Judge Blows Roof Off Protection Racket: Moynihan & Doyle $2.5 BILLION Case

Rate this topic

27 posts in this topic




Just as we reported previously in scoop after scoop on the Thomas Paine Podcast, a federal judge today slapped the Internal Revenue Service for what amounts to a massive cover up to protect the Clinton Foundation from having to pay as much as $2.5 Billion in unpaid federal back taxes. In a rare overture, the judge sided with pro-se litigants and Clinton whistleblowers John Moynihan and Larry Doyle and allowed their case to proceed, smacking down the IRS’s attempts to derail the case and cover its own illicit activities.

And smacking down the IRS. Big time. And in the process the judge uncovered damning and alarming documents and facts in the case — which until now has been sealed and kept secret from the public — which amount to a federal cover up by the Justice Department and the IRS to protect the Clinton’s.



About damn time!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If ever Clinton is indicted and sees the inside of a courtroom to answer for her malignancy, her academy award performance of a sick woman will make Vincent Gigante look the picture of health.


The sprog Chelsea, may not be so lucky as the Clintons hubris undoubtedly has an audit trail and evidenced by the Judges decision.

Edited by zybathegeek

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see how the case proceeds.


And If ever Bill or Hillary see the witness stand we will hear a none stop stream of "I don't remember" "I plead the 5th" "I never heard that" "I was not involved in the accounting responsibilities"


and the best one will be "we hired (fill in the blank) to manage our tax liabilities"  

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2018 at 7:17 PM, J said:


Not sure what they were doing there but do keep n mind that a ton of foreign donations were made to the GCI through their Canadian counterpart so that the donors could be hidden from scrutiny. Once the money was received in Canada, it could be transferred to the US CGI in lump sum without donors names attached. A laundering of sorts. 



I'll bet it has to do with that ^


Canadian Partnership Shielded Identities of Donors to Clinton Foundation

Frank Giustra, a mining financier and philanthropist, has donated tens of millions of dollars to the charitable foundation run by former President Bill Clinton.Credit...Frank Franklin II/Associated Press

By Mike McIntire and Jo Becker

  • April 29, 2015

Aides to former President Bill Clinton helped start a Canadian charity that effectively shielded the identities of donors who gave more than $33 million that went to his foundation, despite a pledge of transparency when Hillary Rodham Clinton became secretary of state.

The nonprofit, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada), operates in parallel to a Clinton Foundation project called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, which is expressly covered by an agreement Mrs. Clinton signed to make all donors public while she led the State Department. However, the foundation maintains that the Canadian partnership is not bound by that agreement and that under Canadian law contributors’ names cannot be made public.

The foundation cited that restriction last weekend in explaining why it did not disclose $2.35 million in donations from the chairman of Uranium One, the subject of an article in The New York Times last week. The article examined how company executives and shareholders had sold a majority stake in the company — and with it a significant portion of American uranium reserves — to an arm of the Russian government in a deal that required the approval of the United States government.

“This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency,” said Maura Pally, acting chief executive of the Clinton Foundation.


Instead, the foundation said that the partnership was created by the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra to allow Canadian donors to get a tax benefit for supporting his work with Mr. Clinton — a benefit that came with the price of respecting Canada’s privacy laws. On Wednesday, the partnership issued a statement citing a legal opinion that “charitable donors have an expectation and right of privacy.”

However, interviews with tax lawyers and officials in Canada cast doubt on assertions that the partnership was necessary to confer a tax benefit; an examination shows that for many donors it was not needed, and in any event, since 2010, Canadians could have donated to the foundation directly and received the same tax break. Also, it is not at all clear that privacy laws prohibit the partnership from disclosing its donors, the tax lawyers and officials in Canada said.


The partnership, established in 2007, effectively shielded the identities of its donors — and the amount they gave — by allowing them to bundle their money together in the offshoot Canadian partnership before it was passed along to Clinton Foundation programs. The foundation, in turn, names only the partnership as the source of those funds.

In response to questions about the tax-break rationale for the formation of the offshoot charity, the Canadian tax experts pointed out that donations to the partnership from other charities and foundations would not have been eligible for tax breaks. That is because the donors who gave money to those other charities had already received their tax benefit. Records show that those nonprofit groups accounted for about half of the donations to the Canadian partnership.


