CSTT Sunday With Charles SilverScript Sun Aug 20 2017

CSTT Sunday With Charles SilverScript Sun Aug 20 2017

Tube-to-Text below [no timings] [search "Tube-to-Text"] [awaiting]

Sunday With Charles - The Children's Investment Fund Foundation

Charles Ortel explores the questionable practices of The Children's Investment Fund Foundation and it's ties to the Clintons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GduvGJ8c3BQ

 Transcript
0:25
good afternoon Charles welcome to HQ
0:29
it's great to be here good to see you as
0:31
always
0:32
good to see you and Trish how are you
0:34
hey there I'm good how are you I'm good
0:38
I'm good everything nice and Boston
0:39
still it's a beautiful day
0:41
that's like elapsed in my absence not so
0:47
far anyway so of course we've got a very
0:49
special guest in studio today Charles or
0:51
Charles Oh
0:53
welcome to Hou it's great to be here I
0:55
could to see you as always always trying
0:58
to avoid that audio feedback with anyway
1:01
we're here today to talk about the
1:04
children's investment fund foundation
1:06
and I didn't know anything about this
1:08
until you started telling me about it
1:10
but it's got some as usual very strange
1:13
ties to the Clinton Foundation and the
1:15
Clintons themselves can you tell you can
1:18
you please tell us a little bit about it
1:20
sure the children's investment fund
1:22
foundation is one of the largest
1:24
identified contributors to the Clinton
1:26
Foundation and it's a very interesting
1:30
idea I know a little bit about this
1:32
world and and how it operates but the
1:36
children's investment fund foundation
1:38
was set up to receive contributions
1:42
portions of contributions from a hedge
1:46
fund that began existence in 2004 and
1:50
rocketed to global fame and success
1:53
producing stratospheric returns for
1:56
famous institutions and investors around
1:59
the world it's actually a little bit of
2:02
a sort of a Hollywood success and
2:04
ultimately mini failure story it's a
2:08
fellow from the UK met his wife at
2:14
Harvard Business School I think they
2:16
were graduated I want to say in
2:18
in the 90s roughly and then this fellow
2:22
went off to work for a very successful
2:24
hedge fund guy called Richard Perry
2:26
Perry capital he made a lot of money
2:28
very quickly and as as happens normally
2:31
in that world if you do very successful
2:33
as a young person you say well I'm gonna
2:35
set up my own fund and that was
2:36
Christopher home
2:37
Christopher Hahn exactly and there's why
2:39
they when they were married they called
2:40
each other cooperhog hyphenated but now
2:44
they've subsequently split so what
2:46
happened was Richard and his wife had
2:49
made a lot of money before they set up
2:51
the children's investment fund mm-hmm
2:54
and they set up something called the
2:55
Cooper home foundation in the United
2:58
States by July 11 2002 they also in 2002
3:04
set up something in the UK called I
3:06
think the CH foundation the idea of both
3:09
of these foundations was that they were
3:11
two bank grants to charities and
3:14
initially in the UK one when you set up
3:17
a charity under UK law you have to
3:19
create something you have to specify the
3:21
objects of the charity the objects under
3:24
UK or English English are the same as
3:28
purposes in the US same ID you have to
3:30
specify your purposes now before you get
3:32
too deep into the technical details of
3:35
the financial aspects of it there were
3:37
some things that you told me I like it
3:38
when you share information with me about
3:41
this stuff because I'm a financial dummy
3:42
I don't know anything about economics I
3:44
don't know anything about hedge fund
3:45
investing or any of that kind of stuff
3:47
but one of the things that you told me
3:49
that really stood out about this
3:51
children's investment fund not even the
3:55
foundation but the fund I looked up the
3:58
average performance of a hedge fund of
4:00
all hedge funds and it was something
4:03
like 7.4 5% which seems like you know
4:07
sort of reasonable return for an
4:09
investment this thing was performing it
4:11
like 40 percent yeah that's why I say
4:14
rocketed to success and you have to be
4:16
careful what periods you look at because
4:18
you know there's some periods we have
4:19
the hedge funds will do really well
4:21
recently 2008 to the present most hedge
4:24
funds have underperformed
4:25
relevant indices but you're absolutely
4:28
right that this person
4:31
Christopher Cohen is a very shrewd
4:33
person and he was able to attract a lot
4:37
of money under management quickly and
4:38
then fortunately for him and for his
4:40
investors I think in his first full year
4:42
was either two thousand four or five he
4:44
did around thirty percent the next year
4:46
he did about 50 percent that is that is
4:49
that real list that sounds like shades
4:50
if Bernie Madoff it's but it's certainly
4:53
in that if you go back to that time
4:55
frame I left the investment world in
4:58
July of 2002 but if you go back to that
5:00
time frame mm I mean working in funds
5:04
and stuff but if you look at that time
5:06
frame as the Iraq war was getting
5:09
started as it looked like we were making
5:11
progress over there the economy went
5:14
back into overheated mode and I would
5:16
say that probably the the peak frenzy
5:18
was maybe June 2006 into March February
5:23
2007 that's where he people were going
5:25
crazy and making lots of money in lots
5:28
of different ways and then it all blew
5:29
up started blowing up but it's not it's
5:33
not crazy that he would have made that
5:34
rate of return in that period now what
5:38
he did that was slightly novel was he
5:44
offered he stretched structures his fees
5:47
so that they were lower than the market
5:51
at that time typically at that time a 2%
5:54
management fee plus another 20% share of
5:57
the profits of is to say you would
5:59
charge your investors they give you
6:01
fifteen million dollars recharge them
6:02
two percent per year for that and if you
6:04
turn that 15 million into 30 million you
6:08
get rough numbers 20% of the profit as
6:12
the fun man that's sort of industries
6:13
they have was then the sort of energy
6:15
industry standard he said no no I'm
6:17
gonna charge 1% and then I'll take a
6:21
incentive fee not 20 percent but 13 to
6:24
17 percent roughly mm-hmm but if I
6:27
produce for you a rate of return none of
6:30
all these fees of 11 percent or higher I
6:32
want you the investor to put 50 50 basis
6:35
points into my charity
6:37
and a share of the profits the excess
6:40
profits into my charity this was very
6:42
confusing for me to even understand when
6:44
I read the document that you sent me and
6:46
and the only thing I really took away
6:47
from it was that a lot of the investors
6:49
were put off by this because it was so
6:51
non-standard and complicated and crazy
6:53
well so the reason it's so appealing and
6:56
going back to the Clinton Foundation and
6:58
Charities General Thomas Carlyle the
7:01
pursuit the the famous person who had
7:04
been in the term I think dismal science
7:05
or something that print economics he he
7:07
said haha if you teach a parrot the
7:10
words supply and demand you have an
7:12
economist right and similarly there's a
7:14
there's an enormous supply of wealth
7:16
looking for returns and there's a small
7:19
number of investment vehicles that
7:21
consistently produce above market
7:24
returns so if you put your your hand up
7:27
and say look I can beat the market and
7:30
you have a few years like he had you're
7:32
gonna see an avalanche of money coming
7:34
towards you I see and then if in
7:36
addition you go ahead and you say you
7:38
know the way we're gonna do this is what
7:39
we're not as greedy as other fund
7:41
managers we're gonna take lower fees
7:44
right what we want you to do when we
7:47
make good money for you we want you to
7:50
put money into our foundation all right
7:52
now that sounds good
7:54
but the problem is the way I look at it
7:57
I don't understand how this is legal it
7:59
is lawful inside the US and inside the
8:01
UK because I look at this as a
8:04
continuous solicitation to these
8:07
institutional fund investors and I don't
8:09
see the kind of disclosures for the
8:11
children's investment fund a continuous
8:13
social solicitation for the fund right
8:16
for the foundation right for the
8:18
foundation I don't see in the foundation
8:20
filings the type of rigorous disclosures
8:24
that you would have to have to have out
8:26
there cuz after all the fund began
8:28
operation in 2004 that's a question that
8:31
that's that's indisputable that's effect
8:33
right these foundations started in 2002
8:36
and a foundation law says you cannot you
8:40
cannot create private gain through the
8:42
operation of a charity right so the guy
8:45
is now worth two billion dollars because
8:47
of this fun that's running into
8:49
existence
8:50
after the foundations were created and
8:52
by the way there at least two
8:54
foundations there's one in the u.s.
