Hillary's emails

[Nbadan]

Very interesting update today in regards to the FBI Clinton Server Investigation.
By OmahaDemocrat
Wednesday Apr 20, 2016 · 7:19 PM EDT

Lawyers for a reporter demanding access to email messages and files the FBI has reportedly retrieved from Hillary Clinton's private server are objecting to a secret filing the Justice Department submitted to a federal court last month as part of a bid to keep those messages under wraps.

-snip-

That is unique - it means the reasoning for denying the request is detrimental, not just the content.

The FOIA request was in regards to the ‘personal’ emails that Clinton deleted but were eventually recovered by the FBI. Clinton described those emails as wedding plans, yoga routines, and emails to Bill Clinton.

The DOJ now has until April 26th to explain why they couldn’t reveal the reasoning behind denying the FOIA request and why they did this in secret. If her ‘personal’ emails that she deleted contained classified content that would put her in a very precarious position. The Clinton’s have had to maintain that no classified material was located in her personal emails as legally they were all supposed to be the property of the State Department — and it is a crime to destroy classified material.

more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4...-Investigation

[Nbadan]

DOJ Claims Revealing FBI Declaration Will Jeopardize Clinton Email Investigation

by Rachel Stockman | 7:35 pm, April 27th, 2016

Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice say they cannot make public a classified FBI declaration because it would “adversely affect the ongoing investigation” into Hillary Clinton‘s private email server. The recent filing by DOJ attorneys, obtained by LawNewz.com, is significant because it not only acknowledges the ongoing federal probe, but also asserts that if the declaration is made public, it could “reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

The DOJ’s memorandum is part of a FOIA lawsuit that was originally filed in federal court by Vice News reporter Jason Leopold. Leopold is seeking Clinton’s emails that the DOJ obtained from her private server. He is also seeking correspondence between the FBI and Clinton referencing the Clinton email server.

In March, the government filed a motion for summary judgement in the case, and incorporated this classified declaration as one of the supporting do ents. Leopold’s attorneys argued that the declaration should be made public, or the DOJ should show cause for why it must be kept secret. On Tuesday, DOJ attorneys filed an memorandum in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to show cause.

The DOJ says in its filing:

Records responsive to Plaintiff’s request that are subject to FOIA relate to a pending investigation. The FBI has stated publicly that it received and “is working on a referral Inspectors General in connection with former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a private email server. The FBI therefore submitted a classified in camera, ex parte declaration to provide the Court] with additional details to demonstrate that responsive information was properly withheld, and explained on the public record that this was the purpose of the in camera declaration.

Read more:
http://lawnewz.com/important/doj-cla...investigation/

[DMX7]

Crocked Hillary

[Winehole23]

DOJ Claims Revealing FBI Declaration Will Jeopardize Clinton Email Investigation

by Rachel Stockman | 7:35 pm, April 27th, 2016




Read more:
http://lawnewz.com/important/doj-cla...investigation/

what does working on a referral mean?

[Gummi Clutch]

what does working on a referral mean?

yo go comment on my thread.

[Gummi Clutch]

RUH ROH

how the do you expect me to read that block of text dumbass. Condense that or comic sans it so its more readable.

[Reck]

how the do you expect me to read that block of text dumbass. Condense that or comic sans it so its more readable.

Comic dog giving the game of thrones wall a run for its money.

[Gummi Clutch]

Comic dog giving the game of thrones wall a run for its money.

[boutons_deux]

Pentagon pushes back against Benghazi panel’s demands

The House Republicans’ Benghazi Committee not only still exists – today is its 722nd day – it also continues to make demands of the Pentagon. As of yesterday, I’m starting to get the sense that the Defense Department is getting a little tired of the GOP’s panel’s requests.

Committee Democrats issued a do ent this morning that’s worth paying attention to.

Today, Rep. Elijah E. mings, the Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Adam Smith, the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Adam Schiff, the Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, released a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense to Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy exposing the latest abuses by Select Committee Republicans.

