signed by President Clinton on April 17, 1995, Executive Order 12958 mandates a review of classified documents older than 25 years. Executive Order 12958 was amended by Executive Order 13292 on March 25, 2003.
Presidential Historical Records Preservation Act of 2008

Controversially, about 5 or 6 years into the Clinton Foundation's life, the directors of the Clinton Presidential Library began to exploit the privileges and to interpret the provisions which apply to all Presidential Libraries so broadly that the original purpose of the foundation has been obscured.

The Clinton Foundation was founded 3 years before Clinton left the White House by 3 citizens of the former President's home state Arkansas. Its statement of purpose and the approvals for it to operate as a charitable tax exempt foundation were the same as the 12 other Foundations established under the Presidential Libraries Act.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 5.51.30 am

During his presidency Clinton famously debated the meaning of the word "is".

He continues his presidential tradition of semantic debates with the Clinton Foundation's unique interpretation of what operating a "Presidential Archival Depository" means.

Initially the Clinton Foundation "honoured the legacy" of the Clinton Presidency.

Clinton extended the meaning of honouring the legacy into continuing the "work" of his Presidency.

By the time Clinton started soliciting donations from Australian taxpayers, honouring the Clinton Legacy included a range of dubious activities with suspect partners around the world - including lobbying foreign governments to assist Clinton Foundation donors to buy uranium mines and other continuations of the Clinton Presidential code of personal conduct.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 5.49.47 am

The Clinton Foundation is continuing the "work" of Clinton's presidency in ways that reflect the worst excesses of his time in office.

On 24 January 2001 the Washington Post delivered this lead editorial as the Clintons moved out of the White House, taking with them a substantial inventory of household goods including $190,000 of home furnishings solicited as gifts to order.
Count the Spoons

The list makes it sound as if the Clintons registered for wedding gifts: some $22,000 worth of china, including several gifts of about $5,000 each; about $18,000 for flatware, some in similar increments; $19,900 for two sofas, an easy chair and an ottoman; $3,650 for a kitchen table and four chairs; $2,993 for "televisions and DVD player." Denise Rich of New York, also a significant campaign contributor whose fugitive former husband Mr. Clinton pardoned in the final hours of his presidency, provided two coffee tables and two chairs valued at $7,375.

The list demonstrates again the Clintons' defining characteristic: They have no capacity for embarrassment. Words like shabby and tawdry come to mind. They don't begin to do it justice.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 5.11.27 pm
In addition to its $100M in direct donations, the Australian Government has paid more than $100 million for the purchase of pharmaceuticals from companies that have suspect financial arrangements with the Clinton Foundation.

Australian aid money was spent buying drugs from the Indian manufacturer Ranbaxy during the time when Ranbaxy was selling adulterated and worthless tablets that killed people.

Several shady Indian businessmen were made into wealthy shady Indian businessmen through Clinton's arrangements exploiting the removal of patents and other trade protections from expensive brand name drugs for delivery to patients in designated developing countries. While Clinton claims credit for "negotiating" reduced price lists for HIV/Aids drugs, the lower prices for HIV/Aids medicines were the result of World Trade Organisation negotiations and lobbying of many governments, notably George Bush's for the removal of patents protections and other competitive restraints on the importation of brand name pharmaceuticals into developing countries.

It is not clear why the Clinton Foundation has received so much Australian taxpayer funding when the legislation under which it is established precludes its own federal government from funding it.

Nor is it at all clear why Australian taxpayers should donate $100M to "honour the legacy and continue the work of the Clinton Presidency" when we have provided no money to honour the legacies held at these foundations;

Herbert Hoover Library
Franklin D. Roosevelt Library
Harry S. Truman Library
Dwight D. Eisenhower Library
John F. Kennedy Library
Lyndon B. Johnson Library
Richard Nixon Library
Gerald R. Ford Library
Jimmy Carter Library
Ronald Reagan Library
George H. W. Bush Library
William J. Clinton Library
George W. Bush Library

The exposition of emails in former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server show the Clinton Foundation's role as receiver for the "pay to play" solicitation of tax-deductible bribes now developing in the United States.

Emails released just this past week by Judicial Watch include this intercession by "wjc" through his staff to his wife the Secretary of State, seeking special treatment for a significant donor to the Clinton Foundation.

A July 27, 2009, exchange of emails begins with Abedin advising Clinton scheduler Lona Valmoro that “wjc” (William Jefferson Clinton) wants special treatment for high-dollar Foundation donor and Dow Chemical’s CEO Andrew Liveris. Dow donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, making it one of the largest corporate donors in Foundation history.

From: Huma Abedin This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

To: Valmoro, Lona J

Sent: Monday, Jul 27 06:02:01 2009


Wjc wants to be sure hrc sees Andrew Liveris, ceo of dow tomorrow night. Apparently he is head of us china business council. Is he definitely going to be there?

From: Valmoro, Lona J [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sent: July 27, 2009 6:03:54 AM

To: Huma Abedin

Subject: Re:

I will check. He declined our invitation to dinner tonight at State.

From: Valmoro, Lona J

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 9:24:08 AM

To: Huma Abedin; Narain, Paul F [Clinton aide]

Subject: Re: CEO of dow

Paul, Andrew Leveris, CEO of Dow Chemical, is going to be at the dinner tomorrow night. We would like HRC to see him, perhaps they can do a brief pull aside upon arrival. Huma, would that work for you?