8:56
called the children's investment fund
8:58
foundation right and then there's one in
8:59
the UK also called the children's
9:02
investment fund foundation and they're
9:03
not subsidiary parent there are separate
9:05
entities that work together and in his
9:08
timeframe
9:08
Christopher Owen and his wife that we're
9:10
talk about the early period they were
9:12
still married so for the for the people
9:15
whose heads out there are spinning like
9:17
mine can I drop a little bit of dumb guy
9:20
information so when you when you came to
9:23
me with all of this stuff and I was sort
9:25
of sorting through it trying to organize
9:27
who the different people were I
9:28
discovered that the hones are divorced
9:33
now of course the divorce settlement was
9:36
the largest in UK history but yeah what
9:41
mrs. Han had been asking for was 50%
9:44
because she was so pivotal in the
9:46
formation of the fund and the foundation
9:48
and all that but they settled it 36
9:50
percent or something like that and she
9:52
decided not to pursue that right and it
9:55
was like three hundred and sixty million
9:58
pounds or some huge huge number so that
10:02
just sort of struck me as like you know
10:03
here's this big payout kind of I don't
10:06
know there were strange things about it
10:08
then well so here's the oddity and again
10:10
you could for me the oddities include
10:12
the following that if this were a film
10:15
coming out of film school you know in a
10:17
plot I don't think that you could get
10:19
the facts that are in this case into a
10:22
into a fictional movie right and just
10:25
too dense well that's not that it's just
10:27
that they're there it's so implausible
10:29
that you have these two people they meet
10:31
at Harvard Business School and they say
10:33
alright what we're gonna do now is we're
10:35
gonna create a foundation and a fund
10:38
that is more rigorous than any fund out
10:41
there that is a more rigorous what do
10:43
you mean more attention to detail we
10:44
check things more closely than anybody
10:46
else we find undervalued companies and
10:48
situations because we're smarter than
10:50
the average bear and we look at the
10:52
details more carefully we refine them
10:54
down to have that sort of a strategy
10:56
attract money and work but then when you
10:59
look through the foundation filings see
11:02
bold errors you know ridiculous mistakes
11:05
right it's just it's doesn't not expense
11:09
since so it give you an example of some
11:11
of the mistakes when they set up the the
11:14
fund in the beginning according to a New
11:17
York Times piece in 2006 they the one of
11:22
the lead investors was Yale University
11:24
their endowment fund now Yale University
11:26
has a famous guy named I think it's
11:28
David Swensen I believe who was the
11:31
longtime head of the endowment and he
11:33
pushes the envelope some argue on
11:35
managing charity funds by allocating a
11:39
pretty high percentage of Yale's
11:42
endowment up around twenty percent or so
11:44
to these hedge funds and private equity
11:47
funds of what are called alternative
11:48
investment vehicles that are less liquid
11:50
in the main another invest in higher
11:52
risk higher risk and higher return so
11:54
you look at that and say alright Yale
11:56
decided to put its stamp on this
11:58
children's investment fund in 2004 now
12:00
that the the standard that says 23% and
12:04
alternatives can I also just point out
12:06
one thing that's gonna come up a little
12:07
later so they're having this event at
12:09
the Pierre hotel and then that very
12:11
exclusive very high-end fancy fancy
12:14
place so just let's just put a pin in
12:16
that for later sure and so with uh with
12:20
the the case of the Yale endowment when
12:23
Yale stands up and says you know this
12:24
Christopher hone guy and his team
12:26
they're setting up a new fund the
12:27
children's investment funded we're gonna
12:29
be an anchor investor meaning we're
12:31
gonna put a lot of money into this fund
12:32
even though Chris hone at the point that
12:35
he started the fund did not have an
12:37
independent five-year track record of
12:40
managing his own fund which is something
12:42
that most big investors demand the
12:44
reason they demand that is even if
12:46
you're really successful working for say
12:48
George Soros or somebody's well
12:49
established there are just human nature
12:52
risks you've been through startups their
12:55
human nature risks of leaving the
12:57
mothership yep going off in a new guy's
12:59
suddenly there's no boss to blame you're
13:01
the boss you're responsible for
13:02
everything and there's a natural sort of
13:04
destined period that takes place and so
13:07
the people who've been managing money
13:09
for centuries who you know the
13:10
institutions that were managing money
13:11
for centuries has some bright line
13:13
guidance
13:14
and one of them is that you know as
13:16
novel as your idea may be why don't you
13:19
go off and test it for fun right let's
13:21
see if it works
13:22
right and then we'll come back and you
13:24
know we've got a lot of money so if it
13:26
works for five years we're in for a
13:28
hundred million or weird for twenty
13:29
million whatever the numbers right so
13:31
Yale didn't do that yeah yeah went right
13:34
in they broke you know a norm huh but in
13:38
it but the interesting thing that I
13:39
don't believe they noticed or maybe they
13:41
did notice is that the way this twin
13:45
relationship worked between you know the
13:47
group of funds and the group of the
13:48
foundations was that when the money went
13:51
back into the foundations the people who
13:54
manage the US and UK foundations decided
13:57
to concentrate their investments not
13:59
twenty three percent in alternative
14:01
vehicles but a hundred percent in the
14:05
children's investment fund various fun
14:08
platforms and that is you know to me
14:11
that breaks all kinds of good governance
14:14
rules it's fine if you think you know if
14:16
you really you're that sure of yourself
14:18
and you've got a sure thing coming right
14:20
you know even then if you're managing
14:22
assets for a foundation really no one
14:25
invests like that you you should you
14:27
should be doing that as a trustee of a
14:29
foundation right and you certainly
14:30
shouldn't be doing it in your own fund
14:33
where and if you then went ahead and do
14:35
it in your own fund you better disclose
14:37
to your investors how much money you're
14:39
making right off this decision and they
14:43
don't do that in any of these fun
14:44
documents for the US or the UK and so
14:46
what does that mean foundation documents
14:48
right what does that mean to the average
14:49
person what were they doing what what
14:51
was the purpose of all of these you know
14:53
fancy financial shenanigans see I think
14:56
we'll find out in time the New York
14:58
Times article that you had up there said
15:00
that it was a genius marketing move was
15:02
it well it it's it says yeah if you go
15:07
down into the page a little bit it says
15:08
something that one person said not onto
15:10
the record that it was a genius
15:12
marketing move because who's gonna bet
15:15
against the fund called the children's
15:17
room says I won right so for that reason
15:19
it's but to go a little bit into the
15:21
weeds and I promise I won't take you
15:23
down into the dirt to go a little bit
15:26
into the weeds wait
15:28
you go in that timeframe back in 2000
15:30
let's call it 3 & 4 when he was putting
15:32
together the fun a placement agent there
15:37
are such firms as placement agents who
15:39
will if you know they make a decision do
15:40
I want it back Jason and Trish in their
15:43
new fun and you will then pay that
15:45
placement agent a fee and typically that
15:48
fee involves it's a percentage of the
15:49
money that you make right off the
15:52
investments that are put into your fund
15:53
right so this this approach of saying
15:56
you know what we're gonna do is we're
15:58
going to be less greedy and we will
16:01
commit that with our own money we're
16:02
gonna put money some of our own money
16:04
we're gonna put it into this set of
16:06
foundations but a money that you were
16:09
ordinarily pay to me as a fund manager
16:11
you're gonna make the decision to put it
16:13
into these other foundations sort of
16:15
forcing people to put if you want to
16:18
participate in this super successful
16:20
fund you've got to put the money into
16:22
the foundation and in our previous class
16:25
sessions you've always told me that the
16:27
foundation is sort of the red flag
16:29
anytime there's a foundation it seems to
16:31
be a sort of a slush fund for stealing
16:35
money what and I'm not a collector I was
16:39
gonna say that you know the research
16:41
you've done Charles really reveals that
16:44
as the Achilles heel of this whole
16:48
network of corruption the foundations
16:51
appear to be the mecca mechanism by
16:55
which all of this is sustained and the
16:59
money is able to flow into all the
17:02
illegal activity that it's supporting
17:05
well yeah and I want to be very clear
17:07
I'm not accusing the homes of corruption
17:10
here
17:10
you know but what I will say you know
17:14
when I when I look through the
17:15
foundation filings I have not reviewed
17:17
their fun funds but when I look through
17:18
the foundation filings there appear to
17:21
be major errors in a major dis bad
17:25
decisions were made so to start in the
17:27
beginnings in 2002 the US Foundation
17:32
invested the Perry capital which was mr.
17:35
Han's previous employer is listed as
17:38
putting six million dollars into this
17:40
the US Foundation in 2002 as the only
17:45
investor or lead owner ever and in that
17:48
year it was a short year was June July
17:51
11th through your n in that year they
17:54
made no grants so one could say that
17:57
that was maybe a tax move that you know
17:59
the Perry capital needed a tax deduction
18:02
they create this thing they put it but
18:05
they don't actually donate any money to
18:07
charity in 2002 in 2003 they are go
18:10
through the process of transitioning the
18:12
name in the US to quit sorry the
18:15
children's investment fund foundation
18:17
starting in 2004 they start making
18:20
grants more substantial grants by 2006
18:26
in fact the first year 2006 they make a
18:29
1 million dollar grant to the Clinton
18:31
Foundation HIV AIDS initiative Inc rush
18:35
doesn't exist legally in 2006 when you
18:38
check it out it was liquidated December
18:40
31st 2005 according to the filings to
18:43
the Clinton Foundation and that was the
18:46
that was the entity that was located at
18:49
225 Water Street is that correct
18:51
right I don't know if you have that up
18:52
on the screen but well we were over
18:54
there yesterday and this is just an
18:56
image from Google Earth of course we
18:58
could put the video up as well but Trish
19:00
and I went there and it was a very
19:01
modest kind of office building in the
19:05
middle of a residential neighborhood and
19:08
that was why I wanted to talk initially
19:10
about the Pierre hotel because this is
19:12
by all measures a company run by an
19:16
extremely wealthy individual the guy is
19:19
a knight of the British Empire Sir
19:23
Christopher he subsequently was night at
19:25
home subsequently but he's a fancy guy
19:27
he's rollin in fancy circles it seems
19:30
incongruous that this would be the
19:31
office that is receiving so much money
19:35
from such a fancy fund and Foundation
19:38
and it's very tucked away in a in a in a
19:41
tiny neighborhood south outside of
19:45
Boston
19:46
you know that's that's the so that's
19:48
that was the initial office of the the
19:51
Clinton Foundation hiv/aids initiative
19:53
which was formed at March 24th 2004
19:58
right and there is no record that I
20:02
could see either of an application for
20:04
federal tax exemption that's in the
20:06
public domain or more importantly of a
20:09
letter from the IRS saying this is
20:11
validly tax exempt or of any
20:13
registrations for this entity anywhere
20:16
in any state or in any foreign country
20:19
that I see that is valid and you know
20:22
here you have in the early years mind
20:24
you when they're made they make this
20:26
first donation a million to the in 2006
20:30
the children's investment fund fund it
20:32
but they'll fund itself the investment
20:34
vehicles on a roll at that point it's
20:36
you know it's it's hitting the lights
20:40
out in terms of its performance so how
20:41
could they how could these two Harvard
20:43
Business School graduates decide to put
20:46
a million dollars into some entity at
20:48
this address that supposedly was
20:51
operating in Africa as a charity that
20:54
doesn't seem to have any record that it
20:56
was validly organized and operate it
20:58
just seems like it you know a bad
21:00
mistake to make and that 2006 also
21:04
happens to be the timeframe of the
21:05
meeting in the Pierre hotel that's that
21:07
when you're the New York Times article
21:09
was right you know so a cynic would say