The three-page letter, which is available in its entirety online (pdf), is from Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen C. Hedger, and was sent to Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) yesterday. In it, Hedger goes into quite a bit of detail noting the extent to which the Pentagon has already cooperated with the panel’s request for materials and information, but the letter also suggests Gowdy and his Republican colleagues are … what’s the phrase I’m looking for … pushing their luck.


“The Committee has made requests of individuals who seem unnecessary even for a comprehensive investigation,” Hedger wrote, “or has insisted we prioritize certain requests only to later abandon the request.”

In one case, Benghazi Committee Republicans told the Pentagon to track down four pilots who weren’t deployed to Benghazi in September 2012. The Committee had already heard from their commander, but Republicans told Defense officials to track down these pilots anyway. The Pentagon obliged, eventually locating the pilots, before the committee changed it’s mind and canceled the request.

In another case, Benghazi Committee Republicans said some guy claimed on his Facebook page to be a mechanic at an air base, so the panel requested the Pentagon track him down, too. The department determined he had no relevant information.

In yet another case, Benghazi Committee Republicans said some guy called into a conservative radio show, claiming to be a pilot camera operator who saw some secret Benghazi video. The panel urged the Pentagon to find him, and after a search, no such person turned up.

All of these searches, Hedger explained, take a great deal of time, energy, and resources – for no apparent reason. His letter added:

“Finally, the DoD interviewees have been asked repeatedly to speculate or engage in discussing on the record hypotheticals posed by Committee Members and staff, regardless of their interviewee’s actual knowledge or expertise to provide appropriate analysis or insight. This type of questioning poses the risk that your final report may be based on speculation rather than a fact-based analysis or what a military officer did do or could have done given his or her knowledge at the time of the attacks. I would respectfully request that you ensure pending interviews remain focused on obtaining facts rather than encouraging speculation.”

Ouch.

Republicans have already admitted the panel is a partisan exercise, making it that much more difficult to justify its prolonged existence – at a cost of nearly $7 million. Now there’s evidence the committee is annoying the Department of Defense for reasons no one seems to understand.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

[Winehole23]

Got the DOD chasing fairy tales and chimeras. For the public good, of course.

[TheSanityAnnex]

A federal judge said Wednesday he may order Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton to testify under oath about whether she used a private email server as secretary of state to evade public records disclosures.U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan signed an order granting a request from the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch to question six current and former State Department staffers about the creation and purpose of the private email system.

Those on the list were some of Clinton's closest aides during her tenure as the nation's top diplomat, including former chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills, deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin and undersecretary Patrick F. Kennedy.

Also set to testify is Bryan Pagliano, the agency employee who was tasked with setting up the clintonemail.com server located in the basement of the New York home Clinton shares with her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Pagliano has previously refused to testify before Congress, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Based on what might be gleaned in those interviews, which are to be conducted over the next eight weeks, Sullivan says in his order a sworn deposition from Hillary Clinton "may be necessary."

That raises the possibility that Clinton could be ordered to testify in the midst of the presidential race. A campaign spokesman did not respond Wednesday to messages about whether Clinton would oppose any order to testify.
At issue is whether the State Department conducted an adequate search of public records in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Judicial Watch in 2013 seeking records related to Abedin's outside work as a paid consultant for the Clintons' charitable foundation and a financial advisory firm with ties to the former first couple.

The department's initial search did not include the thousands of emails Clinton exchanged with her aides, including Abedin, using private email addresses. The department said it didn't have access to those emails at the time.

Questions asked during the depositions are to be limited to the cir stances surrounding the 2009 creation of Clinton's private email system, including why she chose not to use a government account.
Sullivan said ordering depositions is appropriate in legal cases where a federal agency "may have purposefully attempted to skirt disclosure under FOIA."

