FULL CLINTON FOUNDATION Investigation U.S. House Hearing

several reports suggest that the decrease in donations could reflect a pay-to-play activity in the years prior to the the decline in donations the numerous pay-to-play reports and allegations has led Congress to call for a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton Foundation in response former attorney general sessions appointed US Attorney John Huber to in Val to investigate the alleged wrongdoings by the Clinton Foundation mr. Huber was joined was asked to join us this afternoon and update the Committee on the operations and progress of his investigation and unfortunately DOJ has been unwilling to make him available I find this not only frustrating for me but frustrating for the American people if indeed a special prosecutor was not appointed mr. Huber was supposed to take that role then why indeed has have we not heard from him publicly in almost nine months and so sadly we will look at his loss of testimony today is perhaps an indictment on his inability to provide transparent oversight testimony before this committee now the IRS was also scheduled to attend for this 501c3 registration oversight and and the potential claims of the whistleblowers and sadly mr. Horton was unable to attend due to a death in his family this is certainly recognized as a legitimate conceit and my thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family in this tough time but we do have with us today Tom Fenton a president of Judicial Watch who will be testifying here today about the body of work that he is conducting as it relates to the use of Clinton Foundation as a vehicle for pay-to-play transactions and finally mr. Phillip Hackney an associate professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh he rounds out our first panel and will discuss the allegations against the trump foundation that we have where there has been the subject of media reports as well the committee has also received over 1,300 pages of documents from the whistleblowers claims that they've submitted to the IRS these documents are part of a larger 48 page whistleblower claim submission with 95 formal its exhibits as much as approximately 6,000 pages of documents and the claims alleged abuse of charitable organization status by the Clinton Foundation to further discuss their claims will be joined by mr. Lawrence Doyle and mr. John Monahan on a separate panel following our current witnesses I'd like to thank everyone for being here today and look forward to your testimony and now recognize the ranking member and my good friend mr. Connolly for his opening statement Thank You mr. chairman and this I guess may be your last hearing as chairman of the subcommittee and I'm glad you added the last part of that and I certainly look forward to working with you again in the new Congress unfortunately I don't really look forward to working with you today you know here we are a few weeks before Christmas and my Republican friends are rejecting an old trope that needs desperate reworking they have found nothing but that doesn't stop them from trying to do it again and of course mr. Cummings and I have repeatedly requested that we have witnesses from the Trump foundation and from facts mr. Whittaker's foundation before us if we're going to be looking at nonprofit foundations let's actually look at some that have outstanding allegations including a pending criminal investigation against them unlike the Clinton administration so let's look at this latest so-called set of allegations with respect to the Clinton Foundation this next panel has two private individuals both Republicans then and a lot to this who will explain how they submitted a complaint to the IRS and the FBI against the Clinton Foundation they have already conceded that they are not whistleblowers instead they are would-be plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to make money that's not a whistleblower they also admit they have no first-hand knowledge of any wrongdoing their first claim is that internal reports issued a decade ago suggest that there were mismanagement challenges at the foundation these internal reports were already leaked by WikiLeaks long ago the Clinton Foundation commissioned these reports internally voluntarily and then made substantial improvements to address their findings that's neither a scandal nor new next they claim there was a quid pro quo between the Clinton Foundation and its donors but that's not what these reports said they said some employees raised concerns about donors who quote may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefit in return for gifts no evidence exists of any such quid pro quo but rather employees have said some donors might have had expectation even if unfulfilled nevertheless that doesn't stop some from trying to smear yet again the Clinton name next they will report on a secret interview they conducted with the chief financial officer of the foundation Andy castle during a breakfast in 2016 they claim mr. Kessel made statements criticizing President Bill Clinton and the foundation they claim that mr. Kessel stated and I quote I know where all the bodies are buried unquote my lord but mr. Kessel deny saying this and all we had to contradict him is a one-page summary submitted as part of the complaint by these Republican litigants in the lawsuit so what did the IRS and FBI do with the complaint the IRS rejected it according to the testimony of these two gentlemen the IRS sent them a denial letter they said that they have appealed but they've refused to give us a copy of their original complaint or their appeal how about the FBI well apparently the FBI interviewed the Clinton Foundation CFO last year but like the IRS took no further action that we know of the Chairman invited the Justice Department to be here today they refused to come the Trump Justice Department refused to send someone to this hearing I will agree with the chairman when a request is made by this committee to the executive branch it should always be honored unless their extraordinary circumstances but I suspect one of the reasons they're not here is because there's no they're there and they don't want to have to testify to that fact given the pillar ring President Trump has engaged in with respect to the Clintons personally finally there's one last delegation mr. chairman two days ago John Solomon wrote an opinion piece in the hill a newspaper here in the hill claiming that the Clinton Foundation somehow misled the IRS based on state regulatory filing errors this was reported two years ago one tax expert Professor James Fishman summarized the allegations then as quote minor infractions equivalent to reporting someone who was issued a traffic ticket for parking fifteen inches from the