21:13
perhaps that the ploy of devising this
21:18
twin set of funds and foundations was as
21:22
a marketing tool in a lot of these
21:24
people who didn't really have at the
21:26
time they were doing this major kalique
21:27
connections to sort of catapult
21:29
themselves into the company if Bill
21:31
Clinton them and the Princess Diana
21:33
trusted the Elton John's trust and you
21:36
know all these big big opera I don't
21:38
always very famous people and it got
21:41
them a lot of very positive publicity
21:43
because they were young then I mean
21:45
they're still young but they were in
21:46
their 30s or maybe 40s and making this
21:49
decision at that age to give so much
21:52
money away and to
21:53
in theory so self as a amazing publicity
21:56
around the world a ton of money cascaded
21:59
into mr. Han's investment vehicle and
22:02
then he was able on the strength of that
22:05
celebrity he then began a very activist
22:08
role and his fun taking on firms that he
22:11
felt weren't running to full potential
22:15
or going short and betting against other
22:17
companies and he became quite
22:21
controversial yes on the one hand he was
22:22
recognized for his philanthropy and
22:24
later knighted but in the other hand he
22:26
severely upset a lot of people in many
22:28
countries around the world so he's a
22:30
controversial person huh and I think it
22:32
you know if he's also he's not somebody
22:34
who says you know I'm mr. approximate
22:35
nor is Jamie and these are people who
22:38
Harvard MBAs they you know did well in
22:41
Harvard Business School a lot better
22:42
than I did when I went there
22:43
I was kind of in the middle maybe even
22:47
not even in the middle of it but these
22:50
are smart people and you look at the
22:52
paperwork for both foundations there's
22:54
you can see it online I mean I think we
22:56
have links to some of it yeah I heard
22:58
that
22:58
you know I apologized there was a link
23:00
that you had sent me yesterday where was
23:03
that that we were looking at that the
23:05
company's house man
23:06
and Charles am i jumping ahead to
23:09
mention the four hundred and fifty
23:12
million dollars know that um that's
23:15
excellent
23:16
so the French government so the the
23:21
Clintons when they set up his Clinton
23:24
Foundation hiv/aids initiative in 2004
23:27
and ultimately when they convinced the
23:30
Cooper hones to put a million through
23:32
the US operation and then more money
23:35
through the UK operation that lent a lot
23:38
of legitimacy to the whole project that
23:41
the you know the the Clintons could
23:43
fight hiv/aids internationally that they
23:45
would have convinced these super smart
23:46
NBA people you know highly successful
23:48
fund managers to put money into this
23:51
thing that Aidid the Clintons in our
23:54
magazine or in my view in putting
23:57
together a strategic partnership with
23:59
this entity called unit eight that
24:01
you're talking about right based in
24:02
Switzerland that came together in 2006
24:05
formerly by September 19th 2006
24:08
wired the Clinton Foundation hiv/aids
24:11
initiative around nine million dollars
24:13
or so as 2006 drew to a close but
24:16
through December 31st 2009 had made
24:20
donations and advances against future
24:22
donations of around four hundred and
24:24
fifty million dollars to his entity at
24:27
225 Water Street where you know in my
24:30
experience doing diligence you know I
24:32
would hope that our own government you
24:35
know for example if we were gonna send
24:37
450 million dollars to some charity and
24:39
Uganda that somebody with you know real
24:43
skill would go and check and see the
24:45
headquarters building you know they
24:46
operating out of something like 225
24:48
Water Street and if so why are we giving
24:51
such an entity four hundred and fifty
24:53
million dollars well in Charles to even
24:56
if you considered you know they were
24:58
just being frugal or we're trying to
25:00
make the money go as far as possible if
25:02
you when I contemplate the management of
25:06
fund of that size the staff that would
25:11
we be required in order to properly
25:13
manage that in a prudent way would far
25:18
exceed what that the capacity that
25:21
building would accommodate I mean on in
25:24
those different offices so I mean it is
25:27
rather incongruent with the the fund
25:32
itself right so IRA Magaziner right so
25:35
an out of two 20 55 Water Street it's
25:37
the foundation that that's that's that's
25:41
the Clinton Foundation hiv/aids
25:43
initiative that's where the foundation
25:44
operates right the children's investment
25:47
fund operates primarily out of London
25:50
right but I take your place what make
25:51
sure that people don't think that we're
25:53
criticizing the fund for the riot was
25:55
made it's more it's more the foundation
25:57
piece of it it does not make sense for
26:00
this investment fund to decide to
26:04
concentrate some of its investing so
26:07
much don't donating into this Clinton
26:09
Foundation hiv/aids initiative but that
26:11
was conducting operations
26:12
internationally as you say from that to
26:14
25 Water Street without registering
26:17
lawfully and in addition if you
26:19
if they'd done the diligence which
26:21
anybody can see that operation in 225
26:25
Water Street had its authority to
26:28
operate inside the Commonwealth of
26:29
Massachusetts involuntarily revoked on
26:32
March 31st 2008 which is a serious nono
26:35
yeah I mean voluntarily revoked that's
26:38
just like calling it out now there was a
26:40
document that you had sent me yesterday
26:42
or you directed me to yesterday that
26:44
showed that they recorded the the
26:46
Harvard office and that 225 Water Street
26:49
office what was that document I'm not
26:51
finding it that's the I think that would
26:54
have been the 990 and where was I
26:56
finding you were finding that in Pro
26:58
Publica nonprofit Charles just to sort
27:02
of clarify some of what the context here
27:06
and things you've touched on in the past
27:09
one of the things you've said as I
27:12
recall is that it is incumbent upon the
27:17
givers to these foundations to ensure
27:22
that if you are foundation yourself to
27:26
ensure that in fact the funds are being
27:28
used according to the bylaws of the
27:35
foundation and so wouldn't that put the
27:39
fund it that you're talking about
27:43
wouldn't that make them accountable
27:45
though for that or is that a different
27:49
because it's a fund it's not the same or
27:52
how does that work okay so here we would
27:55
have to deal with at least two different
27:59
legal systems so let's start with and
28:02
I'm not a lawyer but I think I
28:03
understand some of these rules in the US
28:06
the way the legal system works is if
28:08
you're a foundation a private foundation
28:10
such as this children's investment fund
28:13
foundation the US version the onus of
28:17
making sure that you're giving money to
28:20
a charity falls upon the donor in other
28:22
words you can't I can't decide that I
28:24
like Jason and then I'm gonna give Jason
28:27
a million bucks because he says he has a
28:29
charity a public
28:30
that's fairly organized if he turns out
28:33
that Jason hasn't done his work properly
28:35
I'm on the hook as the donor the IRS
28:38
would look to me and say look you know
28:40
that we can't police every charity
28:42
that's out there but you're giving your
28:44
assets to this Jason charity you better
28:47
establish that it was a public charity
28:49
and if it isn't and you find out that it
28:51
isn't the onus under US law is you have
28:53
to immediately go to Jason and sit and
28:55
demand your money back and if you don't
28:58
get the money back there can be certain
29:01
strict penalties on you if you do it
29:03
repeatedly it becomes falls into the
29:06
area of gross negligence reckless
29:08
behavior and the IRS can look at the
29:10
donor and say you know it sorry to say
29:12
Charles we're gonna revoke your status
29:15
as a foundation retroactively Lee and
29:18
we're say that you weren't ever a
29:19
charity in fact what you were was
29:21
nothing more than a corporation and you
29:23
owe us corporate income taxes and you
29:25
owe us the donations that you took if
29:29
you took them off your personal taxes we
29:31
want that money back with penalties and
29:33
interest that's under US law and that's
29:35
something that's come up in other
29:36
investigations that you've done in to
29:38
the Clinton Foundation and their donors
29:40
like the Gates Foundation and all that
29:42
and so so the children's investment fund
29:45
foundation if you look that that's the
29:47
u.s. one then there's the UK one right
29:50
and UK law has a similar we base our
29:53
laws I believe in the charity world very
29:55
much on UK law ancient yeah it goes all
29:58
the way back to even Roman law but it
29:59
was codified in 1601 so same idea over
30:03
there if the children's investment fund
30:07
foundation in the UK which gave I want
30:09
to say almost as much as 50 million
30:11
dollars all in or maybe a little more
30:14
than that to the Clinton Foundation
30:15
multiple grants if they discover that
30:19
the this Clinton Foundation hiv/aids
30:22
initiative is not a lawfully constituted
30:24
charity in the US and therefore around
30:26
the world
30:27
normally the burden would be under UK
30:30
law for the unit for the UK charities
30:34
they give us our money back right so the
30:37
question is you know at some point they
30:40
had to have seen this problem why do I
30:42
say that because in two
30:43
2009 the Clinton Foundation reorganized
30:48
itself and even though it wasn't
30:51
required to by the terms of the
30:52
agreement between the Obama
30:53
administration and the Clinton
30:55
Foundation that was struck on December
30:56
12th 2008 even though it did not have
30:59
any specific requirement to create a new
31:03
Clinton Health Access Initiative which
31:06
was created on September 29th 2009 and
31:09
authorized by the IRS I would argue
31:13
incorrectly on March 15th 2010 even
31:16
though there was no obligation to do
31:17
that they went ahead and did that
31:19
why was it because it was there's a
31:23
patch you know it was such an
31:25
embarrassment that they had a year they
31:26
had the Gates Foundation who in this
31:28
period had actually given less money I
31:30
think to the Clinton Foundation hiv/aids
31:33
initiative then this children's
31:35
investment fund foundation had given
31:36
then the Gates Foundation is a major
31:39
donor they had governments major
31:43
governments as donors to this thing at
31:45
225 Water Street and then later 383
31:47
Dorchester Avenue even though it wasn't
31:50
validly constituted and so they had to
31:52
do a patch right now you know this is to
31:57
me you know and there's the 383
31:59
Dorchester address and I've got nothing
32:03
against a charity operating that
32:06
warehouse
32:07
well I've got nothing against the
32:09
charity operating in it you know and in
32:11
cheap office space but but the first
32:13
question you'd ask is you know this is a
32:17
an entity that or the Clinton operation
32:19
was an entity that was supposed to be
32:20
controlled by the Clinton Fenton the
32:24
main Clinton Foundation whose
32:25
headquarters is in Arkansas right you
32:28
know they have why did they need an
32:29
office in Boston and Quincy why did they
32:32
need why do they need multiple offices
32:34
in New York and all this work was
32:36
international why did they even you know
32:38
why didn't they have a small
32:40
headquarters operation in their spacious
32:43
campus 27 acre campus out there in
32:45
Little Rock where rents are very cheap
32:47
probably even cheaper than Dorchester or
32:51
water what do you think the answer to
32:52
that is well I I think that this you
32:55
know is a charity a name
32:57
you know a Chino whatever I mean it's
32:59
it's it is you could have a rhino yeah
33:03
it's a Chino I mean you have massive
33:06
flows here massive flows of money going
33:10
you know towards the Clinton charities
33:12
and then towards these various countries
33:13
with I no controls whatsoever no audits
33:18
no independent trustees no clarity and
33:21
the disclosures of the Clinton
33:22
Foundation I mean I I have an idea of
33:24
what you know if all we're gonna try to
33:25
do this properly how I would do it the
33:28
kind of disclosures you want to show
33:30
people are you know you want to provide
33:33
proof somewhere that you were lawfully
33:35
established in every jurisdiction where
33:37
you operate that's US law you have to do
33:39
that you want to operate internationally
33:40
you cannot break it or anywhere you
33:43
cannot as a charity break any law
33:45
anywhere and so the starting place would
33:49
be all right you know I want to do this
33:51
I started out I wanted to be a
33:52
presidential library oh there you go all
33:55
right so if you keep pull this this one
33:58
up to here yeah I don't know what year
34:02
this is for this is 2010 okay so this
34:05
shows a donation to the Clinton
34:07
