WASHINGTON, D.C. As Senator Chuck Grassley and the Senate Judiciary Committee are starting to evaluate public disclosures of the Clinton Foundation and of its affiliate in Canada, the Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (“CGSGI”), Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel, in a detailed analysis of Clinton Foundation financial accounting reports, reveals what he believes is a systematic pattern of fraud designed to hide payments the Clinton Foundation reportedly received related to the Uranium One deal. To stress the gravity of the Clinton Foundation’s Russian Uranium One scandal, Ortel told Infowars.com that he believes Clinton Foundation financial reports are criminally fraudulent in failing to report payments received in relation to the Russian Uranium One Scandal — a criminal omission Ortel believes could cause the Clintons their fortune and leave them no option but to face jail time. In other words, the campaign chant “Lock Her Up!” may still be a reality looming for Hillary Clinton.
The financial ties between Russia and the Clintons was first documented in the Uranium One scandal by New York Times reporters Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, in an article entitled “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” that the newspaper printed on April 23, 2015.
“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation,” Becker and McIntire wrote.
“Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million,” the New York Times reporters continued. “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”
Becker and McIntire further noted that shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Current reports suggest as much as $145 million may have flowed to the Clinton Foundation from the Russian Uranium One deal, but the money cannot be found anywhere in the Clinton Foundation financial reporting, argues Ortel.
“The truth is that use of the Clinton Foundation as an unregulated conduit through which cash likely was traded for influence is a story that began at that entity’s birth on 23 October 1997 and continues to present–no part of the Clinton Foundation and none of the Clinton Foundation’s many ‘affiliates’ has ever been properly overseen by trustees, audited by accountants, or even validly organized by its lawyers for 20 years,” Ortel explained to Infowars.com in an exclusive interview.
Ortel stressed no outsider actually knows what happened to all sums that may have been sent towards the Clinton family.
However, he acknowledged, it is possible to discern, through digging, that significant portions of these supposed donations “leaked” (were diverted) along the way.
Uranium One, CGSGI, and the Clinton Foundation
Ortel’s examination of the Clinton Foundation, now extending into its fourth year, has driven Ortel to search for and acquire detailed financial reports for the Clinton Foundation, stretching back to the foundation’s inception, including all audited financial statements, as well as all available state and federal regulatory filings, including required annual IRS tax filings.
Ortel pointed out that the available Clinton Foundation regulatory filings are riddled with what appear to be intentional ommissions.”
Take 2009 results , for example, completed during 2010,” Ortel argued. “You will not find combining results for the Clinton Foundation, by “Initiative” on the Clinton Foundation website as these are purposefully omitted. But you will find these key results on versions of the required audit that are obtained here in New York (punch in EIN: 31-1580204) and look at the 2009 filing.”
Ortel draw attention to the audit page towards the end of the filing for 2009 called “Combined Statement of Activities.”
“These show total contributions (normally these are from the general public) of $82.9 million and total grants (normally these are from governments and from foundations) of $162.9 million,” he continued. “Focus on the column “CHAI” (Clinton Health Access Initiative) that shows contributions of $15.5 million (19% of the combined total) and $159.7 in grants (98% of the total). Clearly “CHAI” existed during 2009 as a material portion of the Clinton Foundation.” But, Ortel asks, who contributed $159.7 million to “CHAI” in 2009?
“By going here, we find that a Swiss NGO called UNITAID may have contributed $85 million during 2009 (see column for 2009 and row marked “Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative, Inc.” at page 30),” he continued.
“Then look at the Clinton Foundation link at “Schedule B” that lists (without identifying) amounts given by each specific, major donor. These show small cash grants of $73.7 million, small stock grants of $5.2 million, and unidentified cash grants of $115.4 million, $$9.1 million, $7.1 million, $15.9 million, $7.1 million, and $7.8 million.”