For example, the Uranium One chairman, Ian Telfer, used his family charity, the Fernwood Foundation, to make his donations to the partnership. Mr. Telfer would have received a tax benefit when he first put his money into Fernwood, not when Fernwood donated to the partnership.

Mr. Giustra and Eric Nonacs, an aide to former President Bill Clinton, helped establish a Canadian charity that feeds donations to the Clinton Foundation.Credit...Mark Mushet

“There would only be one tax benefit no matter how many charities it passes through,” said Mark Blumberg, a tax lawyer in Toronto.

The partnership might have been necessary to provide a tax benefit to early individual donors, but not since 2010. That year, the Clinton Foundation was specially designated by the Canadian government, allowing Canadians to write off donations given directly to it.

“It makes no tax difference,” Mr. Blumberg said, “whether a donor gives the money to a Canadian charity or the Clinton Foundation.”

Because of longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest, the Clinton Foundation agreed to strict limits on foreign government donations while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state. The existence of the Canadian Clinton Giustra partnership has implications for the foundation’s recent pledge to limit donations from other countries, and disclose all donations quarterly, while Mrs. Clinton is running for president. Ms. Pally said the foundation “will only accept funding from a handful of governments, many of whom the foundation receives multiyear grants from, to continue the work they have long partnered on.”

But the statement did not make clear whether parallel organizations like the Canadian entity would be allowed to accept donations from governments that the foundation itself would not take. The Canadian partnership’s records show that it took donations from outside Canada in 2009 and 2010, the origins of which do not have to be made public. Foundation officials said it was their understanding that the non-Canadian donations to the partnership had not come from governments.

How many more such entities exist, or might be created in the future, is also unclear. A search of charity registrations in Britain, for instance, found a William J. Clinton Foundation UK that has raised about $1.5 million for a climate change initiative. Foundation officials said those donations were made public.


Canadian records show that the partnership was incorporated in August 2007, but it was not until Dec. 5 of that year that it was registered to accept charitable donations. The founding board included Bruce R. Lindsey, a longtime aide to Mr. Clinton who at the time served as chief executive officer of the Clinton Foundation, and Eric Nonacs, another aide to Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra.

Six days earlier, in response to questions from The Times, the foundation turned over records that by law must be made public and that made clear that the Clinton Foundation had attracted a $31.3 million donor. The records contradicted the foundation’s repeated assertions that a $31.3 million line item on its tax return was an aggregate of small contributions. It initially refused to identify the donor. But with the foundation’s activities drawing scrutiny amid Mrs. Clinton’s first run for president, the foundation reversed course and Mr. Giustra stepped forward as the donor on Dec. 18.

The following month, The Times reported that the $31.3 million donation came after Mr. Clinton accompanied Mr. Giustra to a dinner with the president of Kazakhstan; days after that dinner Mr. Giustra finalized a lucrative uranium mining deal in the Central Asian republic.

This week, in an interview with Bloomberg News, Mr. Giustra said he was frustrated with the news media treatment he had received, and echoed the foundation’s position on Canadian privacy law, saying that by law he could not even tell the Clinton Foundation who his donors were.

Bruce R. Lindsey, who was also an aide to Mr. Clinton, also helped establish a Canadian charity that feeds donations to the Clinton Foundation.Credit...Win McNamee/Reuters

“We’re not trying to hide anything,” he said, adding that all the money, “every penny,” was passed onto the Clinton Foundation to fund specific charitable initiatives.

But tax specialists said the disclosure prohibition was not as clear-cut as the foundation made it seem.


A spokeswoman for the Canadian Revenue Agency, Magali Deussing, said that the tax law “does not regulate whether a registered charity or other qualified donee can disclose donor information.” However, other federal or provincial privacy laws may apply, she said.

Malcolm Burrows, the head of philanthropic advisory services at Scotiabank in Toronto, said that “general Canadian privacy rules” could apply to charities, but that “in most cases” it is not a concern because charities and their donors want the publicity.

“The irony here is that the foundation is saying they’re not allowed to do it,” he said. “But many foundations want to put that information out there.”

Mr. Blumberg, the tax lawyer, said that while privacy laws would prohibit charities from misusing donor information for commercial purposes, they generally did not otherwise prevent disclosure of donors. But, he said, laws in the province of British Columbia — where the Clinton Giustra partnership is set up — are stricter. But even there, he said, a charity could arrange for disclosure of donors if it wanted to, something Mr. Giustra is now saying he will attempt to do.