From: Huma Abedin [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 9:24:55 AM

To: Valmoro, Lona J, Huma Abedin, Narain, Paul F

Subject: Re: CEO of dow

Yes pull aside on arrival

From: Narain, Paul F

Sent, Monday, July 27, 2009 7:56 PM

To: Valmoro, Lona, Abedin Huma

Subject: RE: CEO of dow

Lona, I have arranged this pull aside for on the arrival in the Hold Room across the hall from the ballroom, immediately prior to the Secretary’s entrance and remarks.

More than 50% of Secretary of State Clinton's meetings with parties from outside the United States Government took place only after the party had donated a significant sum of money to the Clinton Foundation.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 5.21.47 pm
Former Australian Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard were featured participants in New York at the annual Clinton Global Initiative. Bill Clinton introduced Rudd as one of "the smartest, most well read and intelligent leaders in the world today" to the crowd of global leaders in town for the UN leaders week around which the CGI is based.

In March 2008 Rudd was recorded whispering "let me know if there's anything we can do to help" to a fundraising Hillary Clinton in presidential campaigning mode.

One week before the September 2008 Clinton Global Initiative, Rudd announced an unbudgeted $400M white elephant called the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.

When Rudd appeared at the CGI that year he signed an MOU between the Australian Government and Clinton declaring a partnership with the Clinton Foundation Climate Initiative and the yet to be incorporated Global Carbon Capture Institute. The Commonwealth donated $10M to Clinton before December 2008 and that donation was "novated" from the books of the Commonwealth to the off-balance-sheet GCCI after its incorporation. Unfortunately for Mr Rudd, the Clinton Foundation reported the Australian Government as donor.

Hillary Clinton was Gillard's personal tour guide and interlocked fingers hand-holder during her 2012 CGI week of appointments in New York, paving the way for Gillard's post-retirement sinecures.

Clinton had 3 months left to exploit the pay to play cash generated during her term as US Secretary of State and her price was at its peak. 3 days before Gillard left for the CGI, Greg Combet announced the deal under which the Clinton Foundation would be paid $14M for work he'd already been paid for by the Rockefeller Foundation using systems, software and expensive purpose built platforms paid for by the Australian Government.

Australians are entitled to know where their money went, who sent it, what it was used for and why the Clinton Library is worthy of our donations.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 5.22.48 pm

The history of the unique US Presidential Library system

Short of death, a mid-term electoral disaster or impeachment, America’s heads of state lead the nation for eight years.

America has no castles nor formal dynastic succession with ancestral homes displaying collections through the ages.

America's Presidential Libraries are intended to be symbols of the country's egalitarian values and its government by for and of the people.

Without a hereditary monarchy, it’s America’s Presidents who mark out the chapters of America’s history as it happens. Presidents are tied to the big things like the December ‘41 date that will live in infamy, the 11th of September terror attacks and all the way with LBJ to war in Vietnam. President Kennedy inspired mankind’s giant leap to the moon and when Walter Cronkite announced that he “died today at 1PM” history froze for millions who’d remember tiny details about that moment in time for the rest of their lives.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 5.31.03 am
Like the layers of rock that hold earth’s history, each American President’s time in office captures unique insights into a chunk of the nation’s timeline.

It was President Roosevelt who first noted the amount of priceless historical material his time in The White House produced.

Roosevelt felt that Presidential papers are an important part of the national heritage and should be accessible to the public. He sought out expert historians, librarians, archivists and curators to help create an institution to house and display the artefacts of his time.

On 10 December 1938 a non-profit entity was incorporated with a charter to raise money for the construction of the Roosevelt Presidential Library to be built on Roosevelt’s Hyde Park estate.

An admirable element of the evolution of this program is the mandating of a private foundation raising private donations to build and fund the operations of each library. That important consideration means no politician should be able to direct funds to the personal aggrandising of a politicial fellow traveller or himself.

No US taxpayer funding has been provided for any Presidential Library. In every case, community-minded citizens have come together to create a not-for profit charitable foundation to raise the money to construct and operate the Library.

After the Roosevelt foundation's success, Harry S. Truman decided in 1950 that he, too, would build a library to house his Presidential papers. In 1955, Congress passed the Presidential Libraries Act, establishing a system of privately erected and federally maintained libraries. The Act encouraged other Presidents to donate their historical materials to the government and ensured the preservation of Presidential papers and their availability to the American people.

Under this and subsequent acts, more libraries have been established. In each case, donations were raised by a non-profit charitable foundation specifically established to fund the library. Once completed, the private organization turned over the libraries to the National Archives and Records Administration to operate and maintain.

Until 1978, Presidents, scholars, and legal professionals held the view dating back to George Washington that the records created by the President or his staff while in office remained the personal property of the President and were his to take with him when he left office. The first Presidential libraries were built on this concept.

The Presidential Records Act of 1978 established that the Presidential records that document the constitutional, statutory, and ceremonial duties of the President are the property of the United States Government. The Act provided for the continuation of Presidential libraries as the repository for Presidential records.

The Presidential Libraries Act of 1986 also made significant changes to Presidential libraries, requiring private endowments linked to the size of the facility. The US national archives uses these endowments to offset a portion of the maintenance costs for the library.

President Reagan’s Presidential Library is huge. It houses the actual Air Force One aeroplane from Reagan’s time in office

President Ronald Reagan often spoke of America as a “shining city on a hill,” and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library perched on top of a hill in California seems like a realization of that vision. The Reagan Library complex, with its huge expansion to house a decommissioned Air Force One, is by far the largest presidential library. At 240,000 square feet it is 90,000 square feet larger than the runner-up, the William J. Clinton Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Reagen's may be the most extensive foundation physically. But no presidential foundation comes close to the spread of tax exempt business operations established by the Clinton Foundation to raise and spend incredible amounts of money used to fund the continuing Presidential Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous Clinton Family.