"In sum, the cir stances surrounding approval of Mrs. Clinton's use of clintonemail.com for official government business, as well as the manner in which it was operated, are issues that need to be explored" to evaluate the adequacy of the department's records search.


There have been at least three dozen civil lawsuits filed, including one by The Associated Press, over public records requests related to Clinton's time as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

The FBI also is investigating whether sensitive information that flowed through Clinton's email server was mishandled. The inspectors general at the State Department and for U.S. intelligence agencies are separately investigating whether rules or laws were broken.

Critics of Clinton's decision to rely on the private server have suggested that it potentially made her communications more vulnerable to being stolen by hackers, including those working for foreign intelligence agencies.

Clinton has acknowledged in the campaign that her home-based email setup was a mistake, but insists she never sent or received any do ents that were marked classified at the time.

In response to public records requests, the State Department has released more than 52,000 pages of her work-related emails, a small percentage of which have been withheld because they contain information considered sensitive to national security. Thousands of additional emails have been withheld by Clinton, whose lawyers say they contain personal messages unrelated to her government service.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-judge-...-election.html

[TheSanityAnnex]

Despite being dogged by Bernie Sanders late into the primary season, Hillary Clinton is by all accounts virtually guaranteed her party’s nomination. But even as she gets closer to that goal, she still can’t shake the email scandal that has dogged her since March 2015.If anything, her legal situation is more perilous than ever.
Item 1: Earlier this week, the Department of Justice apparently admitted that the investigation into the email scandal was a law enforcement proceeding, not — as Clinton has maintained — a review of classification procedures.
Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano wrote this week that Justice moved to dismiss a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Vice News reporter Jason Leopold that sought, among other things, communications between the DOJ and Clinton. DOJ said that, in Napolitano’s words, complying with the request would “jeopardize the investigation by exposing parts of it prematurely.” In the same brief, he said, the DOJ referred to the investigation of Mrs. Clinton as a “law enforcement proceeding.”
Item 2: On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan granted a request by Judicial Watch (which has been aggressively pursuing this scandal) to depose Clinton’s former top State Department aides — including Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin — about Clinton’s email set up and how the department handled freedom of information requests.
Sullivan also left the door open for Clinton to be deposed, “based on information learned during discovery.’’
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton called it “a very great victory for transparency and, despite the best efforts of the Obama administration and the Clinton camp, it looks like we might finally get some answers under oath about the Clintons’ illicit email system.”
Item 3: Imprisoned Romanian hacker who went by the handle “Guccifer” now claims that he had access to Clinton’s private email server, and that, while looking around, noticed that others had gained unauthorized access as well. “As far as I remember, yes, there were … up to 10, like, IPs from other parts of the world,” he told Fox News.
The Clinton campaign dismissed the “claims made by this criminal” as completely unsubstantiated.
Clinton has repeatedly dismissed the entire scandal, saying at one point that: “I am not concerned about it. I am not worried about it, and no Democrat or American should be either.”
Then again, Clinton has been saying that for more than a year now.

http://www.investors.com/politics/ca...ination-nears/

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi!

Email!

Witch hunt!

[spurraider21]

Email!

Witch hunt!

making fun of yourself? you've been all over the email thing during the primary

[Nbadan]

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

CNN decides to go with "no evidence." Wonder why?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2df_story.html

[Nbadan]

Hillary To Face FBI Interviews Within Weeks:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...ks-cbs-reports

....an order by Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court decided to lay out ground rules for interviewing multiple State Department officials, and ordered at least six current and former State Department employees to answer questions, all in an effort to finish the depositions in the weeks before the party nominating conventions....

As CBS reports, a source has confirmed that Hillary Clinton will be interviewed by the FBI within the coming weeks, in connection with the investigation into her private email server....

The FBI and Justice Department have been investigating whether sensitive information that flowed through Clinton's email server was mishandled. ...

There's no timetable for completing the investigation, and there have been no statements about how much longer the investigation will take.

