Clintons Could Owe Taxes on Hundreds of Millions of Dollars

congressional hearing on the Clinton Foundation turned into a fiasco on Thursday after Republicans clashed with their own witnesses — two private investigators who refused to turn over documents that they claimed showed evidence of criminal wrongdoing at the Clinton Foundation.

John Moynihan and Larry Doyle, financial analysts who say they have uncovered evidence of pay-to-play and financial crimes at the Clinton Foundation, were invited to testify on their findings by the House Oversight Committee’s Republican Chairman Mark Meadows.

But tensions erupted between Meadows and the two witnesses after Moynihan and Doyle refused to turn over 6,000 pages of documents that they say back up their claims — documents that the pair has already given to the FBI and the IRS.

“If you’re not going to share [the documents] with the committee and cut to the chase, my patience is running out,” said Meadows. After consulting briefly with their attorney, who was present, Moynihan and Doyle said they still would not turn over their report but would answer questions about it.

Moynihan is a private financial investigator whose online biography says he previously worked for the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Agency. Doyle said he went into financial investigation after a career on Wall Street.

During their testimony, Moynihan and Doyle said they carried out an extensive forensic investigation of the Clinton Foundation based on public records, tax filings, and private interviews with Clinton Foundation officials. The investigators said Clinton Foundation CFO Andrew Kessel admitted to them in a taped conversation that Bill Clinton used the foundation’s bank accounts for personal expenses.

“He told us that Mr. Clinton mixed and matched his personal business with that of the foundation,” said Moynihan.

They also said they viewed foundation emails from 2002 discussing deals with the government of Mozambique. Moynihan said this was evidence that the Clinton Foundation was working on behalf of foreign governments even though the foundation’s stated mission in IRS filings at the time was to build Bill Clinton’s presidential library.

“The foundation began working as an agent of a foreign government early in its life and continued” to do so, said Moynihan.

Moynihan and Doyle said they could not turn over the documents from their investigation to the committee because they did not want to infringe on ongoing investigations at government agencies.

They said they hope to make money off their investigation and have turned over the documents to the IRS as part of a “probable cause” submission. The IRS does sometimes pay whistleblowers and tipsters from taxes they recoup in such cases.

But Meadows questioned that explanation, saying he spoke to the IRS before the hearing and was told the witnesses’ work with the committee would have no impact on the status of the IRS investigation. “I don’t find how [refusing to turn over information] provides a good foundation for truth and transparency,” said Meadows.

Republican Rep. Jody Hice also criticized the witnesses. “I feel like you’re using us for your own benefit,” said Hice, adding that there was a “little game going on here.”

Moynihan argued that he and Doyle were invited to the hearing and would have happily not attended. “Let me be very clear. You invited us. If you don’t want us, disinvite us,” he said.

Moynihan added that there was no benefit to sharing the documents with the committee because congress doesn’t have law enforcement capabilities. “That’s why we presented to government agencies, which you’re not,” said Moynihan. Meadows promised to subpoena the documents from his witnesses.

“Don’t get cute with me,” he told Moynihan. “I thought you said you were all about the rule of law, all about the truth.”

Thursday’s hearing will be the last one led this year by Meadows, who will hand over the chairman’s gavel to the incoming House Democratic majority at the beginning of 2019.

Meadows said the hearing was necessary in light of news that the foundation’s donations plummeted by 58 percent after Hillary Clinton lost the election. The drop in contributions "could suggest pay to play activity in the years prior to the decrease in donations," said Meadows.

Meadows also expressed disappointment that the Department of Justice declined to send U.S. Attorney John Huber, who is reportedly investigating the foundation, to testify on Thursday.

Rep. Gerry Connolly, the ranking Democrat on the committee, objected to the hearing as a rehash of "conspiracy theories."

"It’s two weeks before Christmas and my Republican friends are re-gifting an old trope that needs desperate reworking," said Connolly.
 
John Moynihan and Larry Doyle testified that the foundation had violated its tax status, co-mingled funds with personal use and engaged in pay-to-play while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. But as even Alana Goodman of the Washington Examiner reported, the hearing eventually blew up over their refusal to turn over their 6,000 page written report to the committee.

A congressional hearing on the Clinton Foundation turned into a fiasco on Thursday after Republicans clashed with their own witnesses — two private investigators who refused to turn over documents that they claimed showed evidence of criminal wrongdoing at the Clinton Foundation.

John Moynihan and Larry Doyle, financial analysts who say they have uncovered evidence of pay-to-play and financial crimes at the Clinton Foundation, were invited to testify on their findings by the House Oversight Committee’s Republican Chairman Mark Meadows.

But tensions erupted between Meadows and the two witnesses after Moynihan and Doyle refused to turn over 6,000 pages of documents that they say back up their claims — documents that the pair has already given to the FBI and the IRS.