The physical building is but a small part of "continuing the work" of the Clinton Foundation's operations. The opacity of its financial accounts make it difficult to match donations given to revenues reported, however it's easy to see the links to donations and the timing of meetings or other favourable decisions for donors.

In most jurisdictions, bribery or the solicitation or offering of a secret commission is illegal.

Establishing a scheme where a bribe or secret commission is a tax deductible donation would be likely to engage the interest of most national regulators.

It appears that it's possible for a country like Australia to engage the Clinton Foundation on an ostensible fee for service basis for a large and usually round number.

In return for the fee for service, the Clinton Foundation delivers a few photographs representing its shovel ready dealings in a 3rd world jurisdiction in return for the large round number from the funder, regularly that's Australia.

The potential for favours to accrue to the political approvers behind the transfer of taxpayer funds to the Clintons is an obvious invitation to malfeasance.

It may all be innocent. It may be that Australian politicians are uniquely naive to the possibility a global celebrity like Bill Clinton might have in his past indicators of dishonesty or an intention to deceive. There may be other more sinister explanations for the Australian Government to cause more meaningful inquiries into the obvious concerns swirling around the Clintons and our money.

Putting to one side the motivations, the facts about our money aren't in dispute. We sent it, the Clintons spent it.

$100M donated to the cause of consecrating a Clinton shrine is a very big taxpayer investment. Perhaps it's time it was delved more deeply into.

February 22 2006 - The Australian Government signs a $25M Memorandum of Understanding with Bill Clinton

Here are former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and current Foreign Minister Julie Bishop signing the first MOU with Clinton and the second MOU expunging some of the uncomfortable recitals of the first.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 6.32.52 pm

This paper provides a summary of more detailed analysis of the $25M donation Clinton solicited from the Australian Government which can be found here.
Pavlova sittings, golf, wet T-shirt competitions and the millions Bill ...
Editorial - the lying conman behind the Clinton Foundation frauds on ...
Warning signs for Australia that Bill Clinton was way off the straight ...
Bill Clinton and Australian officials in CHAI multi-million $$$ fraud and ...
Bill Clinton's a lucky bloke, he might avoid a fraud conviction in ...

During the period under my review, the Clinton Foundation's "audited" financial reports showed that it maintained bank accounts in Asia, South America and Africa. Papua New Guinea was the most significant area of Australian taxpayer funded operations under the $25M MOU (PNG operations received $15M).

Contemporaneous with the start date of the funding agreement for the Australian funded PNG operations, the Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative -PNG Inc was unlawfully incorporated by the PNG regulator.

Under PNG law the lowest level of oversight for an incorporated entity applies to incorporated associations. The structure is typically offered to groups of altruistic citizens who can prove their members are jointly engaged in pursuits like children's washing children's football guernseys, judo, ladies lawn bowling or the creation of patchwork quilts and complex knitted garments. Laundering money through a patchwork of complex international transfers is an unusual reason for the regulator to allow incorporation, because as well as the low level of financial activity expected of an incorporated association, there is no requirement for it to lodge a financial return of any type to anyone. Ever.

The Clinton Foundation reported spectacular growth in its offshore (ie offshore from its home jurisdiction, the USA) accounts after funds commenced to flow following the incorporation of its clinton foundation association with the tea-club level of scrutiny in 2006. These amounts are drawn from a series of Clinton Foundation financial accounts filed at its early website.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 6.11.19 pm

The money held in those offshore accounts was not transferred from the Clinton Foundation's US entity. It was deposited and the accounts were operated in countries which share the dubious distinction of joint appearances near the bottom of the Transparency International corruption index. In many of these countries it's not unknown for regulators to eschew diligent law enforcement for financial friends.

The amounts above are what the Clinton Foundation reported as year end balances. Who knows what transactions took place or what bagman tours of the third world were conducted in between.

More details about the Clinton Foundation's offshore bank accounts and the specific countries are filed with the IRS, here's a screenshot of the 2005 jurisdictions.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 6.19.05 pm

And here's 2006 (the first few months of Australia's $25M MOU with the PNG association established in late August).

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 6.17.55 pm

The US IRS appears to take little interest in the incorporation of associations in PNG and their bank accounts. So Australians would hope their government's level of oversight of the Australian millions donated to the Clintons in PNG was closely examined for probity breach potential.

Unfortunately, the Australian Government seems to share the IRS disinterest. Our government routinely reports on its payments to the Clinton Foundation in a manner that discloses poor due diligence and lack of understanding about the donations the Foundation solicits.

The Clinton Foundation was a single legal entity during the period of our 22 February MOU funding 2006-2009. The MOU is imprecise as to the Clinton entities covered by the agreement, the Clinton Foundation appears in the headings and recitals, while Clinton (then a disbarred lawyer and not a fiduciary or authorised representative of either entity) signed for the Clinton HIV/Aids Initiative Inc.

The Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative Inc (CHAI) was a separately incorporated non-profit corporation which existed until dissolved by regulators for breaches of financial reporting legislation effective 31 December 2007.

The Clinton Foundation claim that the CHAI was merged into the Clinton Foundation on 31 December 2005 is false. A merger of two non-profit corporations requires the non-surviving entity to be dissolved, while some assets moved between the entities, the CHAI Inc maintained its registration as a separate trading entity and its directors remained as officers of the entity until its dissolution.

