Boundless

A group of protesters, all people of color from an impoverished Island nation, stand outside a posh New York City restaurant protesting the corruption surrounding a prominent public figure who is inside receiving an award and a large monetary grant for his "charitable" works. They argue—and irrefutable facts support their argument—that large sums of money raised for their impoverished nation never reached their brothers and sisters in need. Further, they suggest that the charitable foundation run by the prominent public figure has enriched the figure and his wife with the funds raised for charitable works.

Do you think that the main stream media, located a few blocks away in New York City, might have interest in this story, might be spurred to investigate the claims and report on their findings, might dig and then dig some more to uncover corruption and self-serving, crony politics. Nah. No interest at all. Can you guess why?

Sure you can.

The prominent public figure is Bill Clinton, his wife is Hillary Clinton, and the "Charity" in question is the Clinton Foundation. As I have discussed in many other posts, the Clinton Foundation has become a personal slush fund for Bill and Hillary Clinton, allowing them to amass great wealth and at the same time, use Hillary's influence as Secretary of State to dole out hundreds of millions of taxpayer money for bogus projects that enrich their fat-cat donors and produce no benefit to those in need

In a detailed and damning article (read the whole thing) extracted from his new book, Dinesh DiSousa, details how Bill and Hillary Clinton used money designated for Haitian relief to enrich themselves and their cronies. In answer to the question Where did the money go? DiSousa writes:

Where did it go? It did not escape the attention of the Haitians that Bill Clinton was the designated UN representative for aid to Haiti. Following the earthquake, Bill Clinton had with media fanfare established the Haiti Reconstruction Fund. Meanwhile, his wife Hillary was the United States secretary of state. She was in charge of U.S. aid allocated to Haiti. Together the Clintons were the two most powerful people who controlled the flow of funds to Haiti from around the world.

The Haitian protesters noticed an interesting pattern involving the Clintons and the designation of how aid funds were used. They observed that a number of companies that received contracts in Haiti happened to be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Haitian contracts appeared less tailored to the needs of Haiti than to the needs of the companies that were performing the services. In sum, Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons.

For example, the Clinton Foundation selected Clayton Homes, a construction company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, to build temporary shelters in Haiti. Buffett is an active member of the Clinton Global Initiative who has donated generously to the Clintons as well as the Clinton Foundation. The contract was supposed to be given through the normal United Nations bidding process, with the deal going to the lowest bidder who met the project’s standards. UN officials said, however, that the contract was never competitively bid for.

Clayton offered to build “hurricane-proof trailers” but what they actually delivered turned out to be a disaster. The trailers were structurally unsafe, with high levels of formaldehyde and insulation coming out of the walls. There were problems with mold and fumes. The stifling heat inside made Haitians sick and many of them abandoned the trailers because they were ill-constructed and unusable.

The Clintons also funneled $10 million in federal loans to a firm called InnoVida, headed by Clinton donor Claudio Osorio. Osorio had loaded its board with Clinton cronies, including longtime Clinton ally General Wesley Clark; Hillary’s 2008 finance director Jonathan Mantz; and Democratic fundraiser Chris Korge who has helped raise millions for the Clintons.

Normally the loan approval process takes months or even years. But in this case, a government official wrote, “Former President Bill Clinton is personally in contact with the company to organize its logistical and support needs. And as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has made available State Department resources to assist with logistical arrangements.”

InnoVida had not even provided an independently audited financial report that is normally a requirement for such applications. This requirement, however, was waived. On the basis of the Clinton connection, InnoVida’s application was fast-tracked and approved in two weeks. The company, however, defaulted on the loan and never built any houses. An investigation revealed that Osorio had diverted company funds to pay for his Miami Beach mansion, his Maserati, and his Colorado ski chalet. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering in 2013, and is currently serving a twelve-year prison term on fraud charges related to the loan.

The stories of Clinton Foundation corruption go on and on, but the trained hamsters in the main stream media seem far more interested in alleged plagiarism in Melania Trump's convention speech. If it weren't such a blatant example of media bias and dishonesty, it would actually be funny.

Now, imagine Hillary as president with control not only of the State Department, but the Departments of Commerce, Interior, Transportation, Education, HHS, Homeland Security, Defense, the VA, and Treasury, not to mention the IRS, the EPA and the entire alphabet soup of agencies. The opportunities for corruption and self-enrichment are boundless. And the Democrats argue that Donald Trump would be a dangerous president? Heh.

But no worries, Clinton will be playing with taxpayer dollars, so the majority of her voters don't have a thing to be concerned about.

Update:
-------------------


The Washington Free Beacon reports:

By all accounts, it was the most popular gala the Lady Taverners had ever held. Over 1,000 people packed the Park Lane Hilton in London on Oct. 30, 2009, with the crowd overflowing into the hallways, to listen to President Bill Clinton speak on the power of giving.

While Clinton’s speech helped raise a substantial sum for the prominent cricket charity, his staggering $290,000 speaking fee was not covered by the group, according to organizers. The fee also was not covered by “World Management Limited,” the marketing company Hillary Clinton listed as the payment source in her federal financial filings.

It was bankrolled by a wealthy British businessman named Robert Whitton—a name you won’t find included in the Clintons’ public disclosure forms.

A review by the Washington Free Beacon found that Hillary Clinton often listed small foreign speaking firms as the sources of her husband’s lecture payments in her Senate and State Department disclosures, even though the actual paychecks came from undisclosed third parties.

In certain cases, these funders had interests that intersected with the U.S. State Department. Whitton, a real estate mogul, had business pending before UNESCO, an international agency that received a quarter of its funding from the State Department.

There are 30 other instances where scandalously high speaking fees for Clinton were paid for not by the organization sponsoring the event but another unidentified party. The sponsoring entity became a de facto cut-out, enabling the payment (bribe?) to be hidden from public view. The Freebeacon notes: "Spokespersons for the Clinton campaign and Bill Clinton’s office declined to provide the names of any actual payment sources when contacted for this article."