While US mainstream media is rife with rumors about Hillary Clinton’s possible political comeback, Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel and Haitian-born journalist Dady Chery told Sputnik that the two-time presidential candidate may very soon find herself in a heap of legal trouble.
It appears that Hillary Clinton has no intention to leave the stage for the time being, and rumors continue to circulate about Hillary’s comeback as the Democrats’ “heavy artillery” or the Big Apple’s next mayor.
“I’m certain Trump will screw up enough that by the fall of ’18, Hillary’s numbers will be way up again,” former Pennsylvania governor and DNC chair Ed Rendell told Politico.com.
For her part, Clinton, who sustained a resounding defeat in the 2016 presidential election, never misses a chance to criticize or mock President Donald Trump.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 10, 2017
”3-0,” Hillary tweeted last Thursday, in an apparent reference to the ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold Judge James Robart’s decision to suspend Trump’s executive order on immigration.
“The score appeared to allude to the unanimous 3-0 decision handed down by the appeals court,” Daniel Halper of New York Post remarked Friday.
However, it seems that Clinton’s past could get in the way of her return to big politics.
Alleged Fraud: It’s too Big to Remain Swept Under the Rug
Charles K. Ortel, a US writer and Wall Street investor analyst, who uncovered General Electric stock being overvalued before market crash in 2008, highlights that the story of The Clinton Foundation’s financial manipulation is too big to remain swept under the rug.
Presenting a scrupulous analysis of the Foundation’s financial activities on his website, the analyst calls attention to the fact that since the late 1990s the Clinton Foundation has de facto capitalized on the most burning humanitarian issues, by collecting millions of dollars and providing little if any information on how the money was actually spent.
“Since 23 October 1997, when the Clinton Foundation was organized, public filings suggest that approximately $2 billion may have been received in the form of contributions and grants,” Ortel told Sputnik.
“That said, there has never been a validly performed and legally compliant independent audit of any part of the Clinton Foundation for any period (part or full year) of operation. This means that no outsider has ever been able to ensure that all incoming donations landed in Clinton Foundation bank accounts. Given their loose (I might argue non-existent) financial controls, the international spread of their operations, and extreme volatility in foreign exchange rates, the potential for monies to leak out (diverted revenues, fake expenses) is substantial,” the analyst stressed.
“For example, the largest Clinton Foundation donor, a multilateral entity based in Switzerland called UNITAID claims that it sent around $650 million towards the Clinton Foundation starting late in 2006. Year-by year, close review of UNITAID claims made concerning their donations differ significantly with reports issued for similar years by the Clinton Foundation,” Ortel elaborated.
“In addition to financial irregularities that are evident following analysis of Clinton filings and those of significant donors such as UNITAID (others to investigate and compare include Gates Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (there are at least two — one in UK and a separate one in the US), and declarations by governments such as Australia, Norway, Canada, UK, Sweden, Ireland, and others.), one needs to look carefully at private gains that may have been created through operation of the Clinton ‘charities.’ A place to start is examining the ‘Commitments to Action’ declared by participants in the Clinton Global Initiative — here, it seems that many ‘donors’ derived benefits and that these benefits were substantial in financial terms,” the analyst said.
In addition, the Foundation’s collaboration with foreign sponsors during Hillary Clinton’s term as a US Secretary of State had repeatedly raised concerns of alleged conflict of interest.
“The Clinton Foundation (including its various entities) has never truthfully disclosed on state forms (see requirements in New York and California, for example) the exact amounts and stated purposes of donations from numerous foreign governments,” Ortel noted.
Who Will Launch an Investigation Into the Clinton Foundation’s Alleged Fraud?
The question then arises why an all-out investigation into the alleged fraud has yet to be initiated by US authorities.
Dady Chery, News Junkie Post Co-Editor in Chief and DadyChery.org editor who authored “We Have Dared to Be Free: Haiti’s Struggle Against Occupation” believes that sooner or later the Clinton Foundation’s operators will be held accountable for their misdeeds.
In her previous interviews with Sputnik Chery shed light on the Clintons’ cashing in on the Haitian earthquake of 2010.
“I don’t think the Trump administration wants any accusation of persecuting its political opponents,” Chery told Sputnik on Monday, “This is probably why, during his confirmation hearings, former Senator and now Attorney General, Jeff Sessions said he would bow out of any Hillary Clinton investigations.”
“This does not mean that Hillary Clinton will get a pass,” she specified, “It just means that in the US, it is probably the Congress that will spearhead the investigation.”
