Hillary and Bill Clinton (Photo: Twitter)




A Democratic Party pundit’s claim that the Clinton family does not personally benefit from its scandal-ridden foundation is “mostly true,” according to the fact-check website Politifact.

Hilary Rosen said in an NPR interview that the Clinton Foundation “is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it.”

The fact checker’s Punditfact acknowledges the Clintons receive indirect personal benefits such as media attention, relationships with “wealthy and powerful individuals” who donate to the party and six-figure speaking fees and luxury air travel, but argues they may have received these benefits without the foundation.

‘Vast criminal conspiracy’

But there is growing evidence that the Clintons are guilty of the crime of inurement – personally profiting from a non-profit organization, the central charge in Jerome Corsi’s new book, “Partners in Crime.”

He cites Wall Street analyst and investor Charles Ortel, whose extensive research into Clinton Foundation operations led him to characterize the Clinton family charity as “a vast criminal conspiracy” and “a giant, cross-border, financial fraud that extends to all 50 states and to more than 75 countries worldwide.”

“The problem is that all Clinton Foundation audited financial statements and supporting disclosures filed from 2001 through 2013 are false and materially misleading,” Ortel alleges.

WND reported Ortel’s analysis that before Hillary Clinton completed her first year as President Obama’s secretary of state, $17 million went missing from Clinton Foundation financial reports.

The Clinton Foundation was initially granted IRS federal tax-exempt status to build a presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas. However, the foundation was soon used for other purposes, even though it had no authorization to collect charitable donations for any purpose other than the library’s construction.

One such purpose was ostensibly combating HIV/AIDS in the Third World. However, as Corsi explains in his book, the Clinton Foundation illegally diverted more than $75 million in UNITAID funds from their intended purpose, which was to prevent, treat and diagnose HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in Third World countries. That money likely went to the Clintons’ personal use, he contends.

Further, the Clintons arranged to buy defective generic drugs for Third World AIDS patients, and they appear not to have followed through to make sure the drugs actually reached AIDS patients and made a difference in the fight against HIV

Another purpose for which the Clintons used their foundation was earthquake relief in India. Bill Clinton helped establish the American India Foundation, AIF, to assist victims of a 2001 quake, but he subsequently diverted substantial funds to himself and his cronies, Corsi documents.

Moreover, AIF was not even registered in many states as a nonprofit organization with authority to raise charitable donations, although it raked in millions of dollars in those states.

The accounting for the massive, six-figure speaking fees money is murky as well, says Corsi.

“You can’t tell where the speaking fees went. Were they foundation related?

He noted Bill Clinton set up a shell corporation, WJC LLC, with a pass-through account capable of moving money to off-shore accounts.

“This is the type of thing drug cartels or terrorists do. It’s classic money laundering,” Corsi said.

The intent of Hillary Clinton’s infamous private email server becomes clear, Corsi believes when one realizes the Clintons sought to take advantage of Hillary’s position as secretary of state while Bill sought donations.

The scam would not work, Corsi said, if Hillary’s State Department emails were subject to Freedom of Information requests.

‘A commercial proposition, not a charity’

Nathan J. Robinson in Current Affairs magazine writes that longtime Clinton confidant Ira Magaziner, head of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, has admitted, regarding the Clinton Foundation, that “the whole thing is bankable.”

“It’s a commercial proposition. This is not charity.”

Robinson explained that “instead of aid, the Clinton Foundation spends much of its effort ‘creating new markets,’ finding lucrative investment opportunities in the developing world for Western private capital.”

He noted that the watchdog group Charity Navigator at one point added the Clinton Foundation to its watch list of problematic charities.

It still does not rate the organization because its “atypical business model … doesn’t meet our criteria.”

The Clinton Health Access Initiative has refused to allow the charity evaluation organization GiveWell to analyze its outcomes, and the Better Business Bureau has listed the Clinton Foundation as failing to meet the basic standards for reporting the effectiveness of its programs.

Bill Allison of the pro-transparency Sunlight Foundation, Robinson reported, has bluntly stated the foundation operates as a “slush fund for the Clintons.”

The foundation spends $8 million in annual travel expenses, Robinson noted, with some of the costs “outsourced.” For example, universities that invite Bill Clinton to speak have been handed unexpected invoices such as $1,400 hotel phone bills and $700 dinners-for-two.

NPR’s Adam Davidson, who has moderated panels at the Clinton Global Initiative, is skeptical of how much good the foundation does, saying it offers a “theater” of charity without the actual results.

Robinson writes that “critics of the Clinton Foundation may want to think twice before casually paying tribute to the organization’s tremendous good work.”

“Most of the claims about the Foundation’s efficacy have little basis in any actual reported facts,” Robinson writes. “Instead, it is simply assumed that the organization has tremendous humanitarian accomplishments, without any serious inquiry into what these are.”

He says an “examination of the actual available evidence, as opposed to the PR claims of the Foundation and its boosters, suggests the need for far greater skepticism about the organization’s charitable acts in addition to its fundraising.”