To understand what happened, you need some information about Moynihan and Doyle and what they hope to get out of their investigation. In his opening statement Moynihan said that no one was paying them for their work and that they were simply motivated by finding the truth. But its a little more complicated than that.

While I wouldn’t doubt that there is some dark money behind their efforts, the real payoff they’re hoping for stems from the fact that they filed their claims with the IRS. That’s because a whistleblower program “pays those who expose any form of tax underpayment. In cases that exceed $2 million, the Office pays 15-30% of unpaid taxes, fines, and interest collected.” According to Doyle’s testimony, they believe that the Clinton Foundation owes at minimum $400 million in taxes, which would net them between $60-120 million for their efforts. That provides both the motivation for their findings as well as their reason for not wanting to turn their evidence over to the committee—they want to protect their investment. After receiving a preliminary denial of their claims from the IRS, Moynihan indicated that if the department doesn’t rule in their favor, they will file a civil suit.

However, under questioning from Rep. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-DC), we learned that at least a portion of their report had been given to Republicans on the committee.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/...ing-on-the-clinton-foundation-was-a-disaster/
 
Heff said:
By all means. Their testimony starts at 1:30:00


Here's some quotes, and this is just the tax stuff. Wait till they speak on the criminal aspects.

"The investigation clearly demonstrates that the foundation was not a charitable organization per se, but in point of fact was a closely held family partnership. As such, it was governed in a fashion in which it sought in large measure to advance the personal interests of its principles as detailed within the financial analysis of this submission and further confirmed within the supporting documentation and evidence section."

"It began acting as an agent of foreign governments ‘early in its life’ and throughout its existence. As such, the foundation should’ve registered under FARA."
Click to expand...

Bizarre stuff. They're claiming they aren't working for anyone for political reasons and financed the investigation out of their own pockets. But then, under questioning, they admitted they were doing it for money and this is how they make a living. When it was then probed whether they'd ever filed something like this before, they admitted this was there first. So, nobody is paying them, they've never done this before, yet they're doing it for pay and do this for a living. WTF? There was a lot of high-priced Wall Street man-hours going into this. Who paid for it or will be paying for it? If they're just hoping for a whistle-blower payoff from the IRS, why is this the first time for them?

Anyway, do you have a link to the written report? I'd like to see the support for the claim that this was a closely held family partnership. The Clinton Foundation's public documents make it clear that the Clinton family was a minority of board members and held no significant operation roles in the Foundation. So, what did they rely on to draw the contrary conclusions?
 
noise said:
John Moynihan and Larry Doyle testified that the foundation had violated its tax status, co-mingled funds with personal use and engaged in pay-to-play while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. But as even Alana Goodman of the Washington Examiner reported, the hearing eventually blew up over their refusal to turn over their 6,000 page written report to the committee.

A congressional hearing on the Clinton Foundation turned into a fiasco on Thursday after Republicans clashed with their own witnesses — two private investigators who refused to turn over documents that they claimed showed evidence of criminal wrongdoing at the Clinton Foundation.

John Moynihan and Larry Doyle, financial analysts who say they have uncovered evidence of pay-to-play and financial crimes at the Clinton Foundation, were invited to testify on their findings by the House Oversight Committee’s Republican Chairman Mark Meadows.

But tensions erupted between Meadows and the two witnesses after Moynihan and Doyle refused to turn over 6,000 pages of documents that they say back up their claims — documents that the pair has already given to the FBI and the IRS.

To understand what happened, you need some information about Moynihan and Doyle and what they hope to get out of their investigation. In his opening statement Moynihan said that no one was paying them for their work and that they were simply motivated by finding the truth. But its a little more complicated than that.

While I wouldn’t doubt that there is some dark money behind their efforts, the real payoff they’re hoping for stems from the fact that they filed their claims with the IRS. That’s because a whistleblower program “pays those who expose any form of tax underpayment. In cases that exceed $2 million, the Office pays 15-30% of unpaid taxes, fines, and interest collected.” According to Doyle’s testimony, they believe that the Clinton Foundation owes at minimum $400 million in taxes, which would net them between $60-120 million for their efforts. That provides both the motivation for their findings as well as their reason for not wanting to turn their evidence over to the committee—they want to protect their investment. After receiving a preliminary denial of their claims from the IRS, Moynihan indicated that if the department doesn’t rule in their favor, they will file a civil suit.

However, under questioning from Rep. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-DC), we learned that at least a portion of their report had been given to Republicans on the committee.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/...ing-on-the-clinton-foundation-was-a-disaster/
Click to expand...

If they're unwilling to share their evidence, they shouldn't be testifying at all. Simply calling them in to push evidence-free assertions that they have a financial stake in is irresponsible. Let the IRS look at what they provided and figure out if there were, in fact, unpaid taxes, and then make everything public.
 