On 8 March 2015 Australia's DFAT sent me a statement in response to queries I made about Australian donations solicited by Clinton.

The statement reads:

“Former US President Bill Clinton signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Australian Government in 2006 in his capacity as the Founder and Representative of the William J Clinton Foundation. The MOU is a non-binding cooperation agreement with the intent to fight HIV/AIDS in China, Vietnam and Papua New Guinea. All funding arrangements are accompanied by specific legal funding agreements with specified outcomes, deliverables, budgets and conditions. No donations were provided to the Clinton Foundation.”

“All DFAT funding agreements are with Clinton Health Access Initiative - a separate legal entity from Clinton Foundation since 2010 – to deliver HIV/AIDS treatment to a range of Asia-Pacific countries.”

For your background, the “range of measures concerning transparency and accountability” of the Foundation mentioned in DFAT’s briefing document refers to an agreement between the Clinton Foundation and the US Government concerning Hillary Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of State. It bears no relation to the Australian Government’s funding agreements with Clinton Health Access Initiative.

Firstly to the "funding arrangements accompanied by legal funding agreements with specified outcomes, deliverables, budgets and conditions".

I have reviewed the Independent Completion Reports and other documents regarding the Funding Agreements DFAT agreed with the Clinton HIV/Aids Initiative Inc. It's significant that the ICR reports lament the absence of "specified outcomes and deliverables".

Here is my analysis of the ICR in respect of the PNG donation to Clinton.

The ICR paints a frightening picture of an Australian Government aid program that handed over more than $11M to the Clintons - and as the report says did it with:

no statement of project goal or purpose,
no clear Program Area objectives and
no targets

The Australian Government need not burden taxpayers with the cost of further enquiries to establish the nature of is donations to the Clintons. The Clinton Foundation exhibits the details on its returns to the IRS justifying its tax-exempt privileges.

The Clinton Foundation is explicit about the tax-exempt purpose for which it is authorised to do business - that is honouring Bill Clinton's legacy through a Presidential Library. Clinton's extension of "honouring the legacy" by "continuing the work" of his presidency is quoted on the Foundation's annual returns as the purpose for which the Foundation solicits donations. At some point the IRS may investigate and even revoke the extended "continuing the work of the Clinton Presidency" extension of the Clinton Foundation's authorised tax-exempt status, but as to the circumstances that prevailed during 2006-09 and continue to today, the Library and Clinton worship is the purpose for which each and every revenue dollar is received.

IN each of the years 2006-09, the Clinton Foundation reported that 100% of its revenues were donations made for the purpose set out in its authority for tax exemption.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 7.15.41 am Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 7.16.00 am
In those two questions filed with the Foundation's annual IRS returns, the Clinton Foundation confirms that every cent it received is a deductible donation (from the payer's tax, whether claimed or not) made for the purpose of honouring Clinton.

The Financial Reports also display to donors and the general public, including the Australian Government this precise definition of the way the Foundation treats any and all revenue.


Gifts of cash and other assets received without donor stipulations are reported as unrestricted revenue and net assets. Gifts received with a donor stipulation that limits their use are reported as temporarily or permanently restricted revenue and net assets. When a donor stipulated time restriction ends or purpose restriction is accomplished, temporarily restricted net assets are reclassified to unrestricted net assets and reported in the statement of activities as net assets released from restrictions. Gifts that are originally restricted by the donor and for which the restriction is met in the same time period are recorded as temporarily restricted and then released from restriction.

DFAT can put whatever spin it wants on the loose agreements that accompanied the millions we sent to the Clintons. The facts are that each payment of our money was solicited by the Clintons as a donation, was received and accounted for as a donation and the purpose for which that donation was paid was the very loose and arguable "continuing the work" or lifestyle of Bill Clinton's Presidency through a library foundation. That a poorly executed AIDS initiative in PNG is part of that purpose of praising Clinton is very much incidental.

The nett effect of the way the Clintons solicited and received our money is that after the period of time covered by DFAT's contracts was completed, 100% of our money was immediately released into the consolidated Clinton donations pool to be spent as the Clinton Foundation sees fit. One way it's spent our money is to employ people and contractors who've been assigned to the Hillary Clinton campaign teams, either at ostensible arms length or in many instances working within the Clinton Foundation. It's a concern that DFAT's misunderstanding of the nature of the Clinton Foundation and the matters displayed in the notes to its financial returns is so materially wrong - and that as a result Australia is donating money that it can't control and which is being used to support a candidate for election as President of the United States.

Australia's claim that Bill Clinton is the founder of the Clinton Foundation is false

One of Sydney's harbour ferries is the Dawn Fraser. The Australian swimming champion was honoured to have a small ship named in her honour, but she's never asserted rights to the ticket money or late night parties on board with friends.

The claim that Bill Clinton founded the Clinton Foundation is false - and his perjury and propensity to lie publicly and under oath are relevant factors in the Australian Government's assessment of its history of donating money in answer to Clinton's solicitations.

Like the other presidential libraries, the “William J Clinton Presidential Foundation” was founded on 23 October 1997 by 3 citizens from Arkansas. Bill Clinton was 10 months into his final 4 year term as President. During 3.25 years he had to run in that term he’d be impeached, charged with perjury, found in contempt of court and disbarred as a lawyer. Doing the legwork to create a foundation to honour his legacy may not have been his top personal priority.

Clinton’s perjury and disbarment disqualified him from acting as an officer or authorised representative of a US charitable organisation, so it’s an important background consideration in the context of the donations he has solicited from Australian taxpayers.

