As a condition of becoming Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton signed a memorandum of understanding with the Obama Administration to disclose the donors to the Clinton Foundation due to the obvious potential conflicts of interest. Sounds good, but everyone knows the Clintons don’t pay by the rules, and they just went ahead and didn’t disclose 1,100 foreign donors to the faux charity.
Interestingly, these 1,100 donors funneled the money through the Canadian wing of the Clinton slush fund, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP). This subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation was co-founded by Canadian businessman Frank Giustra, who’s sizable donations to the “charity” have been linked to getting a pass on human rights abuses in Colombia and crony uranium deals in Kazakhstan.
If these United States were anything close to a Democracy or a Republic, Hillary Clinton would have withdrawn from the Presidential race five scandals ago, but we all know what America really is, so the machine chugs along.
Giustra strenuously objects to how he was portrayed. “It’s frustrating,” he says. And because the donations came in through the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP)—a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation he established with the former president—he feels doubly implicated by the insinuation of a dark alliance.
“We’re not trying to hide anything,” he says. There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP. “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.
Every penny went to what, travel expenses and salaries?
The reason this is a politically explosive revelation is because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the Clinton Foundation signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama White House agreeing to reveal its contributors every year. The agreement stipulates that the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” (as the charity was then known) is part of the Clinton Foundation and must follow “the same protocols.”
Giustra says that’s because Canada’s federal privacy law forbids CGEP, a Canadian-registered charity, from revealing its donors. A memo he provided explaining the legal rationale cites CGEP’s “fiduciary obligations” to its contributors and Canada’s Personal Information Privacy and Electronic Disclosure Act. “We are not allowed to disclose even to the Clinton Foundation the names of our donors,” he says.
Sounds like a reasonable excuse. Except it’s total bullshit, which is to be expected from the Clintons.
Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada’s Department of Finance, said he wasn’t aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors’ names. “There’s nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors,” he said. “It’s entirely up to them.”
Mark Blumberg, a charity lawyer at Blumberg Segal in Toronto, added that the legislation “does not generally apply to a registered charity unless a charity is conducting commercial activities… such as selling the list to third parties.”
With millions of dollars and 1,100 donors shrouded in mystery, CGEP has caught the attention of journalist and authors, including Peter Schweizer, whose forthcoming book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, details Giustra’s financial relationship with Bill Clinton and posits nefarious intentions. The fact that the Clinton Foundation promised something that Giustra feels he can’t supply—the identity of his donors—has put him in an even worse spot.
An anonymous way to buy influence was created using a Canadian charity (the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership was started in June 2007, just as Hillary was getting ready for her first run for President). Yes, I’m sure the advantages of this structure were never considered by the Clintons.
Meanwhile, as most of you know by now, the Clinton Foundation is refiling at least five years of taxes due to mistakes. Yes, mistakes happen, particularly with the preposterously complex U.S. tax code, but it appears the extent of the Clinton mistakes are anything but normal.
Some experts in charity law and taxes said it was not remarkable for a charity to refile an erroneous return once in a while, but for a large, global charity to refile three or four years in a row was highly unusual.
“I’ve never seen amendment activity like that,” said Bruce Hopkins, a Kansas City lawyer who has specialized in charity law for more than four decades, referring to the CHAI filings.
* * *
For related articles, see: