The recent news of a revived whistleblower case involving the Clinton Foundation has caused shockwaves throughout the political world, as it comes hot on the heels of Special Counsel John Durham’s damning report.
The case has been brought back to life by U.S. Tax Judge David Gustafson in 2017 after he denied an IRS request to dismiss it. He also ordered that details be revealed regarding any criminal investigations into the foundation due to a mysterious “gap” in their records.
The findings of Special Counsel John Durham have caused further scrutiny and doubt over the now-infamous charity, which was founded by former President Bill Clinton and former First Lady Hillary Clinton.
In his report, Durham accused federal authorities of failing to properly investigate allegations against the Clinton Foundation, spurring its reexamination yet again amid intense public debate.
The revelations from Durham’s report have reignited conversations regarding potential conflicts of interest or ethical lapses surrounding any involvement with this highly controversial organization, which had come under fire back when it was first launched in 1997 for its alleged close ties with foreign entities while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State during Barack Obama’s presidency from 2009-2013.
There were criticisms that some donations may have been used for personal gain or political purposes while she held office – all accusations that remain unsubstantiated up until today despite multiple investigations into these claims since then.
This ongoing saga is likely far from over though – especially given how many questions still remain unanswered about what happened at the foundation and whether any laws were broken during this period.
With no clear resolution yet in sight, only time will tell if there are any tangible consequences of this revival or if it simply fades away like so many other scandals before it did without providing closure either way for anyone involved in this heated debate cycle about one of America’s most powerful families and their so-called “charitable” activities.
Gustafson noted: “The IRS filed a new motion to dismiss, and all parties filed arguments over the last year. But on Monday, Gustafson postponed ruling on those motions, instead asking for new arguments in light of three recent precedent-setting court rulings, once again frustrating IRS efforts to make the case go away.”
“The three recent rulings in other tax cases “may affect the parties’ positions as to the pending motions,” Gustafson wrote. “We will order further filings so that the parties may address those recent opinions.”
The whistleblowers, John Moynihan, a former federal agent, and Larry Doyle, a corporate tax compliance expert, have until June 30 to update their arguments while the judge gave the IRS until July 28 to respond.
Moynihan and Doyle testified to a House committee in December 2018. They told Congress that the Clinton Foundation was operating illegally as a foreign lobbyist by accepting overseas donations and then trying to influence U.S. policy.
“The foundation began acting as an agent of foreign governments early in its life and throughout its existence,” Moynihan testified at the time.
“As such, the foundation should’ve registered under FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act).
“Ultimately, the foundation and its auditors conceded in formal submissions that it did operate as a (foreign) agent, therefore the foundation is not entitled to its 501c3 tax-exempt privileges as outlined in IRS 170 (c)2.”
Durham wrote of the Clinton Foundation:
“Likely engaged a federal public official in a flow of benefits scheme, namely, large monetary contributions were made to a non-profit, under both direct and indirect control of the federal public official, in exchange for favorable government action and/or influence.
“Beginning in late 2014, before Clinton formally declared her presidential candidacy, the FBI learned from a well-placed [source] that a foreign government was planning to send an individual to contribute to Clinton’s anticipated presidential campaign, as a way to gain influence with her should she win the presidency,” he also said.