During 1995/97 President Clinton and 22 year old Monica Lewinsky maintained a clandestine sexual affair. Nine known sexual encounters took place in the Clinton family home and Hillary Clinton was present in the home for 7 of them. Lewinsky started out as an Intern in the President’s office but in April 1996 her supervisors transferred her to The Pentagon because of the amount of “time” she was spending with Clinton.

Ms Lewinsky confided her distress at being moved along with details of the affair to a friend Linda Tripp who also worked at The Pentagon. Tripp told Lewinsky to retain the gifts Clinton had given her and not to dry clean a semen stained blue dress. Ms Tripp also spoke to a literary agent Lucianne Goldberg who advised Tripp to record her telephone conversations with Lewinsky and Tripp started doing that in September 1997. Goldberg started briefing reporters about the Lewinsky affair but no media outlet would report the story.

Around that time Bill Clinton was being investigated over the Whitewater scandal, White House interference in FBI files and the sacking of the longstanding White House Travel Office who were replaced by friends of the Clintons. Clinton was also being sued by at least one former lover Ms Paula Jones.

In January 1998 Lewinsky told Tripp that she’d sworn a false affidavit denying her affair with Clinton for use in Clinton’s defence in court in the Paul Jones matter. Lewinsky asked Tripp to lie under oath about their conversations. As a result, Tripp delivered the tape recordings of her conversations with Lewinsky to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

Goldberg wanted to sell books and she tried to sell the story into a range of mainstream media with the lurid details of the gifts, the semen stained dress and the recorded conversations. Still no main stream media outlet reported the story.

On 17 January 1998 a conservative website run from the home of its founder Matt Drudge reported that Newsweek was sitting on a story by reporter Michael Isikoff (a friend of Goldberg) about Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky. On 14 January 1998 the Washington Post followed up on the Drudge Report’s story. Reporting of the Lewinsky scandal became a very big mainstream story.

The story swirled in the media and as details emerged Clinton was under pressure to answer specific allegations about Lewinsky.

Clinton had sworn a deposition in the Paula Jones matter in which he denied allegations put by the Jones legal team of "similar fact" or "propensity" conduct on the part of Clinton with Ms Lewinsky.

The public wanted to know if Clinton could explain why Ms Lewininsky turned her mind to the Paula Jones proceeding swore an affidavit that supported Clinton but was at odds with the recorded conversations she'd had with Tripp. Or why Lewinsky asked her friend Tripp to lie under oath about her conversations regarding Clinton.But most directly, importantly, and problematically for Clinton was the request for him to explain the presence of the unique evidentiary DNA recovered from the contribution squirted on Ms Lewinsky's blue dress.

By 24 January 1998 President Clinton recognised the public wanted answers. And Bill gave them answers. Totally false but answers nonetheless.

At a Press Conference with his wife Hillary by his side and Vice President Gore standing behind him Clinton spoke about unrelated matters for a lengthy warmup, then looked down the barrel of the camera to deliver this famous statement:

Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.

On 27 January Hillary Clinton went on the NBC Today show to support Clinton lies with her own. ”The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”

Because Bill was dealing with this matter and the subsequent prosecutions, impeachment, fines, perjury charges and disbarment as a lawyer for 5 years over his contempt for court proceedings and the truth, Bill didn't have much spare time left to be the Founder of a Library.

Skip Rutherford and 2 other locals were the founders of “The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation”, a “Presidential Archival Depository” ( defined in 44 USC Sec 2010(c)) incorporated as a Non-Profit Corporation by the Secretary of the US State of Arkansas.

The Clinton Foundation which Australia's DFAT says was founded by Clinton may have metastasised as a function of his influence, but he's not the founder.

In 1997 the 3 founding officers of the Clinton Foundation applied to the US IRS for registration as a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation exempt from income tax. The IRS formally registered the Clinton Foundation as a charitable foundation in 1998 and as of today the only purpose for which it’s registered to trade is the operation of the Presidential Archival Depository set out in the original 1997 application.

Because the Clinton Foundation operates as a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation, money it receives is recorded and treated at law as donations. A donation is a gift - while donations to a 501(c)(3) may be “tied” to a particular purpose, the recourse for those who make donations and later become dissatisfied is different from a client or customer purchasing a service or goods that turn out to be deficient. Likewise the Clinton related purpose to which the Foundation puts our donated money may be something vastly different from the intention conveyed to Australian taxpayers.

In each of the Australian Government’s dealings with the US based Clinton Foundation the Australian Government has donated money for Clinton’s Foundation to do with it what it will.

At the time Clinton personally signed the 2006 MOU with Alexander Downer he was not authorised to act for the US Registered 501(c)(3) charity because, unique among the presidents, he had a perjury finding against him and was a disbarred lawyer as a result.
Which entity did Clinton represent at the MOU signing?

Until 2013 William J. Clinton was not an officer or fiduciary of the Foundation. He was not a fit or proper person to be an officer of a 501(c)(3) from 2001 to 2006, the period during which he was a disbarred lawyer following court judgements against him for lying under oath. Nor could he represent or act for the Foundation under a Power of Attorney.

The “Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative Inc” (which marketed itself as “CHAI”, a very widely used and popular acronym) was incorporated in March 2004. It was registered with Massachusetts corporate regulatory authorities and operated as a separate discrete entity from the Clinton Foundation from a head office at 225 Water Street Quincy, Massachusetts.