“If an organization operating in British Columbia wants to be transparent about who their donors are, then they could easily provide an opportunity for donors to consent to the disclosure of their name and/or donation amount,” Mr. Blumberg said.

In disclosing its contributors, the Clinton Foundation says only that the Canadian partnership gave more than $25 million — making it among the foundation’s biggest donors. Canadian tax records show that the partnership took in $33.3 million between 2008 and 2013.

About half the $33.3 million was given by other charities, which, like the partnership, must file financial reports with the Canadian Revenue Agency. The reports list donations made by the charities — but not donations received — making it possible in some instances to identify donors to the partnership. Searching the records in this way found that in addition to the $2.35 million from Mr. Telfer’s foundation, a charity controlled by Mr. Giustra, the Radcliffe Foundation, gave $10.5 million to the partnership that bears his name.

That leaves about $20 million from donors whose identities remain a mystery, at least for now.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton Foundation was late to file paperwork, but got pass from AG

By Isabel Vincent

October 9, 2016 | 12:14am

Clinton Foundation was late to file paperwork, but got pass from AG
Hillary and Bill Clinton at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in 2014

The Clinton Foundation failed to properly file non-profit paperwork required by New York state for years and did not disclose government grants on its filings as required by law, yet Attorney General Eric Schneiderman gave it a pass.

A search of the New York charities database by The Post found that for the years 2010 through 2014, the Clinton Foundation was years late in submitting the required paperwork to raise money in New York — waiting until 2016.

Yet this is the same state questionnaire that recently landed the Trump Foundation in hot water.

Last week, the office of Democrat Schneiderman issued a cease and desist letter to the Trump Foundation ordering it to stop fundraising in the state for failing to complete the government form for every year that the group raises money in the state.

But the Clinton Foundation, which has had offices in New York since 2001, only completed much of its paperwork retroactively. The 2010-2014 forms were all signed on a single day — Jan. 12, 2016 — by Clinton Foundation executives Andrew Kessel and Kevin Thurm.

And in 2005, 2006 and 2007, the Clinton Foundation answered “no” to the question, “Did the organization receive government grants?” — even though foreign governments donated tens of millions of dollars to the non-profit during those years.

Last week, a day after the Trump Foundation was ordered to stop raising money in the state, the Clinton Foundation voluntarily and urgently submitted documents to Schneiderman’s office that the group’s executives said were missing from its previous filings.

“While we are not yet certain if this information is required to be filed, we would like to provide it out of an abundance of caution,” wrote Ricardo Castro, general counsel to the Clinton Foundation in a hand-delivered letter to the New York AG’s office that oversees charities. The letter, provided to The Post by Schneiderman’s office, is accompanied by six pages of audited financial statements for the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from 2012 to the end of 2014.

“The Clinton Foundation is properly registered to solicit funds under Article 7A, which requires organizations to register before they solicit funds in New York,” Castro said in a statement.

But critics say that the Clinton Foundation has been sloppy with its paperwork in New York while a partisan AG has looked the other way.

“The Clinton Foundation recently refiled, yet again, forms pertaining to only some of the years that it has incorrectly reported since it began soliciting donors inside New York in 1998,” said Charles Ortel, a Wall Streeter who runs a blog analyzing the Clinton Foundation. “Like the IRS, the New York AG ignores massive red flags.”

In addition to registering every year, the state requires charities to disclose and itemize their contributions from government entities. In the past, the form did not distinguish between domestic or foreign governments on the form.

The Clinton Foundation’s reporting on foreign government grants has been inconsistent. In three years, between 2005 and 2007, it said that it had not received donations from a government agency on its New York state filings.

But in 2006, the Irish government committed nearly $89 million to the Clinton Foundation’s fight against AIDS in Africa.

“Nothing that I or my foundation have been able to do would have been possible without the involvement of the Irish government,” said former president Bill Clinton in October 2006 when the Irish donation was announced.

A year later, Norway began contributing to the Clinton Foundation. Between 2007 and 2015, the Norwegian government has donated $89.6 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to press reports.

Yet Schneiderman’s office has ruled the “No” answers to the government-grant question on state forms are somehow “in compliance” — effectively creating a loophole for the Clinton Foundation.

