IRGCN Takes Control of Cargo Ship

While all media is reporting on the mayhem in Baltimore, the P5+1 is still in talks with Iran on the nuclear program. Each time these talks re-commence, Iran has a side-line operation that otherwise would terminate the talks, but in Obama’s world with John Kerry in the lead….not so much.

Update with more details:

WASHINGTON — Iranian vessels fired upon a cargo ship flagged to the Marshall Islands Tuesday morning, forcing the ship to travel deeper into Iranian waters — and setting off another round of tensions between Iran and the US.

Col. Steven Warren, Pentagon spokesman, confirmed that Iranian patrol vessels intercepted the shipping vessel Maersk Tigris around 5 a.m. Washington time. At that time, the vessels ordered the ship to travel deeper into Iranian waters. It is not clear if the Maersk had inadvertently traveled into Iranian territory.

When the Maersk did not respond immediately, the Iranian vessels fired shots across the bow of the cargo ship, which then complied with the order. The Iranian forces then boarded the vessel.

Warren said the ship is now located in the “vicinity” of Larak Island, in the Strait of Hormuz. According to VesselFinder.com, the ship was traveling from Jeddah in Saudi Arabia to Jebel Ali in the UAE.

Although the Marshall Islands are a sovereign nation, the US has “full authority and responsibility for security and defense” of the islands, according to a State Department fact sheet. That puts a US response in play in what represents an escalation of the standoff between Iran and the US.

After receiving a distress signal from the cargo ship, Naval Forces Central Command dispatched the destroyer Farragut to proceed at best speed to the location of the Maersk and has sent a single maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft to observe the situation, Warren said. He did not clarify what that aircraft was, but the Navy counts both the P-3 and P-8 under that designation.

Warren said that it is “unlikely” Farragut would enter Iranian territory.

He added that there were no American citizens onboard the vessel, which has a crew of about 30.

Warren said that at first glance the situation “seems to be provocative” on the part of the Iranian ships, but noted that there are still gaps of information about the initial incident.

“It is inappropriate” on the part of the Iranian forces, he added.

The past week has seen a spike in tensions between the two countries after US Navy ships began shadowing a convoy of Iranian cargo ships that the Pentagon believed may be carrying weapons to aid militant forces in Yemen.

That situation dispersed last week when the Iranian convoy turned away from Yemen, but no doubt remains fresh in the minds of both nations.

Asked if the seizure of the Maersk was retaliation for last week’s standoff, Warren said there was “no way to know” at this time.

Craig Allen, a professor at the University of Washington with an expertise in maritime law, called Iran’s actions “highly unusual.”

“Iran often beats its chest about shutting down this strait as a countermeasure to Western aggression, but it’s all been talk up to this point,” Allen said. “Actually pulling a commercial vessel out and pulling it into an Iranian port, I’m shocked.”

Allen explained that the Strait of Hormuz operates under the law of transit passage as laid out by a 1982 UN convention on the law of the sea. Although neither the US nor Iran signed that convention, the nations have treated the rules of navigation transit as legally binding.

The rules of transit passage guarantees any vessel the right to use the strait with only “very limited” restrictions, Allen said. Those restrictions include if the ship is not proceeding without delay through the strait or is excessively polluting.

Those rules seem to be broad enough that Iran could claim a violation — it would be easy to claim the shipping vessel was moving too slowly through its waters or dumped trash overboard — yet Allen said such actions are extremely rare.

While acknowledging Iran could have been responding to the US actions last week, Allen brought up a slightly different possibility, one that could set the naval status quo of the region on its side.

“Obviously, the Iranians and Saudis aren’t getting along right now,” Allen said, before noting that the ship came from a Saudi port. “Maybe Iran believes the rules are shifting to the law of naval warfare with Saudi Arabia… The fact it’s coming out of Saudi Arabia, I have to think the Iranians somehow are connecting this to the Saudi action on behalf of the government.”

It was just a handful of days ago, that the Pentagon re-positioned naval assets in the region to ensure the free access to shipping lanes as told to us by State Department spokesperson, Marie Harf. That does not appear to be working well.


As reported by NAVCENT, which is Naval Central Command officials:

BREAKING: Iran Seizes Marshall Island Ship; U.S. Destroyer En Route

This is a breaking news story and will be updated as the situation develops.

Iranian navy vessels shot at a Marshall Island-flagged cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz and directed it further into Iranian territorial waters, the Pentagon confirmed. U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT) has sent aircraft to observe and directed USS Farragut (DDG-99) to proceed to the area.

