Showing posts with label Foundation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foundation. Show all posts

Clinton Foundation hedge fund play

SUBHEAD: Chelsea Clinton's husband used Clinton Foundation to raise cash for his hedge fund.

By Tyler Durden on 6 November 2016 for Zero Hedge -
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-06/chelsea-clintons-husband-used-clinton-foundation-raise-cash-his-hedge-fund)


Image above: Hedge-fund manager Marc Mezvinsky with his wife, Chelsea Clinton, at a Clinton Global Initiative event in 2014.  From (http://www.wsj.com/articles/hedge-fund-co-founded-by-chelsea-clintons-husband-suffers-losses-tied-to-greece-1423000325).

[IB Publisher's note: And that's why we voted for Jill Stein for President.]
That Teneo's Doug Band was not a fan of Chelsea Clinton, with whom he had a long-running feud as a result of her ongoing accusations that he was taking advantage of Bill Clinton's presence to enrich himself (even though thanks to a leaked memo we now know for a fact just how Teneo was working as a pass through, pay-for-play vehicle to enrich both Clinton and Band), we have known for a while (and reported on again just moments ago, when in one of the latest Podesta emails, he accused her of using Foundation cash to pay for her wedding).

We now learn that Band was also not a fan of Chelsea's husband, Marc Mezvinsky, co-founder of the hedge fund Eaglevale Partners, which had received substantial seed funding from Goldman Sachs, and which suffered massive losses with its wrong-way bet on Greek bonds.

In an email from January 18, 2012, Doug Band tells John Podesta and Cheryl Mills that "Marc mez[vinsky] had an idea to put together a poker night for the foundation to raise money. His raising money for his own fund hasn't been going well and he has cvc [Chelsea Clinton] making some calls for him to get mtgs with some clinton people."

What Band was accusing "Mez" of doing is that since he was unable to raise cash for his hedge fund on his own, he came looking for the help of his wife, Chelsea, who is Vice Chairman of the Foundation bearing her last name.

Band then says that "Marc has invited several potential investors and a few current business ones to the poker night. I assume all are contributing to the foundation, which of course isn't the point. What is the point is that he is doing precisely what he accused me of doing as the entire plan of his has been to use this for his business which he is."

And there you have another Pay-to-Play smoking gun: an extended Clinton family member using Bill's (and Chelsea's) "last name" connections to raise money for his business.

Needless to say, the idea worked: as Fox previously reported, in April 2012, Eaglevale booked $19 million from a dozen investors. California’s public employee pension fund, CalPERS, reportedly invested $13 million. Goldman Sach’s CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, jumped in with his own money, as did Chelsea Clinton’s former boss, Marc Lasry, who specializes in buying distressed debt.

In retrospect it appears that while we have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the relationship between Mezvinsky and Chelsea, the former clearly saw some prominent fringe benefits, namely the ability to fall back on the latter's last name to "raise money" through the Clinton Foundation, after his own fundraising efforts were falling short.

Another fringe benefit was to use Chelsea Clinton as a conduit for confidential information on Greek bailout talks coming directly from the US State Department, whose head - and top US diplomat - at the time was Hillary Clinton. As Fox previously reprorted, In May 2012, Sid Blumenthal, emailed two “confidential” memos about the Greek debt situation to Clinton. Hormats was included in the email loop.
Clinton stepped down as secretary of state in 2013 to run for president. But newly released emails from 2012 show that she and Clinton Foundation consultant, Sidney Blumenthal, shared classified information about how German leadership viewed the prospects for a Greek bailout. Clinton also shared “protected” State Department information about Greek bonds with her husband at the same time that her son-in-law aimed his hedge fund at Greece.

The first memo, Blumenthal told Clinton, is “based on conversations with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble and those close to him … the information comes from an extremely sensitive source and should be handled with care. This information must not be shared with anyone associated with the German government.”