curb instead of the statutory twelfth unfortunately this is part of a pattern my friends on the other side of the album aching unsubstantiated claims against the foundation for years last year Republicans in this committee launched a joint investigation with the Intelligence Committee with claims of explosive new evidence from a confidential informant who could demonstrate Secretary Clinton orchestrated a quid pro quo with all nine agencies of the committee and foreign investment in the United States to approve the Iranian one deal remember that one and corruptly direct millions of dollars to the foundation in return my friends withheld their secret informant from us for months but when we finally got the opportunity to interview that informant his fell apart and failed to provide any evidence for the repeated and baseless claims before this hearing I sent a letter to you mr. chairman asking if you planned on inviting the Clinton Foundation to also invite the Trump foundation and the foundation operated by acting Attorney General Matt Whittaker they've been serious allegations against both including a judicial ruling saying that in a case against the Trump foundation in fact can go forward but unfortunately those requests have gone on barren soil just last month the judge ruled as I said in New York State that the Attorney General could proceed with its suit against the term foundation for serious allegations of and I quote the judge not an informant failure to operate and manage the foundation in accordance with corporate and statutory rules and the fiduciary obligations resulting in misuse of charitable assets at self-dealing then the New York Times reported that acting Attorney General Whitaker's former organization paid more than 1.2 million in dark money from anonymous conservative donors to target and defeat Democrats and elections instead we have our unti 'the hearing on the latest clinton conspiracy theory and of course we don't want to look at those charges there's Arnie here my friends the Republican majority leader Kevin McCarthy justified the massive investigations you will recall a day Hillary Clinton after Benghazi by touting his party's efforts to bring down her poll numbers that was the motivation they had eight committees including this one and a select committee squandered millions of dollars and found very little yet now the Democrats are about to gain control and mr. McCarthy now says we should not investigate President Trump that agenda he says would be too small that would we should focus on other problems like perhaps once again the Clintons the truth is there are very serious issues we ought to be investigating instead of this one chairman meadows and ranking member cummings sent a letter to the Trump administration seeking documents about their inhumane policy of separating immigrant children at the border and I applaud you for that mr. chairman and I supported that effort we did not get a single document we were completely stymie and despite our requests no subpoenas were issued and no hearings held of course it's the prerogative of the chairman of the full committee to call hearings and he's chosen to call this one unfortunately I trust and I think most people it looks like a last gasp but partisanship I thank the chair so I think the gentleman for his opening remarks and so I'd like to make two very quick clarifications for my good friend and I mean that in all sincerity mister Huber's absence here today if there's no there there is certainly not an excuse not to be here I think the Chairman would agree with that because if that's the benchmark that we're going to use then all we have to do is hear from them that there's no there there and no one shows up and and I don't think that that's consistent on either way I'd also like to highlight that if indeed we're here a little bit longer which it appears that we're willing to do I'm certainly willing to look at all of the foundation issues I've signed on 22 bipartisan letters for oversight probably the most of any any Republican member in that regard because I believe that oversight done properly is what we need to do I want to make one clarification if we're going to look at foundations we do need to look at all of them and I believe that we need to start where it's 2.5 billion on the Clinton Foundation versus 19 million on the Trump foundation there's a big disparity there in terms of overall revenues and and yet I'm looking forward to cooperating with the new chairman not to be presumptuous on on government operations in the new Congress where we do real oversight and so I want to make sure that then I clarified that so mr. fitton you are recognized for your opening statement before we do that I'm going to have you stand up both of you stand please mr. Fenton's mr. Hackney people stand and I'll actually ask you I'm going to swear you in now and then I'll read your credentials after that how about a if you'll raise your right hand do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God please be seated let the record reflect that both witnesses answered in the affirmative and so we're going to go ahead mr. Tom Fenton you're the president of Judicial Watch you are hereby recognized for five minutes if you'll hit the red button talk button thank you Thank You chairman Mathers and thank you mr. Connolly for conducting this hearing Judicial Watch is a conservative non partisan educational foundation dedicated to promoting transparency accountability and integrity in government politics and the law without a doubt we're the most active Freedom of Information Act request ur and litigator in the nation today and it's no secret that Judicial Watch has had concerns over the years about the Clintons ethics and respect for the rule of law so it was with some skepticism we greeted promises by Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2009 to conduct herself accordingly or appropriately with respect to the foundation as a condition of her being approved as Secretary of State with some skepticism at the time even CNN reported that Bill Clinton's complicated business interest could present future conflicts of interests that result in unneeded headaches for the incoming commander in chief and to reassure President Obama and senators from both parties mrs. Clinton's agreed to part not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which the William Clinton Foundation is a partier represents a party and additionally the Clintons promised that the president's speeches and business activities would undergo a State Department ethics review and at the Clinton Foundation which disclose its donors online and agree to significant restrictions on support from foreign governments neither which to be fair it wasn't required by law but was contingent on