Big Surprise: World’s largest corporations end contributions.
By Alex Christoforou
It should come as little surprise to see a new report detailing how the slush fund Clinton Foundation is now under severe financial strain after the world’s largest corporations are ending their contributions to the “charity.” And why would anyone in their right mind give a cent to the foundation which was merely a money laundering operation built on Clinton’s influence and access in Washington DC.
Now that the presidential loser Hillary Clinton is not sitting in the White House, the Clinton Foundation has no service to offer its “contributors.”
A new report by the International Business Times suggests the Clinton Foundation is facing a severe financial downturn after the world’s largest corporations ended all contributions to the slush fund “charity.”
Major corporations have stopped all donations to the Clinton Foundation ever since Donald Trump (not Hillary) won the 2016 US election. That list includes…“Boeing, Chevron, Daimler Trucks North America, Dell, Duke Energy, General Electric, Humana, Lockheed Martin and UPS.”
The IB Times reports…
Most of the companies that have previously donated to the Clinton Foundation didn’t contribute in the second quarter of 2017, according to the organization’s website, although some, including Acxiom Corporation, BTIG LLC, Google and Starkey Hearing Technologies, have. Cities, countries, foundations and other nonprofits also donate to the foundation, and some contributed in 2017.
It’s impossible to know precisely what’s happened to Clinton Foundation fundraising in the year since Secretary Clinton lost. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the foundation submits financial information to the Internal Revenue Service once per year, and information on both 2016 and 2017 is not yet publicly available. But International Business Times contacted nearly 50 major corporations that had previously donated to the foundation, asking if they had made new contributions after the 2016 presidential campaign. Thirty of them did not respond or declined to comment on the questions. Of the 18 that did, all said they had not made new donations.
According to The Gateway Pundit, reports of corporations turning their back on the foundation come amid a report largely ignored by the mainstream media, where hedge fund manager and self-described Wall Street whistleblower, Charles Ortel, alleges the Clinton Foundation purposely hid payments attached to the now infamous ‘Russia-Uranium One’ deal.
To stress the gravity of the Clinton Foundation’s Russian Uranium One scandal, Ortel told Infowars.com that he believes Clinton Foundation financial reports are criminally fraudulent in failing to report payments received in relation to the Russian Uranium One Scandal.
Take 2009 results , for example, completed during 2010,” Ortel argued. “You will not find combining results for the Clinton Foundation, by “Initiative” on the Clinton Foundation website as these are purposefully omitted. But you will find these key results on versions of the required audit that are obtained here in New York (punch in EIN: 31-1580204) and look at the 2009 filing.” […]“These show total contributions (normally these are from the general public) of $82.9 million and total grants (normally these are from governments and from foundations) of $162.9 million,” he continued. “Focus on the column “CHAI” (Clinton Health Access Initiative) that shows contributions of $15.5 million of the combined total) and $159.7 in grants of the total). Clearly “CHAI” existed during 2009 as a material portion of the Clinton Foundation.”
Wall Street whistleblower, Charles Ortel wonders, “who contributed $159.7 million to “CHAI” in 2009?”
Charles Ortel points out…
“By going here, we find that a Swiss NGO called UNITAID may have contributed $85 million during 2009.”
“There is no $85 million grant from UNITAID listed and there is no grant listed in 2009 that may have been routed through CGSGI from Russia or from any other source–in fact the combining statement shows $100 (not a typo) in contributions, and only $1.5 million in grants for ‘CGSGI.’”
Statement on Secretary Chu’s Departure from DOE
Published: Feb 1, 2013
WASHINGTON – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., issued the following statement on the announcement that Secretary Steven Chu is leaving his post at the Department of Energy:
“While I wish Secretary Chu well in his future endeavors and respect his contributions to his country as a scientist, the direction the Department of Energy has taken under his leadership has been disconcerting. While many will remember Secretary Chu for his comments about the need to raise gas prices on American consumers and the high grades he publicly bestowed on himself, I found taxpayer losses on projects like Solyndra and the Department’s deeply misguided effort to use taxpayer dollars as an investment bank for unproven technologies to be the most problematic aspects of his legacy.
“Uncovered e-mails from Department employees, sent in violation of the Federal Records Act, even raised fundamental questions about rogue operators at the center of the Department’s controversial loans program engaging in an intentional effort to hide discussions from oversight. The e-mails revealed a culture that looked to White House officials, and not the Secretary, as key decision makers on loan issues for politically connected companies seeking assistance. The next Secretary of Energy will need to refocus the Department on removing barriers for the safe use of proven technologies that can quickly lower the costs of energy for all Americans and reduce our dependence on foreign sources.”
|March 20, 2012 Hearing: "Oversight of the Department of Energy's Stimulus Spending"|