CHAI applied for 501(C)(3) registration for the purpose of distributing HIV/Aids medicines and strengthening health systems but was knocked back. It was apparently never registered as a 501(c)(3) for that purpose. The US laws about charitable foundations is replete with cases where a charity sought to compete with the conventional business and trade of the free market economy, in particular in the pharmaceutical industry. Governments levy taxes on all sorts of businesses who could argue they act as a community good. Distributing pharmaceuticals with a tax exemption in order to undercut existing distributors of pharmaceuticals who pay taxes is not a charitable purpose in the United States.

It's a particularly odious basis upon which to claim tax exemption from US taxes when the major financial beneficiaries are dubious characters from India like the friends of the Clintons in the deadly drug manufacturing company Ranbaxy.

The sordid history of Australia's deals to 'facilitate' the Clinton Foundation's access to Asia

On 23 October 2003 The Clinton Foundation announced that it had negotiated price reductions for the supply of HIV/Aids drugs with the following companies:

Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Ltd., of Johannesburg, South Africa;
Cipla Ltd., of Mumbai, India;
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., of Delhi, India; and
Matrix Laboratories Ltd., of Hyderabad, India.

The agreement covered antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) for delivery to African countries and the Caribbean through the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative. Business for those pharma companies went through the roof.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 8.07.33 pm

Screen Shot 2016-08-15 at 7.39.06 amThat's Indian pharma executive and conman Nimmagad PRASAD on the right behind Clinton. Prior to the Clinton deal PRASAD bought a rundown Indian pharmaceutical company and renamed it Matrix Laboraties.

The deal with Clinton was very good for him.

He sold most of Matrix to the US pharma company Mylan and by 2006 had taken his initial investment of Indian Rs. 30Million ($500K AUD) to 5.7Billion ($110M AUD).

In 2012 he was charged with corruption and jailed for 17 months.

Ranbaxy's history is worse. By 2004 Ranbaxy was on notice of a formal investigation by the World Health Organisation over the sale by Ranbaxy of adulterated and worthless drugs labelled as the genuine article. In May 2013 Ranbaxy paid a record fine of USD $5ooM to settle the US Department of Justice criminal complaints. As the final US DoJ details settling the long running and very public case against Ranbaxy were completed, Bill Clinton jetted off to India to give what he thought was a private paid speech praising Ranbaxy and its executives. This is from the Indian Times, April 2013.

Screen Shot 2016-08-15 at 7.50.31 am

Australia is implicated in the Ranbaxy scandal. On 23 March 2013 a DFAT official wrote to me:

“Prior to 2013, a small amount of Australian aid money was expended on Ranbaxy pharmaceutical products in Papua New Guinea to support the PNG Government’s health programs.”

Kind regards

Media Liaison Officer

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

At least $100M of taxpayer funded Australian aid money has been used in the purchase of pharmaceuticals under a relationship established between the Clinton Foundation and the Australian Government in February 2006. That is in addition to amounts donated directly to the Clinton Foundation.

Prior to his jailing, the pharmaceutical purchases were explained by Matrix Laboratories Mr Prasad,speaking here to DNA India in 2009.
Bill Clinton "facilitated" the deals

Screen Shot 2016-08-15 at 8.10.17 am

After working his way forward from being a professional executive in a pharma company to a promoter of the pharma major Matrix Laboratories, Nimmagadda Prasad is now an entrepreneur with interests in multiple and unrelated segments. After handing over Matrix to Mylan, the focus now is on managing the investments with an objective of creating pancha ratnas (five jewels), Prasad reveals in an interview. Excerpts:

After handing over Matrix Labs to Mylan, you seem to have turned into a serial entrepreneur. Are you still with the pharma sector or is there any plan to diversify into new areas?
Yes, after Matrix, I started looking at various other sectors basically from an investment point of view. But, even during the Matrix days, I was keen on evaluating options in other areas. With that plan in mind, I had decided to create pancha ratnas (five jewels) for myself to invest. .....................

From being a citalopram player, Matrix has played its cards to ally with former US president Bill Clinton to sell anti retrovirals (ARVs) in some developing markets. How much revenue does the Clinton Foundation provide to Matrix?
The Clinton Foundation does not buy anything from us. They only facilitate the supply of drugs to affected markets by creating the necessary logistics. At a time when Indian products did not have much credibility in the market, the Foundation gave buyers the required confidence about the products. They had set up the distribution channels. They prepared the protocols for compliance and guided the teams in the affected countries on usage of the drug.

Do you discuss price with the Foundation?
Yes, even today, the Foundation negotiates with us on the price. But they don’t buy it directly. They negotiate the price on behalf of the governments willing to buy the product.


And Australia was there with more than $100M of taxpayer money buying often useless Clinton "facilitations".

The Clinton Foundation claimed in its 2005 annual financial return that the Clinton HIV/Aids Initiative Inc had been merged into the Clinton Foundation. That claim is false. The CHAI entity continued to exist as a separate registered corporation until it was dissolved by the Massachusetts regulator in March 2008 for failing to file financial returns.

In its 2005 filing with the IRS, the Clinton Foundation disclosed its relationship with the Clinton Foundation HIV Aids Initiative Inc (note the "Inc' referring to a separate incorporated entity).

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 8.10.50 pm

DFAT originally described the MOU as a partnership with the William J. Clinton Foundation.


Australia was to provide $25M to be supplemented by Clinton Foundation funding for projects in China, Papua New Guinea and Vietnam over 4 years. Separate funding agreements were to be negotiated for each country/project.

Austender details record the actual contracts under the MOU as being between DFAT and the Clinton HIV/Aids Initiative with its address in Water Street, Quincy - i.e. the entity that was dissolved during the term of these contracts.

