Clinton Foundation tax filing amendments to clear up errors totaled nearly $500 million. Yes, $500 million.

Share:

Little Rock, AR: A damning and alarming accusation, backed by solid evidence, shows that The Clinton Foundation has posted errors in their tax reporting that involved $483 million dollars and their auditor responsible for it ignored it all.

Investigative journalist and contributor for The Gateway Pundit, a conservative media outlet, Joe Hoft pursued the Clinton Foundation and targeted their tax history.

Hoft has worked in the private sector as a corporate executive, which included years in the auditing sector. His experience proved vital to unlocking the taxation jargon and the gross neglect surrounding their $483 million dollar mistakes.

His findings were alarming, shocking, but then again, not too surprising considering the legal courtesies the Clinton family has been shown over the years.

One of his reasons for the glaring miscalculations and how it was undetected came from crafty reporting by the Clinton tax team.

According to Hoft, he stated:

“BKD issued slapdash audits and tax returns (under penalties of perjury) for 13 years.  By dismissing AICPA professional standards and IRS compliance, the firm created a veneer of legitimacy for the Clinton Foundation.  BKD’s main fiduciary obligation is to serve and protect public interest, not the Clinton Foundation.”

But that failure to pursue and properly prosecute the Clinton’s and their numerous misdeeds did not stop Hoft from digging deep.

According to his column on the Gateway Pundit, he stated:

“I filed a complaint with the Arkansas Board against BKD, LLP. The complaint (59 allegations), relying on public documents, charged BKD with professional misconduct and failure to comply with the following AICPA standards and the IRS Code.”

He continued:

“The complaint’s primary focus is the Clinton Foundation’s 2011 amended IRS Form 990 tax return dated November 16, 2015, and the underlying 2011 audited financial statements.”

After Hoft filed the complaint against BKD and the Clinton Foundation, the firm responded with a snarky and arrogant response.

Clinton Foundation tax filing amendments to clear up errors totaled nearly 0 million.  Yes, 0 million.
Courtesy: Flickr

They casually dismissed it and labeled Hoft a ‘conspiracy theorist.’

But Hoft fired back and used facts and documents to prove his case – and his ‘theory.’

In his column he wrote:

“The Foundation’s Board of Trustees engaged Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, to review its “decadal” (Or is it decadent?) governance. Their report was issued in late December 2011. WikiLeaks released the draft document widely covered in media outlets.”  

He continued:

“The governance review found severe organizational and internal control weaknesses jeopardizing the Foundation’s tax-exempt status.  Why did BKD ignore the flashing warning signals?”

After Hillary Clinton’s 2016 failed presidential campaign, their foundation had to go back and amend and refile several portions of their tax filings.

They justified the changes by claiming they had to disclose miscellaneous grants and paid speeches, while several lines on their previous taxes remained blank.

Clinton Foundation tax filing amendments to clear up errors totaled nearly 0 million.  Yes, 0 million.
Screenshot of the Clinton Foundation.gov letter on the website.

A letter provided by Donna Shalala, the foundation president, she acknowledges that ‘errors were made’ and that they decided to amend the Clinton Foundations forms for the years of 2010- 2014.

Hoft himself went through the painstaking detail of comparing the tax filing amendments line by line.

These were some of his findings:

“These changes required the Foundation to reissue the consolidated financial statements or compulsory for BKD to rescind its audit opinions; however, neither happened.”

“BDK violated independence, integrity, and objectivity ethical standards by compiling and auditing the Foundation’s financial statements.”

“BKD ignored the restatement when it compiled and audited the 2011 and 2012 consolidated financial statements.”

“The Foundation and BKD never disclosed the monumental blunder, which grossly overstated its consolidated charitable activities and possibly concealed the diversion of funds.”  

“The accounting error from 2006 through 2011 totaled a whopping $483 million overstatement of revenue and expense.”

Hoft went on to discover other shady, clearly questionable transactions such as the unusually expensive Clinton Library.

Clinton Foundation tax filing amendments to clear up errors totaled nearly 0 million.  Yes, 0 million.
Crashing of Clinton Foundation donations shows corruption in politics-YouTube screenshot

He compared other, nearby similarly comparable public Arkansas buildings which cost well under $250 gross per square foot.