Oneuli said:
Bizarre stuff. They're claiming they aren't working for anyone for political reasons and financed the investigation out of their own pockets. But then, under questioning, they admitted they were doing it for money and this is how they make a living. When it was then probed whether they'd ever filed something like this before, they admitted this was there first. So, nobody is paying them, they've never done this before, yet they're doing it for pay and do this for a living. WTF? There was a lot of high-priced Wall Street man-hours going into this. Who paid for it or will be paying for it? If they're just hoping for a whistle-blower payoff from the IRS, why is this the first time for them?

Anyway, do you have a link to the written report? I'd like to see the support for the claim that this was a closely held family partnership. The Clinton Foundation's public documents make it clear that the Clinton family was a minority of board members and held no significant operation roles in the Foundation. So, what did they rely on to draw the contrary conclusions?
Click to expand...

Yes we get it asshat; you don't like it when you stomp your little feet and demand evidence and a link and then get it. STFU you pathetic boorish buffoon. :laugh:
 
Oneuli said:
Bizarre stuff. They're claiming they aren't working for anyone for political reasons and financed the investigation out of their own pockets. But then, under questioning, they admitted they were doing it for money and this is how they make a living. When it was then probed whether they'd ever filed something like this before, they admitted this was there first. So, nobody is paying them, they've never done this before, yet they're doing it for pay and do this for a living. WTF? There was a lot of high-priced Wall Street man-hours going into this. Who paid for it or will be paying for it? If they're just hoping for a whistle-blower payoff from the IRS, why is this the first time for them?

Anyway, do you have a link to the written report? I'd like to see the support for the claim that this was a closely held family partnership. The Clinton Foundation's public documents make it clear that the Clinton family was a minority of board members and held no significant operation roles in the Foundation. So, what did they rely on to draw the contrary conclusions?
Click to expand...

All I am aware of is what they said during the hearing. According to them, their investigation contained both public and private information, including the word of high-level associates within the foundation itself.

I would also love to see their evidence, especially for the criminal stuff. Unfortunately it was submitted to the FBI, and according to them, they cannot release it because there is now an open investigation.
 
Oneuli said:
If they're unwilling to share their evidence, they shouldn't be testifying at all. Simply calling them in to push evidence-free assertions that they have a financial stake in is irresponsible. Let the IRS look at what they provided and figure out if there were, in fact, unpaid taxes, and then make everything public.
Click to expand...

They already handed it over to the proper authorities. They are not obligated to hand anything over to Congress. You'll learn that in the months to come when the Democrats attempt to exceed their Constitutional authority and get bitch slapped.

:laugh:
 
Truth Detector said:
They already handed it over to the proper authorities. They are not obligated to hand anything over to Congress. You'll learn that in the months to come when the Democrats attempt to exceed their Constitutional authority and get bitch slapped.

:laugh:
Click to expand...

Who are the proper authorities?
 
Heff said:
All I am aware of is what they said during the hearing. According to them, their investigation contained both public and private information, including the word of high-level associates within the foundation itself.

I would also love to see their evidence, especially for the criminal stuff. Unfortunately it was submitted to the FBI, and according to them, they cannot release it because there is now an open investigation.
Click to expand...

If I'm understanding this correctly, the idea is that they did a freelance audit of the Clinton Foundation, with the hope that if they could get the IRS to buy their argument that taxes are owed, they get a cut of it. If so, that's fine as far as it goes. Even if this "whistleblower" incentive program is effectively being abused by freelance trolls looking to score a cut of some charity money, I can still see value in allowing that, since it gives the nation unpaid watchdogs, keeping an eye on charities. But, it certainly makes me suspicious of the testimony. It wouldn't be a neutral statement of facts. It would, instead, be a bit of zealous advocacy on behalf of an argument where they personally have millions of dollars at stake. From the start, they needed to make a case and win it, because if they don't, thousands of hours of unpaid labor are never getting compensated. It's a bit like hearing from the attorney for a class action lawsuit, who doesn't get paid unless he wins. The class action case may be weak or strong, but either way he's going to tell you it's airtight.
 
Oneuli said:
If I'm understanding this correctly, the idea is that they did a freelance audit of the Clinton Foundation, with the hope that if they could get the IRS to buy their argument that taxes are owed, they get a cut of it. If so, that's fine as far as it goes. Even if this "whistleblower" incentive program is effectively being abused by freelance trolls looking to score a cut of some charity money, I can still see value in allowing that, since it gives the nation unpaid watchdogs, keeping an eye on charities. But, it certainly makes me suspicious of the testimony. It wouldn't be a neutral statement of facts. It would, instead, be a bit of zealous advocacy on behalf of an argument where they personally have millions of dollars at stake. From the start, they needed to make a case and win it, because if they don't, thousands of hours of unpaid labor are never getting compensated. It's a bit like hearing from the attorney for a class action lawsuit, who doesn't get paid unless he wins. The class action case may be weak or strong, but either way he's going to tell you it's airtight.
Click to expand...

Let me translate this pile of stupid:

giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top