The second memo was classified and blacked out by State Department censors when Clinton’s emails were released. No doubt, it was informative. In June, Clinton’s deputy, Jake Sullivan emailed her “a depressing snapshot” of reports that Greek banks were failing and that Merkel was against a Greek bailout. The next day, he reported “re: Greece” that Ambassador Dan Smith “just spoke to the Central Bank Governor and assessed that the economic situation was “ok for now” provided that “small depositors put money back into the banks.”

A few days later, Clinton asked Sullivan for a confidential state department report, “Solidarity Bonds Greece Revised.” He sent it to her adding, “If you like, send it on [to] WJC," presumably a reference to William Jefferson Clinton.

Clinton ordered an aide, “Pls print two copies” of the Greek bond report. The report was blacked out as a “protected” document when the emails were made public.

Did Mezvinsky benefit from his family connection?

The emails show that Clinton did at least one official favor for her son-in-law. In August 2012, she forwarded Deputy Secretary Thomas Nides an email from Mezvinsky lobbying on behalf of his former Goldman Sachs colleague, Harry Siklas. Siklas and Goldman Sachs were invested in a deep sea mining venture called Neptune Minerals. Siklas asked Mezvinsky to broker a talk with Clinton about “current legal issues and regulations” on deep sea mining. Clinton ordered Nides to “follow up on this request.”

Nides replied, “I’ll get on it.”
Ironically, despite all the behind the scenes benefits which should have assured the young hedge funder of slam dunk returns, Mezvinsky still failed. As Fox also added, "Marc Mezvinsky had friends in high places when he bet big on a Greek economic recovery, but even the keen interest of his mother-in-law, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, wasn't enough to spare him and his investors from financial tragedy."
In 2012, Mezvinski, the husband of Chelsea Clinton, created a $325 million basket of offshore funds under the Eaglevale Partners banner through a special arrangement with investment bank Goldman Sachs. The funds have lost tens of millions of dollars predicting that bailouts of the Greek banking system would pump up the value of the country’s distressed bonds. One fund, exclusively dedicated to Greek debt, suffered near-total losses.
A quick note here on what Mezvinsky's biggest seed investor: Goldman Sachs. Recall that when Chelsea Clinton's husband sought funding for his new hedge fund, he found financial backing from one of the biggest names on Wall Street: Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein. Blankfein not only personally invested in the fund, but allowed his association with it to be used in the fund’s marketing.
The decision for Blankfein to invest in Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law’s company is just one of many ways Goldman Sachs has used its wealth to forge a tight bond with the Clinton family. The company paid Hillary Clinton $675,000 in personal speaking fees, paid Bill Clinton $1,550,000 in personal speaking fees, and donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. At a time when Goldman Sachs directly lobbied Hillary Clinton’s State Department, the company routinely partnered with the Clinton Foundation for events, even convening a donor meeting for the foundation at the Goldman Sachs headquarters in Manhattan.
Finally, in May 2016, Mezvinsky shut down Eaglevale's Greek fund after losing 90% of its assets in early 2015. It is unclear if he has since resorted to using the Clinton Foundation to fund more cash.


.

Clinton Foundation wedding gift

SUBHEAD: Chelsea accused of using Clinton Foundation money to live on and pay wedding expenses.

By Tyler Durden on 6 November 2016 for Zero Hedge -
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-06/doug-band-accuses-chelsea-using-clinton-foundation-money-pay-her-wedding)


Image above: The Chelsea Clinton's $3million wedding to former Goldman Sachs' Marc Mezvinsky.  From (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-06/doug-band-accuses-chelsea-using-clinton-foundation-money-pay-her-wedding).

[IB Publisher's note: And that's why we voted for Jill Stein for President.]

A couple of days ago Zero Hedge shared a Podesta email from Doug Band about Chelsea talking openly in public about her "internal investigation" into the Clinton Foundation.

As with many of the Doug Band email chains, the rabbit hole just got a little deeper today with Band accusing of Chelsea of "using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade" among other accusations.  He also concludes with another veiled threat on the consequences "once we go down this road...."
The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents....

