Will the Trump Administration Finally Seize a Golden Opportunity to Punish Clinton Charity Fraudsters?

Four years ago, Donald Trump's campaign attacked Hillary Clinton for her brazen corruption, deriving personal and political gain from "The Clinton Foundation" in a brutal advertisement as well as on the stump.

The TV spot hits Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, on controversies related to her family’s foundation, stating that “staggering amounts of cash poured into the Clinton Foundation from criminals, dictators, countries that hate America” and that “Hillary cut deals for donors.”

Photo credit: Trump 2016 ad

At that time, we did not appreciate just how far outside strict laws a network of supposed charities had operated, starting Oct. 23, 1997 as Bill and Hillary Clinton flirted with disaster, dead broke with even more looming expenses to come fighting impeachment and a raft of scandals.

Thereafter, we saw the miraculous improvement in Clinton family fortunes as simply a money scandal -- not for what it truly is: solid evidence that rich donors, lawyers,  accountants and others in both political parties have captured the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service and other regulatory bodies to protect themselves and to persecute their enemies.

How else do you explain obvious ongoing frauds in which many deceived the public, claiming that the original Clinton charity, The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation, and its successors, actually existed lawfully in all jurisdictions where they operated, when they manifestly did not?

How do you explain that James Comey and Robert Mueller "missed" these massive crimes when, in theory, the FBI investigated "The Clinton Foundation" as grand juries were empaneled from 2001 through 2005?

Then, during the Obama Administration, how do you explain that gross abuses perpetrated against conservative charities and their donors by Lois Lerner and others in the I.R.S. and by Justice Department officials were never punished, as they must be?

What all Americans have suffered for decades has a name: it is called an "abuse of discretion" and it is starkly illustrated in a recent memorandum opinion issued in the U.S. Tax Court.

New Developments in an Important Case

A large tree fell in the forest on Oct. 8, 2020, and those of us who expect all charities to organize and operate lawfully will, in time, be pleased once they appreciate the significance of this long-awaited development.

Against difficult odds, Larry Doyle and John Moynihan made crucial progress in U.S. Tax Court, fighting against the I.R.S. Commissioner in their quest to be compensated for bringing evidence in a whistleblower complaint against a group of related "charities."  Perhaps you have followed their determined quest since 2017 to fight against charity crimes?

As is customary in these matters while they remain in contention, the specific identity of the target is kept confidential in publicly available versions of legal filings so we can only guess the entities which Doyle and Moynihan targeted in their complaint.

The Opinion, available here, explains on page 4 that Doyle and Moynihan:

"...submitted approximately 100 exhibits in excess of 6,000 pages compiled from their three plus year investigation. These exhibits and evidence lay out the clear framework of the wrongdoings committed by...[the target] and include the following: Application Letters; Determination Letters and Articles of Incorporation; Income Statements; Tax Returns (foreign and domestic); Consent Decrees; Memorandums of Understanding with foreign governments; Program Plans for entity in question; Partnerships; Audits, foreign and domestic; Contractual Agreements with Non-Governmental Organizations; Reviews of State Registration Forms; IG Reports of Entities, foreign and domestic; Internal Legal Reviews of Entity in Question; Reviews of E-mail Exvhanges Between Entity Executives and Government Officials; Donor Tax Returns; Regulatory Reviews, Actions, and Subsequent Legal Settlement with Entity Partner; Interviews with Whistleblower[s] and Current and Former Executives of Entity."

As the Opinion notes, information provided by Doyle and Moynihan met the legal requirement of being "specific credible information."

Based upon what I have examined in the public domain, this body of evidence sounds like it pertains to the various Clinton charities that have emerged beginning in 1997.

Here, I would note that the original Clinton "charity" was only authorized to perform work as a tax-exempt organization inside a small city park in Little Rock, Arkansas.  I would also note that exemption was granted for an "organization," and that no Clinton charity was "organized" lawfully on or after Oct. 23, 1997.

With all this evidence and after so much time passed to consider it, what did the I.R.S. do?

First, they denied the Whistleblower complaint more than once. Then, the I.R.S. Commissioner moved to dismiss their case on appeal in the U.S. Tax Court.

As you will see, the Tax Court Judge denied the I.R.S. Commissioner's request for dismissal and cited elements within the I.R.S. for engaging in an "abuse of discretion." So now, the matter will continue until it is resolved.

I am not a lawyer (nor accountant) but I cannot reconcile behavior of the I.R.S. in this case with its aggressive and swift actions against much smaller charities.

The question now before voters in this pivotal 2020 election is: will the Trump Administration do all that it can to ensure justice prevails in this and related matters?

For, if President Trump trains his determination and his considerable power on this unresolved controversy, he can make decisive progress keeping one important, yet unmet promise, to "Drain the Deep State Swamp."

Uncontrolled, complex "charities" are perfect conduits for influence-peddling and for money-laundering. Those operating in the names of dynastic political families must all be brought to justice and pay heavy prices once they are found to have systematically broken federal, state, and foreign laws.