As we reported on Wednesday, a federal judge in Washington said he may order Clinton to testify under oath about whether she used a private email server to evade public records disclosures. ...

[Nbadan]

Note the modifier "scant", and then read the sentence again.

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules

When you read the headlines through the lens of the actual law, finding "scant evidence" and "evidence" are exactly the same. The FBI has found evidence of intent to break classification rules.

Now, how can that be? Doesn't every criminal statute require proof that the defendant intended to break the law? No, some laws, like those related to negligence do not require proof of intentional lawbreaking or that actual harm be done. A common example is operating under the influence of alcohol. The mere fact that a policeman finds one behind the wheel with a blood alcohol level over a certain percentage is enough to convict. Parts of the Espionage Act are like that. Even though they involve negligence rather than intent to commit a crime, they are still felonies. She is not off the hook.

Add that to the fact the State Department and the Intelligence Community IGs have already found more than 2,000 items of classified information found on her server, 104 of which she sent herself, and 22 found to be information that was Top Secret.

The Felony statute at at Sec. 793 enumerates six separate crimes. The first three, (a)-(c), require the prosecution to show intent to violate the law and to cause harm to the national security. However, two, subsection (e) and (f) apply merely on the basis of mishandling classified materials without actual intent to or the effect of exposing secrets or to violate the law. The standard articulated in (e) is even lower, requiring merely that the defendant acted knowing that unauthorized release "could" cause harm to the national security. That is a much lower standard of proof than proving someone intended to such harm.

hmmmm....remember this?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Note the modifier "scant", and then read the sentence again.





When you read the headlines through the lens of the actual law, finding "scant evidence" and "evidence" are exactly the same. The FBI has found evidence of intent to break classification rules.

Now, how can that be? Doesn't every criminal statute require proof that the defendant intended to break the law? No, some laws, like those related to negligence do not require proof of intentional lawbreaking or that actual harm be done. A common example is operating under the influence of alcohol. The mere fact that a policeman finds one behind the wheel with a blood alcohol level over a certain percentage is enough to convict. Parts of the Espionage Act are like that. Even though they involve negligence rather than intent to commit a crime, they are still felonies. She is not off the hook.

Add that to the fact the State Department and the Intelligence Community IGs have already found more than 2,000 items of classified information found on her server, 104 of which she sent herself, and 22 found to be information that was Top Secret.



hmmmm....remember this?

Yup.


(18 U.S. Code & 793 subsection f) is very clear.
The law applies to “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any do ent, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,” which obviously includes Clinton. Classified information appeared throughout her emails recovered by investigators.
The law is broken if that person “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.”
The law could also be broken if the person “having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—”

[TheSanityAnnex]

Emails From Hillary Clinton’s IT Director at State Department Appear to Be Missing

The State Department said today it can’t find any of Bryan Pagliano’s emails from the time he served as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s senior information technology staffer during her tenure there. Pagliano would have been required to turn over any official communications from his work account before he left the government. State Department officials say he had an official email account, but that they can't find any of those records and continue to search for them.


“The Department has searched for Mr. Pagliano’s email pst file and has not located one that covers the time period of Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” State Department spokesman Elizabeth Trudeau said today, referencing a file format that holds email.
“To be clear, the Department does have records related to Mr. Pagliano and we are working with Congress and [Freedom of Information Act] requesters to provide relevant material. The Department has located a pst from Mr. Pagliano’s recent work at the Department as a contractor, but the files are from after Secretary Clinton left the Department," Trudeau added

This statement about Pagliano’s email comes in response to a FOIA request-turned-lawsuit by the Republican National Committee, which wants the State Department to turn over all his emails as well as Clinton’s text and Blackberry Messenger communications. In a court filing today, the RNC said the State Department has told them there are no do ents responsive to either of those requests.
Pagliano was responsible for setting up the now-infamous private server in the basement of the Clinton's home in Chappaqua, New York. He has since become a key witness in the FBI inquiry into the handling of sensitive material on that server and has been granted immunity by the Justice Department in exchange for his cooperation.


