Charles Ortel Lobs the First of 40 Bombs at the Clinton Foundation

I've been eagerly awaiting this for months now and was actually worried about Mr. Ortel's health for what will become obvious reasons.

He is a financial analyst who just incidentally started looking into the Clinton Foundation early in 2015 and now has come to the very detailed and thoroughly researched conclusion that it is a

rogue charity that has neither been organized nor operated lawfully from inception in October 1997 to date--as you will grow to realize, it is a case study in international charity fraud, of mammoth proportions.

Much, much more at the link but it is copyrighted so you'll have to go over there to get acquainted with the depth of the research he's been doing over the last several months. The MSM picked up his initial letter of preliminary findings several months ago and there was a small kerfluffle following that, but this is the proverbial bombshell - showing that the CF was not legally set up in either the US or any foreign country to be a charity at all, that shell charities with varying names were set up also without any legal order to subvert funds to the principals - the Clinton and their boards of directors, etc., and much, much more.

The reports are scheduled to start today, September 7, and continue for a grand total of 40 different counts of what appears to be felony charity fraud.

In particular, the Clinton Foundation has never been validly authorized to pursue tax-exempt purposes other than as a presidential archive and research facility based in Little Rock, Arkansas. Moreover, its operations have never been controlled by independent trustees and its financial results have never been properly audited by independent accountants.

Some highlights:

"Exhibit 10: False and Materially Misleading Organization and Operation of Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative, Inc. (“Old CHAI”), Starting in March 2004

Exhibit 11: Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning 2003 and Prior Years

Exhibit 12: False and Materially Misleading Accounting for Construction of the Presidential Library and for a Donation to the National Archives and Records Administration on 18 November 2004

Exhibit 15: Fundraising Operations in the Name of the Clinton Foundation Allegedly Providing Tsunami Relief Starting in January 2005

Exhibit 17: Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund (“BCKF”)Starting in August 2005

Exhibit 18: Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Global Initiative (“Old CGI”)Starting by September 2005

Exhibit 27: Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning 2006 and Prior Years

Exhibit 29: Deceptive Procurement of a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”)with President Obama’s Transition Team Starting in November 2008"

That last one is going to be a doozy, because he implies that Obama and his staff knew of the Clinton Foundation deception and their Justice Department and the IRS didn't enforce the rules and regulations as they were sworn to do. Remember that guy in a thread a while back who implied that 'if the Clinton Foundation goes down, the whole government will go down?' - meaning damn near everyone associated with the Clintons is implicated.

This is just the tip of the iceberg and I truly hope he'll live long enough to be able to submit them all.

Please take the time to check out his web site and at least skim the initial letter of intent (he's intending to release these starting tomorrow with full details, this is just an overview); if he releases one every day or two, that will take us right up to the election. Hopefully the media will take note. Pretty hard to push 40 different submissions of evidence of criminal behavior under the rug, especially when he estimates the grand total of diverted funds to be in the neighborhood of 100 Billion Dollars - much bigger than Bernie Madoff.

Charles Ortel

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Well well well...

This is going to be good!

Thank god he was able to get this information into the public arena!

Looking forward to digesting this...

S&F

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

That last one is going to be a doozy, because he implies that Obama and his staff knew of the Clinton Foundation deception and their Justice Department and the IRS didn't enforce the rules and regulations as they were sworn to do. Remember that guy in a thread a while back who implied that 'if the Clinton Foundation goes down, the whole government will go down?' - meaning damn near everyone associated with the Clintons is implicated.

This has been speculated before as well... are you familiar with this thread?

There are those who have controlled the financial system for a long time and the Clinton Foundation is simply a symptom of their corruption.

We can only hope that at the end of this, the entire house of cards comes falling down, this way we can begin the process of holding those guilty accountable.