Four years ago, Donald Trump's campaign attacked Hillary Clinton for her brazen corruption, deriving personal and political gain from "The Clinton Foundation" in a brutal advertisement as well as on the stump.

The TV spot hits Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, on controversies related to her family’s foundation, stating that “staggering amounts of cash poured into the Clinton Foundation from criminals, dictators, countries that hate America” and that “Hillary cut deals for donors.”

Photo credit: Trump 2016 ad

At that time, we did not appreciate just how far outside strict laws a network of supposed charities had operated, starting Oct. 23, 1997 as Bill and Hillary Clinton flirted with disaster, dead broke with even more looming expenses to come fighting impeachment and a raft of scandals.

Thereafter, we saw the miraculous improvement in Clinton family fortunes as simply a money scandal -- not for what it truly is: solid evidence that rich donors, lawyers,  accountants and others in both political parties have captured the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service and other regulatory bodies to protect themselves and to persecute their enemies.

How else do you explain obvious ongoing frauds in which many deceived the public, claiming that the original Clinton charity, The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation, and its successors, actually existed lawfully in all jurisdictions where they operated, when they manifestly did not?

How do you explain that James Comey and Robert Mueller "missed" these massive crimes when, in theory, the FBI investigated "The Clinton Foundation" as grand juries were empaneled from 2001 through 2005?

Then, during the Obama Administration, how do you explain that gross abuses perpetrated against conservative charities and their donors by Lois Lerner and others in the I.R.S. and by Justice Department officials were never punished, as they must be?

What all Americans have suffered for decades has a name: it is called an "abuse of discretion" and it is starkly illustrated in a recent memorandum opinion issued in the U.S. Tax Court.

New Developments in an Important Case

A large tree fell in the forest on Oct. 8, 2020, and those of us who expect all charities to organize and operate lawfully will, in time, be pleased once they appreciate the significance of this long-awaited development.

Against difficult odds, Larry Doyle and John Moynihan made crucial progress in U.S. Tax Court, fighting against the I.R.S. Commissioner in their quest to be compensated for bringing evidence in a whistleblower complaint against a group of related "charities."  Perhaps you have followed their determined quest since 2017 to fight against charity crimes?

As is customary in these matters while they remain in contention, the specific identity of the target is kept confidential in publicly available versions of legal filings so we can only guess the entities which Doyle and Moynihan targeted in their complaint.

The Opinion, available here, explains on page 4 that Doyle and Moynihan:

"...submitted approximately 100 exhibits in excess of 6,000 pages compiled from their three plus year investigation. These exhibits and evidence lay out the clear framework of the wrongdoings committed by...[the target] and include the following: Application Letters; Determination Letters and Articles of Incorporation; Income Statements; Tax Returns (foreign and domestic); Consent Decrees; Memorandums of Understanding with foreign governments; Program Plans for entity in question; Partnerships; Audits, foreign and domestic; Contractual Agreements with Non-Governmental Organizations; Reviews of State Registration Forms; IG Reports of Entities, foreign and domestic; Internal Legal Reviews of Entity in Question; Reviews of E-mail Exvhanges Between Entity Executives and Government Officials; Donor Tax Returns; Regulatory Reviews, Actions, and Subsequent Legal Settlement with Entity Partner; Interviews with Whistleblower[s] and Current and Former Executives of Entity."

As the Opinion notes, information provided by Doyle and Moynihan met the legal requirement of being "specific credible information."

Based upon what I have examined in the public domain, this body of evidence sounds like it pertains to the various Clinton charities that have emerged beginning in 1997.

Here, I would note that the original Clinton "charity" was only authorized to perform work as a tax-exempt organization inside a small city park in Little Rock, Arkansas.  I would also note that exemption was granted for an "organization," and that no Clinton charity was "organized" lawfully on or after Oct. 23, 1997.

With all this evidence and after so much time passed to consider it, what did the I.R.S. do?

First, they denied the Whistleblower complaint more than once. Then, the I.R.S. Commissioner moved to dismiss their case on appeal in the U.S. Tax Court.

As you will see, the Tax Court Judge denied the I.R.S. Commissioner's request for dismissal and cited elements within the I.R.S. for engaging in an "abuse of discretion." So now, the matter will continue until it is resolved.

I am not a lawyer (nor accountant) but I cannot reconcile behavior of the I.R.S. in this case with its aggressive and swift actions against much smaller charities.

The question now before voters in this pivotal 2020 election is: will the Trump Administration do all that it can to ensure justice prevails in this and related matters?

For, if President Trump trains his determination and his considerable power on this unresolved controversy, he can make decisive progress keeping one important, yet unmet promise, to "Drain the Deep State Swamp."

Uncontrolled, complex "charities" are perfect conduits for influence-peddling and for money-laundering. Those operating in the names of dynastic political families must all be brought to justice and pay heavy prices once they are found to have systematically broken federal, state, and foreign laws.