Foundation hiv/aids initiative we sleep
34:10
yeah and it says it's a public charity
34:13
and 1.9 million dollars and if you
34:17
scroll down I think it's at a 5.6
34:19
billion in total yeah five six two so
34:22
it's it's it's what is that that's
34:23
that's almost 30 percent yeah of the
34:29
total amounts that went in 2010 from the
34:33
US version this is the u.s. filing of
34:35
the Clinton I'm sorry of the children's
34:38
investment fund foundation 1.9 million
34:41
out of 5.6 million the large second
34:46
largest grant went to this Clinton
34:49
Foundation hiv/aids initiative which
34:51
didn't exist okay how how did they get
34:54
away with that I mean this is an IRS
34:56
document it's a form
34:57
evidently nobody checked but even more
34:59
outrageous is this 3.2 million that I'd
35:03
be one thing if they made one mistake
35:05
but the 3.2 million the biggest donation
35:07
went to this thing Academy for
35:09
Educational Development which it seems
35:11
was so poorly run that even the Obama
35:14
administration decided to pull funds
35:17
away from this thing I believe the next
35:18
year 2011 so what business mean I talk
35:22
I'll forgive this london-based charity
35:23
one mistake maybe this is two on the
35:27
same form well it's what does that add
35:29
up to its nascent not a small mistake
35:30
that's the whole point two million
35:33
that's most of the money
35:35
it's almost ninety percent of the money
35:36
right so the income rachel maddow
35:38
doesn't have this on her program talk
35:40
about her UC wants to go to those
35:42
parties at the pier at oh that's right
35:45
but if we look at 2011 there's an even
35:48
more shocking one and that's that's
35:49
where we're really gonna make some news
35:50
if people are watching this while Jason
35:56
pulls that up Charles
35:58
so just four people sort of the regular
36:03
folks who want to figure out ways they
36:06
could help push this part of the effort
36:12
forward around the foundation and it's
36:15
tax filing status and that kind of thing
36:17
so you've said the foundations who gave
36:21
to the Clinton Foundation's are on the
36:22
hook what about the individuals like as
36:26
you know everyday person donating to the
36:30
Clinton Foundation how does that work
36:32
alright so an individual small donor
36:36
retail donor to the Clinton Foundation
36:38
and and they have been soliciting using
36:41
the internet for Clinton Foundation
36:43
charities and who knows how many maybe
36:45
millions of people have been solicited
36:47
than how many let's call it hundreds of
36:49
thousands of people may have since sent
36:51
small onion in a worst case scenario a
36:55
criminal investigation following leading
36:58
to the revocation of the the Clinton
37:01
Foundation tax status from the very
37:03
beginning on October 23 1997 if the IRS
37:06
wanted to be really nasty they could go
37:09
all the way back to the beginning
37:11
and say anybody who claimed a tax
37:13
deduction to the Clinton Foundation owes
37:15
us that tax deduct the benefit of their
37:18
you know the reduction in their taxes
37:20
back and we're gonna assess penalties
37:23
and interest I mean if they really want
37:24
it to be nasty but I'm told that the IRS
37:27
does not generally do that to small
37:28
donors on the other hand if you're the
37:31
Gates Foundation you're the children's
37:33
investment fund foundation you're a big
37:35
you know person who's written a personal
37:37
check for 25 million they certainly
37:39
would go after you sorry did you want to
37:41
see 2011 or - the one that has Harvard
37:43
on it I think it's 2011 or 12 okay
37:46
Oh 2012 I think that was yeah and yes
37:51
I'm sure yeah so as a class of people or
37:57
you know - or putting pressure on the
38:01
foundations that have given to the
38:03
Clinton Foundation just trying to think
38:06
of sort of areas where additional
38:09
pressure could be applied well on this I
38:12
mean if we go back and well Jason's
38:14
point is so if we go back to the 2002
38:18
timeframe 2001 2002 when Enron you know
38:22
came to the fore and then all these
38:24
financial scandals WorldCom Tyco etc the
38:28
Ivy League campuses the big educational
38:30
institutions you know were we're making
38:33
it was like a Star Chamber trial of the
38:36
private sector that you know how could
38:38
the private sector be this corrupt and
38:40
we need to have endless symposiums and
38:42
you know investigations into the
38:44
corruption in the private private sector
38:45
this is corruption in my view in a
38:48
not-for-profit world there are a lot of
38:50
big institutions that are themselves
38:52
charities including Harvard Yale and
38:57
Columbia and the you know the big and
38:59
doubt educational institutions
39:04
it's coming up interesting sorry that
39:07
you know did not do their homework
39:09
properly here they did not study the
39:13
Clinton Foundation charities they ended
39:15
up putting money into the Clinton fete
39:17
do you think it's enough it's right form
39:19
but it's sorry we're jumping around here
39:22
on you and now you're gonna see one in a
39:26
second this is 2012 that's having a hard
39:31
time finding me they're there to go
39:33
alright so here's here's a case in point
39:35
so here we are the children's investment
39:38
fund foundation in 2012 they take they
39:44
give $50,000 to the Clinton Health
39:48
Access Initiative mm-hmm at a Washington
39:52
DC address which is interesting that's
39:54
the first time I noticed that right why
39:56
would I wasn't aware that they had a
39:58
wash in DC address well and this is this
40:00
Harvard University at that 225 Water
40:03
Street that we were just looking at a
40:05
moment ago which is just a house there's
40:07
no Harvard University anything anywhere
40:08
near that exactly and and well and I
40:12
think Harvard I mean these are two
40:14
Harvard MBAs still married I think in
40:17
2012 you know very successful people
40:20
probably given a lot of money around the
40:22
world maybe personally beyond their
40:24
foundation why would they put in a tax
40:28
form like this under penalties of
40:30
perjury strict penalties of perjury
40:32
claiming that somebody had given twenty
40:34
nine thousand seven hundred twenty-five
40:36
dollars to Harvard University at an
40:38
address at a house at 225 Water Street
40:41
where I don't believe Harvard University
40:43
has any Development Office at that
40:45
address Trish what do you think no I
40:48
don't know I mean that's part of the
40:51
reason we went there yesterday it's so
40:53
far from the Harvard campus right Trish
40:56
yeah I mean they all of them when I've
41:00
gone to any of their offices for any
41:04
kind of administrative or alumni issues
41:07
it's all been in Cambridge yeah and we
41:11
called that office as well didn't we or
41:13
we call who did you call
41:15
I called the Provost but then they
41:18
referred me to someone else and I left a
41:23
message but I didn't get but that was
41:26
starting to candid there was nothing
41:27
there in Quincy right yeah they she had
41:30
never heard of anything and so that's
41:32
what I'm hoping to confirm yeah we were
41:35
she wasn't aware of Benjamin to the
41:36
office and so just to go back and
41:39
refresh your recollection this is not a
41:41
in the in the weeds kind of common I
41:43
think I've brought it up in a previous
41:44
broadcast yeah in case people hadn't
41:46
seen it you know when you take a charity
41:49
like the Clinton Foundation or like the
41:51
children's investment fund foundation
41:52
that has a very high global profile you
41:57
run the risk that fraudsters around the
41:59
world will set up mirror image charities
42:01
with the same name and start raising
42:04
money ostensibly
42:06
to go to the william j clinton
42:08
presidential foundation or the clinton
42:10
aids thing or the children's investment
42:12
fund foundation right but in reality
42:13
it's to go directly to the fraudsters
42:15
pocket so to give you a case study that
42:17
I find rather amusing I was in an idle
42:22
moment just doing a Google search
42:24
Clinton Foundation and then picking
42:26
every African country right and to see
42:29
you know would come up so I get to
42:30
Gambia now Gambia is a small country
42:32
Africa I've never been there I believe
42:33
it's the peanut capital of the world or
42:35
something like that
42:36
and I up comes in the Google search that
42:39
there's gonna be a raffle
42:42
since the William J Clinton Foundation
42:45
is having a raffle for the honour to go
42:48
jogging on the beach with Bill Clinton
42:50
on the day after New Year's Eve in
42:53
Gambia my first thought was wow Bill
42:57
Clinton's gonna go to Gambia you know
42:59
for Christmas Christmas vacation I mean
43:01
it's supposedly nice but then I say wait
43:03
a second there's no way into a Clinton
43:07
Foundation and gammy so simply not this
43:10
case we were just talking about Harvard
43:11
University I mean it is a massive red
43:14
flag to list on a donation that you've
43:17
given money to Harvard University when
43:20
it doesn't have it development office
43:22
there now may be what they were doing is
43:24
they were routing it to some project
43:25
that a Harvard professor
43:28
had and they were sort of being sloppy
43:30
and not really telling the whole truth
43:31
but you're not supposed to do that on
43:33
these tax form and with all these other
43:35
red flags in the UK in the UK foundation
43:38
filings massive red flags but I thought
43:42
you also said that the whole premise of
43:44
this children's investment fund was that
43:46
these two were so meticulous with the
43:48
details of everything how could so I
43:50
mean we've just looked at two documents
43:52
and seen three major mistakes right well
43:54
that's in the foundation side of it so
43:56
you know what it's the same it's right
43:58
it's the same thing and so as a guess as
44:01
a guess here
44:03
when you really think it through and I
44:05
you know I don't think there's been a
44:07
kind of investigation that maybe there
44:08
needs to be into the children's
44:09
investment fund what was really going on
44:13
here it seems that that the money that
44:17
was going into these foundations the
44:20
overwhelming majority was from the
44:22
investors not from the homes right right
44:25
and the fund the foundation documents
44:27
don't disclose to the foundation donors
44:30
how much money the home family was
44:33
making off the funds which i think is
44:35
material we had that thing the dormant
44:37
memo Norment is a crime in inurement is
44:42
when you and it's a crime in the United
44:45
States and it's a crime in the United
44:46
Kingdom in many places when you when the
44:49
trustees and significant donors to a
44:52
foundation derive more than a collective
44:56
amount of insets deemed to be in
44:58
substantial private gain more than a
45:02
collective private gain of more than a
45:03
thousand dollars in the United States
45:05
you are very quickly going to find
45:08
yourself in the area of what's called in
45:09
your meds and you know this is that
45:13
that's what this sure looks like to me
45:15
that you know they didn't have a fund
45:17
before they set up these two charities
45:19
now they had I mean mr. Owen has two
45:22
billion dollars in a fund that he
45:23
controls and he controlled where he
45:25
shared the benefit of with his wife for
45:28
many years and there's no cross there's
45:33
no real there we go that's a slightly
45:35
different one
45:36
is that not the right one it's the yeah
45:39
that's self-dealing yeah this is this is
45:45
if you at your leisure this is for those
45:47
of us who like to really get into
45:48
details this this is a link to a page in
45:53
what the internal RS manual for
45:56
charities that explains some of these
45:59
rules in great detail but there's also
46:00
that memo that I you had up there maybe
46:03
you clicked it off it's a CPE thing yeah
46:06
that this is also this is dated but this
46:09
law is is grounded it really in
46:12
centuries of tradition so well this is
46:15
what they were accusing Trump of right
46:17
and it never interval except but in fact
46:19
it's what they're doing as we always see
46:21
that's their mo mo mo
46:23
that's right use the other guy of what
46:25
it is that you're doing and then
46:27
everybody's looking into him so it's
46:29
very very interesting to see how these
46:31
and of course what you were just saying
46:34
about setting up sort of a copycat fund
46:38
or foundation of cop cat foundation that
46:41
people can donate to well we've seen
46:43
that of course with the act blue act
46:45
blues or you know any time you associate
46:48
that name with some other thing it
46:51
creates confusion and you know it that's
46:54
maybe the intention right exactly and so
46:57
the whole other issue is that in the US
47:01
and I didn't send you this memo because
47:03
it's so weedy but another special
47:07
provision of US law that I think is also
47:09
mirrored in UK law is that when a u.s.
47:13
foundation operates internationally and
47:14
only a very small subset of u.s.