After the cargo ship was surrounded by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) patrol craft, “the master was contacted and directed to proceed further into Iranian territorial waters,” according to a statement from Pentagon spokesman Steve Warren.
“He declined and one of the IRGCN craft fired shots across the bridge of the Maersk Tigris. The master complied with the Iranian demand and proceeded into Iranian waters in the vicinity of Larak Island.”

Warren said that NAVCENT is in touch with the shipping company and continues to monitor the situation. The shipping company told NAVCENT there are no Americans onboard, he added.

According to Vessel Finder, the container ship made its last port stop in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, after several stops earlier in the month throughout Turkey, and was headed to Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates. The ship was expected to reach its destination at 21:30 UTC/Zulu time. Instead, the ship was last reported at 14:20 Zulu off the coast of Bandar Abbas, Iran, near the narrowest part of the Strait of Hormuz. Warren said the IRGCN vessels surrounded the cargo ship at 0905 Zulu.

The following is the complete statement from the Pentagon:

“At approximately 0905 Zulu, April 28, M/V Maersk Tigris, a Marshall Islands-flagged cargo vessel, was approached by several Iranian IRGCN patrol vessels while in Iranian territorial waters transiting inbound in the Strait of Hormuz. The master was contacted and directed to proceed further into Iranian territorial waters. He declined and one of the IRGCN craft fired shots across the bridge of the Maersk Tigris. The master complied with the Iranian demand and proceeded into Iranian waters in the vicinity of Larak Island. NAVCENT directed a DDG (USS Farragut) to proceed at best speed to the nearest location of Maersk Tigris, and directed aircraft to observe the interaction between the Maersk vessel and the IRGCN craft. NAVCENT is communicating with representatives of the shipping company and we continue to monitor the situation. According to information received from the vessel’s operators, there are no Americans aboard.”

Clinton Foundation Tight Ties that Bond

In 2008, Hillary Clinton promised Barack Obama, the president-elect, there would be no mystery about who was giving money to her family’s globe-circling charities. She made a pledge to publish all the donors on an annual basis to ease concerns that as secretary of state she could be vulnerable to accusations of foreign influence.

Then…

The Clinton Foundation failed to submit a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government to the State Department for approval under an ethics agreement put in place as Hillary Clinton was being confirmed as secretary of state, a foundation spokesman acknowledged Wednesday.

Then…

Clinton: “[Obama’s] Transition Team Began Working With The Foundation To Try To Craft An Agreement That Would Avoid The Appearance Of A Conflict But Would Also Ensure That The Foundation Can Continue Its Work.” JOHN KERRY: “And this is going to take a very significant hands-on effort, as I think you know. We’ve been, obviously, reading about or hearing about the potential of special envoys, as series of them. Do you want to address that at all today?” HILLARY CLINTON: “Well, no final decisions have been made. That is a tool that I think you will see more use of. I believe that special envoys, particularly, vis a vis military commands, have a lot to recommend in order to make sure that we’ve got the civilian presence well represented. …. because all of the independent professionals who do this for our government said there was no conflict. So it’s a kind of a catch-as-catch-can problem. I mean, when it was all submitted to the Office of Government Ethics, they said there was no inherent conflict. My husband doesn’t take a salary. He has no financial interests in any of this. I don’t take a salary. I have no financial interests. So out of that abundance of caution and a desire to avoid even the appearance, the president-elect’s transition team began working with the foundation to try to craft an agreement that would avoid the appearance of a conflict but would also ensure that the foundation can continue its work.”

There is SO much more. So, taking a look at 2009 Foundation donors…

2009 donors to Clinton foundation

The Associated Press

The 2009 donors to the William J. Clinton Foundation who have given at least

$1,000 to the former president’s charity since its founding include:

MORE THAN $25 MILLION:

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Frank Giustra, Chief Executive Officer, The Radcliffe Foundation

UNITAID (most passed through the foundation for commodity purchases)

$10 MILLION TO $25 MILLION:

AUSAID

COPRESIDA (all passed through the foundation for commodity purchases)

Government of Norway

Hunter Foundation

ELMA Foundation

$5,000,001 TO $10 MILLION:

S.D. Abraham

Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative – Canada

Elton John AIDS Foundation

Nationale Postcode Loterij

Wasserman Foundation

For the full 2009 donor list go here. Then there is Ooredoo. What is that?

Ooredoo (formerly Qtel Group) is a brand name of a telecommunications provider. Ooredoo has grown rapidly through acquisitions in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Maldives, Algeria, Palestinian territories, Myanmar, Oman and Bosnia and Herzegovina (merger of HT eronet and BH Telecom).

