Open Letter to the New York Times Editorial Board Re: Clinton Foundation
Today’s editorial entitled “Cutting Ties to the Clinton Foundation” betrays a startling lack of understanding of some easily verifiable facts about the Clinton Foundation (CF) and the implications its troubling past has for the US.
As someone who has purchased and read the NYT for over 40 years I am utterly disgusted. Like other concerned independent researchers and writers both in the US and in other countries, I have posted articles on CF on the internet in part because I am dismayed at the lack of attention it has received from professional journalists. I will therefore keep this brief.
You start by asking a question that is but one of many that must be investigated: whether CF donors received “special favors.” Arguably a more important question is: did the Clintons receive any “special favors” arising from Hillary being confirmed as Secretary of State and yet allowing for CF to keep conducting business as usual? The answer to that question is obviously “yes.” The very fact that CF’s legal name was changed to include Hillary’s name in April of 2013, only two months after her resignation as Secretary of State, effectively constitutes an admission by CF that her association with it had been and was intended to remain mutually beneficial.
Perhaps as troubling as anything is that she and CF fraudulently misrepresented CF in 2009 in her confirmation hearing before Congress. Such fraud by itself would seem to disqualify Hillary not just from running for President but for any public office whatsoever. Even the modest corporate procedural provisions that CF and Hillary had agreed to as a condition of her confirmation were not just ignored but willfully breached. Directly as a result of that breach it is substantially more difficult to answer questions about what was really going on with CF while she was Secretary of State than it would have been had she and CF complied with such provisions. Consequently, until now Hillary has effectively been allowed to benefit from her and CF’s fraud and breach of what in effect was a contract with the US.
Nevertheless, even if CF had fully disclosed what it has been and is obligated to disclose, I am left to wonder if the New York Times would bother to find it to be news fit to print. Your third paragraph begins with the statement that CF was created in 2001. That is wrong, as can be readily proved from CF’s own application to the IRS for tax exemption which CF has on its website here.