47:18
foundations or charities operate
47:20
operates internationally the
47:22
international operations must be tightly
47:25
controlled from a US base absolutely
47:28
must be tightly controlled from the US
47:30
base and here I think we see the
47:32
opposite of that and the same general
47:34
provision applies in the UK I mean why
47:37
should taxpayers in the UK give a UK
47:43
charity the valuable privilege of
47:45
attracting tax-exempt donations
47:48
for doing work that benefits people in
47:50
Gambia I mean what's why should you do
47:52
that so there's their tighter controls
47:54
for these foundations so you've spoken
47:57
to me before about how you are
47:59
dumbfounded that Trump hasn't replaced
48:02
the director of the IRS and from
48:05
everything that you're saying today it
48:06
seems like that person would be you know
48:09
again you control that one guy and you
48:11
can sort of get all this stuff past the
48:12
IRS without anything necessarily
48:15
happening kind of like controlling the
48:16
FBI director control the IRS director
48:19
you just have a couple of people in your
48:21
even but even then it seems like from
48:24
what Charles has said that with this IRS
48:27
question it's a very straightforward
48:31
binary question it's not it's not a
48:34
matter of investigation it's you know
48:37
what I mean not to the extent that you
48:39
know the bureaucracy exists in the
48:41
Department of Justice and the FBI and
48:43
the other agencies I don't know if maybe
48:45
that's not right but it seems to me it
48:49
it's a more straightforward question
48:51
when you have all these other
48:54
foundations who are giving who are on
48:56
the hook - it seems - yeah I don't know
49:00
see I think what happened here is that
49:02
this this mess frankly started as a
49:07
reasonably small mess but I believe it
49:09
was born as a mess in the middle of a
49:10
mess and you know at the time that
49:15
everyone was messing around in the
49:16
beginning Bill Clinton was president and
49:18
so his people were in in at the IRS in
49:21
at the Department of Justice the mess
49:22
was contained at the beginning then Al
49:25
Gore lost he wasn't supposed to lose and
49:27
he but he lost and now suddenly they had
49:30
a bigger problem compounded when he
49:32
pardoned mark rich so they need to
49:35
somehow put a stance you know to stop
49:37
the investigation and they put I would
49:40
argue this Clinton loyalist or swamp
49:42
loyalist
49:43
Lois Lerner in from the Federal Election
49:46
Commission into the special division
49:48
inside the IRS that that would make
49:51
these type of decisions it's the rulings
49:53
and agreements Department in the tax
49:55
exempt division
49:56
of the IRS so she started out you know
49:59
just precisely in a place where she
50:00
could stop any investigation from going
50:02
further up the ladder then she was
50:04
promoted and I think late 2005 and took
50:07
over in 2006 over all charities so she
50:10
was able to sit on top of this and make
50:12
sure who's that trumps Lois Lerner the
50:14
famous soils learner and so really here
50:19
what we have because if this is operated
50:22
for so long and touches you know the
50:24
largest charity in the world the Gates
50:25
Foundation these children investment
50:27
fund major governments around the world
50:29
the Rockefeller Brothers Rockefeller
50:32
Foundation and as many many Robert Wood
50:36
Johnson Foundation many many big famous
50:38
foundations and people and celebrities
50:40
it just escalated to a point where as a
50:44
guess you know Republicans and Democrats
50:47
inside the swamp looked at this and said
50:49
you know this is bad but we can't fully
50:53
expose it because if we fully expose it
50:55
you know we're gonna implicate so many
50:57
tax-exempt institutions inside the
50:59
United States and around the world
51:00
that'll be such an embarrassment that we
51:03
missed all this it'll be such you know
51:06
it'll upset what I would argue this you
51:09
know party status quo where we have
51:11
people really serving the same masters
51:13
the big moneyed interests in form Pharma
51:15
and the investment world in finance
51:18
media and academia it would have upset
51:22
the status quo so we just have to cover
51:24
it up right and you know that is never a
51:28
smart move so Charles what can we do
51:30
with all this information could we
51:32
somehow create a document that could be
51:34
sent to the IRS or sent to Jeff Sessions
51:37
or something because you you've
51:38
accumulated so much information so much
51:40
evidence what I would really like to see
51:42
happen is for that to you know maybe
51:45
through the power of the crowd source
51:46
community to to take all this
51:48
information and get it to the right
51:50
people who can actually do something you
51:51
know just today this morning Mr Hudson
51:53
gave us a report that they are finally
51:55
you know of course in Ron Awan was
51:58
indicted George began that investigation
52:00
and really accelerated into high gear
52:02
over the past three months and you know
52:05
all of the publicity that's
52:07
put on that that has pushed it into the
52:10
mainstream that resulted in Imran Awan
52:11
getting arrested and then indicted how
52:14
can we do the same sort of thing with
52:15
all of the information you've gathered
52:18
in your investigation into all this
52:19
activity of the the Clintons and all of
52:21
their friends who always seem to be
52:23
testifying as they are right here
52:24
well that's a good question thank you so
52:27
last year I my last entry on my blog is
52:33
September of last year where I laid out
52:36
40 exhibits that I said I would put up
52:39
in September
52:40
I didn't say what year I don't think
52:41
maybe I say 2015 but anyway so I've
52:45
spent you know 11 months now sharpening
52:48
my work and I'm waiting for I'm waiting
52:52
for costume in to be replaced because
52:54
the last thing I wanted to do was
52:55
Telegraph what I knew specifically to
52:57
people inside the IRS you know this is
53:03
Charles or Telkom oh they go here and
53:06
see all of your blog entries right a
53:08
little a little shame yeah so yeah on on
53:14
this site there's a lot of free
53:15
information you can look at it at your
53:17
leisure so what I plan to do is possibly
53:23
as soon as this September start
53:25
releasing on this site a stream of
53:28
exhibits and step the pressure up on on
53:33
you know the government authorities
53:35
around the world to do their job to
53:37
protect we the people to use this as a
53:40
case study the charity world you know
53:42
has not had the regulatory apparatus
53:45
inside this country updated since around
53:48
1969 that was the last time there was a
53:50
major overhaul as far as I can tell it
53:53
was a tax act of 86 generally but 69
53:56
they really focused on private
53:57
foundations and other things and in the
53:59
interim we have you know Al Gore
54:01
invented the internet we have you know
54:03
multinational corporations and
54:05
investment firms etc it's time for the
54:07
charity apparatus regulatory system to
54:09
be multinational to be coordinated so I
54:12
think you know we need to step the
54:13
pressure up on individual attorneys
54:15
general and all the states people know
54:17
congressmen you know why is this Clinton
54:19
founded
54:20
accuracy media which is a great
54:22
organization I had nothing to do with
54:24
the article but they have a big article
54:26
today in a why isn't the FBI sharing the
54:29
results of the the Clinton Foundation
54:31
investigation we know from cheryl
54:33
atkinson spoke we know page 242 smear
54:36
the spear that according to her book
54:39
which is well sourced and she herself is
54:41
a phenomenal individual you know decades
54:45
of experience a very talented person she
54:47
claims that the FBI not only does she
54:50
claim that the FBI had four field office
54:52
investigations running by 2016 but she
54:56
also claims that the new york times knew
54:59
about this by August of 2016 and decided
55:02
to sit on I mean they put Trump's tax
55:05
forms on the front of first page of the
55:07
that there were illegally yeah all the
55:10
shoulders that he made 150 million
55:12
rights but they had knowledge that she
55:14
actually is under FBI investigation a
55:16
criminal investigation and they decide
55:18
not what we're not ready we're not gonna
55:20
show that I wonder if we also could do
55:22
some of these books
55:23
sure absolutely which did you want to
55:26
look at first um why don't we start with
55:28
how I lost actually cuz that's one
55:30
there's a great I'm going to do a
55:32
shameless plug here I have no investment
55:34
interest in this operation there's a
55:37
wonderful book store and I love
55:39
old-fashioned bookstores here in New
55:41
York called The Strand and it has its
55:44
down on I think eleventh or twelfth
55:47
Street yeah and Broadway and it really
55:51
if you've got nothing to do or your or
55:54
your walk around Union Square or the
55:55
village it's really always worth going
55:57
in there because you'll always find a
55:58
bargain so I was there yesterday and I
56:02
Jason's pulling it up and I go in and I
56:07
check on that an office yep I check and
56:11
I see this book how I lost by Hillary
56:13
Clinton now it's obviously not by
56:15
Hillary Clinton it's by somebody called
56:17
Joe Lauria yeah I was confused by that
56:19
at first I was thinking why would she
56:21
write that book and how did she get
56:22
Julian Assange to write the foreword but
56:25
yeah exactly but he what support now you
56:27
know I went on I looked at it and I'm
56:29
familiar with the the file pretty much
56:30
so I
56:31
I recognize many damning things in here
56:34
including the famous band memo which
56:37
talks about you know Doug ban in 2011
56:40
was under fire this is an mo from him to
56:42
the Simpson Thacher lawyers the internal
56:44
Clinton Foundation people saying no no
56:45
no you know my value had added was huge
56:48
you know I did this I made this money
56:51
for Bill and that might all of which is
56:53
bright line in Norman it's the you know
56:55
Charles we hear about Doug band all the
56:56
time can you talk just for a moment
56:58
about his history with the Clintons and
57:00
how far back he goes and what was his
57:02
relationship with for instance Vince
57:05
Foster I've heard that they were know
57:08
nothing nothing I don't know Doug then
57:11
aren't the old-school Arkansas buddies
57:13
all of these guys they're not the Doug
57:16
band is from Florida he's one of he's a
57:19
band of I think four brothers and he he
57:23
was going to school I think he went to
57:26
school in Florida maybe but he but he
57:27
ended up as an intern in the White House
57:30
in the 1999-2000 time frame uh-huh and
57:33
so he was there at the very end and in
57:37
all the public stuff that you get he
57:39
touts the fact that he could have gone
57:40
to work from the White House into
57:42
goldman sachs but he turned that down to
57:45
be sort of the founding worker be for
57:48
Bill Clinton in the post presidency so
57:50
that that was his claim to fame that he
57:52
was sort of that he was the the body man
57:54
you know if you remember the West Wing
57:56
the person who travels with the
57:57
president and Roger gets the coke it
57:58
gets coca-cola right no no I'm not
58:04
saying that is you know just who helps
58:06
out as stands in for the president make
58:08
sure that it you know organizes all that
58:10
sure so anyway he then he ended up in
58:14
the post presidency you know helping the
58:18
various not-for-profit and for-profit
58:20
operations of Bill Clinton and this was
58:23
a memo people were beginning to get
58:24
concerned about you know it has Doug
58:27
band crossed the line here is he you
58:29
know by being involved in both this new
58:32
thing that he created to now and the
58:35
charities is he tainting the charities
58:38
and creating trouble for the family so
58:39
this was a memo in here it's also on
58:41
WikiLeaks
58:42
yeah that talks about all these great
58:44
but what the thing I wanted to draw
58:46
people's attention to is this appendix
58:49
in here it's the first appendix it's on
58:51
page 212 I think where it lists out all
58:56
the speeches by spy date by event by
59:02
location and by amount payment payments
59:05
speeches to Hillary Clinton speeches
59:07
there 91 of them from April you know
59:11
right about the time that should be her
59:13
Dayne goes on the Clinton Foundation mid
59:15
April 2013 until March 2015
59:19
it's a list of all these speeches and
59:21
we'll make a little break a little bit
59:22
of news here because they have attempted
59:26
to hide in my view the fact that they
59:30
changed the governance structure of the
59:32
Clinton Foundation on November 2nd 2013
59:36
there's a filing in Georgia that some
59:39
people have found it assuming it's Janet
59:43
genuine it's on Georgia government file
59:46
in in their government archives so one
59:48
would Hollywood that is legitimate it
59:51
shows that the Clinton Foundation
59:53
changed its bylaws and its governance to
59:56
instead of having a theoretically
59:58
independent board where all trustees
60:00
were supposed to be the same and have
60:03
the same responsibilities they changed
60:05
it to a two class structure on November
60:07
2nd 2013
60:09
where the class a trustees or directors
60:13
we're basically appointed for life and
60:15
in charge and super voting rights and
60:18
they effectively control the foundation
60:19
and they decided in the fullness of
60:22
their own hearts because they're
60:23