Independent completion reviews of the CHAI contracts were damning. The reviews reported there were no agreed outcomes established at the beginning, no performance indicators or milestones, no targets to be met before payments were made and no means to effectively monitor the CHAI in the countries in which they operated.

A $15M contract for PNG is reported as having a commencement date of 14 August 2006, however Austender did not publish details of the contract award until July 2010. The independent review of the contract found there was no clear start date, no agreed deliverables, and no document recording what the Clinton Foundation was to deliver and when.

In the second half of 2006 a young graduate from New York who was working as an accounts payable clerk in a compensation authority was appointed as the PNG head for the Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative. He had no experience in HIV/medicine/start-ups or PNG.

At the MOU signing in February 2006, Bill Clinton acknowledged the new PNG head’s predecessor Ruby Shang. Ms Shang was the head and only Clinton employee for not only PNG but of all Asia/Pacific operations for the Clinton Foundation. Simultaneously, Ruby Shang ran the family earthmoving equipment dealership for Caterpillar in Vietnam, Clinton operations in PNG, Indonesia, Vietnam and China that Australia was paying for as well as providing the Clinton Foundation’s climate change expertise.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 8.46.31 pm

PNG law requires registration of foreign entities or the incorporation of a PNG corporation before foreign businesses can trade or open accounts in PNG.

To receive payments due to it in PNG that second half of 2006, the Clinton Foundation somehow secured the obviously unlawful and improper incorporation of an incorporated association named the “Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative - PNG”. It was unlawfully registered by the PNG regulator even though no rules or objects of the association were produced, there was no evidence of a committee agreeing to nominate and authorise a representative to apply for incorporation and despite the unwaivable requirement for 30 days to elapse after an intention to incorporate was advertised (to allow for objections), the Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative Inc was incorporated on the day the application was hurriedly lodged.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 8.51.35 pm

The Clinton Foundation was receiving money from other funders in at least PNG and Indonesia for work that Australia was paying for.

Screen Shot 2016-08-26 at 4.08.23 pm
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Pay to Play? Russian Doct 1 year 4 months ago #3326

  • DesiredUserName
  • DesiredUserName's Avatar
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 785
  • Thank you received: 7
  • Karma: 0
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Pay to Play? Russian Doct 1 year 4 months ago #3329

  • DesiredUserName
  • DesiredUserName's Avatar
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 785
  • Thank you received: 7
  • Karma: 0
Clinton Foundation Corruption investigations to catch out Australian Ministers
Thursday, 27 October 2016


When authorities want to interview Alex Downer, Julie Bishop, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong and others they won't be able to say they weren't warned.

Each of the them has caused Australian taxpayer money to be diverted to a conman as donations to his Foundation. Each of them has been made aware before today that he's a shonk, that the Foundation doesn't deliver and that our money has been donated for dubious returns. Yet they persisted and in the case of Julie Bishop - continue in spraying our money for favours up until today.

Every cent of our $80-$100M that went to the Clinton Foundation was a donation. It may have had MOUs, AIDS work, climate change, carbon accounting or Clinton Global Initiative sponsorship as a fancy description on an invoice - but that's just cover. Every cent we sent was a donation to the Foundation.

God knows where our money went - because it was spent precisely as the Clintons wanted it spent. Amongst other things that included private jets, parties - lifestyles of the rich and famous. Courtesy of Australian taxpayers!

From the New York Times moments ago.

Donations to Foundation Vexed Hillary Clinton’s Aides, Emails Show

In the years before Hillary Clinton announced she would run again for president, her top aides expressed profound concerns in internal emails about how foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton’s own moneymaking ventures would affect Mrs. Clinton’s political future.

The emails, obtained by hackers and being gradually released by WikiLeaks this month, also are revealing how efforts to minimize potential conflicts at the foundation led to power struggles and infighting among aides and Mrs. Clinton’s family.

One top aide to Mr. Clinton, Douglas J. Band, noted in an email that the former president had received personal income from some foundation donors and “gets many expensive gifts from them.”

Chelsea Clinton accused her father’s aides of taking “significant sums of money from my parents personally,” of “hustling” during foundation events to win clients for their own business, and of even installing spyware on her chief of staff’s computer.
Hillary Clinton, another email showed, had promised to attend a Clinton Foundation gathering in Morocco at the behest of its king, who had pledged $12 million to the charity. Her advisers worried that would look unseemly just as she was beginning her presidential campaign in earnest.

“She created this mess and she knows it,” a close aide, Huma Abedin, wrote of Mrs. Clinton in a January 2015 email.

For months, the Clintons have defended their foundation, making public proclamations that it went above and beyond what the law required in terms of transparency while Mrs. Clinton was at the State Department.

The emails, which came from the account of John D. Podesta, who had a leadership role at the foundation and is now Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, have not contained evidence to support Republican contentions that Mrs. Clinton performed any favors for foundation donors.
But they do show pronounced worries among the Clintons’ closest advisers about the millions of dollars coming into the foundation, and to Mr. Clinton personally, and how they could inoculate Mrs. Clinton from criticism over it.

“Do they plan to do big events next year?” her campaign manager, Robby Mook, asked about the foundation last year, shortly after Mrs. Clinton kicked off her presidential campaign. “Possible for those to be smaller and lower key in 16?”

Founded in 1997, when Mr. Clinton was still president, the foundation has raised roughly $2 billion to fund projects around the world, helping African farmers improve their yields, Haitians recover from a devastating 2010 earthquake and millions of people gain access to cheaper H.I.V./AIDS medication, among other accomplishments.

