From beginnings in the state of Arkansas in 1997, the Clinton Foundation quickly grew to become a sprawling international organization after 2001, despite the fact that this tax-exempt entity was only authorized to serve as a facility devoted to the study of Bill Clinton’s tenure as president of the United States.
Especially from 2001 onwards, state, federal, and foreign governments have never regulated material defects in many Clinton Foundation public disclosures. Material deficiencies exist in documents ranging from filings from applications before the I.R.S., to registrations before U.S. state and foreign governments, to annual reports required in numerous legal jurisdictions.
Why?
From January 2001 through January 2009, when apparent unauthorized and illegal activities began and first escalated, Republicans were in control of the Executive Branch and had substantial influence in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate.
Was a decision reached in this period to give the Clinton Foundation free reign to operate outside any effective governmental controls--if so, by whom?
Since January 2009, even though Republicans held reduced influence within the federal government, many have held authority to investigate and to prosecute manifest unauthorized and illegal operating and fundraising activities of the Clinton Foundation.
Still, and even after multiple public and private warnings, no progress has resulted in attempting to bring the Clinton Foundation into compliance with strict U.S. state and federal laws.
So, perhaps we must rely on foreign government authorities to investigate obvious discrepancies in Clinton Foundation filings with records of major donors.
Please read the attached Executive Summary and then join with me, and with other citizens who believe that all public charities must be operated in strict compliance with applicable laws.
No individual stands above the law. And no person, not even a leading candidate for president of the United States is “too big to jail”, because government authorities and the major U.S. political parties are too conflicted to protect inherent interests of “we, the people”.