generous people that those super voting
60:26
people should should have to have a last
60:28
name of Clinton it seems it was Hillary
60:30
bill and Chelsea and you cannot do that
60:34
in a public charity you cannot operate a
60:36
public charity for a family's benefit
60:38
and you as strictly forbidden things so
60:41
then you look here yeah and you then you
60:43
can see they're about sixty speeches
60:45
we're given after they made this
60:48
decision you know where Hillary appears
60:51
to be picnic getting two hundred
60:53
twenty-five thousand dollars two hundred
60:54
thirty five thousand on average per
60:56
speech but can we
60:57
clarify are those payments made to
61:00
Hillary or to the foundation unclear yet
61:03
we haven't had the disclosure yet but
61:05
you either case some of the
61:07
documentation that one of the crowd
61:09
source the community members showed us
61:12
indicated that the payments were made to
61:16
an agent who then made payment to the
61:20
foundation which is not kosher as far as
61:26
I know well so there's their simple
61:27
issue is that each of those Harry Walker
61:29
industry so there's there's there's
61:31
several issues here
61:33
the first is just the nature of the
61:35
speech payment itself so if you could
61:37
pull up that Consumer Expenditure survey
61:39
yes if you can yes so you know life is
61:48
life is tight it's the far right tab yep
61:53
in America this is I want to you know
61:56
give a shout out to the people and in
61:58
the whoever puts together this Consumer
62:01
Expenditure survey I think in the Bureau
62:02
of Labor Statistics this is a very
62:07
interesting document and it for anybody
62:09
is involved in business this is a survey
62:12
that shows you how income and expenses
62:16
vary by household and it divides you see
62:20
there on the up here 128 million
62:23
households it's divided into the lowest
62:27
the next up up to the very highest right
62:30
and then if you go down a little bit and
62:33
type if you could just make it smaller
62:36
yeah yeah so here this shows and then we
62:41
could go to the even a little bit
62:43
smaller than that if you could yeah
62:45
there we go this shows that the average
62:47
income of all households in America
62:50
because I think that's a 69 67 but the
62:55
thing you have to be careful with it is
62:56
that in the average household they're
62:59
1.3 million 1.3 people working on
63:02
average in each household so you have to
63:04
divide that 69,000 by 1.3 and that gives
63:08
you a sense of how much the average
63:09
earner
63:10
the mean earner makes 5060 440s
63:14
afford as well yeah all right then then
63:17
if you go to over here in that top 10%
63:19
the 12-point Nikken again twelve point
63:23
nine million households the average
63:27
income is two hundred and thirty five
63:29
thousand one hundred and sixty but you
63:31
see that that's four two point one
63:33
earners so that's like a hundred and ten
63:35
hundred fifteen thousand per household
63:37
and be very careful with that that
63:39
that's the top group in that group is
63:42
Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and the
63:44
hedge fund Kings and the sports stars
63:45
and the entertainment people so what
63:47
this shows you is that for this the top
63:51
10% of all households for working for a
63:54
year you know and these days that means
63:57
opt in top 10% not hillel's making that
63:59
she's making that in a half an hour you
64:02
know and not once but 91 times over the
64:05
course of less than two years and you
64:06
know the first step I think we need to
64:08
have it's I'm all for markets right but
64:11
this is not this is a market and
64:14
influence-peddling
64:15
to me well is it's not reasonable to
64:18
underscore that position the first
64:20
thought that occurred to me and I think
64:22
the average person would be well she's
64:24
Hillary Clinton she's famous maybe she's
64:26
getting you know lots and lots of money
64:28
for a speech how does it compare to the
64:31
fees paid to other business leaders you
64:34
know the chairman of Goldman Sachs or
64:36
some CEO well I I don't think many
64:39
people in the for-profit world who would
64:41
be paid speech fees you know I think
64:44
that you for talking about directorships
64:46
and in a directorship you have real
64:47
liability and you can have structured so
64:50
you have some identification but you are
64:52
at risk generally speaking
64:54
Trish knows that she was a drunk yeah
64:58
and you could your life could be
65:00
miserable actually yeah so but in these
65:04
in these in the area of these speeches
65:07
the first is Bernie Sanders you know
65:09
said you know most have been some speech
65:11
I mean yeah yeah it's a good imitation
65:14
what what was she actually talking about
65:16
it was this you know was each speech
65:18
different why was it so hidden she
65:22
well I'll tell you why when I just scan
65:24
this list here you know it's it seems to
65:27
me like a whole bunch of people who
65:30
would like to get on the right side of
65:32
the future President of the United
65:33
States and for a very modest 225,000 or
65:37
in some cases you've multiple payments
65:39
you know by doing that maybe you get in
65:41
the good person list so that when
65:43
Hillary becomes president and you make a
65:46
mistake you know you get at least more
65:49
lenient treatment or maybe you get off
65:50
scot-free or maybe you get a no-bid
65:52
contract so that's the first level for
65:55
me would be you know are these absolute
65:57
payments reasonable for a canned speech
65:59
I mean is this like yeah you know Moses
66:01
talking about the tablet he found or is
66:03
this you know is this platitude central
66:06
you know which I think it's well you
66:08
also have to take that into context of
66:10
the fact that it was Bill Clinton who
66:13
ultimately or finally repealed
66:16
glass-steagall and he was beloved by the
66:20
bankers I still remember when that
66:24
happened it was the most orderly
66:26
consolidation I've ever seen and it left
66:29
me wondering if they had all divvied up
66:32
the spoils before the repeal happened so
66:36
that everybody knew what they were
66:37
getting in advance I know I don't know
66:40
about that but is a good point the
66:43
second thing I would say though Trish
66:45
and Jason is that when you look here
66:47
like you know sports athletes and and
66:49
musicians when I give a concert in
66:52
California right you got to pay
66:53
California state income tax all right of
66:55
course so you know in the Clinton fan
66:58
date in the Clinton personal tax forms
67:00
and I provided you a link to the site
67:02
where you can look at those for
67:03
yourselves I don't see any evidence of
67:06
already breakdown of the state income
67:08
taxes that they may have you know may
67:11
have paid or failed to pay on all these
67:13
speeches I don't see any evidence of
67:16
that and I wonder if answering your
67:18
question about Harry Walker have been
67:20
structuring it so that the money went
67:22
first to the foundation if that's the
67:25
way they did it was that a way of
67:26
getting around personal tax liability at
67:29
the state level I don't know Charles can
67:32
you talk a little bit about the history
67:34
for people who
67:35
were still sort of trying to understand
67:38
what's going on here and why nothing has
67:40
happened around the history with the
67:45
Clinton Foundation and Mueller call me
67:48
the cave and Rosenstein is even in that
67:51
mix right so that's a good question
67:53
thank you so basically after after Bill
67:58
Clinton left or as he left shortly after
68:02
he left he made a decision somebody made
68:04
a decision as he was leaving to pardon
68:06
two fugitives from America justice
68:08
Pincus green I think in mark richard
68:11
mark rich and you know it was a very
68:16
tense moment in our history and the
68:18
election was so controversial the result
68:20
in but people just went ballistic and it
68:23
took by around February 2001 that the US
68:27
attorney in the Southern District of New
68:29
York was then Mary Jo white launched an
68:32
investigation the FBI sprung into action
68:35
and an investigation into what into this
68:38
pardon and I think it's worth mentioning
68:40
that pardoned took place at like 11:59
68:43
p.m. on the last day of his presidency
68:45
and the rich will rather the Clintons
68:48
and mark rich were sort of connected in
68:51
tenuous and unknown ways with regard to
68:54
iran-contra this illegal oil pipeline
68:57
from Iran to Israel all kinds of crazy
68:59
crazy stuff so the question immediately
69:02
became you know what what's all this
69:04
fundraising for the Clinton Foundation
69:06
the presidential foundation and was
69:08
there a potential connection between
69:10
monies sent to the Clinton Foundation as
69:12
donations and the decision by the
69:15
President to offer pardons to mark rich
69:18
and this guy Pincus green and and then
69:23
it didn't take very long and the
69:25
atmosphere was poisonous before the
69:28
House Oversight Committee I think
69:29
launched hearings as well so the record
69:32
shows that we talked about this I think
69:34
previously this great FBI evolved and
69:36
thank you people at the FBI vol keep
69:38
those documents but if you go on there's
69:44
two there's the william j clinton
69:45
foundation vault and then there's
69:47
that hillary rodham kit clinton also has
69:50
documents in the William Jay Clinton is
69:53
two dumps totaling about 600 pages and
69:57
that shows very clearly that there was
69:59
an actual investigation with an actual
70:02
grand jury yeah that was pulled together
70:04
by around the February March 2001
70:07
timeframe initially the US attorney
70:10
leading the charge was Mary Jo white and
70:12
then as 2001 progressed of course we had
70:15
the dread events of September 11th and a
70:18
week before that actually James Comey
70:21
well it's robert muller was made head of
70:24
the FBI a week before that Reaper force
70:26
and then James Comey was transferred in
70:29
to replace Mary Jo white and in this FBI
70:32
wall file we see a document that says
70:35
you know that the incoming call me they
70:37
take his name out but it's obviously
70:38
Comey is you know enthusiastic about the
70:42
investigation all set to go and there's
70:44
a lot of in that William Jay Clinton
70:46
Foundation FBI Walt releases the two of
70:49
them little extensive information that
70:51
there really was an active investigation
70:52
in 2001 but you know also in the public
70:56
domain for all of us to see on the
70:58
Clinton Foundation website and the Pro
71:00
Publica website on state websites you
71:03
know it's not like the Clinton
71:04
Foundation had that many donations right
71:07
once
71:08
oh no it's a number it's not like that
71:10
it was that complicated to see all right
71:12
you know how many people donated Ryan
71:15
what did they swear did they say the
71:16
money came from and who are these people
71:18
and where they were if their foundations
71:20
where they validly organized and show me
71:22
the audit show me an audit for the
71:24
Clinton Foundation you know you're
71:25
sitting there you're the US Attorney
71:27
Comey you're the FBI you have a lot of
71:29
power you have a grand jury
71:31
show me the audit bring the accounting
71:33
firm in it was that now called bkd boy
71:37
King dog that something names is just
71:39
how to pronounce the initials show me
71:42
their audit show me their working papers
71:44
show me that the the record of you know
71:48
how you pick this accounting firm why
71:50
did you pick this accounting firm is the
71:51
accounting firm independent has it ever
71:53
gotten into trouble you know and if so
71:56
why and you know were these decisions
71:58
prudent all this and what about
72:00
Simpson Thacher - I mean you know they
72:04
were that came later they came a lot
72:08
later but uh it's a good quote is a good
72:10
question Tricia if I could just I want
72:11
to just give you the fall I'm trying to
72:13
answer your original question sure okay
72:15
so so we start with with call me and
72:17
molar 2001-2002 that investigation my
72:22
eyes it seems to slow down once Comey
72:24
goes into the chair interesting how that
72:26
happens yeah and it takes if they're
72:28
investigated for 2002 they investigated
72:31
for 2003 they investigated all the way
72:34
through 2004 and in August 31st or so
72:37
2004 there's evidence in that FBI wall
72:39
file that it seems like they are ready
72:42
to go to trial but then all of that
72:45
weekend August 31st 2004 was a weekend
72:49
where I think Bill Clinton had a medical
72:51
history
72:52
I mean experience it's hard I believe oh
72:55
yeah yeah and so after that a decision
72:57
was made all right we're gonna stand
72:58
down we're not gonna do anything and
73:01
then this in particularly the well I
73:05
would argue to be illegal hiv/aids
73:07
international operations they started
73:10
mushrooming after this decision to stand
73:12
down and not prosecute and then we had
73:15
the fiasco we've talked about before
73:17
with the hiv/aids medicine the Ron
73:19
bauxite and that's where to answer your
73:21
question about Rosenstein his office
73:23
when he was US Attorney for Maryland it
73:26
was his office that had it seems primary
73:29
responsibility for investigating run
73:31
Boxey and leading culminating into
73:33
something that came together as a large
73:37
fine and I guess some kind of legal
73:40
issue uh in May of 2013 all this is
73:44
under Rosenstein swatch on the question
73:47
I have there is did Rosenstein you know
73:50