The company has developed to become a provider of mobile services, wireless services, wireline services, and content services, with varying market share in the domestic and international telecommunication markets and in the business (corporations and individuals) and residential markets. *** The al Thani dynasty is deeply connected to the White House as one must recall that the Taliban 5 released from Gitmo in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl live in Doha, Qatar under house arrest until….until June 1, 2015.

The company is partly state-owned, which has sometimes led to political interventions.  The company’s Qatar branch’s monopoly was lifted when Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, Qatar’s emir, issued a law restructuring the ICT sector’s administration and lifting Qtel’s monopoly in 2006. Its competitors include Vodafone, Saudi Telecom Company, and Zain. *** Ooredoo, the GSMA, and their partners announced a number of major new initiatives for the GSMA Connected Women Programme at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) Annual Meeting in New York recently.
The Connected Women Programme will undertake studies that will offer critical insights into the socio-economic benefits of greater inclusion of women in the telecommunications sector. The findings will be used by partners – including Ooredoo – to develop initiatives and services for female consumers and employees.
Ooredoo will draw on the data to provide tailored services for women in Myanmar, aiming to connect millions of women to mobile and internet services– many of whom have never had access to the Internet before.
In addition, Ooredoo’s Indosat will draw on the data to launch new services designed for women in Indonesia. Indosat will launch a new start-up called Wobe, targeting lower to middle income Indonesian women with voice, data and internet services.
Chelsea Clinton, Vice Chair, Clinton Foundation, said: “‘Ensuring that women can fully participate in this growing mobile economy by joining the mobile workforce and lending their creative talent to what these devices can do is important, but also essential is increasing connectivity for women so that they can experience the economic benefits and growth that can make measureable differences in their lives and for all of us.”
H.E. Sheikh Abdullah Bin Mohammed Bin Saud Al Thani, Chairman, Ooredoo Group, said: “Ooredoo companies have already taken the lead in providing award-winning services for women in markets ranging from Iraq to Indonesia. By deploying the findings of the Connected Women Programme, we will be able to further refine and develop these initiatives in support of expanding the female digital economy in all our markets.”

 

 

Brennan and his Kill Drone Operation

Catch him if you can, as speeches to one audience are very different from those to another audience. CIA Chief, John Brennan is the designer of the Obama drone program and ‘that’ kill list.

In part: No one else was double-checking the administration’s work, and making sure that what Brennan called the “surgical” approach was only killing bad guys and not simply peasants with guns, civilians whose deaths might prolong the conflict. It was a secret program with an ad hoc structure and no real oversight or outside checks — only John Brennan. The courts weren’t interested even when Americans started showing up on the kill lists, and Congress was lost in a confused thicket of jurisdictional limitations surrounding covert action in the military and CIA. As one congressional staffer told me last year, “No one has a 360-degree view of this.” That left only public opinion, and the White House had a strategy for that. *** Almost a year later, in May 2012, the New York Times revealed that the U.S. had developed a new way of counting casualties. Instead of two categories, the U.S. had only one: militant. The U.S. assumed that every adult male who was killed — whether their names were known or not — was guilty. There were no innocent among the dead. The whole thing was an accounting trick.

But, Obama declared he has a pen and a phone. He can change anything, and does. Meanwhile, the family of Dr. Weinstein, the USAID worker killed in the drone strike, did pay a ransom to get him released. So that pesky and common question remains often, what did the White House know and when did it know it?

President Obama secretly granted the Central Intelligence Agency more flexibility to conduct drone strikes targeting terror suspects in Pakistan than anywhere else in the world after approving more restrictive rules in 2013, according to a published report.

The Wall Street Journal, citing current and former U.S. officials, reported that Obama approved a waiver exempting the CIA from proving that militants targeted in Pakistan posed an imminent threat to the U.S. According to the paper, under that standard, the agency might have been prevented from carrying out a Jan. 15 strike that killed an American and an Italian who were held hostage by Al Qaeda-linked militants.

The deaths of Dr. Warren Weinstein and Giovanni Lo Porto have renewed debate in Washington over what, if any, new limits should be put on the drone program. After announcing the deaths of Weinstein and Lo Porto on Thursday, Obama said that he had ordered a “full review,” but said the strike that killed the hostages was “fully consistent with the guidelines under which we conduct counterterrorism efforts in the region.”

The CIA conducts drone strikes in Pakistan as well as in Yemen, where it works alongside the military. The Pentagon has also conducted drone strikes in Somalia.

