Has Hillary walked into a FBI trap?

The Piratearian Updated 11/2/2016

This week is about to get very bad for Hillary Clinton.
James Comey has laid a trap and the democrats have walked right into it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html

 

Last Friday James Comey dropped a bomb that the FBI was reopening its investigation in the Clinton email scandal based on new evidence discovered in a “unrelated” case.
This “unrelated” case ended up being very related. The case he spoke of was the FBI investigation of Anthony Weiner husband of Huma Abedin.

clinton-huma

FBI forensic evidence was found on a laptop shared by Weiner and Abedin. This led to the discovery of “10’s of thousands” of Abedin work related emails.

Ms. Abedin was Hillary’s closest adviser.
Routinely Hillary would forward to Huma emails to print because Hillary could not figure out how to print and did not like to work off of a computer. This will show that Hillary removed multiple “top secret” and “Classified” emails from a secure system. This is a crime. Ms. Abedin it is rumored also worked with Cheryl Mills to reclassify emails or strip them of their markings which is another crime. Huma also signed documents upon leaving the state dept that she had surrendered all documents related to her service.
Ms. Abedin and Mills were also Clinton’s interface with the Clinton foundation and would decide who got favors or to meet with Clinton. It has been shown that preference was given to Clinton Foundation Donors who had donated large sums of cash to the foundation or paid Bill, Hillary and Chelsea obscene amounts of cash for speaking engagements or “pay to play”. This also included foreign governments and corporations including Muslim organizations and countries.  It is also widely known that Ms. Abedin has worked for and her family works for radical Muslim organizations. (If it is shown that Ms. Abedin shared any of these Clinton emails with her family or foreign organizations this is another crime not only by Abedin but by Hillary Clinton who let the classified information be stolen.)

This is very significant because these emails are related to 2 or more different FBI investigations.
The Clinton email scandal, an ongoing investigation into the Clinton foundation based on RICO charges and maybe foreign espionage.

On July 5th this Pirate watched as James Comey laid out the evidence the FBI had gathered to date on Hillary Clinton. As he spoke I knew that he had enough to bring charges against Hillary Clinton for lying, destruction of evidence, mishandling government property and more. Then at the last moment he announced that he “did not believe that any prosecutor would convict her.” This was because he was under pressure from Loretta Lynch to say this.  Later under oath in front of a congressional panel Director Comey testified that he had evidence that Clinton WAS guilty of many crimes.

hillary-clinton-email-un-20150310

Just days before Ms. Lynch met with Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix, AZ. in a “secret” meeting that was discovered by a local reporter. In this meeting President Clinton either threatened Ms. Lynch or made promises to bribe her. Either way the fix was in.

Over the next few months there was public outrage and rebellion inside the FBI as 1000’s of career agents who knew there was plenty of evidence to prosecute her protested not only to Comey but as “unnamed sources.”

More evidence also came out from Wikileaks that showed that the Clinton criminal enterprise was misleading the public, telling the media how to rig polls, hiring criminals to disrupt Trump rallies and exposing that Podesta was aware of a upcoming assassination or as he stated “Wet Works” just days before Justice Scalia was found dead / murdered.

The final straw was when it was discovered that Hillary Clinton had raised over a Million Dollars for a PAC run by Terry McAuliffe the governor of Virginia and a close Clinton Allie.
McAuliffe then donated over $500,000 to the campaign fund of a senior FBI agent Andrew McAbe who would be the key agent on the Clinton email investigation and may have been the source in the FBI who granted approval for many forms of immunity for almost every Clinton aid in the investigation. In my opinion this pushed Comey over the edge and led to the trap being laid.

Once the announcement of the reopening was made the Clinton campaign went ballistic.
They are now demanding that the FBI release more information. I think that this week the FBI will announce more info. If I am correct Comey will come out and disclose some of what was found on the Weiner computer was Hillary Clinton Classified information. He will also announce the investigation of the Clinton foundation and his recommendation that it be presented to either a Grand Jury or a Special Prosecutor.

What is not in doubt is that the Clinton’s are running a criminal organization and are not honest. They also have no regard for security procedures and are only interested in enriching themselves.

