FIFA Indicted – Clinton Foundation Should Be Next!

It was not much of a surprise to some to see the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) bring corruption charges against the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) this past week. After all, the granting of World Cup hosting rights to Russia (2018) and Qatar (2022) appeared highly suspect, along with several other apparent “pay to play” coincidences. Considering the nature of the charges against FIFA, it seems only logical to wonder if, or when, such charges will be levied against Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton Foundation.

The DOJ indictment alleges that FIFA officials “abused their positions of trust to acquire millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks,” according to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The graft is alleged to have influenced World Cup host nation selection, marketing rights for sports marketing companies, and broadcast rights for television coverage of FIFA events.

Prima facie, it doesn’t appear that FIFA did anything more legally dubious than did the Clinton Foundation. According to Hillary Clinton last year, the First Family of the 1990’s left the White House “dead broke” in 2001. They made up for their White House poverty years from 2001-2006, when, according to Mrs. Clinton’s Senate disclosures, the couple made $87.3 million, from book deals to speaking fees. As long as none of those paydays bought influence, that’s just fine, unless of course one’s ideology requires disdain and class-envy of those who are financially successful–for the Clintons are clearly “one per centers.”

The Clintons’ financial waters become much more murky when their Foundation is brought into the picture. The Clinton Foundation is classified under IRS Code 501(c)(3) as a “non-profit” foundation, comprising several separate “initiatives,” or areas of focus, including health, economic opportunity, and climate issues. In just over 13 years, the Foundation has raised nearly $2 billion from U.S. corporations (especially Wall Street firms), political donors, and foreign governments.

The nebulous financial arrangement and political nature of the Foundation was of sufficient concern to the Obama administration that Mrs. Clinton was required to sign a disclosure agreement with the White House before her nomination as Secretary of State in 2009. According to the Washington Post, Obama required her “to disclose all contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and that there be a process to vet donations that were coming in. They violated that agreement almost immediately. They took multi-million dollar donations from foreign businesses that had interests before the State Department. Those were never disclosed.”

According to Bloomberg earlier this month, there was a lot of non-disclosure going on at the Foundation. “There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, [Clinton Foundation board member Frank] Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents.  ‘All of the money flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,’ he says.”

But even that raises significant issues, since according to the Foundation’s own tax filings, only 10% of their donations ultimately make it to “charitable grants” for their professed causes. That’s a whole lot of donations that go for expenses (34%), salaries and benefits (33%), travel (10%), office supplies (6%), and rent (5%). And don’t forget the 2% that goes to IT (information technology); for that’s where all of Hillary’s emails were stored, in two separate email accounts, until they were erased.

That’s likely where much of the hard evidence alleged in Peter Schweitzer’s book, “Clinton Cash,” would have been found. Absent the hard evidence, most of the public evidence is circumstantial. Charges that official State Department policy toward countries like Libya, Saudi Arabia, and India was altered or softened after contributions by those countries to the Foundation certainly raise serious questions of paying for influence, not unlike those leveled against FIFA officials this week.

The most serious, however, is well documented. As explained by the New York Times, a Canadian businessman was purchasing up to 1/5 of the U.S. uranium assets, while making millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation. The Canadian firm, Uranium One, was then sold to Russia’s atomic energy agency, Rosatom, which was celebrated in Russia’s Pravda with the headline, “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.” An acquisition of this size and nature had to be approved by the U.S. State Department, which was easily done with Mrs. Clinton at the helm.

To make this even more salacious, a Kremlin-linked bank that was promoting the stock of Uranium One paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speaking engagement. But the contribution went not to the former president, but to the Clinton Foundation, as many of the speaking fees are funneled for non-taxable reporting purposes.

The Clinton Foundation meets all of the criteria for a money-laundering entity: placement, layering, and integration, while enjoying the benefit of tax-exemption. They collect millions in donations (placement). Then through layering (or structuring), distance is created between the donation and the source, to obscure the audit trail. And finally is the integration stage, which in the Foundation’s case is the returning of favors and influence to donors.

Operationally, the Clinton Foundation functions as a shell corporation for the Clintons, and the pass-through conduit for buying influence and tax avoidance. Thanks to the IT staff at the Foundation, and Hillary’s obfuscation, we may never fully grasp the breadth and reach of the corruption. No wonder only 38% of us believe Hillary is honest.

If FIFA bribery and corruption is worth investigating, certainly the similar practices of the Clinton Foundation are as well. After all, the implications are much greater.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Conservatives Demand Action To Protect Privacy

A number of national conservative groups have written a letter to the House and Senate Judiciary committees demanding quick passage of the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act (LEADS Act), a bill that would reverse the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) attempt to grab jurisdiction of most every piece of data stored on cloud computing systems all over the world. 

The legislation was prompted when Eric Holder’s Justice Department demanded Microsoft turn over electronic communications of an Irish citizen that were housed on a cloud server of an Irish subsidiary of the company. Lawyers note that if the materials in question were written forms of communication, as opposed to electronic, the US government would be required by treaty to get the Irish government’s sign-off before they could get access to the material. Instead, DOJ sought to bypass Dublin and demanded Microsoft turn over the material without the Irish government’s approval.

Signed by representatives from Americans for Tax Reform, Digital Liberty, Citizens Against Government Waste, Let Freedom Ring, and other organizations, the letter states: “Until now, the U.S. Government has relied on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to reach data of foreign citizens stored abroad so long as the company storing the data had a presence on U.S. soil. This practice creates distrust of American businesses and encourages foreign citizens, companies and countries to stop doing business with U.S. companies operating overseas. Eventually, this will harm U.S. companies and threaten America’s leadership in cloud computing technology.”