I hope that you will speak to her and end this

Once we go down this road....

Image above: Image of email from Doug Band to John Pedesta regarding, in part, misuse of Clinton Foundation funds by Chelsea Clinton. From original article.

The implications are troubling: as our friends from the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation point out, "*If true* people (then) worth well into 8 figures used 501c3 $ to pay for a wedding."

The latest Band email comes after he previously accused Chelsea of talking about her "internal investigation" in the Clinton Foundation with "one of the bush 43 kids.
I just received a call from a close friend of wjcs who said that cvc told one of the bush 43 kids that she is conducting an internal investigation of money within the foundation from cgi to the foundation

The bush kid then told someone else who then told an operative within the republican party

I have heard more and more chatter of cvc and bari talking about lots of what is going on internally to people

Not smart
Something tells us that Chelsea and Doug may not be on speaking terms for a while after all the WikiLeaks revelations.


.

Clinton Foundation admits crimes

SUBHEAD: Confidential memo of audit of Clinton Foundation shows illegal activities.

By Tyler Durden on 6 November 2016 for Zero Hedge -
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-05/leaked-clinton-foundation-smoking-gun-memo-reveals-it-was-not-compliance-law)


Image above: Bill, Hillary and Chelsea make a presentation for the Clinton Global Initiative University, an initiative of the Clinton Foundation. From (http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-foundation-scandal/).

[IB Publisher's note: And that's why we voted for Jill Stein for President.]
There are conflicting reports whether the FBI may or may not indict the Clinton Foundation, which as the WSJ reported last week is being investigated by various FBI teams, even as other parts of the Bureau - and the DOJ - seek to squash the probe.

The latest dump of Podesta emails has revealed a critical, confidential memo from prominent New York lawyer Kumiki Gibson to Clinton Foundation Chairman Bruce Lindsey (and former Bill Clinton attorney) which was performed as part of an inside audit of the foundation, and confirms that the charitable organization (which it found "operates more like a political operation") was engaged in practices that broke the law.

As Gibson (who according to her resume "counseled the William J. Clinton Foundation, an international not-for-profit organization, on structural, legal, and compliance issues” from May 2008 until January 2014) wrote the purpose of the confidential November 10, 2008 memo, was to:
"set forth the findings of my review of the Legal and Human Resources Departments of the William J. Clinton Foundation (“Foundation”) and those pertaining to other areas of the Foundation revealed during this review, and my recommendations to the Foundation based on this review."
The summary reveals serious reservations about the viability of the foundation - which "operates more like a political operation" than a "professional, strategic, and sustainable corporation committed to advancing its overall mission" - if and when Bill Clinton were to depart and "the Foundation has to rise and/or fall on its own name and work only."
While the Foundation has grown impressively over the past several years, it has a number of fundamental organizational challenges and deficiencies that undermine its effectiveness, expose it to significant risk, and, ultimately, threaten its long-term survivalThe Foundation (as opposed to its initiatives, which I have not reviewed) operates more like a political operation focused on immediate situations, tasks, and events, as opposed to a professional, strategic, and sustainable corporation committed to advancing its overall mission.  While that may not be a problem while the President is personally involved in the Foundation -- and can garner support based on that involvement -- it will be a problem when he is no longer involved, and the Foundation has to rise and/or fall on its own name and work only.
The chief risks identified in Gibson's outside review, stem from both its Legal and Human Resource Departments, as well as Bill Clinton's unwillingness to "allow the Board and CEO to make the changes necessary for it to become sustainable, even great."
If the leadership (that is, the Board and the CEO) intends and wants the organization to survive beyond the President’s personal involvement, then it must take measures to move the organization onto a path of sustainability, starting with revamping both the Legal and Human Resources (“HR”) Departments; reviewing its corporate structure and governance documents; and, perhaps most importantly, having a frank discussion with the President about the current state of the organization, the future of the organization, and his appetite and willingness to allow the Board and CEO to make the changes necessary for it to become sustainable, even great.
As the summary concludes, "the time for making these changes, if they are desired, could not be better:  The presidential campaign, which distracted some key employees and caused uncertainty among others about the future of the organization, is now over; virtually all of the employees interviewed are anxious for more structure, professionalism, and mission-focus; and funders are expecting the same."