“Representative Jason Chaffetz, the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has promised that the investigations would continue. I certainly hope that the fate of the USAID funds for Haiti’s reconstruction, for example, will be investigated, and all those found guilty of misappropriation will be punished,” Chery stressed.
However, it’s not only up to the US Congress or President Trump to expedite the process: for their part, the Foundation’s foreign sponsors might raise the issue of the misappropriation of funds.
“One thing to consider is that while the Clintons may be able to manipulate America’s bitterly divided political landscape and opaque regulatory system, they and their ‘foundations’ are subject to foreign laws, and vulnerable, in my view, should investigations expand and prosecutions result in foreign jurisdictions,” Ortel told Sputnik.
“As a guess,” he added, “foreign governments until now have been reluctant to examine vexing questions surrounding how Clinton entities could take and spend donations without organizing, operating, and reporting lawfully, because the IRS and other US regulators have not yet acted.”
However, it is up to foreign donors “to decide what they may wish to do to recover donations made to Clinton charities, if they conclude, as I see just from evidence in the public domain that this is certainly not charity,” Ortel noted.
What’s Behind Hillary Clinton’s Renewed Political Activity?
Meanwhile, some generous foreign sponsors have turned their back of the Clinton Foundation by slashing their donations to the charity after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential race.
“A cynic might suggest that the Clintons were able to garner much of their current wealth by catering to those who sought to benefit (or escape prosecution) under a Hillary Clinton Administration,” Ortel said commenting on the matter.
“The Clintons, until recently, had a long record of rewarding political supporters and of punishing political enemies. When they left the White House in January 2001, they were ‘dead-broke’ by their own admission — now they are said to be multi-millionaires,” he explained.
And this is the cause of Hillary Clinton’s renewed political activity, according to the analyst.
“Unless a member of the Clinton family is rumored to be seeking elected office, their ability to attract more wealth and income arguably ebbs — so, it seems natural they might float plans whether for Hillary or even for Chelsea to seek political office,” Ortel assumed.
In apparent attempt to gain political capital, Hillary Clinton has openly endorsed protest movements against Trump’s policies.
I stand with the people gathered across the country tonight defending our values & our Constitution. This is not who we are.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 29, 2017
”I stand with the people gathered across the country tonight defending our values & our Constitution. This is not who we are,” Clinton tweeted on January 29 commenting on protests against Trump’s executive order on immigration.
Politico’s Kenneth Vogel noted in his November op-ed that powerful liberal magnates, including George Soros, were up in arms about Trump’s rise. Observers believe that these sponsors could have been behind the protests.
Is Hillary Clinton Involved in Anti-Trump Protests?
Is it possible that the Clintons are also involved in these activities?
“[George] Soros’ influence has been on the decline since Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election,” Chery responded, “So far, by financing various protests and legal challenges against Trump through his various foundations Soros has managed to control the news agenda and draw attention away from the changes by the new administration.”
“[Soros] is not used to losing, but he might as well start to like it, because he’ll probably not win much else,” Chery believes.
Ortel shares a similar stance.
“I suspect that like-minded associates of the Clintons and of Soros are deeply involved in coordinating resistance to the Trump Administration,” he said.
“Here, I think they will fail and caution them that there are also strict rules on the books that should be enforced assiduously against ‘charities’ that are in fact political advocacy organizations. Two that spring to mind are Media Matters and Center for American Progress but there are many others funded by Soros and his allies that offer tax deductions to fund partisan political activity — this is forbidden according to existing laws. The question now is how the new Administration will exercise discretion to investigate and then to prosecute the worst offenders,” Ortel told Sputnik.
Both experts don’t believe that the Clintons will manage to win this political battle.
“It’s hard to believe that the Democratic Party, or anybody for that matter, would bet on her again for any political office. She had everything going for her, and she still lost. Besides, she will probably soon be in a heap of legal trouble,” Chery suggested.
Ortel is also highly skeptical about Hillary Clinton’s chances: “I am not a political expert, but I struggle to find examples where a supposed front-runner for the US presidency has lost twice, so badly.”
However, it seems that the Clintons may find themselves in a deep trouble if the Foundation’s alleged fraud is confirmed: “In other cases that are far smaller in financial terms, and in my view, less serious, operators of charity frauds have suffered lengthy jail terms, and crippling financial penalties,” Ortel said.
In Hillary Clinton’s own words: “There should be no individual too big to jail.”
"There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail." —Hillary #DemDebate
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 18, 2016