You know what?.........................I've given up all hope of that evil family ever seeing a day in court, never mind a day in jail.
She. Is. Protected.
Not only by a corrupt system, but by blind followers who can only see that they are so Progressive, they're going to elect the first woman President.
yay.
They elected the first Black President too. Never mind that he wasn't qualified for the job, has had one of the most corrupt administrations in history, made us look weak in front of the rest of the world or that now this one is so godd**n crooked she can piss around corners and will tear this nation apart for her own profit.
America will go to the highest bidder.

"Total *cough* Alt-Right *cough* wing *gasp* conspiracy." In HIllary's death-rattling voice.

The spirit of Harambe has graced us yet again with his pooh flinging blessing.

Can't wait for the excuses to roll in.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Exhibit 15: Fundraising Operations in the Name of the Clinton Foundation Allegedly Providing Tsunami Relief Starting in January 2005

Exhibit 17: Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund (“BCKF”)Starting in August 2005

Theres the TV ads for all those out there, plus the ones for Haiti 'relief'.

Just wait for a disaster, announce a relief fund and watch the cash roll in. "Give now and lives will be saved."

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Good one. I posted this vid before, somewhere.

But here it is, something if people want to listen. Ortel and Stefan Molyneux.

They go over a lot of his papers.

If the implications of involvement are as far reaching as this would suggest then be prepared for the next BIG distraction event to bury the story under the bodies, rubble and crying children that will flood the news media.

'cos thats how they roll..

"What difference does it make"? I paid good money for people to set the fund up so if their was wrong doing go after them... I am innocent of any wrong doing or.... ahh.... Sorry I don't remember !

So ... the accusation is enough for conviction?

No one wants to vet or review the information for accuracy?

Oh, that's right, it's what the right-wing sheep have been led to believe already.

My baaaad.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... the accusation is enough for conviction?

No one wants to vet or review the information for accuracy?

Oh, that's right, it's what the right-wing sheep have been led to believe already.

My baaaad.

Yeah, keep on going with that non-argument. It's already failing for Hillary, "it's all a right wing conspiracy" That one ran out of petrol last week, but the DNC isn't always sending out those memo's.

Wow ! ....And if all of this gets swept under the carpet, and Charles Ortel is still alive, this guy will never be hired again for anything....as I'm sure the clintons will make sure of that. They will make the IRS goes after him,they will make his life hell, and he will end up in jail,for something bogus.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... the accusation is enough for conviction?

No one wants to vet or review the information for accuracy?

Oh, that's right, it's what the right-wing sheep have been led to believe already.

My baaaad.

A literal smoking gun in her hand with a dead body at her feet wouldnt sink this hellspawn.

No amount of accuracy and fact can break the grip this succubus has.

a reply to: intrptr

"Give now and lives will be saved."

'Give now and our wallets will get fatter. Hillary and I are poor.'

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think this is all part of the Standard OP of the American Electoral Process "opposition tactics." Truth doesn't matter, only the appearance of wrongdoing. The playbook is simple. We've all seen it before so often that its predictable.

Step 1: Create Smoke

Where there's smoke there is fire, right?? Unless someone is pumping it in from somewhere else to make it look like there is a fire, creating the illusion of it and then waving their hands in the air shouting "FIRE!!." For example, attempt to drown Clinton in allegations that appear serious, so she's always on the defensive, no matter what she does. Just make it LOOK bad enough that what was once a strength becomes a liability.

(She's Secretary of State? Well, then, trash her at her job in any way you can because Trump can't possibly match that kind of experience and knowledge base! Find something bad that happens and make it her fault! Pick away until you find a mistake then amplify it into Criminal Behavior!! And the Foundation! Darn, that makes her look like an amazingly charitable and caring person!! Crap! Let's make it look like a giant fraud, because its so complex and not a traditional foundation, it should be easy!! - That sort of thing. NOTE: I'm not saying that there is nothing in these allegations he's lobbing, only that I highly doubt it.)