do good work in getting the fought his
73:53
office the 500 million dollar settlement
73:54
but he did he ignore a far bigger
73:58
problem with the regulation of drugs not
74:01
simply run Boxey but other drugs
74:03
coursing through our country from places
74:05
like India that are not regulated
74:07
tightly enough that he did he failed to
74:10
take this thing as far as he could have
74:11
taken it
74:12
and if so why so there are a lot of
74:15
questions here that involve Comey and
74:18
Muller and Rosenstein you know and now
74:21
these people are all front and center in
74:24
the Trevino and that trumps Russia Pro
74:26
yeah it's interesting how hard they're
74:28
they're pressing on that was there
74:32
anything else you wanted to get into
74:33
Charles because we've got all these
74:35
books we wanted to talk
74:36
just you could we can have the the book
74:38
the book segment yes let's do that
74:44
so which was the first book any book you
74:46
want you'll do it at random well we've
74:47
got you know no such thing as a free
74:50
gift we could start there we've got of
74:52
course dr. courses book partners in
74:54
crime there's a little bit of an
74:58
unexpected problem happening in that
75:00
I've got an external battery hooked up
75:02
here but the thing is still saying low
75:04
battery let me see if I can rectify that
75:06
with another try that maybe that'll save
75:09
us so which one do you wanna talk about
75:11
first partners agree I went up written
75:13
by our mutual good friend dr. Jerome
75:15
Corsi did what do we want to say about
75:19
that one oh is it up on the screen it is
75:21
yeah okay so yeah partners in crime is a
75:24
book that Jerry Corsi put together last
75:26
year I think it was and it takes I was
75:31
sort of helping him through late in 2015
75:35
and then he took it off on his own and I
75:38
went on my own doing my own taking the
75:40
investigation further along but for
75:42
those people who want sort of an
75:43
introduction to key data and and key
75:48
sources it's a well-written book it's
75:50
extensively footnoted and documented and
75:53
it's and it's easily it's I think it's
75:56
comparatively light reading it's not you
75:58
know it's not really dense detail so
76:00
it's a good introduction to you know one
76:02
analysis of what I and Jerry Corsi
76:06
initially saw when we looked at the
76:07
documents through the end of 2015 of
76:11
course we've got this
76:14
this one about Bill Clinton man of the
76:17
world
76:18
you know that's actually a very another
76:20
interesting book and you know what we
76:21
find here is that the people are
76:23
involved in this process this is a book
76:25
written by Joe Coniston who is a very
76:29
famous author he's a friend of Bill
76:32
Clinton I believe and to be fair to Joe
76:36
he can't resist attacking you know
76:40
right-wing elements here and there but
76:42
he's not it's not completely one-sided
76:44
he does get into some of the counter
76:49
arguments and he does expose some of the
76:52
counter art and this was written and
76:54
published right before the election
76:56
under I would guess an assumption by the
76:59
publisher and the author that Hillary
77:01
would win and unfortunately it is a
77:04
confession of charity fraud those of us
77:06
who understand know what charity fraud
77:09
is you could go into that book and you
77:11
can look at the admissions against
77:13
interest there they are we did this on
77:15
that date and solicited this and that
77:17
date from this government none of this
77:18
stuff is reported in any of the filings
77:20
so it's a great clue for the FBI listen
77:24
up
77:25
a great clue of the FBI is to read that
77:28
book carefully and cross-check it with
77:29
the Clinton Foundation violence and then
77:32
what about the McAuliffe book what a
77:35
party saint same thing that's another
77:37
one where Terry McAuliffe you know wrote
77:39
an ebullient book about you know his
77:41
life and how it was one big party in
77:44
politics and in that book and elsewhere
77:47
he's talked about how he is profited
77:49
extensively from his political ah
77:51
personally from his political
77:53
relationships and from his charitable
77:54
relationships and you know you're really
77:56
not supposed to do that you know stupid
77:58
in these guys I why are they writing
78:01
books about this well to talk about
78:03
another great well maybe we could talk
78:04
about giving sure I mean you know this
78:06
is a book that should should probably
78:08
have been titled taking right close to
78:10
giving it is a book that Bill Clinton
78:13
wrote or somebody wrote and it's in the
78:19
press there are accounts that it that he
78:22
may have derived 6.4 million dollars in
78:24
compensation there
78:26
and then he gave a million of his
78:28
compensation back to charity well you
78:31
can't do that
78:32
Hey and when you read this giving book
78:35
now this was published in September of
78:37
2007 so in the heat Hillary announced I
78:39
think in January of 2007 so this is
78:42
right before the campaign season the
78:44
primary season three months before or
78:46
four months before 2007 and you read it
78:49
now with the benefit of hindsight person
78:52
after person who is mentioned in there
78:54
has either admitted they were a fraud
78:55
stir
78:56
you know admitted they had a problem
78:58
there's that three cups of tea that
79:01
famous scandal where's this guy you know
79:04
the story was he you know was climbing a
79:07
mountain somewhere and he came out in
79:09
Pakistan and he got lost and a family
79:12
took care of them and so he decided to
79:14
give back was the story and he created a
79:16
foundation yeah another International
79:18
Foundation and you know people initially
79:21
money flooded towards this dude and it
79:25
was subsequently revealed that it was
79:26
all invented it's just you know yeah I
79:28
decided in there there's this guy fully
79:30
arey you know the Italian guy young guy
79:33
who came and oh right yeah Fabrizio I
79:36
think is Raphael phone Ruffy up there he
79:38
was dating and had Hathaway all right
79:40
right before unit right there was some
79:44
connection to John McCain right I saw a
79:46
photograph of John McCain getting on to
79:49
this guy's yacht and then purportedly he
79:52
somehow secretly went to another yacht
79:54
owned by Oleg Deripaska is that right
79:57
Ivan yeah yeah Jake more phoniest did
79:59
some reporting on that and then the
80:01
funny thing is when Trish and I were in
80:03
London we went to this spy equipment
80:06
store just for fun and they had this
80:09
personal submarine that you could buy so
80:13
yeah i wondering like what would you do
80:15
with that maybe have that on your yacht
80:16
to be photographed walking onto one
80:19
yacht and then personally submarine
80:21
yourself over to another guy i don't
80:23
know that it's not my world well the
80:25
woman the clerk there said that she had
80:28
sold several of them reasonably and that
80:31
in fact people did use them to go from
80:33
one boat to another
80:36
tsch ously yeah that is funny but so it
80:39
just person after person in this book
80:41
built the Bill Clinton giving is
80:43
subsequently really revealed after
80:46
September 2007 to have been engaged at
80:49
highly questionable activities in
80:51
addition it's a bill confesses to
80:52
charity fraud in this thing as well that
80:54
he got involved in international
80:56
activities in 2002 that are not
80:58
disclosed in the Clinton Foundation
80:59
filings it also describes his role as
81:02
being basically in charge of the Clinton
81:04
Foundation and he's not listed as being
81:05
an officer or director of the Clinton
81:07
Foundation a director until 2013 and an
81:12
officer director of a subsidiary he's
81:14
his first listing as in 2009 how come
81:17
he's not on any of the filings the
81:19
extents of filing state federal you know
81:21
international until that point might be
81:23
busy going to the Jeffrey Epstein Island
81:26
what about this book my life yeah my
81:30
life is an interesting one but there's
81:32
two versions I went and I I resist all
81:36
most temptations to make the Clintons
81:38
richer than they currently are but I
81:40
went over to the Strand because I've
81:42
heard that there was an I thought there
81:44
might be an afterword in his heart back
81:46
edition and I I seen it in the library
81:50
in a library I thought I'd seen it in
81:52
the hardback so I went and I bought the
81:54
hardback and that didn't set me back
81:56
even ten bucks but for a first edition
81:59
which is you know that's reasonable so I
82:01
I get at home out of chasing looking for
82:05
the afterword there's no afterward so
82:06
then I have to you know walk back to
82:08
this strand and I got you know this
82:10
version over here and this is again the
82:12
afterword this is published in 2005 I
82:14
believe it's a confession to charity
82:16
from so I set up the Clinton Foundation
82:19
in doing the International work in 2001
82:22
from the Harlem office well if you look
82:24
at the New York filings there is no
82:27
record of that is that you said Jeffrey
82:29
Epstein is it I know I'm going into
82:32
areas that Charles might know well but
82:35
in the court documents from his right um
82:39
case with the sex trafficking which he
82:43
pled to soliciting a minor
82:47
it in those documents he claims to have
82:51
been behind setting up the Clinton
82:55
Foundation its inception so which is
83:00
what's in the court documents I mean
83:02
right I have a suspicion what what
83:05
Jeffrey Epstein did do is and that's in
83:09
the public domain is that that when bill
83:11
began his efforts to fight hiv/aids
83:13
internationally Jeffrey Epstein did lend
83:16
the Clinton Foundation the use of his
83:18
plane including for a trip that went to
83:21
multiple places in Africa in September I
83:24
believe of 2002 so he what it is
83:27
probably a correct statement that
83:29
Epstein was instrumental in the
83:32
expansion of the Clinton Foundation
83:34
hiv/aids operation but you know I'm not
83:37
a lawyer and I'm certainly not a
83:39
criminal expert but it would strike me
83:41
that it's most unwise to lie to a judge
83:45
in the process of your sentencing right
83:48
and so why he would embellish his wrong
83:50
I mean the Clinton Foundation was set up
83:51
October 23 1997 in Little Rock Arkansas
83:54
by lawyers from what that for local
83:57
lawyers in Arkansas with assistance so
83:59
firm oh I don't know who it was a
84:01
Tisdale I think was the guy's name we
84:03
did it and then with the assistance of
84:05
Williams and Connally I think Epstein
84:08
may have been involved as I say in 2002
84:10
maybe a little bit earlier but I don't
84:12
think he created the Clinton Foundation
84:14
in the very beginnings that most about
84:17
in that book including Bill and Hillary
84:20
going to Haiti on their honeymoon and
84:23
studying voodoo isn't that true yeah
84:26
about the studying voodoo part I don't
84:28
know if they studied well there or they
84:30
went to some voodoo ceremony or
84:32
something like that and they may have
84:34
been studying voodoo at Yale Law School
84:37
then there's this um I don't know which
84:40
other want book you want to get to them
84:42
oh well it's up to you so this power and
84:45
numbers book right that's um this is a
84:49
must-read this is another confession to
84:52
charity fraud this is
84:55
this is a book by Philip deuce Blasi
85:00
with an introduction from President Bill
85:02
Clinton okay and it was published in
85:05
January I believe of 2010 and when you
85:09
compare that you know the the claims
85:12
made by the at the time this gentleman
85:14
the the Dane author was the French
85:16
foreign minister and also the chairman
85:18
of unit 8 he had he had early on he was
85:21
both and that by this time he's just the
85:22
chairman of unit 8 and you know it talks
85:25
about all bill rights of forward to it
85:27
and it talks about all the things that
85:29
they'd done starting in 2006 or and be
85:31
prior to create unit 8 the only problem
85:34
with that is that just as this book is
85:36
being published the Clinton the Clinton
85:39
Health Access Initiative puts papers
85:42
into Lois Lerner's Department December
85:46
31st 2009 saying that we're a new
85:48
organization we have no history
85:50
there's no prior operations and then at
85:52
the same time this book is published and
85:54
then March 15 2010 this Clinton Health
85:59
Access Initiative which clearly has lied
86:01
throughout its application gets an
86:03
authorization from the IRS the federally
86:05
tax-exempt
86:06
I mean it's and and also I should add
86:08
that precisely at this time is when Lois
86:12
Lerner began with other people it is
86:14
alleged to persecute conservative groups
86:17
Tea Party groups so we're trying to go
86:19
through the same process this thing
86:21
here's a bright-line confession of fraud
86:24
and we know also through our
86:27
international contacts we have evidence
86:29
documentary evidence that the French
86:31
government began an investigation into
86:34
this organization and specifically into
86:37
into unit eight inning two unit eights
86:40
contributions to the Clinton Foundation
86:42
in December of 2009 early December 2009
86:45
there's an extensive public record in
86:47
France of that so that's our in numbers
86:51
power number and that's still in print
86:53
or you got that at the strip I got it at
86:55
the Strand I think this is hard to find
86:57
yeah but so for people who don't live in
86:59
New York City the Strand is sort of a
87:01
rare and used bookstore
87:04
kind of kind of intellectual and
