Recent revelations from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have escalated concerns regarding potential corruption within the Clinton Foundation. This new evidence, which has surfaced in Congress, underscores ongoing claims that the foundation may have acted unlawfully in securing donations from foreign interests seeking to exert influence.
The investigation into the Clinton Foundation began in 2019 but was halted, with whistleblowers reportedly cut off. Memos obtained by Just The News revealed a troubling directive: “Can’t talk about the CF [Clinton Foundation].” Such statements suggest an attempt to stifle legitimate inquiries into the foundation, raising eyebrows about the motivations behind this sudden cessation of investigation.
Bondi and Patel have now provided Congress with documents shedding light on the financial maneuvers of the Clinton Foundation. According to these reports, the foundation solicited donations from both foreign and domestic entities, particularly during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. This information rekindles longstanding questions about “pay-to-play” allegations surrounding the Clintons. It’s troubling that some evidence appears to have been actively concealed from federal prosecutors who were investigating these accusations in 2015, prior to the investigation being shut down by the Obama administration’s Justice Department.
Whistleblowers Lawrence Doyle and John Moynihan have played pivotal roles in bringing these issues to light. They argue that the Clinton Foundation has operated outside the legal boundaries of a typical 501c3 non-profit organization. Instead, they maintain that it functioned similarly to the global fund located in Geneva, brokered money, and engaged in negotiations with pharmaceutical companies. This assertion raises significant questions about the foundation’s legitimacy and governance.
According to Moynihan, an alarming percentage of the donations—approximately 60%—were funneled toward “administration fees.” This starkly contrasts with the industry standard of 10-15%, lending further weight to claims that financial practices at the foundation may have been carefully designed to benefit the personal interests of the Clintons rather than fulfill charitable objectives. Doyle’s statement bluntly characterized the foundation as “not a charitable organization per se, but in pointed fact was a closely held family partnership.” This characterization speaks volumes about the potential misuse of the foundation’s status for personal gain.
As Congressman Jim Jordan questioned the whistleblowers about the foundation’s practices, the testimony further solidified claims that the foundation acted almost as a conduit for foreign influence. “They were brokering money and they were brokering pharmaceuticals,” Doyle explained, suggesting that the foundation took fees for facilitating deals between donors and pharmaceutical companies. Such operations not only raise ethical questions but also highlight a deliberate conflation of charity with business, a tactic that could skirt tax implications and legal obligations.
The investigations led by former U.S. Attorney John Huber in 2017 and later by John Durham culminated without any charges being filed. This lack of accountability, along with the revelation that key whistleblowers were not interviewed, has led many to question the integrity of those investigations. The repeated loss of evidence during what was termed a “sham investigation” paints a troubling picture for those seeking transparency and justice related to the foundation’s activities. The need for rigorous scrutiny into how the Clintons conducted their charity work has never been more apparent.
As this situation continues to unfold, the evidence put forth by Bondi and Patel may be crucial in revisiting allegations that have been viewed with skepticism for years. The implications of the Clinton Foundation’s financial practices extend beyond mere malfeasance; they signify a potential mishandling of charitable assets that should have served the public good. As Congress investigates further, the hope remains that genuine transparency will finally address the lingering questions about the integrity and operations of the Clinton Foundation.
"*" indicates required fields