Step 2: Get Opponents in Congress to Call for Investigations of the Smoke

Step 2 of this is to use taxpayer funds and her natural political enemies to attack her by calling "official hearing" after "official hearing" which, ultimately, whip up tons of suspicion AS IF there is a fire, but ultimately the smoke is an illusion, and the allegations lack the substance to indict or convict. Those who are naturally inclined due to political beliefs to think she is guilty, will feel there was a miscarriage of justice, and the myth of guilt will simmer beneath the surface, hoping for another opportunity to "get her!"

Step 3: Attempt to drown out the voices of people who see it is a bunch of smoke and no fire, and who point to the people manufacturing the smoke. Counter their complex arguments with "facts" that are not "facts" but that sound complicated enough to be "facts." That way, the arguments spin out back and forth and no one knows where to find the truth, all they see is a bunch of crap hitting the fan. Then work to discredit and diminish the voices of anyone who points to the smoke-makers. The media will help you because they all want to be the Watergate Hero Journalist.

Step 4: Repeat over and over on as many fronts as you can get away with!! The media can't vet all your claims and the sheer avalanche of them sets Clinton up to be hounded for impeachment by mobs with pitchforks. Use media favorable to your cause to spread the allegations far and wide and to make them sound true.

What things should be attacked:
The other part of the playbook is to attack something that is actually a strength of your opponent, to taint it and make it seem a sham, you know "swift boating." (David Bossie did that, by the way, Trumps new hire.)

Well, here come the Swift-boaters of the Clinton Foundation. Media will gleefully repeat allegations and echo chambers will proclaim more than allegations, but actual guilt, to the point where the average person cannot see truth from lie. The Clinton Foundation is a complex organization, whose structure doesn't fit easily into small understandable soundbites. Charity Watch gives them an A plus, so I wouldn't be surprised if Charity Watch also gets attacked in some way...

The other method of attack is to try and take what is your own weakness, and project it onto your opponent so you can point and say "look over there!" as self righteously as possible, so when you opponent attacks you for the same thing (your weakness), it sounds like they are just being lame, like "no I'm not, but you are!" playground politics.

IF YOU GET CAUGHT AT THIS:
Step 5: Shrug and smile and say, "it's just politics, people...Geez. Relax already. If you want to run with the Big Dogs you gotta learn how to play rough..."


We so want to know the truth, but I have strong doubts Mr. Ortel is the harbinger. He seems more like a part of the smoke-generation machinery. That's my opinion, however, and honestly, I don't have time to sift through the muck to see what, if anything, he says "sticks."

- AB

a reply to: AboveBoard
Careful, you will be writing her next speech with that kind of insight.

Then she will have to kill you for having insight.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think this is all part of the Standard OP of the American Electoral Process "opposition tactics." Truth doesn't matter, only the appearance of wrongdoing. The playbook is simple. We've all seen it before so often that its predictable.

Step 1: Create Smoke

Where there's smoke there is fire, right?? Unless someone is pumping it in from somewhere else to make it look like there is a fire, creating the illusion of it and then waving their hands in the air shouting "FIRE!!." For example, attempt to drown Clinton in allegations that appear serious, so she's always on the defensive, no matter what she does. Just make it LOOK bad enough that what was once a strength becomes a liability.

(She's Secretary of State? Well, then, trash her at her job in any way you can because Trump can't possibly match that kind of experience and knowledge base! Find something bad that happens and make it her fault! Pick away until you find a mistake then amplify it into Criminal Behavior!! And the Foundation! Darn, that makes her look like an amazingly charitable and caring person!! Crap! Let's make it look like a giant fraud, because its so complex and not a traditional foundation, it should be easy!! - That sort of thing. NOTE: I'm not saying that there is nothing in these allegations he's lobbing, only that I highly doubt it.)

Step 2: Get Opponents in Congress to Call for Investigations of the Smoke

Step 2 of this is to use taxpayer funds and her natural political enemies to attack her by calling "official hearing" after "official hearing" which, ultimately, whip up tons of suspicion AS IF there is a fire, but ultimately the smoke is an illusion, and the allegations lack the substance to indict or convict. Those who are naturally inclined due to political beliefs to think she is guilty, will feel there was a miscarriage of justice, and the myth of guilt will simmer beneath the surface, hoping for another opportunity to "get her!"

