Trump Got Money From Clinton Donor in 2015. A Lot Of Noise About Nothing. It Was Before He Was A Candidate.

‘It’s troubling’: Alleged ‘pay-to-play’ Clinton donor also contributed to Trump Foundation

Tré Goins-Phillips November 23, 2016 12:54 pm

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

126Follow

• SHARE
• TWEET

After spending months on the campaign trail criticizing Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for her alleged “pay-to-play” politics, a new report reveals that one of the most generous Clinton Foundation donors at the center of the shady blend of business and politics has also contributed to President-elect Donald Trump’s eponymous nonprofit organization, the Trump Foundation.

“I think it’s troubling,” Peter Schweizer, author of the book “Clinton Cash,” told ABC News. “He’s somebody that donated to the Clinton Foundation, and this is a problem. … I think there’s no other way to read it other than they are hoping to get some favor in return.”

According to the Trump Foundation’s 2015 tax filings, which became public Tuesday, the Victor Pinchuk Foundation donated $150,000 to the Trump Foundation in the fall of 2015 — the only donation Ukrainian businessman Victor Pinchuk’s organization ever made to Trump, Thomas Weihe, head of the foundation’s board, said.

A spokesman for Pinchuk told the Washington Post that the donation to the Trump Foundation was payment for a 2015 speech Trump gave via video link at a conference in Kiev.

But Pinchuk, who is reportedly worth more than $1 billion, gave much larger sums to the Clinton Foundation. Over the years, the billionaire has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation and has lent his private plane to the Clinton family, according to the New York Times.

Pinchuk’s name arose during the campaign alongside accusations of “pay-to-play” politicking by Clinton when she served as secretary of state. His name is seen in State Department emails revealed by Citizens United as being invited to a small dinner party hosted by then-Secretary Clinton.

Trump used those instances — and many others — to fuel his attacks against Clinton while he was on the campaign trail.

“They should give the money back,” the New York developer said of the Clintons. “Countries that influenced her totally and also countries that discriminated against women and gays and everybody else. I mean, that money should be given back. They should not take that money.”

Now Schweizer, who is an informal adviser to Trump, is calling on the president-elect to take a taste of his own medicine, telling ABC he needs to return Pinchuk’s donation.

“I think one of the reforms that needs to take place is that the Trump Foundation should not take any donations from businessmen from the United States or internationally,” he said. “It’s just simply a gateway to trying to curry favor with the president-elect.”

The problem with the revelation is it severely weakens Trump’s argument that it was Clinton — not he — who was the morally unacceptable and corrupted candidate. In addition, Pinchuk’s donation stirs up even more debate centered around concerns about the incoming president’s ability to separate his business dealings from his White House interactions.

“The implication is that Trump, like Clinton, has close ties with international figures ― and unlike Clinton, corporate investments all over the world,”  Sheila Krumholz, the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, told the Huffington Post. “These kinds of cases raise questions about whether, while acting as public officials, people like Trump would be able to discharge their duties without bias in favor of their international ties.”

Will RICO Get Bill And Hillary? What Are Dems Going To Do If Hillary Goes Down?

AIR CLINTON RICO EVIDENCE IN COURT, WATCHDOG DEMANDS

'Multiple acts of racketeering activity for bribery, money laundering, obstruction of justice'

Published: 17 hours ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/10/runruh.jpg

 BOB UNRUH About | Email | Archive

image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//feed.png

 Subscribe to feed

• image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.png
  
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

     156

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/06/Clinton.png

A well-known Washington watchdog who has sued the Clinton Foundation and Bill and Hillary Clinton under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act for allegedly running a criminal enterprise is telling a federal court it would be wrong to dismiss the case without even looking at the evidence.

Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch brought the complaint and now has filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

A federal court in Florida already has scheduled a trial for early next year.

“This is a classic RICO lawsuit,” Klayman argues in his newest filing, “Indeed … few people – if any – can even attempt to refute the hard evidence that Bill and Hillary Clinton and their foundation have over a 10-year history of actually selling government access and influence in exchange for hard cash to fill their coffers and the coffers of their foundation, which not coincidentally, as pled, does not operate as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization but instead operates as defendants Bill and Hillary Clinton’s own alter-ego in furthering their criminal enterprise.”

He said the case is about much more than access to hidden documents, which he is seeking.

“The production of documents at issue is relevant because they evidence a criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act … created and further by each of the defendants, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, acting in concert as part of a conspiracy, to extort hundreds of millions of dollars in money – that is, bribes – from individuals, entities and persons upon which the defendants have bestowed favors and gratuities, principally in the form of granting waivers to do business with Iran. ”

The allegations, he explained, set “forth all of the operative facts to plead a valid RCIO claim.”

You don’t have to wonder about Hillary Clinton any longer, read her words for yourself, in “Hillary Unhinged.”

He said the case “must proceed expeditiously” because of a discovery deadline of Sept. 28 and the trial date of Jan. 25, 2016.

“Defendants’ attempts to delay discovery are as transparent as their non-meritorious motions to dismiss. Needless to say, the court should not accept defendants’ lack of reasoned analysis of the factual content of” the complaint,” he wrote.

“It is simply too early to dismiss any portion of plaintiff’s claims where so much information is alleged to provide both notice and a likelihood that more material and predicate acts will be learned through discovery.”

The case brought by Klayman pleads “multiple acts of racketeering activity by travel in interstate or international travel for the purpose of bribery, money laundering and obstruction of justice.”

“These actions were done with the specific purpose of defrauding plaintiff and others out of hundreds of millions of dollars in donations.”

He alleges, for example, that Hillary Clinton “granted a waiver to Victor Pinchuk and his company Interpipe Group as an exemption from U.S. congressional sanctions against doing business with Iran.”

He alleges that was “as a quid pro quo for bribes disguised as donations made to The Clinton Foundation.”

He said the company “then, using the wires and mails and other illegal means fraudulently, donated $2.35 million to The Clinton Foundation.”

WND reported Klayman was urging the court to take physical custody of Hillary Clinton’s infamous private email server, because of the evidence it could contain.

In a supplement motion, Klayman said there was new relevant information to bolster his case.

Klayman submitted copies of a Washington Times report that the Clintons’ foundation “set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran.”

Further, another article submitted by Klayman, from the Miami Herald, reported banks were paying huge fees to Bill Clinton for speeches at a delicate time.

“Many of the speeches and donations were made at times when the host banks were under Justice Department scrutiny. … All told, the same 11 banks have paid more than $81 billion – yes, that’s with a B – over the last six years to resolve federal investigations into alleged corruption,” the report said.

The case charges the Clintons schemed “to reap hundreds of millions of dollars personally and for their foundation by selling government access and influence.”

Klayman, for years a Washington watchdog, engaged Bill Clinton in court battles during his presidency. Klayman also has taken on terror interests and foreign influences in the United States. Recently, he won a federal court judgment against the National Security Agency’s spy-on-Americans program and brought a case against Obama over his amnesty-by-executive-memo strategy.

WND’s attempts to obtain a comment from the New York office for Bill Clinton or the foundation have not been successful.

The order setting the case for trial comes from Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach.

When the Clintons left the White House in 2000, they were “broke,” Hillary Clinton has claimed.

But estimates are that since that time, they have been paid well over $100 million, oftentimes in $250,000 and $500,000 increments for speaking. Speaking fees for Bill Clinton have been as high as $750,000.

The Clintons’ foundation also has been embroiled in scandal recently, with foreign governments making donations to the Clinton-controlled organization during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as a senior government official.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/air-clinton-rico-evidence-in-court-watchdog-demands/#L9kdf0JPusV6Mm1T.99