Based on evidence there is no way that Hilary Clinton can be allowed to become President of the United States.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/doug-band-john-podesta-if-story-gets-out-we-are-screwed

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/former-fbi-asst-director-accuses-clintons-being-crime-family

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/10/29/who-huma-abedin-hillary-clintons-right-hand-woman/92956668/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-29/fbi-found-tens-thousands-emails-belonging-huma-abedin-weiners-laptop

 

Why Polls are wrong on Clinton lead

Here is the Quinnipiac latest Poll.

First it does not show sample size.

2nd it is an ANTI Trump Poll.

Notice the NEGATIVE questions they ask:
8. As you may know, there is a recently released tape in which Donald Trump brags about
sexually assaulting women. Trump has since apologized and said that these comments were
simply “locker room talk”. In deciding your vote for president, is what Trump said in
that video a deal breaker, a big deal but not a deal breaker, or not a big deal?

9. As you may know, multiple women have recently said that Donald Trump groped or made
inappropriate sexual advances towards them without their consent. Trump has denied these
allegations, calling them lies. Do you believe that Donald Trump committed these actions,
or not?

10. In deciding your vote for president, are the allegations that Donald Trump groped or
made inappropriate sexual advances towards women a deal breaker, a big deal but not a
deal breaker, or not a big deal?

Please notice that there is not ONE question involving Clinton Emails, Lies, Clinton foundation illegal donations or Bills infidelities.

This poll also relied on HEAVY Democrat states.

This is the RIGGING of the election.

 