Step 3: Attempt to drown out the voices of people who see it is a bunch of smoke and no fire, and who point to the people manufacturing the smoke. Counter their complex arguments with "facts" that are not "facts" but that sound complicated enough to be "facts." That way, the arguments spin out back and forth and no one knows where to find the truth, all they see is a bunch of crap hitting the fan. Then work to discredit and diminish the voices of anyone who points to the smoke-makers. The media will help you because they all want to be the Watergate Hero Journalist.

Step 4: Repeat over and over on as many fronts as you can get away with!! The media can't vet all your claims and the sheer avalanche of them sets Clinton up to be hounded for impeachment by mobs with pitchforks. Use media favorable to your cause to spread the allegations far and wide and to make them sound true.

What things should be attacked:
The other part of the playbook is to attack something that is actually a strength of your opponent, to taint it and make it seem a sham, you know "swift boating." (David Bossie did that, by the way, Trumps new hire.)

Well, here come the Swift-boaters of the Clinton Foundation. Media will gleefully repeat allegations and echo chambers will proclaim more than allegations, but actual guilt, to the point where the average person cannot see truth from lie. The Clinton Foundation is a complex organization, whose structure doesn't fit easily into small understandable soundbites. Charity Watch gives them an A plus, so I wouldn't be surprised if Charity Watch also gets attacked in some way...

The other method of attack is to try and take what is your own weakness, and project it onto your opponent so you can point and say "look over there!" as self righteously as possible, so when you opponent attacks you for the same thing (your weakness), it sounds like they are just being lame, like "no I'm not, but you are!" playground politics.

IF YOU GET CAUGHT AT THIS:
Step 5: Shrug and smile and say, "it's just politics, people...Geez. Relax already. If you want to run with the Big Dogs you gotta learn how to play rough..."


We so want to know the truth, but I have strong doubts Mr. Ortel is the harbinger. He seems more like a part of the smoke-generation machinery. That's my opinion, however, and honestly, I don't have time to sift through the muck to see what, if anything, he says "sticks."

- AB

Now that reply was a great work of fiction !

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... the accusation is enough for conviction?

No one wants to vet or review the information for accuracy?

Oh, that's right, it's what the right-wing sheep have been led to believe already.

My baaaad.

Yeah, keep on going with that non-argument. It's already failing for Hillary, "it's all a right wing conspiracy" That one ran out of petrol last week, but the DNC isn't always sending out those memo's.

A "non argument" that claims should be vetted for facts rather than simply believed?

Oh, and you might want to catch up ... this isn't supposedly about Hillary or the DNC but about the Clinton Foundation.

You're letting your bias show. Let's look at the facts of the matter rather than relying on belief ... what do you say?

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... the accusation is enough for conviction?

No one wants to vet or review the information for accuracy?

Oh, that's right, it's what the right-wing sheep have been led to believe already.

My baaaad.

A literal smoking gun in her hand with a dead body at her feet wouldnt sink this hellspawn.

No amount of accuracy and fact can break the grip this succubus has.

Well, you certainly sound like a totally objective person looking for the facts of the matter ...

... no preconceived notions on your part, no sirree.

(PS, the discussion is about the Clinton FOUNDATION not Hillary.)

a reply to: AboveBoard

I agree with your general observations, as would any reasonable person. Note that your critic's sole response is "you lie."

These claims about the Clinton Foundation will be used as you say as smoke. When time has passed and they are reviewed for facts and accuracy rather than merely accusation that fits the pre-conceived notions of the right-weeples, rational thinking folks will make their own decisions then based on the evidence and move on.

Of course, that vetting will never happen, most likely because, hey-ho what's the point?

We work on BELIEF in America now ... the heck with the facts.

Great post by the way; pearls before swine.