87:07
high-end books mostly yeah it's not like
87:10
a myself Forbidden Planet it's although
87:13
it is close to it you got see that says
87:16
I saw that I know that I don't know that
87:19
one doesn't Charles can you speak
87:22
briefly about Preet Bharara and sort of
87:26
his background with respect to the
87:30
Clinton Foundation and investigations
87:32
because I think a lot of people aren't
87:35
aware of sort of the overlap there -
87:38
yeah so Preet Bharara Aurora is suddenly
87:43
I understand in the Indian American
87:46
community believe that he's too hard
87:48
hard on Indian Americans and when he
87:51
what he was I believe the US Attorney
87:53
for the Southern District that's right
87:55
and we're at a Lynch was the US attorney
87:58
for the Eastern District which is
87:59
Brooklyn and I think Long Island and
88:03
there have been investigations there may
88:06
still be investigations ongoing into
88:08
people who are connected to the various
88:11
Clinton Foundation operations into major
88:13
donors there was a guy named this name
88:19
right the guy the hotel guy no no the
88:25
Indian hotel guy Oh anyway there was an
88:29
investigation into he's a major donor
88:31
he's also got ties into India's
88:33
investigation into him there's
88:34
investigation in Tehran boxia the
88:36
Maryland group and then the people who
88:38
don't know Ram Boxey is an Indian
88:40
pharmaceutical company that was involved
88:42
in this whole IRA Magaziner reduced
88:44
potency AIDS drugs to Africa thing right
88:47
that that led to ostensibly Erik
88:51
Braverman saying hey I'm out of here
88:53
leaving the Clinton Foundation
88:55
potentially blowing the whistle at the
88:58
FBI and setting off George's
89:02
investigation and all the stuff that led
89:04
to the yuan brothers so it's amazing how
89:06
all of this is intertwined yeah so it's
89:10
unclear
89:10
you know how far Preet went looking into
89:14
the clinton foundation it's unclear
89:16
as it should be unclear frankly the the
89:18
status of these various investigations
89:21
but you know if they have a serious team
89:24
on this it's not complicated to look at
89:28
the public filings in not just the
89:30
federal tax ones with the state platform
89:32
and I believe that his office had
89:36
prosecuted successfully a number of
89:38
other politicians for charity fraud over
89:43
the last year or so and I think the
89:46
number may be something like five or six
89:48
even it was a lot and that's why I was
89:52
really shocked when I had seen as you
89:55
mentioned in it was mid-2016 that he was
90:01
investigating his office was
90:03
investigating the Clinton Foundation but
90:06
then nothing came of it right and the
90:08
other thing of course that he did
90:09
investigate that's a matter of public
90:10
record is Rajat Gupta the man former
90:14
managing partner at McKinsey is
90:15
centrally involved hired Chelsea Clinton
90:19
introduced the Clinton Foundation to run
90:21
Boxey least Mackenzie did was working
90:24
McKinsey was working for run Boxey
90:26
Mackenzie was working for the Gates
90:27
Foundation Mackenzie was working for
90:29
many foundations there's there's so many
90:32
different ties Mackenzie's the glue I
90:34
think to a lot of these not-for-profit
90:37
organizations the big ones that operated
90:39
internationally and Rashad Gupta was
90:41
convicted for insider trading abusing
90:44
his position of trusts I think at
90:46
Goldman Sachs and a few other places
90:49
passing information according to the
90:52
conviction in to this crooked galleon
90:56
fund fellow Raj Rajaratnam who's still
91:00
in prison it seems like you know
91:02
irrespective of the presidential
91:05
administration the White House has
91:08
become sort of a subsidiary of Goldman
91:10
Sachs my brother briefly worked at
91:15
Goldman Sachs they're already there many
91:17
there many fine people at Goldman Sachs
91:20
and and Goldman Sachs is an organization
91:22
today if I want to say 25,000 people or
91:24
so they take the best and the brightest
91:27
around the world
91:27
and you know they're their specialty is
91:29
finance my best thing doesn't it seem
91:32
like an undue amount of influence for a
91:34
private company to have over the
91:36
government we've had what was this new
91:38
Hank Paulson Paulson right well you're
91:43
talking to somebody who's big boss was
91:45
the Treasury secretary of the United
91:47
States Nick Brady so it's not only
91:50
goldman sachs but the firm i used to
91:52
work for had taught you well but um
91:54
charles on a more objective level is is
92:00
it my understanding correct that your
92:03
position on glass-steagall is that we
92:06
need it or that you or that dodd-frank
92:09
is adequate or do you what are your
92:13
feelings in that respect so I'm not a
92:17
policy maker or anything but my magis is
92:20
an individual my feet I start with the
92:22
fact that if you're gonna have a
92:23
regulatory apparatus it must enjoy the
92:26
confidence of the investing public so I
92:29
don't have confidence that the Federal
92:30
Reserve System is adequately regulated
92:33
it's not audited properly consistent
92:36
with you know the strict standards that
92:38
it wants to impose on the banks that it
92:39
you know that it has some measure of
92:42
what do they call it macro prudential
92:44
guidance or something that some
92:45
ridiculous term anyway so I would start
92:48
by saying the Federal Reserve System
92:49
needs to subject itself as do Congress
92:52
and the executive to do the same rules
92:54
that apply to the public at large it
92:56
needs to be strictly regulated but won't
92:58
they never know I returned that I think
93:00
they will sort them they may well have
93:02
to do it and I'm you know the Pentagon
93:04
is already required to submit an audit
93:07
an annual audit and has never once done
93:11
it in like 15 years since it was yeah
93:14
who is open to yeah so so in the case of
93:19
the glass-steagall question when I was a
93:22
partner on Wall Street was prior to
93:24
glass-steagall and the way we were
93:27
regulated is that we had to keep our
93:29
investments in an account at our firm
93:32
that wasn't insured and so you know
93:37
above a certain low and so so if you
93:39
when you're a partner before
93:40
and you appreciate that if you screw up
93:43
you know hey you're gonna be sued B you
93:46
might go to jail and C you're gonna lose
93:47
all your money you tend to be a little
93:50
bit more cautious right the fact that if
93:52
you're gonna roll the dice with other
93:54
people's money which is the way this has
93:56
worked that's all right so I was I would
93:58
say that you know the glass-steagall
93:59
approach wasn't tough enough it would be
94:04
my view given that we're a lot more
94:07
complicated today in 2017 than we were
94:12
whenever glass-steagall was eliminated
94:14
and the regulatory apparatus hasn't
94:17
grown anywhere near as fast as the
94:20
complexity of the you know the companies
94:22
and investment funds so we would need
94:24
something tighter than that and I'm also
94:26
not in favor you know when you when you
94:28
think about glass-steagall simplistic
94:31
terms the way I understand it it came
94:33
out of the Great Depression
94:35
you know when the Great Depression we
94:36
had in the go-go days before the Great
94:40
Depression we had a very similar
94:42
situation with unregulated funds insider
94:44
trading
94:45
I don't believe insider trading happens
94:47
all that much now but it was legal then
94:49
and so you had this casino like
94:52
environment and trees were growing too
94:55
this guy United States was one of the
94:57
larger economies after a war that had
95:00
devastated Europe in particular and you
95:04
know in reaction to the excesses then we
95:07
created this glass-steagall thing where
95:09
the the issuers of securities were
95:11
separated from the buyers of securities
95:13
by by changing that and creating these
95:16
universal banks it's virtually
95:19
impossible for the people who run the
95:21
very back at the top to really resist
95:25
the temptation to fall afoul potential
95:28
conflicts and it's even more likely that
95:30
the public at large will believe that
95:31
the system you have you know is not
95:33
really working the way it should to
95:36
protect all of us so I think these big I
95:38
far be it for me to agree with Elizabeth
95:41
Warren on anything but on this area I do
95:44
think that you know this vast
95:47
bureaucracy that we have created with
95:50
dodd-frank is not equipped to the task
95:52
and we really do need to
95:54
to get some bright minds in the room and
95:57
on the lending side lending is a
95:59
horrible business the people who have a
96:01
lot of money don't typically like to
96:03
borrow and that people who don't have
96:05
any money are not the best credit risk
96:07
so it's not the easiest place to
96:09
actually construct the business but we
96:11
need to go back to a system where the
96:13
the lenders actually know the borrowers
96:15
you know the old savings the loan
96:17
approach where you wanted a mortgage in
96:20
Millbrook New York you go to your local
96:21
bank and they would know you and they
96:23
know the property and they know that you
96:25
know it doesn't make sense for you to
96:27
borrow $300,000 as a mortgage and then
96:29
send it to Pakistan the way they don't
96:31
want this I'm glad you brought it back
96:34
to that there's now now that that spy
96:37
ring in Congress has been identified and
96:39
it looks like there's going to be an
96:41
actual trial there that'll lead to the
96:43
discovery of who was involved and you've
96:46
brought forth so much evidence revealing
96:49
the corruption of the Clinton Foundation
96:51
and their associates do you foresee
96:54
anything happening I do I mean I'm not
96:58
really you know in the position in the
97:02
position of predicting how the swamp
97:04
will behave I I just you do feel the
97:07
drain yeah is it swirling is this well I
97:10
think thanks to you and Trisha and
97:12
others the the public is now beginning
97:16
to you know understand that this is a
97:19
mess and that and I hope Donald Trump
97:22
with his people and the good people on
97:24
the Left as well who treats lead a good
97:27
friend that progressive radio and Gary
97:29
Nall George will be on there tomorrow oh
97:31
great great
97:32
and a whole bunch of George but thanks
97:36
to the efforts of many good people are
97:39
really digging in yourselves especially
97:41
I think the public at large sees this
97:44
for what it is and I think there's a
97:47
there's just revulsion because they
97:50
should get away with this for so long
97:52
and I also think you know when I got
97:54
into this in the beginning the big issue
97:56
I was concerned about is what if Hillary
97:58
Clinton won because you know when you go
98:00
out and you make a career yeah being as
98:03
sort of monumental pain
98:05
it might not have been so good had she
98:08
won but she didn't and so now we're in a
98:12
mode I think where people want the swamp
98:15
I believe I'm balanced except for the
98:17
people who live in Washington DC area
98:18
most people want the swamp to be drained
98:21
yeah and they want to see we understand
98:24
you we all understand your your
98:25
listeners understand your viewers
98:27
understand how hard it is to make an
98:29
honest buck today and to see these
98:32
people as sloppy as debbie Wasserman
98:34
Schultz we're not talking here about
98:35
that I'm gonna be just really blunt that
98:38
idiot in Congress when I forget his name
98:40
though it might be Johnson or something
98:41
like that who is so concerned that
98:43
global warming is gonna cause islands to
98:45
tip over me we're not talking about
98:47
somebody that although we're talking
98:49
about capsized Islands man but we're
98:53
talking about somebody who's the
98:54
chairman of the Democratic National
98:56
Committee committee amiss is a Syrian a
98:59
city member of Congress elected many
99:01
many times running an operation so
99:03
sloppily allowing enemies I mean people
99:07
who knows what these people were doing
99:09
whether they were you know if they're
99:11
really skilled with IT you let a fox
99:13
into that henhouse
99:14
you get all into the system who knows
99:16
what secrets they might have actually
99:18
found who knows who they sold those
99:20
secrets to yeah who knows you know how
99:22
the national security of this country
99:23
may have been affected negatively for
99:25
how long we absolutely need to know what
99:28
happened there there needs to be a show
99:30
trial you know how do these people get
99:33
hired
99:33
why were they protected for so long you
99:36
know where does Debbie wasserman-schultz
99:39
get off thinking she could threaten the
99:40
Capitol police right the chief right I
99:44
mean who does who does she think she is
99:45
it's quite crazy you know like you said
99:47
Charles they've been getting away with
99:49
these heists in broad daylight for
99:52
decades I mean true it's just the whole
99:54
system has protected them it's the
99:58
elephant in the backyard of the castle
100:00
right well listen Charles I've got to
100:02
thank you for coming and spending so
100:03
much time with us today was there
100:05
anything else you wanted to cover that's
100:06
it it's always a pleasure to see you
100:08
like well just tons of evidence pouring
100:11
out of you every single time we talk my
100:13
pleasure
100:14
I'll see you soon my friend
100:15
thank you very casings rakes Trish
100:17
thanks for town with us we'll see
100:19
everybody tomorrow thanks very much






Tube-to-Text