XPost: az.general, alt.religion.satanism, li.politics   
   XPost: alt.war.nuclear   
   From: investigate.pelosi@cnn.com   
      
   Corruption: The Clinton Foundation's questionable money dealings   
   have raised eyebrows for years. Now, a letter circulating in   
   Congress alleges that the Clinton family's supposed do-gooder   
   foundation is in fact a "lawless, 'pay-to-play' enterprise that   
   has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years."   
      
   Those are pretty tough words for a former president and his   
   wife, who happens to be the leading candidate to be our next   
   president. But the congressional letter, which the Daily Caller   
   News Foundation got its hands on, was written by Republican Rep.   
   Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who plans on asking the FBI, IRS and   
   Federal Trade Commission to launch a "public corruption"   
   investigation.   
      
   Is it warranted, or just politics? It sure looks like the   
   former. As Blackburn's letter says, there is a "pattern of   
   dealing that personally enriched the Clintons at the expense of   
   American foreign policy."   
      
   Blackburn cites the for-profit education business Laureate   
   Education, which paid Bill Clinton some $16.5 million to serve   
   part-time as "honorary chancellor" starting in 2010, a year   
   after Hillary became secretary of state. Laureate, for its part,   
   gave the Clinton Foundation some $1 million to $5 million.   
   Nothing illegal about that, per se.   
      
   However, the Daily Tennesseean reports that Blackburn's letter   
   also details how "the International Youth Fund, whose board   
   members include Laureate's founder, Douglas Baker, received more   
   than $55 million in grants from the U.S. Agency for   
   International Development while Hillary Clinton was secretary of   
   state." AID is a part of the State Department.   
      
   Then there's Uranium One. Hillary Clinton, the Daily Tennesseean   
   notes, "was one of several Obama administration officials who   
   approved the sale of uranium to the Russian-operated company,   
   whose chairman also has donated $2.35 million to the Clinton   
   Foundation." A number of other people involved in the deal also   
   gave money to the Clintons.   
   "The appearance of 'pay-to-play' transactions involving Laureate   
   and Uranium One also raises serious allegations of criminal   
   conduct requiring further examination," Blackburn's letter says.   
      
   That's not all of the questionable activities.   
      
   As we noted back in May, the Clinton Foundation took in some   
   $100 million in donations from a variety of Gulf sheikhs and   
   billionaires who no doubt expected to reap political benefits   
   from a future Hillary Clinton presidency, with Bill serving not   
   just as first gentleman in the White House but also possibly as   
   bagman. Among donors dumping bags of cash on the Clintons   
   include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab   
   Emirates.   
      
   Lost in the shuffle is Bill Clinton's special "business   
   partnership" from 2003 to 2008 with Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid   
   al-Maktoum, the strongman ruler of Dubai. That deal netted   
   Clinton some $15 million in "guaranteed payments," tax records   
   show. And then there's the $30 million delivered to the Clintons   
   by two Mideast foundations and four billionaire Saudis. For the   
   betterment of humankind, no doubt.   
      
   As national security analyst and writer Patrick Poole said in   
   May, "These regimes are buying access. ... There are massive   
   conflicts of interest. It's beyond comprehension."   
      
   It took Wall Street financial analyst and investment advisor   
   Charles Ortel -- whom the Sunday Times of London once described   
   as "one of the finest analysts of financial statements on the   
   planet" -- to untangle the mess in a series of ongoing reports.   
   Ortel alleges that contribution disclosures by the foundation   
   often don't fit with what donors' own records say -- big red   
   flag.   
      
   "This," Ortel summed up, "is a charity fraud."   
      
   As a reminder, this isn't just some political vendetta. As far   
   back as 2013, an alarmed New York Times warned that the   
   foundation had become "a sprawling concern, supervised by a   
   rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction   
   and threatened by conflicts of interest."   
      
   It turns out that's a gross understatement.   
      
   Testifying last week to Congress, FBI chief James Comey called   
   Hillary Clinton "extremely careless" about her use of a private   
   email server while secretary of state. But, curiously, he   
   refused additional comment "on the existence or nonexistence of   
   any other ongoing investigations." This needs to be disclosed.   
   Americans deserve to know whether the person they're likely to   
   put into the White House this November is merely a misunderstood   
   career public servant -- or a pocket-lining career criminal.   
      
   http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/scandal-without-end-   
   is-the-clinton-foundation-a-fraud/   
                           
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)