Drone strikes carried out by the CIA fall into two categories. Specific terror leaders are targeted due to their presence on a so-called “kill list.” Strikes that target anyone on a “kill list” must be approved personally by Obama. The second type of operation is a so-called “signature strike”, which does not need the president’s approval and can be carried out against any suspected group of militants. It was the latter type of operation that resulted in the hostages’ deaths on Jan. 15.

The Journal reports that while Obama issued a directive in 2013 aimed at eventually eliminated “signature strikes” in an effort to cut down on civilian deaths, officials say many of the changes specified in the directive either haven’t been implemented or have been works in progress.

The paper also reports that the CIA’s Pakistan drone strike program was initially exempted from the “imminent threat” requirement until the end of U.S. and NATO combat operations in Afghanistan. Officials told the Journal that waiver was extended when Obama decided to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond the original withdrawal date of December 2014, though it is not clear exactly when this happened.

If the “imminent threat” requirement had been extended to Pakistan, the Journal reports, the CIA would have had to carry out more surveillance of the suspected militants, possibly preventing the fatal Jan. 15 mission from being launched.

In addition to Weinstein and Lo Porto, the drone strike also killed two Americans who had leadership roles with Al Qaeda. U.S. officials told the Associated Press late last week that the compound was targeted because intelligence showed it was frequented by Al Qaeda leaders.

Late Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reported that heat sensors and other surveillance tolls indicated that there were only four people at the compound, not the six who were ultimately killed. Analysts tell the paper that they now believe Weinstein and Lo Porto were kept underground, either in a basement or a tunnel, which would have prevented them from being detected by heat sensors.

War in Afghanistan is NOT over, Forbids Release of Detainee

Finally some real truth from the Department of Justice?

Especially compelling is the notion that this detainee is from Yemen, a country that is over-run with an AQAP militant faction as well as the Houthi, an Iranian terror group presently engaged in hostilities with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, where the United States is playing an intelligence role.

Muktar Yahya Najee al Warafi is a 40- or 41-year-old citizen of Yemen. As of April 27, 2015, he has been held at Guantánamo for 12 years 11 months. As of January 2010, the Guantánamo Review Task Force had recommended him for transfer to Yemen provided that certain security conditions were met.* The Department of Defense assessment of this detainee can be found here.

The Justice Department Just Declared That the War in Afghanistan Is Not Over

The war in Afghanistan is not ending, US government attorneys said in court documents unsealed Friday, undercutting statements President Barack Obama made last December and in his State of the Union address a few weeks later when he formally declared that “the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion.”

But Obama didn’t really mean that the war was over, the government now argues.

“Simply put, the President’s statements signify a transition in United States military operations, not a cessation …” Andrew Warden, a Justice Department attorney, wrote. “Although the United States has ended its combat mission in Afghanistan, the fighting there certainly has not stopped.”

Warden made the argument in a 34-page motion (viewable below as a PDF) filed in US District Court for the District of Columbia in response to a legal challenge by Guantanamo detainee Mukhtar Yahi Naji al-Warafi. The detainee asked a federal court to grant his writ of habeas corpus and set him free because Obama said the war in Afghanistan is over and the legal authorization the US has relied upon to hold him for the past 13 years is no longer valid.

Muktar Yahya Najee al Warafi

“The government’s position is incoherent,” David Remes, al-Warafi’s Washington, DC-based attorney, told VICE News. “The president says the war is over. The brief says the war isn’t over and will never be over. And the government says they are being consistent with what the president said. They are twisting the president’s own words. Obama was clearly making the point that the war was over, that hostilities have ended.”

Al-Warafi, a Yemeni national held by the US solely on the basis of his alleged Taliban membership, is one of a handful of Guantanamo captives who have filed so-called end of hostilities challenges in federal court arguing that Obama’s formal declaration signifying an end to the war in Afghanistan paves the way toward their immediate release from Guantanamo.

“Since the US war with the Taliban in Afghanistan is over, the government has to let a Taliban-only detainee go. There’s no need to debate whether the US war with other groups is over,” Remes told VICE News last month when he filed the habeas petition.

But the Obama administration is now arguing that the US military is still very much engaged in hostilities in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and that the war there is unlikely to end anytime soon. Justice Department attorneys have filed hundreds of pages of documents to support their conclusion.

‘The president says the war is over. The brief says the war isn’t over and will never be over.’

Because the fighting is ongoing, the US argues they can continue to detain al-Warafi and other prisoners at Guantanamo under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), in which Congress granted the president the power to detain certain prisoners “under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities.”