CLINTON TOPS TRUMP BY 7 POINTS,
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS;
MOST VOTERS SAY MEDIA IS BIASED AGAINST TRUMP
Republican Donald Trump’s lead among men and white voters all but vanishes as Democrat
Hillary Clinton takes a 47 – 40 percent likely voter lead, with 7 percent for Libertarian Party
candidate Gary Johnson and 1 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, according to a
Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
This compares to a 45 – 40 percent Clinton lead in an October 7 survey by the
independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.
Today, men are divided with 43 percent for Trump and 41 percent for Clinton. Women
back Clinton 52 – 37 percent.
White voters go 45 percent for Trump and 41 percent for Clinton, while non-white voters
back Clinton 63 – 25 percent.
In a head-to-head, two-way race, Clinton tops Trump 50 – 44 percent.
The news media is biased against Trump, American likely voters say 55 – 42 percent,
including Republicans 88 – 8 percent and independent voters 61 – 37 percent. Democrats say
77 – 20 percent that the media is not biased.
American likely voters believe 51 – 31 percent that Trump assaulted several women.
Democrats believe it 84 – 5 percent and independent voters believe it 45 – 34 percent.
Republicans don’t believe it 56 – 22 percent.
“Donald Trump made the charge, and American likely voters agree: There IS a media
bias against the GOP contender,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac
University Poll.
“But does that explain his lackluster standing with his core base?”
-moreTim
Malloy, Assistant Director
(203) 645-8043
Rubenstein
Pat Smith (212) 843-8026
2
Quinnipiac University Poll/October 19, 2016 – page 2
Trump does not have a sense of decency, American likely voters say 59 – 36 percent and
he is not fit to be president, voters say 58 – 38 percent.
Clinton does have a sense of decency, voters say 55 – 42 percent, but they are divided on
whether she is fit to be president, as 47 percent say yes and 49 percent say no.
“Media bias or not, Trump’s character issues have ominous implications,” Malloy said.
“The consensus opinion is that Trump groped women and is neither fit enough nor a decent
enough person to be President.”
From October 17 – 18, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,007 likely voters
nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points. Live interviewers call
landlines and cell phones.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts
public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida,
Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina, Georgia and the nation as a public
service and for research.
Visit http://www.qu.edu/polling or http://www.facebook.com/quinnipiacpoll
Call (203) 582-5201, or follow us on Twitter @QuinnipiacPoll.
3
1. If the presidential election were being held today, and the candidates were
Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine the Democrats, Donald Trump and Mike Pence the Republicans,
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld the Libertarians, and Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka the Green
party candidates, for whom would you vote? (If undecided) As of today, do you lean more
toward Clinton and Kaine, Trump and Pence, Johnson and Weld, or Stein and Baraka?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Clinton and Kaine 47% 7% 91% 38% 41% 52% 46% 35%
Trump and Pence 40 80 4 42 43 37 42 49
Johnson and Weld 7 6 3 11 10 4 7 9
Stein and Baraka 1 2 1 2 1 2 – 2
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 – 1 – 1 1 –
DK/NA 5 4 2 6 5 4 3 5
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Clinton and Kaine 57% 47% 43% 46% 36% 45% 41% 63%
Trump and Pence 20 35 48 47 49 42 45 25
Johnson and Weld 19 8 4 1 10 6 8 4
Stein and Baraka 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 – – – 1 1 –
DK/NA 1 6 4 5 3 5 4 5
2. If the only candidates were Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine the Democrats and
Donald Trump and Mike Pence the Republicans, for whom would you vote? (If undecided) As
of today, do you lean more toward Clinton and Kaine or Trump and Pence?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Clinton and Kaine 50% 10% 93% 41% 44% 55% 49% 39%
Trump and Pence 44 86 4 49 48 40 46 55
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 – 1 – 1 1 –
DK/NA 6 4 3 8 8 4 4 6
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Clinton and Kaine 63% 51% 45% 46% 40% 48% 44% 65%
Trump and Pence 32 39 50 49 55 46 50 28
SMONE ELSE(VOL) – 1 1 – 1 1 1 –
DK/NA 4 8 4 5 5 5 5 7
*Results based on total sample, only asked of respondents who did not choose Clinton or
Trump Q1. Respondents who named Clinton or Trump in Q1 assigned to initial preference.
4
3. Compared to past presidential elections, how would you describe your level of
motivation to vote in this year’s presidential election; are you more motivated than
usual, less motivated, or about the same as usual?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
More 53% 56% 52% 54% 50% 55% 54% 52%
Less 17 21 14 17 19 15 13 20
About the same 29 22 34 29 30 28 33 27
DK/NA 1 1 – 1 – 1 – 2
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
More 46% 48% 55% 58% 51% 55% 53% 52%
Less 28 23 11 13 17 15 16 18
About the same 26 30 33 27 32 28 30 30
DK/NA – – 1 2 – 2 1 –
4. Would you say that Hillary Clinton is fit to be President of the United States or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 47% 11% 86% 41% 43% 51% 51% 36%
No 49 86 11 56 54 45 48 59
DK/NA 4 2 3 3 3 5 1 4
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 52% 50% 44% 47% 41% 47% 44% 56%
No 45 47 52 49 58 49 53 37
DK/NA 2 4 4 4 1 4 3 6
5. Would you say that Donald Trump is fit to be President of the United States or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 38% 71% 4% 42% 43% 33% 40% 46%
No 58 27 93 52 53 62 58 49
DK/NA 4 3 2 6 4 5 3 5
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 24% 33% 44% 41% 50% 36% 43% 24%
No 74 64 50 53 48 58 54 70
DK/NA 2 3 5 6 2 6 4 6
5
6. Would you say that Hillary Clinton has a sense of decency or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 55% 21% 92% 47% 49% 59% 52% 48%
No 42 75 7 50 48 37 46 49
DK/NA 3 5 1 2 3 3 3 3
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 73% 53% 48% 53% 45% 55% 50% 67%
No 25 44 48 44 52 43 47 28
DK/NA 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 5
7. Would you say that Donald Trump has a sense of decency or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 36% 64% 7% 40% 45% 28% 35% 43%
No 59 31 90 54 51 66 61 51
DK/NA 5 4 3 6 4 6 4 6
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 24% 31% 41% 41% 47% 31% 39% 28%
No 76 65 52 55 48 64 56 66
DK/NA – 4 7 4 4 5 5 6
8. As you may know, there is a recently released tape in which Donald Trump brags about
sexually assaulting women. Trump has since apologized and said that these comments were
simply “locker room talk”. In deciding your vote for president, is what Trump said in
that video a deal breaker, a big deal but not a deal breaker, or not a big deal?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Deal breaker 27% 5% 48% 24% 21% 31% 29% 21%
Big deal/Nt deal br. 35 36 34 36 36 34 34 33
Not a big deal 35 59 11 38 41 29 33 43
DK/NA 4 1 7 2 2 5 4 3
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Deal breaker 34% 29% 24% 23% 20% 30% 25% 31%
Big deal/Nt deal br. 47 36 32 30 34 32 33 37
Not a big deal 19 33 38 42 44 32 38 27
DK/NA 1 2 6 5 1 5 3 5
6
9. As you may know, multiple women have recently said that Donald Trump groped or made
inappropriate sexual advances towards them without their consent. Trump has denied these
allegations, calling them lies. Do you believe that Donald Trump committed these actions,
or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 51% 22% 84% 45% 44% 56% 50% 45%
No 31 56 5 34 37 26 31 37
DK/NA 19 22 11 21 19 18 19 18
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 64% 55% 44% 50% 42% 53% 48% 61%
No 20 28 37 31 40 29 34 22
DK/NA 16 17 19 19 18 19 18 17
10. In deciding your vote for president, are the allegations that Donald Trump groped or
made inappropriate sexual advances towards women a deal breaker, a big deal but not a
deal breaker, or not a big deal?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Deal breaker 28% 8% 52% 22% 22% 34% 30% 23%
Big deal/Nt deal br. 34 32 34 39 35 34 34 33
Not a big deal 33 59 10 33 39 28 33 42
DK/NA 4 1 4 6 4 4 3 3
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Deal breaker 46% 32% 22% 21% 20% 33% 26% 35%
Big deal/Nt deal br. 35 32 36 35 34 33 33 37
Not a big deal 15 32 38 40 43 32 37 23
DK/NA 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 5
11. Do you think that the news media is biased against Donald Trump or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes/Biased 55% 88% 20% 61% 61% 49% 51% 66%
No/Not biased 42 8 77 37 36 47 45 32
DK/NA 3 4 3 2 2 4 4 2
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes/Biased 60% 51% 56% 52% 66% 51% 58% 45%
No/Not biased 39 48 39 45 32 45 39 51
DK/NA 2 1 5 3 1 4 3 5