The letter is a reminder that “the U.S. Government can obtain emails wherever stored simply by serving a warrant on a provider subject to U.S. process; nothing stops other countries – including China and Russia – from seeking to obtain emails of Americans stored on servers in the United States. The LEADS Act addresses these problems by amending ECPA to clarify that law enforcement may use a warrant to obtain electronically stored communications overseas if the account- holder is a U.S. person. This extends the traditional reach of a warrant beyond U.S. borders, but is appropriately responsive to the global nature of electronic data storage in the 21st Century. The legislation provides that the U.S. law enforcement cannot require disclosure of data stored abroad if the data is not associated with a U.S. person or if accessing that data would violate the laws of the country where it is stored. Instead, the U.S. must work with the host country to obtain the data.”

The LEADS Act, introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Rep. Tom Morino, R-Pa., is supported by a host of tech companies like Microsoft and IBM as well as groups like the Business Software Alliance.

Two lower courts have sided with the government, and the Supreme Court has been asked to take up the case. Should they refuse, and legislation is not enacted, the DOJ would assume jurisdiction of most of the Internet, marking another blow against privacy. 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

BOMBSHELL In Baltimore: What The Obama Admin Did That May Have Lit The Fuse For The Riots

It’s been described by officials familiar with it as “the best training program the Baltimore Police Department has ever known” — a special program designed to improve relations between police and mostly minority communities. Yet, according to The Washington Times, the Obama administration cut off funding for the Diamond Standard training program despite strong evidence that it was a success.

“The Obama Justice Department turned down a request five years ago to help the Baltimore Police Department save a training program widely credited for improving the department’s relations with the city’s crime-ridden and minority neighborhoods and reducing homicides and police-involved shootings.”

The Times article quotes a principal developer and organizer of the training, police consultant Adam Walinsky, who claimed that the failure to continue the Diamond Standard program helped contribute to the deterioration in police-community relations that preceded the riots sparked by the police-custody death of Freddie Gray.

“Once they stopped training the officers — stopped their interaction with the community, that all that was left was locking people up, and that’s what led to this whole Freddie Gray thing.”

“The program made terrific efforts to show our trainees how to work with all of these really lost, mostly young men in the black community. We gave them the tools to show them how to make friends in the community — not to raise the tension but to lower it.”

Reportedly, the now-defunct training program was championed by the previous head of the Baltimore Police Department. Ironically, it was that police commissioner’s success in using the program to improve relations between his force and the city’s crime-ridden, minority neighborhoods —  the very program the feds failed to fund — that “led President Obama to appoint him to a federal commission on community policing.”

“The training program, which ran from 2008 to 2012, was a centerpiece of Police Commissioner Fred Bealefeld’s tenure, during which period homicides in Baltimore reached a 20-year low, police-involved shootings declined and officers were pressed to leave their cars and walk their beats, and community relations improved.”

For its in-depth article on the demise of the Diamond Standard training in Baltimore, The Washington Times spoke with two unnamed officials reportedly involved with the program during the period it was in effect. They both lamented the loss of the training because, they said, it had such a positive effect. According to one of the Times’ anonymous sources: “’After every training session, questionnaires were collected. The department now has thousands of them that overwhelmingly confirm this was the best training program the Baltimore Police Department has ever known.’”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Exposed: Obama’s Massive New Program To Stack The Deck Against The GOP In 2016 And Beyond

“The deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top, and there is something wrong with that,” said Hillary Clinton in her YouTube video that helped to launch her latest bid for the presidency. Now, given what the current president is doing in an apparent effort to stack the deck against Republicans in 2016 and beyond, a former Justice Department official is warning that there’s something very wrong with what Obama and his DHS are trying to pull off.

J. Christian Adams, an ex-DOJ official who has frequently talked of corruption in the federal department run by Eric Holder, is now blowing the whistle on a new program in another huge part of government, at the Department of Homeland Security — a program that’s designed to add as many Democrat supporters as possible to the voter rolls in time for the 2016 elections. Adams claims that sources inside Obama’s DHS have leaked information to him about the department’s so-called “Task Force on New Americans.” This massive effort, says Adams, is all about urging some 9,000,000 green card holders, non-citizen aliens, to naturalize and thus gain voting rights.

Appearing on Fox and Friends Weekend, J. Christian Adams disclosed that DHS is redirecting resources to this campaign to help Democrat candidates, including Hillary Clinton, in their efforts to win public office.

“This is a transformative campaign going on to fundamentally transform the country. And if you don’t talk about it, if you don’t confront it, you’re going to lose all the other issues you care about.”

You can watch the dire warning from this ex-official of the Justice Department by clicking on the video above.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Ted Cruz Obliterates AG Nominee Loretta Lynch And Republican Senate Majority For Allowing Her Nomination

Early Thursday morning, ahead of Loretta Lynch’s nomination for Attorney General, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, ranted about current Attorney General Eric Holder, the likelihood of having Lynch as his successor, and the Republican Senate majority. He argued that as bad as Eric Holder has been as the attorney general, Lynch would be just as bad, if not worse.

Cruz, who is running for president, posed a tough question to the Senate: what difference would it make whether Republicans or Democrats dominate the Senate, if someone arguably promising to be just like Holder is nominated as AG?

Cruz concluded his speech by saying that any senator who votes in favor of Lynch would ultimately violate their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution–and would have to explain said vote to their constituents.

Just recently, as Western Journalism reported, the Senate approved Lynch on a 56-43 vote. 10 Republicans disregarded Cruz’s advice and supported her nomination: Kelly Ayotte, (N.H.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Rob Portman (Ohio), and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

h/t: Right Scoop

Is there a difference between a Republican or Democratic majority? Why didn’t these ten Republicans heed Cruz’s advice? Will Lynch be just as bad as Holder? Let us know what you think.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth