This article was first published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, May 1, 2015:
In January 2014 Dinesh D'Souza was indicted by federal prosecutors for violating federal campaign finance laws. In September of that year he was sentenced to five years' probation, eight months in a “community confinement center,” and was fined $30,000. He also was required to perform eight hours of community service every week and must undergo court-mandated therapy for his crime.
His crime: contributing $20,000 to campaigns in the names of some friends.
Hillary has arranged for more than 1,100 donors to contribute millions to her campaign for president.
Question: How much community service will she be required to perform?
As the defenses of her foundation's illegal connection to a Canadian partnership belonging to a “friend of Bill” continue to collapse, some are suggesting that Hillary is over the hill, that her campaign is done for, that with her demise the Democrats will find themselves scraping the bottom of a vermin-infested barrel to find her replacement.
All speculation, of course.
What's known is that the more Clinton and her allies try to explain away the connections with that Canadian partnership, the more the lies and deceit are exposed. The foundation's acting Chief Executive Maura Pally claimed innocence:
Like every contributor to the Foundation, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) is publicly listed as a donor on our website.
But, as it is a distinct Canadian organization [and] separate from the Clinton Foundation, its individual donors are not listed on the site.
This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency. Unlike in the U.S., under Canadian law, all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor.
Except that it just isn't true. The Washington Post, for whatever reason, assigned one of its investigative bulldogs to check it out. In a lengthy and devastatingly detailed expose, Michelle Ye Hee Lee blew up Pally's “explanation”:
The [Clinton Foundation's] memo notes that under Canadian law, donors have the right to privacy…. While that may be the case, Pally's statement implies that there is a blanket Canadian law that bans charities from disclosing donor information without permission.
That is not exactly the case.
[This earns the Clinton Foundation] Three Pinocchios.
To be clear about the extent of the veracity of Pally's claim, the award of Three Pinocchios is given when there are “significant omissions and/or exaggerations.” That's just one Pinocchio short of a complete fabrication.
Add to that revelation that most of the money flowing from those 1,100 donors to Frank Giustra's partnership was going to the Clintons' favorite charity: themselves. In the Clinton Foundation's annual report, one will find all manner of good things the money would be spent on: improving global health, increasing economic opportunities for women and girls, reducing childhood obesity and preventable diseases, and, of course, the inevitable “helping communities address the effects of climate change.”
Investors Business Daily (IBD) looked into exactly where the money was really going. It obtained access to the foundation's 2013 irs Form 990, and – lo and behold! – just ten cents of every dollar went to grants, while two-thirds went to salaries, benefits, and “other” expenses.
IBD compared the Clinton Foundation to a real one, Doctors Without Borders, and discovered the immensity of the fraud being committed by the Clintons: 90.4 percent of DWB money went to grants, while travel and conference expenses were 1 percent, and “other” was 2 percent.
All of this fraud and deceit is finally having an impact on Hillary's image. In a recent poll taken before the latest scandal erupted, a majority of U.S. voters have concluded that Hillary isn't honest or trustworthy. Among independents – those likely to decide the outcome in 2016 – those not trusting the former first lady are 61 percent.
Questions remain about the scandal. Why are liberal mouthpieces like the Washington Post and the New York Times exposing her fraud? Surely she is their fair-haired gal for 2016. Why the sudden turning away of their affection? Are they afraid that this scandal might be the final straw? Do they have another candidate in mind? Are they concerned that Hillary's declining health (fainting spells, blood clots, and daily monitoring by doctors) will keep her from performing her revolutionary duties as First Queen?
Are they planning for the entry of another candidate to take her place? Elizabeth Warren, perhaps, or Governor Moonbeam from California, Jerry Brown, or perhaps the Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders?
Or are they more interested in exposing this to its fullest and then putting it to bed, hoping that the short memory spans of the average low-information voter will make this ancient history come November 2016?
All speculation, of course. What isn't is the continuing saga of the Clinton corruptocrats as they march through the public square, spouting homilies to good works while enriching themselves through sleazy kickbacks that would send average folks like D'Souza away for decades.
Fox News: Clinton Foundation reportedly failed to disclose identities of 1,100 donors
Fox News: Will Hillary Clinton's tangled war of words protect her from Clinton Foundation scandal?
Washington Post: 1,100 donors to a Canadian charity tied to Clinton Foundation remain secret
Zero Hedge: 1,100 Foreign Donors To Clinton Foundation Never Disclosed & Remain Secret
Bloomberg.com: Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations
Washington Post: Clinton Foundation's misleading claim about Canadian laws on donor info
Investors.com: The Other Clinton Foundation Scandal
Washington Post: Conservative author and pundit Dinesh D'Souza charged in campaign finance case