Click to access us10192016_U29frgv.pdf

The NY Times turns on Clinton

Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions

Jason Henry for The New York Times

Hillary Rodham Clinton speaking at an American Bar Association meeting in San Francisco on Monday.

<nyt_byline>

By  and 

Soon after the 10th anniversary of the foundation bearing his name,Bill Clinton met with a small group of aides and two lawyers from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Two weeks of interviews with Clinton Foundation executives and former employees had led the lawyers to some unsettling conclusions.

Multimedia
 
Joao Silva/The New York Times

Bill Clinton and his daughter, Chelsea, in South Africa last week.

  • The review echoed criticism of Mr. Clinton’s early years in the White House: For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

And concern was rising inside and outside the organization about Douglas J. Band, a onetime personal assistant to Mr. Clinton who had started a lucrative corporate consulting firm — which Mr. Clinton joined as a paid adviser — while overseeing the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation’s glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.

The review set off more than a year of internal debate, and spurred an evolution in the organization that included Mr. Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, taking on a dominant new role as the family grappled with the question of whether the foundation — and its globe-spanning efforts to combat AIDS, obesity and poverty — would survive its founder.

Now those efforts are taking on new urgency. In the coming weeks, the foundation, long Mr. Clinton’s domain since its formation in 2001, will become the nerve center ofHillary Rodham Clinton’s increasingly busy public life.

This fall, Mrs. Clinton and her staff will move into offices at the foundation’s new headquarters in Midtown Manhattan, occupying two floors of the Time-Life Building. Amid speculation about her 2016 plans, Mrs. Clinton is adding major new initiatives on women, children and jobs to what has been renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Worried that the foundation’s operating revenues depend too heavily on Mr. Clinton’s nonstop fund-raising, the three Clintons are embarking on a drive to raise an endowment of as much as $250 million, with events already scheduled in the Hamptons and London. And after years of relying on Bruce R. Lindsey, the former White House counsel whose friendship with Mr. Clinton stretches back decades, to run the organization while living part-time in Arkansas, the family has hired a New York-based chief executive with a background in management consulting.