“It’s hard to believe that an IT staffer who set up Hillary Clinton’s reckless email server never sent or received a single work-related email in the four years he worked at the State Department," the RNC's Deputy Communications Director, Raj Shah, said in a statement to ABC News. "Such records might shed light on his role in setting up Clinton’s server, and why he was granted immunity by the FBI. But it seems that his emails were either destroyed or never turned over, adding yet another layer to the secrecy surrounding his role.”



The State Department also pointed out that the Politico newspaper has previously reported that Pagliano’s emails were unavailable.
It's unclear why the State Department does not have his email records for the time her served as her IT director or whether or not he purposefully withheld them.
When Clinton's emails were published on the State Department's public reading room, only one email of his surfaced. It was a happy birthday message from his private email account to hers. She forwarded it to another staffer instructing him to "pls respond."


https://www.yahoo.com/gma/emails-hil...205506182.html

[boutons_deux]

Emails From Hillary Clinton’s IT Director at State Department Appear to Be Missing

Were you when Repugs deleted Ms of dubya/ head WH's emails?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Before you lol Russian propaganda the timelines match up and were reported by US media

The Kremlin is debating whether to release the 20,000 emails they have hacked off of Hillary Clinton’s server.


According to a report from four days ago, beginning in 2011, the Russians began monitoring Romanian computer hacker Marcel Lazăr Lehel (aka Guccifer) after he attempted, unsuccessfully, to break into the computer system of the Russian funded RT television network.
After monitoring Guccifer, the Russians were reportedly able to record (both physically and electronically) his actions which allowed the Russian intelligence analysts, in 2013, to not only detect his breaking into the private computer of Secretary Clinton, but also break in and copy all of its contents as well.
The report notes that shortly after Russia obtained Clinton’s emails, they released a limited amount to RT TV which were published in an article in March 2013, led Hillary Clinton’s ‘hacked’ Benghazi emails: FULL RELEASE.

Apparently no Western journalists promoted this story in 2013.
A couple of years later, in 2016, the US then brought in Guccifer for questioning related to this incident. According to the report, NBC news knew why Guccifer was being questioned but withheld this information from the American public.
The Associated Press reported in October 2015 that “Hillary Clinton’s private email server maintained in her home while serving as secretary of State was possibly hacked by Russia-tied authorities, and others, on five separate occasions.”
The AP report noted that investigators discovered among Clinton’s cache of released emails malicious software aimed at transmitting data to three overseas computers, including at least one in Russia. This malicious software was reportedly activated by clicking on it; but in October it was not clear if Clinton actually opened these messages or not, per the AP.
Recently separate reports have come out noting that Guccifer had indeed hacked Clinton’s emails. Now according to this latest report, Clinton’s server was not only compromised by Guccifer but also by Russia. Guccifer told FOX News last week that he hacked Hillary’s homebrew server and so did at least 10 others.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...emails-hacked/

[TheSanityAnnex]

https://www.rt.com/usa/complete-emai...r-clinton-554/

Hacked emails sent to RT by Guccifer 2013

FBIextradites Guccifer to US in 2016

It's amazing some of you still have your heads in the sand.

[TheSanityAnnex]

is about to hit the fan for the Clinton Foundation. Your girl is going down Reck

http://charlesortel.com/

Follow-up Letter to Donors, Charity Regulators, Investigative Journalists and
Citizens Worldwide


2 May 2016


Dear Friends,


First, a thank you to Kathleen Willey, Clarice Feldman, and Thomas Lifson1 for bringing

attention to yesterday’s letter.


Interest is finally building in piercing smokescreens that Clinton family members and allies still attempt to spread, claiming that a 20 year pattern of escalating, cross border abuses involving the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and multiple affiliated “charities” is a

“nothingburger”2.