The government goes on to argue that, despite Obama’s statements declaring an end to the war in Afghanistan, Congress did not repeal or amend the 2001 AUMF, indicating that lawmakers are in agreement with the executive branch that “hostilities have not ceased” and the power to indefinitely detain war on terror detainees is on solid legal ground.

The government said al-Warafi has misinterpreted Obama’s statements about the Afghan war’s conclusion and has failed to understand that the “relevant inquiry is whether active hostilities have ceased not whether a particular combat mission has ended.”

“The President has not declared that active hostilities against al-Qaeda, Taliban have ceased or that the fighting in Afghanistan has stopped,” Warden wrote in the government’s motion. “Rather, the President’s public statements made clear that, in light of the continuing threats faced by the United States in Afghanistan, counterterrorism and other military operations would continue even after the end of the combat mission … [Al-Warafi’s] motion should be denied because active hostilities against al-Qaeda, Taliban and associated forces remain ongoing and have not ceased.”

Marty Lederman, a Justice Department attorney during Obama’s first term, opined in a blog post last month when al-Warafi filed his habeas petition that if the government argued that hostilities in Afghanistan are not over, then “the court would then be confronted with at least two fundamental questions: (i) What are the criteria for determining whether an armed conflict has ended, for purposes of international law (which in turn affects AUMF and other domestic-law authorities)? And (ii) who decides?

“As for the substantive question of how to determine when the conflict has ended, well… it’s very complicated, to say the least,” Lederman continued. “The intensity and regularity of hostilities between the relevant parties would certainly be important determinants. If, for example, the US and the Taliban rarely exchange fire (or other forms of attack) for an extended period of time, it would become increasingly difficult to sustain the notion that the armed conflict continues between those parties.”

The attorney added that “there’s no easy formula that explains where, exactly, to draw the line separating ‘war’ from ‘the end of the conflict,” and that the question “is typically determined by the political branches.”

The Justice Department attorneys argue that the US can still hold al-Warafi even while the administration is trying to fulfill Obama’s campaign pledge to shutter the Guantanamo detention facility and repatriate dozens of detainees by the end of the year before Congress implements measures to block transfers, according to a report published last week by the Washington Post.

The government’s position in al-Warafi’s case could conflict with Obama’s larger goal of permanently shutting down the detention facility.

“This goes beyond whether Obama closes Guantanamo or keeps it open,” Remes said. The government’s brief “is one with the administration’s position that it can detain its captives in the war on terror indefinitely. The brief provides a rationale for continuing to hold detainees captured when there in fact was a war.”

Last month, Obama announced that, at the request of Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani, the US would slow the withdrawal of military personnel from the country and leave about 9,800 troops, “at 21 military bases across Afghanistan,” according to the court documents.

And if there is any doubt that US military will continue fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda, the government secured a sworn declaration from Navy Rear Adm. Sinclair M. Harris, the vice director for operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said that while the US combat mission in Afghanistan known as Operation Enduring Freedom has formally ended, the US military has “commenced a new support and counterterrorism mission” in the country, dubbed Operation Freedom’s Sentinel.

Operation Freedom’s Sentinel “is executed under specified rules of engagement that delineate the circumstances and conditions under which the U.S. forces may engage [redacted],” Harris wrote, noting that the 9,800 troops who will stay behind in Afghanistan will be used to support the new mission.

Harris even laid out the timeframe for when “hostile engagements” the US will participate in will begin, which he said demonstrates why the US still considers Afghanistan “as an area of active hostilities” and why al-Warafi is wrong to assume that the war is over and he should be released.

“The height of ‘fighting season’ in Afghanistan generally lasts from April until October,” he said. “Although it is difficult to predict with specificity, it is probable that instances of hostilities between the United States and enemy forces in Afghanistan will increase throughout the coming months.”

A decision in al-Warafi’s case is expected later this year. If you want to read the DoJ’s legal findings, click here for the full document.

Clinton Foundation Rated a Slush Fund

There have been missed filing dates with the IRS by the Foundation(s), there have been anonymous donors, there is dirty medicines from India, there has been complicity with the Lois Lerner division of the IRS, there have government employees with more than one paying job, and some very nefarious people hopping in and out of leadership roles at the Foundation(s).

So, as a slush fund, who benefits? All of them, globally.

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group once run by leading progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout.

In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.

Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.

The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.

The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.

An accountant for the Clinton Foundation did not return The Post’s calls seeking clarification on its expenses Friday, and a spokesperson for the group  refused comment.