Next follows a detailed and highly critical analysis of the Foundation's (1) shared values, (2) strategy, (3) structure, (4) systems, (5) staff, (6) style, and (7) skills, which the review finds "the Foundation to significant legal and reputational risks, results in inconsistencies and inefficiencies, and undermines its work and viability" and leads to the following conclusion about the CF's operational shortcomings:
The assessment of the organization through the 7-S Framework makes clear that the organization is not operating as effectively or efficiently as it should or could.  Indeed, it has major deficiencies in each of the fundamental areas.  Each of these deficiencies, standing alone, threatens the effectiveness of the Foundation in the short and long term.  When combined, as currently the case, they threaten its very existence (absent the President’s involvement).  
The outside legal review of the Clinton Foundation is that, at least operationally, the only thing that was keeping the enterprise going was the presence of Bill Clinton, whose anchor role to match donors with "uses of funds" and subsequent distribution of favors , aka "pay for play" made the former president indispensable in an organization that would otherwise not survive:
Because it is unclear whether the President wants the Foundation to exist beyond his personal involvement, the Foundation’s leadership (that is, the Board and CEO) should address this question head-on with the President.  That will require a frank discussion with the President about his desire, willingness, and appetite to move the Foundation to the next level of development.  If the President concludes that he does, in fact, want the Foundation to survive and thrive beyond his involvement, then he should authorize and empower the CEO and Board to make the changes necessary for this survival.
However, while all of that is troubling, and suggests that the CF was - from day one - just a corporate extension of Bill Clinton's persona, it was in no way illegal. Where the alarm bells go off, however, is taking a look at page 9 of the memo, where Gibson does a review of the Foundation's "Legal and HR Departments", something troubling emerges, which perhaps the FBI may want to take a particularly close look at. The following:
No matter what the leadership decides about the larger, over-arching question, it must act immediately to bring the Foundation into compliance with the law and standards that govern not-for-profits, and must create strong legal and HR offices so to prevent any lapses in the future
The memo also notes that "the Foundation has very few procedures, processes, and systems in place, and even fewer that are consistent across the organization.  For example, it is missing several policies/procedures that are required by law (e.g., record retention policy).  Moreover, although it has an employee manual, that manual is not comprehensive and is not distributed or followed consistently across the organization."
What makes this (systems) deficiency particularly problematic is that (1) the organization is legally liable for the acts of its offices and initiatives and those who run them; (2) managers in key positions have no to little experience in not-for-profit management and thus do not even possess the right instincts when faced with a problem for which there is no policy or procedure; and (3) there is no established mechanism for catching problems and mistakes.  
Gibson's take: "In short, the systems deficiency subjects the Foundation to significant legal and reputational risks, results in inconsistencies and inefficiencies, and undermines its work and viability. "

Simply stated, as of the day the memo was written, the Foundation was not in compliance with the law and with standards that govern "not-for-profits."

Among the policies and procedures that Gibson found missing or inadequate at the Foundation were the following, some of which - such as the procedures the CF was utilizing in Harlem -  may be in violation of the law. Here is a brief sample of the findings:
  • The Foundation lacks important policies and procedures and a real process to ensure compliance, resulting in increased risks, confusion, conflicting (and perhaps arbitrary) decisions, and inefficiencies.  
  • The Foundation does not have a record retention policy, and the procedures currently utilized in Harlem may violate the law.
  • It is unclear whether lower level employees actually meet the definition of exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  • Processes and employment decisions are made on an ad hoc basis. 
  • Staff complained about the lack of comprehensive and/or written policies and procedures.
  • Staff complained about the lack of a real complaint and/or whistleblower policy.
And many more.

