Hold on! Clintons don't benefit from foundation? Despite mounting evidence it operates as family 'slush fund' Published: 09/02/2016 at 9:13 PM
A Democratic Party pundit’s claim that the Clinton family does not personally benefit from its scandal-ridden foundation is “mostly true,” according to the fact-check website Politifact.
Hilary Rosen said in an NPR interview that the Clinton Foundation “is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it.”
The fact checker’s Punditfact acknowledges the Clintons receive indirect personal benefits such as media attention, relationships with “wealthy and powerful individuals” who donate to the party and six-figure speaking fees and luxury air travel, but argues they may have received these benefits without the foundation.
But there is growing evidence that the Clintons are guilty of the crime of inurement – personally profiting from a non-profit organization, the central charge in Jerome Corsi’s new book, “Partners in Crime.”
He cites Wall Street analyst and investor Charles Ortel, whose extensive research into Clinton Foundation operations led him to characterize the Clinton family charity as “a vast criminal conspiracy” and “a giant, cross-border, financial fraud that extends to all 50 states and to more than 75 countries worldwide.”
“The problem is that all Clinton Foundation audited financial statements and supporting disclosures filed from 2001 through 2013 are false and materially misleading,” Ortel alleges.
MANUREMENT we knew about. This is a new one on me!
"If we have no idea what our institutions are doing we have no hope of reforming them." Julian Assange *** "Maybe God is trying to tell us something important- that now is not the time for a “nice Christian guy” or a “gentleman” or a typical Republican powder puff. Maybe now is the time for a natural born killer, a ruthless fighter, a warrior. Because right about now we need a miracle, or America is finished. Maybe the rules of gentleman don’t apply here. Maybe a gentleman and “all-around nice Christian” would lead us to slaughter." Wayne Allyn Root
It should go without saying that the money and other assets a nonprofit obtains are to be used only for the organization’s nonprofit purposes, not for the private gain or enrichment of those who run the nonprofit, founded it, work for it, contribute to it, or are related to it in any way--we'll refer to these individuals as "insiders." The tax law provides that an organization is entitled to tax-exempt status only if it is "organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific" and a few other specified purposes. Obviously, this requirement is not satisfied where a nonprofit’s money is used to benefit insiders, instead of furthering its exempt purposes.
Lawyers have coined the confusing term “private inurement” to describe when a nonprofit's money or other assets are devoted to private uses by insiders instead of the charitable purposes they were intended for. Here are just a few examples:
•A nonprofit executive used the organization’s money to pay his child's college tuition, lease a luxury car for his wife, have his kitchen remodeled, and rent a vacation house at the beach. The nonprofit also permitted him to charge almost $60,000 in personal expenses to the organization’s American Express card.
•The CEO at a tax-exempt hospital used charitable assets to pay for personal items such as liquor, china, crystal, perfume, an airplane, and theater tickets. The hospital also picked up the tab for the CEO's country club charges and catered lunches to the tune of approximately $20,000.
•A nonprofit paid $200,000 for its executive director's wedding reception and tropical island honeymoon. The nonprofit also plunked down $90,000 for the down payment on the director's home and had enough left over to pay for his trip to a desert health spa.