Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion

Clinton Foundation Tight Ties that Bond

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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.

Clinton Foundation Rated a Slush Fund

Posted on by

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.

Instigators of the Baltimore Riots

Posted on by

Update: Seems the Baltimore police are investigating who is out to kill them. They have had previous warnings from militant groups and gangs we have seen before. Now, some harder questions need to be asked of the Mayor….hello Mayor?

Baltimore Police say they have received a “credible threat” that rival gangs have teamed up to “take out” law enforcement officers. Police said in a statement that they have received information that members of “various gangs” — including the Black Guerrilla Family, the Bloods and the Crips — have “entered into a partnership” to harm police.

“Law enforcement agencies should take appropriate precautions to ensure the safety of their officers,” police said.

Capt. Eric Kowalczyk, the agency’s chief spokesman, said he could not immediately elaborate on how the information was received or why police found it credible. He would not say whether it was believed connected to the ongoing demonstrations regarding the death of Freddie Gray.  In December, the Baltimore FBI office issued a memo that the Black Guerrilla Family gang was targeting “white cops” in Maryland, an agency spokeswoman confirmed. The memo, circulating among officers, said a contact who had given reliable information in the past said members of the gang — connected to the high-profile corruption scandal at the Baltimore City Detention Center — were planning to target white officers to “send a message.”

BALTIMORE—Police made 34 arrests after protests over the death of Freddie Gray turned violent Saturday evening, as some protesters damaged several police cars and broke windows at a number of downtown businesses, officials said.

Authorities said six police officers suffered minor injuries in the fracas, which prompted officials to briefly hold baseball fans at nearby Camden Yards, where the Baltimore Orioles and Boston Red Sox were playing. At downtown intersections, protesters stood facing officers who had put on helmets after police were pelted by water bottles and other objects.

So, who is behind this insurrection in Baltimore? All the same groups behind Ferguson, Oakland and New York. One group in particular is very familiar however…

  Does the name Malik Shabazz ring a bell? Yes…you’re correct the New Black Panthers. Only now there is a cohesive operation and it includes black lawyers.

Black Lawyers ForJustice

CALL US: (515) 447-9230

Ah, but there is more. This kind of rioting and looting is also taught at the university level and there is a book titled “Race & Police Brutality, Roots of an Urban Dilemma. Authors are Malcolm Holmes and Brad Smith. Malcolm D. Holmes is Professor of Sociology at the University of Wyoming, and Brad W. Smith is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at Wayne State University.

Expect more to come and then ask your local law enforcement what they know and how prepared are they. If you want to go to a baseball game, take caution.

 

 

Fleecing Taxpayers on Boston Bombers Trial

Posted on by

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you. When you apply for asylum, you are not allowed to travel back to the home country. Under U.S. asylum rules, America is beyond generous with financially assisted housing, food, healthcare and education. The Tsarneav family took full advantage of your money, to the point of fraud and criminal activity. It gets worse. You are paying millions of dollars for the trial, hotels, transportation, food, travel and security and the dollars will continue to mount…

Survivors outraged after learning Tsarnaev’s family’s trip to US paid for with American tax dollars

BOSTON (MyFoxBoston.com) — The family of the convicted marathon bomber is in America, on your tax dollars, and survivors are outraged after learning the news.

  Defense Team

 

As of Thursday, family members of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have been staying at the Hampton Inn in Revere under very tight security, just one of the things tax dollars are paying for. FOX25’s Sharman Sacchetti investigated how much this trip is costing you.

Sources say these family members are being called as witnesses and not only that, at least three agencies are working around the clock to protect and transport them. This is all part of the defense team’s strategy to save Tsarnaev. While it’s unclear when their flight started, we know the last part of it came through Amsterdam and landed at Logan Airport and cost nearly $2,500 per person.

The cost to put them up at the Hampton Inn at the government rate: almost $200 per night, per person. And a source says at least three agencies, the FBI, US Marshal’s and Revere Police are involved in constant protection.

“I think you’re probably talking about $100,000 plus in that neighborhood in terms of security and out of pocket costs associated with travel,” former US attorney Michael Sullivan said.

And that’s just for this trip.

Lawyer fees or even what all witnesses during the trial cost is still unclear. One defense witness, Mark Spencer of Arsenal Consulting, charged $375 per hour and billing taxpayers for $150,000.

Governor Charlie Baker said, “It’s a federal trial, it’s a federal case, the feds ultimately need to make the decisions about this.”

Baker was non-committal about how resources are being used, even state ones.

Sullivan told Sacchetti that while he understands taxpayer outrage, the whole point is to make sure it’s done right.

“The court wants to make sure that at the end of the day, the defendant gets a fair trial and would not want to add any potential issues on appeal in the penalty phase, prosecutors finished making their case yesterday,” he said.

Marathon survivor Marc Fucarile reached out to us Friday night, reacting to this news, saying that he’s outraged that Tsarnaev’s family’s expenses are being paid for when “myself and some of the other survivors and our families have to pay for our own parking at court, lunch, and we were told that if the trial was moved out of state, we’d have to pay for our own travel and lodging, there.”

The statement went on to say: “Why should our country pay for them when that family committed a violent act against our country? Not to mention, all of the free government services this family previously enjoyed on the backs of the taxpayers including government assistance and a free ride to UMass Dartmouth. In contrast, I was denied housing assistance I sought after the bombings, even though I needed a handicapped accessible apartment, and my wife lost her job as a result of the events.”

He ended by saying he feels badly for the taxpayers that have to pay for this after they were so generous to all the survivors and the One Fund.

The defense team is up next. And the penalty phase picks up again Monday.