My old editor at Breitbart Peter Schweizer has a new book coming out May 5 entitled “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”
My review copy will be arriving shortly, so I haven't read it yet. But the New York Times has, and it's good enough that even Pravda-on-the Hudson had to pay it grudging attention,admitting, "He writes mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents, while leaving little doubt about his view of the Clintons."
That's no news to anyone who has read Peter's other books on crony capitalism, which target pigs at the trough in both parties.
The subject of this particular book is a detailed 186 page investigation of how the U.S State Department would grant favors to foreign entities in exchange for high-dollar speaking fees and donations paid directly to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
As I pointed out previously, foundations are one of the most egregious scams to hide and shelter income and avoid taxation for the super rich:
Now, foundations are interesting creatures. As Jane Fonda shows us , if the foundation has 501(c) status (and the Clinton Foundation certainly does), they can be used as a place to park income so it isn't taxed and can be used for various 'expenses'..or even invested, tax free. Why else do you think that most of the super-wealthy in America like the Clintons have such foundations?
Another thing about foundations that's interesting is that according to the IRS rules, they're allowed to pay salaries and 'administrative costs' (pretty much anything you can think of) with any portion of the donor money, something that has attracted a lot of prominent politicians. Ex-president Jimmy Carter's Peace Foundation, for example provides a very nice income for him courtesy of his anti-Israel Arab friends. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is another prime example of how 'foundations' , 'libraries' and 'centers' can be used as cash cows by their 'owners'.
And here's the kicker about Hillary's 'charitable donation'. Anything the wealthy 'donor' to such a foundation donates likewise becomes a deduction against whatever taxes they might owe the IRS. So if Hillary Rodham Clinton actually did 'donate' all that money to the Clinton Foundation, she got paid two ways..first by reducing her taxable income significantly to lower her taxes and second by acquiring a huge deduction to leverage against the taxes on her other income. And since her husband 'owns' the Clinton Foundation, the money stayed in the family.
Both The New York Times, of all people, and The New York Post had some disturbing things to say about where the huge sums of money the Clinton Foundation collects were spent...and the Clinton Foundation's infrequent audits.
The Clinton Foundation's mission statement ought to be a tipoff:
"We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change."
Or as I would translate it, 'We actively pursue fundraising from governments, private enterprise and our well connected friends for various nebulous causes. Yeah, we got a few good things going on, a few programs we can point to, some conferences and some meetings so we have the slideshow as a marketing tool, but essentially, our real object is fundraising and covering our substantial expenses.'
Don't be surprised if some those 'expenses' end up being in kind, cash contributions to Hillary's 2016 campaign that not only evade McCain-Feingold but allow 'donors to get a nice tax deduction to a 501 C in the bargain. It's a dodge, just like the huge $14 million advance Democrat donor-owned Simon & Schuster ponied up for Hillary's failed book. Hillary will pocket the cash and Sumner Redstone and his friends will recoup it courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers after they deduct it as a loss against their other income.
Among other countries, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman,and the UAE have given millions to the Clinton Foundation. Somehow, I doubt they did it without expecting something in return, which is probably the subject of some of those e-mails Mrs. Clinton doesn't want congress looking at. According to the Times:
His reporting largely focuses on payments made to Mr. Clinton for speeches, which increased while his wife served as secretary of state, writing that “of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”
"In 2011, Mr. Clinton made $13.3 million in speaking fees for 54 speeches, the majority of which were made overseas, the author writes."
I don't know if Peter Schweizer's new book will mention it, but we also still don't know what happened to that $6 billion in State Department funds that mysteriously disappeared, mostly while Mrs. Clinton was in charge.
I'm certain the Clinton's opo squad and the ex-Clintonistas in the media will do their best to spin this and cover it up. And I doubt that this by itself will derail her campaign. But the information is out there, and no one can say they weren't told.
You can pre-order the book here.