For example, few who are even modestly familiar with applicable charity laws believe Bill
Clinton’s latest false assertion3 that investigation into the private email server is merely “a game”--as he will soon discover, the “email scandal” is part of much larger “records scandal”

over which he has little control4.


Major donors to charities are required under various laws to retain records that demonstrate the rationale for making donations. These records ordinarily prove that trustees and government officials took reasonable steps to ensure the charities receiving contributions and government grants were duly organized and lawfully operated.


Many important records not controlled by the Clintons--tens of thousands of pages, or more--are available in the public domain. I have been studying this body of information since February
2015.


What I shall start doing with this follow-up letter is pointing you to key subjects and do ents, including items the Clintons and their allies have intentionally attempted to hide, and help you reach your own informed conclusions about the true Clinton Foundation record.

What Close Review of the Clinton Foundation Public Record Reveals


As you will soon establish for yourselves, not one of the many Clinton Foundation “charities”
has ever been lawfully cons uted anywhere for more than an instant.


If our Internal Revenue Service were not captured by political partisans, charters to operate many
Clinton Foundation “tax-exempt” organizations would have been revoked years ago.


Donors who took deductions on federal tax returns for their contributions to Clinton Foundation en ies would then be dunned for the tax benefits they received as well as for interest and

penalties.


The Internal Revenue Service would investigate U.S. charities identified as contributors to see how much money they gave to Clinton Foundation en ies when these en ies were not lawfully operated, and use discretion to assess appropriate penalties.


In addition, the Internal Revenue Service might conclude that Clinton Foundation en ies were operating as taxable corporations rather than as tax-exempt charities.


In this event, the Internal Revenue Service would assess corporate income taxes, interest, and penalties back to whatever year they deemed each en y to have fallen afoul of applicable laws

and regulations.


The False Hope for Presidential Pardons


Though legal and financial downsides appear large, based on informed ongoing review of available records, the Clintons and their allies may believe they are protected in that either President Obama or Hillary Clinton (should she become the nominee and win the general

election) will issue blanket pardons.


Beyond the flaming political firestorms that surely would then ensue, there is a major problem with this kind of thinking--a U.S. president may only pardon federal crimes as I noted5 on 24

February 2016: “Key Finding #10: President Obama does not have Legal Authority to Issue Pardons for Most
Apparent Illegal Acts Involving Trustees, Executives, Agents, and Clinton Foundation En ies.The U.S. President’s pardon powers extend to federal crimes, and not to state crimes as the U.S. Department of Justice6 makes plain on its website:

“Does the President have authority to grant clemency for a state conviction?


No. The President’s clemency power is conferred by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Cons ution of the
United States, which provides: “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Thus, the President’s authority to
grant clemency is limited to federal offenses and offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court. An offense that violates a state law is not an offense against the United States. A person who wishes to seek a pardon or a commutation of sentence for a state offense should contact the authorities of the state in which the conviction occurred. Such state authorities are typically the Governor or a state board of pardons and/or paroles, if the state

government has created such a board.”


Moreover, decisions to prosecute and/or to pardon crimes against foreign laws are the exclusive province of foreign governments, over which, in this case, the U.S.federal government may have only marginal

influence.”


Those who believe the Clintons and their co-conspirators have escape hatches in the form of

presidential pardons7 are mistaken.


Additional Pressure Points: State and Foreign Criminal Offenses


When I first studied public records pertaining to the Clinton Foundation, I concentrated upon their filings with the Internal Revenue Service8--though these filings remain materially false and misleading even after recent amendments9, it took me a while to realize important things.


U.S. states and foreign countries also have strict laws concerning operating and soliciting for charities that wish to offer their donors the benefit of making tax-deductible contributions. In most states and foreign countries, charities including the Clinton Foundation must make truthful

filings, many of which are readily accessible.


In the United States, states (and the District of Columbia) require charities to register before they solicit contributions, and to submit periodic reports--some of these filing requirements are easy
to satisfy while others are demanding.


