The Quiet Scandal

The most underreported scandal in Washington today is the information technology scandal involving the Democrat Party. The American Thinker posted an article today about the continuing investigation and legal action regarding that scandal.

The scandal involves the strange circumstances involved in the hiring of Imran Awan to handle information technology for 44 House Democrats. Awan was originally hired by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. During his hiring process, background checks were waived for Awan and the family members he later brought on as his staff. There is also evidence that he accessed and transferred data that he was not supposed to have access to.

The American Thinker reminds us:

Schultz was forced to step down after hacked emails revealed that she and the DNC had their finger on the scales and actively worked to defeat Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton.

…Like Al Capone and tax evasion, Imran Awan was charged with bank fraud regarding the millions he was paid and handled with his family. But the court case against him has mysteriously been delayed a seventh time. Is a plea deal in the works against Wasserman Schultz or is this just another case of the criminality can being kicked down the road? At issue may be that laptop with initials “REPDWS” on it:

…Many of the delays appear to be related to a laptop that Awan left in a decommissioned phone booth in a House building in April last year. The laptop, which had the username “RepDWS,” was accompanied by several copies of ID cards belonging to Awan and a letter he wrote to prosecutors.

Awan had been employed by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) — whose initials (RepDWS) were on the laptop — since 2005…

After the laptop was found by Capitol Police, Wasserman Schultz attempted for months to have the laptop returned to her, including hiring an outside lawyer to prevent prosecutors from looking at it.

During a May 18 hearing, Wasserman Schultz told the Capitol Police chief there would be “consequences” if the laptop was not returned to her.

According to a recent article in The Daily Caller, Mr. Awan’s lawyer, Chris Gowen, is associated with the Clinton family and has done work for the Clinton Foundation. Mr. Gowen has accused the investigators in the case of being anti-Muslim. He really has no other defense.

The article at The American Thinker concludes:

This is just one of many shoes waiting to drop from the Democrat’s centipede of corruption. Crimes were committed here, possibly including Wasserman Schultz and leading Democrats. Yet a cover-up could be in the works. Let’s not take our eves off this corner of the swamp.

 

 

 

What Changed?

I guess I am just cynical, but The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article that I thought stated something very logical and obvious. Hillary Clinton spoke to a crowd at Rutgers University this week. She was paid $25,000–not her usual $200,000. Just as a comparison, Snooki (from the Jersey Shore television series) got $32,000 when she spoke.

The article reports:

The payment came from an endowment fund and not tuition or public funds, a Rutgers spokeperson told NJ.com.

 In the past, Clinton has secured lucrative speaking fees that are often around her standard $200,000 fee.

Clinton appeared at at least eight universities in 2014 for paid speeches and took home a combined $1.8 million.  

When Rutgers brought in reality TV star Nicole ‘Snooki’ Polizzi to speak on campus in 2011, she was given $32,000. More than 1,000 people came to the university to hear Snooki speak after several students questioned if it was a wise use of money.

A spokesperson for Clinton told NBC last week that she planned to donate her Rutgers speaking payment to charity. 

…The event was hosted by the Rutgers Eagleton Institute of Politics and its director Ruth Mandel.

I wonder if the charity she will donate to is the Clinton Foundation.

If you are still naive enough to believe that the $200,000 per speech that Hillary Clinton was receiving in the run-up to the election had nothing to do with the fact that she was expected to be the next American President, I have some oceanfront land I would like to sell you in Arizona.

Sometimes Our Tax System Is A Joke

Hillary Clinton has released her tax forms. The Daily Caller has the story.

This screen shot from The Daily Caller tells most of the story:

ClintonDonationsThere’s even more. The article reports:

Desert Classic Charities effectively returned that donation back into the Clinton orbit. Its 2015 tax filing shows that it contributed $700,000 to the Clinton Foundation for work on obesity programs. The group handed out $1.6 million in grants that whole year.

The Clintons’ effective federal tax rate was 34.2 percent, the Clinton campaign said in a press release. With state and local taxes amounting to nine percent of their income, they paid just over 43 percent of their income in taxes.

It remains to be seen if Clinton will face the same scrutiny for her in-house contributions as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did when he ran on the GOP ticket in 2012.

What the Clintons did is a glaring example of why the tax code needs to be changed drastically. Otherwise, in the interest of fairness, all of us should be able to declare ourselves a charity, give about 8 percent of our income to actually help people, and declare the rest as tax deductible. This is obscene.

 

It Just Gets Messier

The Washington Free Beacon reported yesterday that The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI). which was spun off from the Clinton Foundation in 2010, is not going to refile its tax returns. The CHAI failed to comply with a conflict-of-interest pledge after promising to do so.

The article reports:

The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), which was spun off from the foundation in 2010, did not solicit a State Department ethics review of multiple contributions from foreign governments as mandated by a conflict-of-interest pledge established before Hillary Clinton assumed the role of secretary of state in 2009. A CHAI representative told Reuters in April that the organization was planning to refile its 2012 and 2013 tax returns.

However, Politico reported Monday that the same representative insists that the organization never promised to refile the forms and will not do so.

“Contrary to what was reported, CHAI has consistently stated that they would conduct a review process to determine whether the transposition errors required a refiling,”  CHAI spokeswoman Maura Daley stated. “After conducting the review, the transpositional errors made had no material impact and we do not believe a refiling is required.”

The Clinton Foundation itself has had some problems with accountability. In April of this year, The New York Post reported the following:

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

Democratic voters really need to reconsider whether or not they want to put these people back in the White House. They are obviously ethically challenged.