“We’re trying to institutionalize the foundation so that it will be here long after the lives of any of us,” Mr. Lindsey said. “That’s our challenge and that is what we are trying to address.”

But the changing of the guard has aggravated long-simmering tensions within the former first family’s inner circle as the foundation tries to juggle the political and philanthropic ambitions of a former president, a potential future president, and their increasingly visible daughter.

And efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons’ charity work from Mr. Clinton’s moneymaking ventures and Mrs. Clinton’s political future, according to interviews with more than two dozen former and current foundation employees, donors and advisers to the family. Nearly all of them declined to speak for attribution, citing their unwillingness to alienate the Clinton family.

Powered by Celebrity

Last Thursday, Mr. Clinton arrived two hours late to an exuberant welcome at a health clinic about 60 miles north of Johannesburg. Children in zebra-striped loincloths sang as Mr. Clinton and Ms. Clinton made their entrance, and the former president enthusiastically explained how his foundation had helped the South African government negotiate large reductions in the price of drugs that halt the progress of HIV. Aaron Motsoaledi, South Africa’s minister of health, heaped praise on the effort. “Because of your help we are able to treat three and a half times more people than we used to,” he told the crowd.

The project is typical of the model pioneered by the Clinton Foundation, built around dozens of partnerships with private companies, governments, or other nonprofit groups. Instead of handing out grants, the foundation recruits donors and advises them on how best to deploy their money or resources, from helping Procter & Gamble donate advanced water-purification packets to developing countries to working with credit card companies to expand the volume of low-cost loans offered to poor inner city residents.

The foundation, which has 350 employees in 180 countries, remains largely powered by Mr. Clinton’s global celebrity and his ability to connect corporate executives, A-listers and government officials. On this month’s Africa trip, Mr. Clinton was accompanied by the actors Dakota Fanning and Jesse Eisenberg and the son of the New York City mayoral candidate John A. Catsimatidis, a longtime donor.

For most of the foundation’s existence, its leadership has been dominated by loyal veterans of the Clintons’ political lives. Ira C. Magaziner, who was a Rhodes scholar with Mr. Clinton and ran Mrs. Clinton’s failed attempt at a health care overhaul in the 1990s, is widely credited as the driving force behind the foundation’s largest project, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, which, among other efforts, negotiates bulk purchasing agreements and price discounts on lifesaving medicines.

Mr. Band, who arrived at the White House in 1995 and worked his way up to become Mr. Clinton’s closest personal aide, standing behind the president on golf courses and the global stage, helped build the foundation’s fund-raising structure. He conceived of and for many years helped run the Clinton Global Initiative, the annual conference that draws hundreds of business leaders and heads of state to New York City where attendees are pushed to make specific philanthropic commitments.

Today, big-name companies vie to buy sponsorships at prices of $250,000 and up, money that has helped subsidize the foundation’s annual operating costs. Last year, the foundation and two subsidiaries had revenues of more than $214 million.

Yet the foundation’s expansion has also been accompanied by financial problems. In 2007 and 2008, the foundation also found itself competing against Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign for donors amid a recession. Millions of dollars in contributions intended to seed an endowment were diverted to other programs, creating tension between Mr. Magaziner and Mr. Band. The foundation piled up a $40 million deficit during those two years, according to tax returns. Last year, it ran more than $8 million in the red.

Amid those shortfalls, the foundation has sometimes catered to donors and celebrities who gave money in ways that raised eyebrows in the low-key nonprofit world. In 2009, during a Clinton Global Initiative gathering at the University of Texas at Austin, the foundation purchased a first-class ticket for the actress Natalie Portman, a special guest, who brought her beloved Yorkie, according to two former foundation employees.

In interviews, foundation officials partly blamed the 2008 recession and difficulties in getting donors to provide operating support rather than restricted grants for specific programs for the deficits.

But others criticized Mr. Magaziner, who is widely seen within the foundation as impulsive and lacking organizational skills. On one occasion, Mr. Magaziner dispatched a team of employees to fly around the world for months gathering ideas for a climate change proposal that never got off the ground. Another time, he ignored a report — which was commissioned at significant expense from the consulting firm McKinsey & Company — on how the foundation could get involved in forestry initiatives.