“Our office will issue additional guidance for all non-profits regarding disclosures of domestic and foreign government funding in the future,” said AG spokesman Eric Soufer.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whistleblowers Show How Hillary Clinton Used Secretary Of State Position To Channel Tax Dollars Into The Clinton Foundation

Whistleblowers Show How Hillary Clinton Used Secretary Of State Position To Channel Tax Dollars Into The Clinton Foundation


Two financial investigators detail their five-year-long dig into the Clinton Foundation and their findings: $400 million to $2.5 billion dollars subject to taxation were improperly used in Clinton Foundation.

In a Thomas Paine podcast episode with host Mike Moore, financial investigators John Moynihan and Larry Doyle describe how they came to be involved in this whistleblower case. In 2015, they were solicited by many wealthy, high-profile people across the country who wanted them to investigate the Clinton Foundation. After a preliminary look, Moynihan and Doyle agreed to investigate, but they decided to fund it themselves, as everyone else who was interested had a personal angle. 

They Began a Methodical Investigation

They began to collect documents and methodically track the money coming in and the money going out. They looked at the Clinton Foundation’s non-profit forms, their income statements, and the attached schedules, which included lists of their major donations. They looked at the donations coming in and tried to reconcile them with the donors and the Foundation’s net assets. They tracked this information year and year. And they found that the amount of money coming in just didn't make sense with the expense of the projects and programs that the Clinton Foundation was running.


They looked at the donations coming in and tried to reconcile them with the donors and the Foundation’s net assets.

In 2016-2017, they began to analyze the Clinton Foundation’s state registration forms and discovered that in the foundation’s early years, it had been penalized for improper registration in some states, which it didn’t acknowledge in others as required and as stated under penalty of perjury. 

They also looked at IRS documents, federal returns, emails, overseas documents, communication between Clinton Foundation officials, communication between foreign government officials, and conducted interviews.

Clinton Foundation's Own Employee Admits Knowledge of Wrongdoing


On November 8, 2016, Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election. The very next morning, Moynihan received a phone call from the Clinton Foundation CFO Andrew Kessel. Kessel was returning a voicemail from Moynihan in October, in which Moynihan told Kessel that he and Doyle were looking into the Clinton Foundation. Kessel arranged to meet with Moynihan and Doyle on November 30.

CFO Andrew Kessel told them about “mixing and matching of funds” and “expense abuse.”

November 30, 2016, the three men met for breakfast, and Kessel told them “very incriminating” information about the operations of the Clinton Foundation. (Moynihan and Doyle have since testified under oath about this conversation.) Kessel told them about “mixing and matching of funds” and “expense abuse.” Kessel also said that he and others had brought these incidents to Bill Clinton’s attention multiple times “but there was no talking to him.” 

Kessel also acknowledged that the Clinton Foundation had undertaken internal reviews in 2008 and in 2011, which were also “very incriminating.” The Foundation’s own lawyers told the Clinton Foundation to get compliant with the law after the 2008 review, but nothing had been addressed by the 2011 review.  


In their own investigation, Moynihan and Doyle found abuse of tax codes and brazen disregard for IRS rules and regulations. 

Clinton Abused Her Position as Secretary of State To Enrich Her Foundation

Their investigation determined that the Clinton Foundation was accumulating tax dollars by avoiding paying taxes through the use of a non-profit organization status. Furthermore, their investigation also found that the Clinton Foundation was making money by the redistribution of taxpayer money through a multiple-step “donation” process. 

The Foundation’s own lawyers told the Clinton Foundation to get compliant with the law after the 2008 review


While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she was able to decide how the United States government donated money to global health organizations, like Unitaid and the Global Fund for Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. But Unitaid is one of the biggest donors to the Clinton Foundation. This looks like Hillary was indirectly funneling government funds right into her organization. 

Moynihan and Doyle also claim that the Clinton Foundation acts as the middle man, shuffling money between entities and taking a cut as a fee. They argue that this is taxable business, which means that the Clinton Foundation would be facing a multimillion-dollar tax bill. The implication of this is that anyone who knew what was going on and still donated to the Foundation runs the risk of also having a tax consequence.


On August 1, 2017, Moynihan and Doyle filed a whistleblower case in Utah. In 2018, they gave testimony at the congressional hearing. The IRS has sealed the case to keep it away from the public eye.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.