In all cases, charities are required to provide complete and truthful disclosures, particularly
concerning trustees, executives and, in many cases, regarding “those who are in position to exercise significant influence”, whether or not they are named as trustees or executives.


In coming days, I will show in detail how Clinton Foundation en ies submitted numerous false and materially misleading filings, or failed to submit disclosures to authorities within New York State and the State of Georgia, respectively. Infractions in both of these states (to name just two)

started in 2001 and continue to the present.


Please note that disclosure failures in a single state can registrations and reports in other states (and foreign countries), particularly when these failures are willful and persistent.


Outside the United States, there are wide variations in registration and annual filing

requirements.


Starting in 2001, Bill Clinton and, later, Ira Magaziner as well as others, held themselves out as acting in the name of the Clinton Foundation when these individuals were not trustees or

officers.


Only in-depth examination of board minutes and other nonpublic information will confirm what arrangements these individuals negotiated, and whether trustees acted responsibly to protect the

interests of the Clinton Foundation.


Numerous and substantial donations were solicited many places, inside and outside the United States, in theory, to pursue charitable good works in the name of the Clinton Foundation

internationally.


Yet, few of these international operations were registered, none of these international operations were effectively controlled from a U.S. base (as is strictly required under U.S. laws10), and no registration or annual report in any location concerning these operations accurately described the many disqualifying defects inherent in these arrangements and activities.


Like U.S. laws governing charities, foreign laws in many countries whose legal system is modeled on U.K.11 statutes and legal precedents are also strict--general principles include that organizations wishing to be deemed “tax-exempt” must pursue only purposes that actually are
“charitable” and that these organizations cannot be operated to create collective private gain.
Moreover, trustees, executives and related parties are forbidden to derive any private gains12.

Whether a charity is operating in compliance with law can be determined from the outside by looking at two main sources of information: (1) public filings and (2) independent certified financial audits that ordinarily serve as an outside check on submissions by charity trustees and

their executives.


As I shall continue to demonstrate in detail, federal, state, and foreign filings for the Clinton Foundation remain replete with errors and therefore are false and materially misleading.


Moreover, no Clinton Foundation en y ever procured a compliant financial audit, A Brief Comment on Clinton Foundation Use of “Expert” Opinions


When public concerns mount about the status of Clinton Foundation operations, the Clintons and their allies use a tactic perfected over decades--they obtain supposedly independent reports from experts, and characterize the results of these reports as exonerating most vexing issues.


In 2013, Bill Clinton13 and others described work by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett: and in 2015, Donna Shalala and others described work by DLA Piper14 and accounting firm CohnReznick as supporting the contention that Clinton Foundation en ies were operated appropriately.


Each of these firms is staffed with professionals of the highest caliber, many of whom are experts on the subject of operating charities in compliance with state, federal, and foreign laws. However, the general public was never offered a view of the complete analysis performed by any

firm, So, because the Clinton Foundation has not seen fit to disclose, in particular, work performed by
CohnReznick, we are left to speculate how cir scribed their “independent” reviews may have
been.


To date, “independent” review of Clinton Foundation public disclosures has led to numerous
restatements and amendments of filings covering calendar years 2010 through 2013, inclusive.


That said, federal filings for the period 1997 through 2009, inclusive, have not, as yet been amended, nor has the Clinton Foundation seen fit to share state and foreign filings for any period

through their main website.