Mr. Magaziner’s management style and difficulty keeping projects within budget were also raised in discussions that surrounded the 2011 Simpson Thacher review. (One person who attended a meeting with Mr. Magaziner recalled his lying on a conference room table in the middle of the meeting because of terrible back spasms, snapping at a staff member.)

Mr. Band repeatedly urged Mr. Clinton to fire Mr. Magaziner, according to people briefed on the matter. Mr. Clinton refused, confiding in aides that despite Mr. Magaziner’s managerial weaknesses, he was a visionary with good intentions. The former president, according to one person who knows them both, “thinks Ira is brilliant — and brilliant people get away with a lot in Clinton world.”

Indeed, by then, Mr. Magaziner had persuaded Mr. Clinton and the foundation to spin the health initiative off into a separate organization, with Mr. Magaziner as its chief executive and the Clinton Foundation appointing a majority of its board members. The financial problems continued. In 2010 and 2011, the first two years when the health initiative operated as a stand-alone organization, it ran annual shortfalls of more than $4 million. A new chief financial officer, hired in 2010, left eight months later.

A foundation official said the health initiative had only three chief financial officers in 10 years and that its financial problem was a common one in the nonprofit world: For all the grant money coming in — more than $160 million in 2011 — Mr. Magaziner had also had difficulty raising money for operating costs. But by the end of 2011, the health initiative had expanded its board, adding two seats. Chelsea Clinton took one.

Growing Ventures

As the foundation grew, so did the outside business ventures pursued by Mr. Clinton and several of his aides.

None have drawn more scrutiny in Clinton circles than Teneo, a firm co-founded in 2009 by Mr. Band, described by some as a kind of surrogate son to Mr. Clinton. Aspiring to merge corporate consulting, public relations and merchant banking in a single business, Mr. Band poached executives from Wall Street, recruited other Clinton aides to join as employees or advisers and set up shop in a Midtown office formerly belonging to one of the country’s top hedge funds.

By 2011, the firm had added a third partner, Declan Kelly, a former State Department envoy for Mrs. Clinton. And Mr. Clinton had signed up as a paid adviser to the firm.

Teneo worked on retainer, charging monthly fees as high as $250,000, according to current and former clients. The firm recruited clients who were also Clinton Foundation donors, while Mr. Band and Mr. Kelly encouraged others to become new foundation donors. Its marketing materials highlighted Mr. Band’s relationship with Mr. Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative, where Mr. Band sat on the board of directors through 2011 and remains an adviser. Some Clinton aides and foundation employees began to wonder where the foundation ended and Teneo began.

Those worries intensified after the collapse of MF Global, the international brokerage firm led by Jon S. Corzine, a former governor of New Jersey, in the fall of 2011. The firm had been among Teneo’s earliest clients, and its collapse over bad European investments — while paying $125,000 a month for the firm’s public relations and financial advice — drew Teneo and the Clintons unwanted publicity.

Mr. Clinton ended his advisory role with Teneo in March 2012, after an article appeared in The New York Post suggesting that Mrs. Clinton was angry over the MF Global controversy. A spokesman for Mr. Clinton denied the report. But in a statement released afterward, Mr. Clinton announced that he would no longer be paid by Teneo.

He also praised Mr. Band effusively, crediting him with keeping the foundation afloat and expressing hopes that Mr. Band would continue to advise the Global Initiative.

“I couldn’t have accomplished half of what I have in my post-presidency without Doug Band,” Mr. Clinton said in the statement.

Even that news release was a source of controversy within the foundation, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions. Mr. Band helped edit the statement, which other people around the Clintons felt gave him too much credit for the foundation’s accomplishments. (The quotation now appears as part of Mr. Band’s biography on the Teneo Web site.)

Mr. Band left his paid position with the foundation in late 2010, but has remained involved with C.G.I., as have a number of Teneo clients, like Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical and UBS Americas. Standard Chartered, a British financial services company that paid a $340 million fine to New York regulators last year to settle charges that it had laundered money from Iran, is a Teneo client and a sponsor of the 2012 global initiative.