Furthermore, and more troubling, the review pointed to a high-ranking but unnamed foundation executive who was “being paid by [President Clinton], the government and the foundation” who “allowed the foundation to host what may have been (or may have been viewed as) a political event, apparently without official pre-approval from the foundation’s legal department and without regard, before the fact, to the impact of that decision on the foundation’s tax exempt status.”

While the conclusion avoids repeating the explicit accusation of operating outside of the law - we assume Gibson did not want to scare the Clinton Foundation too much, and thus avoid repeat work - it is a stark condemnation of the underlying practices and principles of operation:
The challenges and deficiencies plaguing the Foundation cannot be over-stated:  They are real and undermine the organization’s effectiveness, immediately and more long term.  To address the issues that present immediate threats, the Foundation should revamp its Legal and HR operations, should review its governance structure and documents; and should have an open and honest discussion with the President about the future of the Foundation
It is illegal for tax-exempt non-profit foundations like the Clinton Foundation to be linked with partisan political events as described in the review report.

The Lindsey memo was distributed just two days before the Clinton Foundation signed an agreement with Obama’s transition office Dec. 12, 2008, as part of the president-elect’s decision to appoint Hillary Clinton as the nation’s chief diplomat. Obama wanted assurance that no conflicts of interest would arise between Clinton’s work as Secretary of State and the foundation, which had operations in numerous foreign countries.

It is unclear if any of these recommendations were implemented, or if the CF is now in "compliance with the law and standards that govern not-for-profits."

It is clear, however, that at least at one point it was not. It remains to be seen if such illegal activity will be grounds for the DOJ to permit the FBI to do its job and indict a foundation that, as lawyer determined, was operating in a fraudulent fashion.

.

Wikileaks has Clinton Foundation dirt

SOURCE: Russ Pascatore (russ.pascatore@titanx.com)
SUBHEAD: Assange says his next leak will guarantee an indictment of Hillary Clinton.

By Shockwave on 22 July 2016 for Silence Is Consent -
(http://silenceisconsent.net/breaking-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-says-his-next-leak-will-virtually-guarantee-an-indictment-of-hillary-clinton/#sthash.YBogKBok.dpbs)


Image above: Julien Assange holds leaks concerning Hillary Clinton, and Clinton Foundation. From original article.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says his next leak will virtually guarantee an indictment of Hillary Clinton.

In a recent interview with ITV, Assange said the whistleblowing website will soon be leaking documents that will provide “enough evidence” for the Department of Justice to indict the presumptive Democratic nominee. WikiLeaks has already published 30,322 emails from Clinton’s private email server, spanning from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014.

While Assange didn’t specify what exactly was in the emails, he did tell ITV that WikiLeaks had “accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton, which could proceed to an indictment.”

Assange hinted that the emails slated for publication contain additional information about the Clinton Foundation. He also reminded ITV’s Robert Peston that previously released emails contained one damning piece of communication from Clinton, instructing a staffer to remove the classification settings from an official State Department communication and send it through a “nonsecure”
channel.

Assange then pointed out that the Obama administration has previously prosecuted numerous whistleblowers for violating the government’s procedures for handling classified documents.

In regard to the ongoing FBI investigation, however, Assange expressed a lack of confidence in the Obama administration’s Justice Department to indict the former Secretary of State.

“[Attorney General Loretta Lynch] is not going to indict Hillary Clinton. It’s not possible that could happen. But the FBI could push for new concessions from the Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment.”

WikiLeaks has long been a thorn in the side of the former Secretary of State, who called on President Obama to prosecute the whistleblowing site after its 2010 leak of State Department cables. Julian Assange remains confined to the Ecuadorian Embassy in downtown London, as Ecuador has promised to not hand over the WikiLeaks founder to US authorities.-

See more at (http://silenceisconsent.net/breaking-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-says-his-next-leak-will-virtually-guarantee-an-indictment-of-hillary-clinton/#sthash.YBogKBok.dpuf)


Video above: From original article and (https://youtu.be/Mqu73w2lp4I).

.