According to the Clinton’s tax filings, they paid over $1300 gross per square foot.

Maybe the Clinton Library is lined with golden walkways.

The giant discrepancy should have at the very least, triggered authorities to ask questions and investigate the matter a little more deeply.

Hoft’s findings displeased many of his followers, who had a lot to say on the matter.

Here are a sample of the comments:

“LCLiberty: Everyone must know by now that the Clinton Foundation is simply an avenue of fraud and grift for the corrupt trio…”

“MoonDog2020: And nothing will be done about it. As usual. In the meantime, they will be examining President Trump’s stool samples for nuclear codes.”

“Chris halling: Also destroy 33,000 classified emails, bleach bit and hammer government issued electronics devices, have it publicly stated that crimes were committed but no prosecutor would pursue charges.”

Whether or not their shady dealings will be scrutinized by the proper authorities remains to be seen. But if history will repeat itself, then nothing will happen.

Clinton Foundation tax filing amendments to clear up errors totaled nearly 0 million.  Yes, 0 million.

Hillary is known for shady lies.

Liberal U.S. SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor says nice things about Justice Thomas, crushing the lies Hilary Clinton spewed

Posted June 30, 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C.- Twice failed Democrat presidential campaign candidate Hilary Clinton called out United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after the reversal of Roe v. Wade, calling him “angry” and “resentful,” and stating “women are going to die.”

On Tuesday, June 28th, during an interview with Gayle Kind on CBS, Clinton took aim at Thomas and the impact of the Court’s conservative majority. She said:

“I went to law school with [Justice Thomas]. He’s been a person of grievance for as long as I’ve known him. Resentment, grievance, anger. And he has signaled in the past to lower courts, to state legislatures – find cases, pass laws, get them up. I may not win the first, the second, or the third time, but we’re going to keep at it.”

Several people disagree with this sentiment, including United States Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is on the bench with Thomas.

Erick Erickson tweeted:

“Clarence Thomas is literally the one person on the Supreme Court even the links who work there say is always smiling and happy. Clinton is literally the one politician in American whose paid staff have to assure us she’s likable.”

During the interview, after Clinton’s comments about Thomas, King asked whether the former first lady was saying that people in positions of authority would pay attention to the justice’s suggestion from his concurrence. To which Clinton responded by saying:

“Yes, the people he is speaking to, which is the right-wing, very conservative judges and justices and state legislatures. And the thing that is – well there’s so many things about it that are deeply distressing – but women are going to die Gayle. Women will die.”

Specially, critics have been pointing to Thomas’ suggestion in his concurrence that the Court should also revisit other cases determined on precedent, including limiting accessing to contraception, restrictions on same-sex marriage, and restrictions on same-sex relationships.

According to Fox News, Clarence has been the subject of sharp attacks throughout his tenure since 1991, but he has become under particular fire in the wake of the Roe v. Wade reversal.

Liberal actor Samuel Jackson called him “Uncle Clarence,” which is a disparaging term for African Americans viewed as overtly deferential to white people, and Democrat Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said “(Expletive) Clarence Thomas” at a rally.

During the interview with King, Clinton said she hopes the Supreme Court’s decision will hopefully “wake up” Americans about whether the government is too intrusive. She said:

“This is going to, I hope, wake up a lot of Americans. I don’t care what political party or religion you are. The question is, ‘who decides?’ Is the government going to be in your bedroom? Is the government going to be making these decisions?”

Thomas’ concurring opinion with the majority that overturned Roe v. Wade has whipped his critics into a frenzy, putting a spotlight on a decades-long trend. Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson told Fox News Digital:

“The mainstream liberal media hates Clarence Thomas. Water is wet, news at 11. The demonization of Thomas always has been had, but has become even more pernicious in light of the Supreme Court’s abortion decision.”

He added:

“Thomas did not author the majority opinion, but has received much more focus and hate than Samuel Alito, who was the author. Thomas also has been the subject of racial sluts, including by the likes of Samuel L. Jackson, who referred to Thomas as ‘Uncle Clarence.’ This is a continuation of a decades-long liberal attack on Thomas that is highly radicalized.”