Last year, Coca-Cola’s chief executive, Muhtar Kent, won a coveted spot on the dais with Mr. Clinton, discussing the company’s partnership with another nonprofit to use its distributors to deliver medical goods to patients in Africa. (A Coca-Cola spokesman said that the company’s sponsorship of foundation initiatives long predated Teneo and that the firm plays no role in Coca-Cola’s foundation work.)

In March 2012, David Crane, the chief executive of NRG, an energy company, led a widely publicized trip with Mr. Clinton to Haiti, where they toured green energy and solar power projects that NRG finances through a $1 million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative.

Officials said the foundation has established clear guidelines for the Clinton Global Initiative to help prevent any favoritism or special treatment of particular donors or sponsors.

Teneo was not the only worry: other events thrust the foundation into internal turmoil. In 2011, a wave of midlevel program staff members departed, reflecting the frustration of much of the foundation’s policy personnel with the old political hands running the organization. Around the time of the Simpson Thacher review, Mr. Lindsey suffered a stroke, underscoring concerns about the foundation’s line of succession. John D. Podesta, a chief of staff in Mr. Clinton’s White House, stepped in for several months as temporary chief executive.

While much attention has focused on Mrs. Clinton’s emerging role within the foundation, advisers to the family say her daughter’s growing involvement could prove more critical in the years ahead. After years of pursuing other career paths, including working at McKinsey & Company and a hedge fund, Ms. Clinton, 33, has begun to assert herself as a force within the foundation. Her perspective is shaped far more than her parents’ by her time in the world of business, and she is poised to play a significant role in shaping the foundation’s future, particularly if Mrs. Clinton chooses to run for president.

She formally joined the foundation’s board in 2011, marking her growing role there — and the start of intensifying tensions between her and Mr. Band. Several people close to the Clintons said that she became increasingly concerned with the negative impact Mr. Band’s outside business might have on her father’s work and that she cited concerns raised during the internal review about potential conflicts of interest involving Teneo.

It was Ms. Clinton who suggested that the newly installed chief executive, Eric Braverman, be considered for the job during a nearly two-year search. A friend and a former colleague from McKinsey, Mr. Braverman, 38, had helped the Clintons with philanthropic projects in Haiti after the earthquake there. And his hiring coincided with Ms. Clinton’s appointment as the vice chairwoman of the foundation board, where she will bear significant responsibility for steering her family’s philanthropy, both in the causes it tackles and in the potential political and financial conflicts it must avoid.

Ms. Clinton has also grown worried that the foundation she stood to inherit would collapse without her father, who turns 67 next week. Mr. Clinton, who had quadruple-bypass surgery in 2004 and no longer eats meat or dairy products, talks frequently about his own mortality.

Mr. Catsimatidis said Ms. Clinton “has to learn how to deal with the whole world because she wants to follow in the footsteps of her father and her mother.”

Shifting the Emphasis

Over the years, the foundation has dived into virtually any cause that sparked Mr. Clinton’s interest: childhood obesity in the United States, sustainable farming in South America, mentoring entrepreneurs, saving elephants from poaching, and more. That list will shift soon as Mrs. Clinton and Chelsea build their staffs to focus on issues including economically empowering women and combating infant mortality.

In the coming months, as Mrs. Clinton mulls a 2016 presidential bid, the foundation could also serve as a base for her to home in on issues and to build up a stable of trusted staff members who could form the core of a political campaign.

Mrs. Clinton’s staff at the foundation’s headquarters includes Maura Pally, a veteran aide who advised her 2008 presidential campaign and worked at the State Department, and Madhuri Kommareddi, a former policy aide to President Obama.

Dennis Cheng, Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of protocol at the State Department and a finance director of her presidential campaign, will oversee the endowment drive, which some of the Clintons’ donors already describe as a dry run for 2016.

And Mrs. Clinton’s personal staff of roughly seven people — including Huma Abedin, wife of the New York mayoral candidate Anthony D. Weiner — will soon relocate from a cramped Washington office to the foundation’s headquarters. They will work on organizing Mrs. Clinton’s packed schedule of paid speeches to trade groups and awards ceremonies and assist in the research and writing of Mrs. Clinton’s memoir about her time at the State Department, to be published by Simon & Schuster next summer.