Set forth below are 40 topics dealing with the reporting period 1997 through 2010 that I believe experts likely did not consider in appropriate depth in the course of performing their work on behalf of Clinton Foundation en ies and their trustees. Selected Topics to be Covered in Detail in Forthcoming Exhibits


Exhibit Topic 1 Fundraising Activities in the Name of the Clinton Foundation--October 1997 through January 2001
2 Fundraising Activities in the Name of the Clinton Foundation for the William J. Clinton Peace Centre

in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, Starting After 1998
3 Undisclosed Administrative Proceedings Against Persons Who Exercised Significant Influence Over

Clinton Foundation Activities
4 Fundraising Activities in the Name of the Clinton Foundation for the William J. Clinton Scholars Program at American University in Dubai, Starting After 2000
5 Undisclosed Activities in the Name of American india Foundation Allegedly Providing Earthquake

Relief in Gujarat, India Starting in January 2001 6 Undisclosed Activities Working With MindSpirit LLC, Rajat Gupta, and InfoUSA After January 2001
7 Undisclosed Activities Organizing, Helping to Operate, and Fundraising for International AIDS Trust

Starting Around January 2001
8 Undisclosed Activities in the Name of the Clinton Foundation Allegedly Fighting HIV/AIDS

Internationally Starting in July 2002 9 Undisclosed Activities Working With Ron Burkle and Yucaipa Companies Starting in 2002
10 False and Materially Misleading Organization and Operation of Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS

Initiative, Inc. (“Old CHAI”), Starting in March 2004

11 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2003 and Prior Years

12 False and Materially Misleading Accounting for Construction of the Presidential Library and for a Donation to the National Archives and Records Administration on 18 November 2004
13 False and Materially Misleading Accounting for Loans Secured During 2004 to Fund Construction of
the Little Rock, Arkansas Complex

14 Illegal Operation and False, Materially Misleading Disclosures Concerning Old CHAI During 2005
15 Fundraising Operations in the Name of the Clinton Foundation Allegedly Providing Tsunami Relief,

Starting in January 2005



Selected Topics to be Covered in Detail in Forthcoming Exhibits (Continued)


Exhibit Topic 16 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Alliance for a Healthier Generation Starting in May 2005 17 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Bush Clinton Katrina Fund Starting in August 2005 18 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Global Initiative Starting by September 2005
19 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2004 and Prior Years

20 Arrangement of “Sham” Merger of Old CHAI into the Clinton Foundation Effective 31 December

2005

21 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Hunter Development Initiative, Starting in 2006 22 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Climate Initiative Starting in August 2006 23 Deceptive Procurement of Strategic Partnership with UNITAID by September 2006
24 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2005 and Prior Years

25 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, Starting in June

2007

26 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of William J. Clinton Foundation UK, Starting in July 2007
27 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2006 and Prior Years

28 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Gulf Coast Recovery Fund Starting September 2008
29 Deceptive Procurement of a Memorandum of Understanding with President Obama’s Transition Team

Starting in November 2008

30 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2007 and Prior Years

31 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of William J. Clinton Foundation Corporation (Florida) starting in
June 2009

32 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Global Initiative, Inc. Starting in September 2009
33 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Health Access Initiative, Inc. Starting in September

2009

34 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2008 and Prior Years

35 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Bush Haiti Fund Starting in January 2010
36 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Alliance for a Healthier Generation, Inc. Starting in February

2010

37 Undisclosed Activities Working With Laureate Education Inc, Starting in 2010
38 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2009 and Prior Years

39 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Health Access Initiative-UK Starting in November

2011

40 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2010 and Prior Years


Each of the topics mentioned above affects financial and operating results reported for calendar years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 that now are on file and in the public domain--after I complete the process of sharing and explaining Exhibits 1 through 40 above, I will move on to consideration

of subsequent years.


As you will soon discover, information in the Exhibits draws chiefly on publicly available

information and is extensive.


Rather than publish hundreds of pages at once, I decided to release the analysis in smaller, “bite-size” chunks, so that you will have a chance to absorb the material, check it for yourselves, and

then reach your own conclusions. In addition to the above-mentioned materials, I also will publish a series of supporting Appendices containing links to helpful background material intermittently through the process of
releasing the Exhibits.


Thank you for your interest and support.


Sincerely,


Charles

[CosmicCowboy]

I want that 10 minutes back.

lot of accusation and no fact.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You just sit back and relax. I'll keep the updates coming as his website is updated with links to supporting appendices.