Some of the former president’s staff members followed him from the White House to the foundation, and the emails provide an extraordinary look at the soap opera that unfolded years later as people close to the couple felt their power threatened.

“This is the 3rd time this week where she has gone to daddy to change a decision or interject herself,” Mr. Band, the longtime aide to Mr. Clinton, wrote about Chelsea Clinton in 2011.

At the time, she was beginning to exert influence at the foundation, expressing concerns that Mr. Band and others were trying to use the charity to make money for themselves, and accusing another aide in her father’s personal office of installing spyware.

Emails released on Tuesday contained a memo from Mr. Band essentially defending his work for the foundation, and for Mr. Clinton personally, even as Mr. Band was building up his political consulting firm, Teneo. The memo noted that some foundation donors had indeed been clients of Teneo, but also that Mr. Band and Teneo had helped raise tens of millions of dollars for the foundation from individual, foreign and corporate donors, without taking a commission.

Mr. Band also noted how some of those donors he had cultivated were paying Mr. Clinton privately to make speeches or to do other work. One such donor, Laureate International Universities, a for-profit education company based in Baltimore, was paying Mr. Clinton $3.5 million annually “to provide advice” and serve as its honorary chairman, Mr. Band wrote.In another email, Mr. Band wrote that Mr. Clinton had even received gifts from some donors.

The tensions came to a head when Chelsea Clinton helped enlist an outside law firm to audit the Clinton Foundation’s practices. Some interviewees told the audit team that the donors “may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gift.” The audit suggested the foundation “ensure that all donors are properly vetted and that no inappropriate quid pro quos are offered to donors in return for contributions.”

The advice proved prescient as Mrs. Clinton faced intense scrutiny about whether donors to the Clinton Foundation had received special access to her State Department or other rewards. In August, the foundation said it would no longer accept foreign donations should Mrs. Clinton win the White House.

Mrs. Clinton has dismissed criticism of the charity as politically motivated. A spokesman for the Clinton campaign, Glen Caplin, declined to verify the authenticity of the emails, but said the hack was part of the Russian government’s efforts to use cyberattacks to influence the election in favor of the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Band’s firm released a statement saying: “Teneo worked to encourage clients, where appropriate, to support the Clinton Foundation because of the good work that it does around the world. It also clearly shows that Teneo never received any financial benefit or benefit of any kind from doing so.”

Behind the scenes, Mrs. Clinton’s aides grappled with how to sever her from the problematic optics of some of the philanthropy’s fund-raising practices.

In an October 2014 email, Mr. Mook asked whether Mrs. Clinton’s name would be used in connection with the foundation, which is formally known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. “It will invite press scrutiny and she’ll be held accountable for what happens there,” he wrote.

The next year, when Mrs. Clinton was on the verge of declaring her candidacy, Cheryl D. Mills, a lawyer and top aide, said she discussed withMrs. Clinton various “steps” to take to adjust her relationship with the foundation, including her resignation from the foundation’s board.

By fall 2015, Mrs. Clinton’s aides had fine-tuned her response to questions about foreign donors. “As President, I won’t permit any conflicts between my work for the American people and the Foundation’s good work,” aides advised Mrs. Clinton to say in a coming debate.

The emails give insight into the periodic fires that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers thought they had to put out. Mrs. Clinton ultimately did not attend the foundation event in Morocco that Ms. Abedin had complained about; her husband and daughter did go. It is unclear if the king had given the $12 million he was said to have pledged; he is not listed among the foundation’s donors.

In March 2015, Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian steel magnate who had given more than $10 million to the foundation, was “relentlessly” requesting a meeting with Mr. Clinton, according to an aide, Amitabh Desai. If the former president declined, the relationship would be damaged, Mr. Desai wrote in an email.

“No is better. Is that viable?” wrote Mr. Podesta, who by then was the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. It is unclear if the meeting took place.

That same year, during a discussion over a potential meeting between Mr. Clinton and the Saudi king, Mr. Podesta replied, using the former president’s initials, “Not something that would be on our top 10 list of WJC requests.”

Mr. Podesta took a leadership role at the charity when Bruce R. Lindsey, a former White House counsel and longtime friend of Mr. Clinton who had been chief executive of the foundation, had a stroke in 2011.

His role at the foundation, coupled with his later capacity as the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, put Mr. Podesta in the middle of internal workings of both operations and, by default, the delicate battles unfolding between Chelsea Clinton and her father’s top aides.

The day Mrs. Clinton’s mother, Dorothy Rodham, died in 2011, Chelsea Clinton emailed Mr. Podesta. “Doug called and yelled and screamed at my Dad about how could he do this,” she said, a reference to the internal scrutiny going on at the foundation. “My mother is exhausted, we are all heartbroken but we need a strategy and my father needs advice/counsel.”

Mr. Band has said the exchange described in the email never happened.

Mr. Band, who helped Mr. Clinton build the foundation, clearly felt irritated by Chelsea Clinton’s stream of implications that he had padded his own pockets from his work for her father.“As they say, the apple doesn’t fall far,” he wrote. “A kiss on the cheek while she is sticking the knife in the back, and front.”

When Chelsea Clinton, using a pseudonym “Diane Reynolds,” that she also sometimes used to check into hotels, sent Mr. Band a complimentary email in January 2012, he forwarded it to Mr. Podesta and Ms. Mills.


Posted at 11:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Time to create page: 0.841 seconds


Major Topics

Helpful Resources


About Us