On Monday, June 27th, NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss accused Thomas of “anger and revenge” in a tweet:

“Language of SCOTUS decision in Roe has an ominous tone of anger and revenge – especially Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion.”

“The View” co-host Whoopi Goldberg berated Thomas, suggesting that the GOP might “come” for him:

“As Clarence Thomas is signaling, they would like to get rid of contraception. Do you understand, sir? No – because you don’t have to use it … you better hope that they don’t come for you, Clarence and say that you should not be married to your wife, who happens to be white because they will move that.”

Clinton Foundation tax filing amendments to clear up errors totaled nearly 0 million.  Yes, 0 million.

The Clintons are steadily losing steam.

Taking down Clinton? Special counsel John Durham requests 30 subpoenas in Danchenko case

Posted July 14, 2022

WASHINGTON, DC- Just when it looks like the John Durham investigation of the Russia collusion hoax may have hit a brick wall, it appears it is alive and well.

According to the Washington Examiner, Special Counsel John Durham has submitted a request to a federal court requesting 30 subpoenas in regard to the trial of the main source of disgraced ex-British spy Christopher Steele’s bogus dossier.

The subpoenas were requested in the case of Igor Danchenko, alleged to be Steele’s main source, who was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI regarding information he provided to Steele for the phony dossier. The trial is currently scheduled to begin this October.

According to Durham, interviews conducted of Danchenko by the FBI “raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting” and revealed that Danchenko “contradicted the allegations of a ‘well-developed conspiracy’ in the Steele dossier. He has pleaded not guilty.

In his filing lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Durham requested the court to issue “thirty subpoenas” for an “appearance before said Court at Alexandria, Virginia,” beginning on Oct. 11 “to testify on behalf of the United States.

While the specific witnesses are not named, a copy of the blank subpoena reads “YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear.”

The judge in the case, U.S. District judge Anthony Trenga was nominated in 2008 by former President George W. Bush, while also being a member of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court since 2020.

Danchenko, born in Russia has lived and worked in the Washington, D.C. area for a number of years. The Russian-born lawyer and researcher was indicted in November in connection with the Durham probe on charges of lying to the FBI. Danchenko was among a small handful of individuals indicted thus far in the Durham investigation.

Last September, Democratic cybersecurity attorney Michael Sussman was likewise arrested for lying to the FBI last September while conveniently “forgetting” to reveal that he was working at the time for two clients—Neustar chief technology officer Rodney Joffe and the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign.

Sussmann was accused of lying to FBI General Counsel James Baker, where he tried to push since debunked allegations of secret communications between the Trump Organization and Russia-based Alfa Bank during a 2016 meeting, telling Baker he was there of his own accord and not “representing” anyone, which was a lie. Despite that, he was acquitted by a Washington , D.C. jury in May.

In the case of Danchenko, Durham alleges he anonymously “sourced a fabricated claim about Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort to longtime Hillary Clinton ally Chuck Dolan,” the Examiner said. Dolan had spent a number of years working for Russian businesses as well as the Russian government, work which continued into 2016.

Steele is famous for the bogus and discredited anti-Trump dossier, which worked to, according to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, play a “central and essential” role in the FBI obtaining wiretap orders against former Trump aide Carter Page.

Steele had been hired by Fusion GPS, which was hired by the Perkins Coie law firm and slip-and-fall attorney Marc Elias, general counsel for the Clinton campaign. Sussmann was working for Perkins Coie at the time, and both he and Elias met with Steele in 2016.

While he was targeting Trump on behalf of Fusion GPS (an opposition research firm) and Elias, Steele was also working for an oligarch with ties to Vladimir Putin, Oleg Deripaska and had been doing so both before and after his time targeting now-former President Trump.

Thus far, Durham has garnered one guilty plea, in this case from former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who admitted to falsifying a document during the FBI’s efforts to renew surveillance authorization under FISA against Carter Page.

FB Group Page

Share:
Submit a Correction
Related Posts