<nyt_author_id>

Lydia Polgreen contributed reporting, and Kitty Bennett contributed research.

<nyt_correction_bottom>

<nyt_update_bottom>

A version of this article appeared in print on August 14, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions.

This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary. Cannot even balance a checkbook

The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary

By  US politics Last updated: August 14th, 2013

233 Comments Comment on this article

An internal review of the Clinton Foundations’ workings has proved troubling

Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh? Today it runs with a fascinating takedown of the Clinton Foundation – that vast vanity project that conservatives are wary of criticising for being seen to attack a body that tries to do good. But the liberal NYT has no such scruples. The killer quote is this:

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

Over a year ago Bill Clinton met with some aides and lawyers to review the Foundation’s progress and concluded that it was a mess. Well, many political start-ups can be, especially when their sole selling point is the big name of their founder (the queues are short at the Dan Quayle Vice Presidential Learning Center). But what complicated this review – what made its findings more politically devastating – is that the Clinton Foundation has become about more than just Bill. Now both daughter Chelsea and wife, and likely presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton have taken on major roles and, in the words of the NYT “efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons’ charity work from Mr Clinton’s moneymaking ventures and Mrs Clinton’s political future.” Oh, they’re entangled alright.

The NYT runs the scoop in its usual balanced, inoffensive way – but the problem jumps right off the page. The Clintons have never been able to separate the impulses to help others and to help themselves, turning noble philanthropic ventures into glitzy, costly promos for some future campaign (can you remember a time in human history when a Clinton wasn’t running for office?). And their “Ain’t I Great?!” ethos attracts the rich and powerful with such naked abandon that it ends up compromising whatever moral crusade they happen to have endorsed that month. That the Clinton Global Initiative is alleged to have bought Natalie Portman a first-class ticket for her and her dog to attend an event in 2009 is the tip of the iceberg. More troubling is that businessmen have been able to expand the profile of their companies by working generously alongside the Clinton Foundation. From the NYT:

Last year, Coca-Cola’s chief executive, Muhtar Kent, won a coveted spot on the dais with Mr. Clinton, discussing the company’s partnership with another nonprofit to use its distributors to deliver medical goods to patients in Africa. (A Coca-Cola spokesman said that the company’s sponsorship of foundation initiatives long predated Teneo and that the firm plays no role in Coca-Cola’s foundation work.)

In March 2012, David Crane, the chief executive of NRG, an energy company, led a widely publicized trip with Mr. Clinton to Haiti, where they toured green energy and solar power projects that NRG finances through a $1 million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative.

This is typical Clinton stuff. The second thing I ever wrote for this website was about how corporations invest in politicians as a way of building their brand and raising their stock price. It can lead to some funny partnerships. This, from 2011:

Just this month, bedding manufacturer Serta announced that it will be sponsoring Bill Clinton’s keynote address to an industry conference in August. “To us,”’ said the head of the company, “Clinton represents leadership. This appearance shows Serta is a leader and is taking a leadership position. This singles us out.” Some might say that it is beneath a former president to basically endorse Serta’s new “Perfect Sleeper” line, even with its “revolutionary gel foam mattress”.

The cynical might infer from the NYT piece that the Clintons are willing to sell themselves, their image, and even their Foundation’s reputation in exchange for money to finance their personal projects. In Bill’s case, saving the world. In Hillary’s case, maybe, running for president.

It’s nothing new to report that there’s an unhealthy relationship in America between money and politics, but it’s there all the same. While the little people are getting hit with Obamacare, high taxes and joblessness, a class of businessmen enjoys ready access to politicians of both Left and Right that poses troubling questions for how the republic can continue to call itself a democracy so long as it functions as an aristocracy of the monied. Part of the reason why America’s elites get away with it is becuase they employ such fantastic salesmen. For too long now, Bill Clinton has pitched himself, almost without question, as a homespun populist: the Boy from Hope. The reality is that this is a man who – in May 1993 – prevented other planes from landing at LAX for 90 minues while he got a haircut from a Beverley Hills hairdresser aboard Air Force One. The Clintons are populists in the same way that Barack Obama is a Nobel prize winner. Oh, wait…