Ortel concludes: “There is no $85 million grant from UNITAID listed and there is no grant listed in 2009 that may have been routed through CGSGI from Russia or from any other source–in fact the combining statement shows $100 (not a typo) in contributions, and only $1.5 million in grants for ‘CGSGI.’”
He explained to Infowars.com that he considers it shocking the true financial picture is not told in existing Clinton Foundation filings for 2009 that have circulated in the public domain, around the world, for 7 years.
“Now the IRS has had much more detailed information on this ever since 2010 when the Clinton Foundation filed their Annual Report for 2009 on Form 990,” Ortel continued.
He pointed out that IRS officials know the specific identities of each major donor and, for U.S. donors, they can readily pull tax forms to determine how much each donor claimed it sent towards Clinton entities.
“There are many major U.S. charities worth looking at in forms relating to 2009 include,” he pointed out. “These include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (U.S.) (there is also a U.K. version, and then other large cumulative contributors through December 2008, some of whom likely continued donating in 2009.”
Ortel pointed out, stressing that each of the foundations contributing to the Clinton Foundation may face serious civil and possibly criminal liabilities should the U.S. Congress and the U.S. legal system find the Clinton Foundation guilty of charity fraud.
The Clinton Foundation: A vast unregulated interlocking set of criminal enterprises?
Ortel argues that while above is an important and worthwhile exercise, investigators need to become more familiar with applicable laws concerning tax- exempt organizations–a brief summary is found here:
“The Clinton Foundation was originally organized as a ‘Presidential Library’ to be a repository for ‘Presidential Records,’ but it has never validly altered its controlling ‘Articles of Organization’ to engage in any other tax-exempt purpose,” Ortel stressed. “Yet, it and people claiming to work with it have roamed worldwide soliciting more than $2 billion in cumulative declared donations.”
Ortel’s point is that ever since 23 October 1997, the Clinton Foundation, its trustees, its executives, and its agents seems to have been using the mails, telephones, and the internet to solicit massive donations while false and materially misleading filings circulated in the public domain.
“This ongoing, criminal solicitation is a massive scandal hidden in plain sight that certainly is illegal,” Ortel insists. “Just ask former U.S. Congresswoman Corrine Brown who awaits sentencing on numerous federal counts for illegally operating a much smaller slush fund.”
“Where did all that money actually go?” Ortel asks, regarding the money the New York Times in 2015 reported flowing to the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation as a result of the Uranium One deal
“Was even more money sent towards the Clintons?” he asks. “Why have no donors, including other foundations, many governments, and prominent individuals, complained about the reckless governance and slipshod ‘accounting’ for what the Clinton’s yet maintain is a charity.”
For the Clintons, Nov. 15, 2017 – an important deadline
Ortel insists these are the real questions Senator Grassley, the House Judiciary Committee, state attorneys general, foreign government authorities, and the public around the world should be asking.
He stresses answers are required soon–the final tax filing deadline for the Clinton Foundation and for several of its affiliates is Nov. 15, 2017. “By that date, all previous tax filings for the Clinton Foundation must be amended and supplied on a complete basis, including real, legally compliant audits by competent and independent accounting firms,” he points out. “Only then, can the Clinton Foundation (and certain affiliates) validly file IRS Reports on the required annual Tax Filing Form 990.”
Ortel reminds us that the United States of America, no one is above the law. “It is past time to prove to we, the people, and to demonstrate globally, that the Clintons and their allies are not immune from prosecution, and from making restitution because they chose to become politically active,” Ortel said “The Clinton Foundation and its network of affiliates has been operated for more than 20 years as a vast conspiracy to defraud the United States Government (see U.S.C. §371),” he noted.
“Close examination reveals numerous potential counts of mail fraud in connection with disaster relief (see U.S.C. §1341) and wire fraud in connection with wire relief (see U.S.C. §1343). Trained lawyers should see many more potential felony violations of federal laws, as well as violations of state and of foreign statutes,” he pointed out.
Justice must be served at long last, Ortel insists, and America, along with the entire world, is now watching.