her being confirmed on the Senate we obviously had zero confidence that these promises would be kept and we can monitoring the ethics process and filed a Freedom of Information Act request in 2011 to see how that ethics process was being implemented we were ignored for two years by the administration we sued in 2013 and found something which terrible wasn't terribly surprising to us but still shocking that former President Clinton gave 215 speeches and earned 48 million dollars Walz Weiss presided over u.s. foreign policy not one of those speeches was deemed a conflict of interest they consider that also included a consultancy with the controversial Clinton Foundation advisor Doug band the Callwood who ran something called the defense and the 10 AIO group that consultancy ended after Tenaya was caught up in a failed investment firm known as MF Global State Department legal advisors approved Bill Clinton speeches in China in Russia Saudi Arabia Egypt the UAE Panama Turkey Taiwan India the Cayman Islands and other countries the speeches the approvals were routinely copied to Cheryl Mills Hillary Clinton's senior counsel and chief of staff who had been a Foundation official had negotiated the ethics agreement which raised again conflicts of interest issues as to why she was involved in this process at all the documents also show that mr. Clinton received a staggering sums from Saudi benefactors specifically a teat between 18 million and 50 million dollars raised from the Saudis during this time period while mrs. Clinton served as Secretary of State Bill Clinton gave two speeches in Saudi Arabia earning a total of $600,000 he spoke at the Global Business Forum in Riyadh founded by the Saudi Investment Authority and sponsored by the the Bagh group a commercial Colossus with close ties to the Saudi family to receive $300,000 for that speech there was one deal that was turned aside but the exception in many ways proves the rule that this ethics process was no more than a rubber stamp to allow Bill Clinton to raise money from foreign corporations mostly controlled or too often controlled by foreign governments specifically also the documents show that he was approved to speak to something called Renaissance capital which is a russian government linked that turns out later was connected to the uranium one issue again approve without without comment by this so-called ethics process on the on in the State Department and then we found the Clinton email server Judicial Watch litigation to sum up found the Clinton email server our Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits forced the State Department to admit they had all these emails they weren't telling anyone about and also who another employee of the State Department who was participating in this server was Yuma Abba Dean who according to testimony she gave the Judicial Watch and needed it to conduct a Clinton's personal and family business and to be sure documents that we uncovered later as a result of uncovering the Clinton email server show the Clinton Foundation was in regular contact with Aberdeen and others in the State Department to get special favors in treatment for supporters and allies of the foundation specifically for instance Gilbert Shakur II who was was it was asked to be put in touch with the State Department substance person on Lebanon this was by Doug ban Clinton Foundation official ban notes that she Gauri is a key guy their Lebanon and to us and insist that Aberdeen call ambassador Jeffrey Feltman to connect them to shibori sure Gauri is a close friend of President Clinton top donor to the foundation he appears near the top of the Foundation's donors list gate between one and five million dollars to the foundation and pledged billion dollars to the clean Global Initiative I don't know if he actually spent the money he was convicted in 2004 stolen money laundering so you can see that the Clinton Foundation the Clinton State Department almost immediately broke promises to President Obama in the Senate to maintain a wall of separation between the foundation and state we have numerous instances it's detailed in my written testimony of pay to play in favoritism for Clinton's of our foundation supporters with the Clinton State Department it's so bad that the crown prince of Bahrain couldn't get a meeting directly with mrs. Clinton through the State Department so he went through the Clinton Foundation to try to get the meeting many have noted that it was hard to tell we're the clintons state department ended and we're the clinton foundation began and this was in response to these disclosures again not of insider documents but government documents that have been hidden from the American people then there's the uranium one controversy and specifically it was a controversial 2010 in uranium one deal there were monies that were funneled into the Clinton Foundation by uranium one interests specifically mr. Frank Giustra and these monies result were hidden were hidden from the American people the foundation promised that disclose these monies and as I said this earlier agreement 330 1.3 million dollars was given to for instance the foundation beginning in January 2008 for around the year 2008 we have the new documents off of the document of the Renaissance capital $500,000 which is just the tip of the iceberg and since then both the New York Times has reported that uranium one's chairman used his family's foundation to make four donations totaling two point three five million dollars to the Clinton operation and of course as I said this none of this was disclosed and shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire this stake in uranium one mr. Clinton received that $500,000 speaking in fee from the renaissance capital organization so we're asking for documents for uranium one we're getting the proverbial hand to the face from the administration on this it's unfortunate that even the Trump administration doesn't want to divulge the full truth about this but there is enough evidence to warrant serious investigations of the Clinton Foundation and there is evidence that in addition to this that the Clinton Foundation investigations that may have been taking place during the Obama administration were suppressed by the Justice Department so frankly it's no surprise that Justice Department isn't here today so I look forward to your questions thank you mr. Hackney you're recognized and so I didn't say this and I should have if you will try to keep your oral testimony - five minutes will be a little bit generous with you as well and you're now recognized Thank You mr. chairman burrows ranking member Connolly and members of the subcommittee thank you for inviting me here today to talk about a subject that is near and dear to my heart nonprofit oversight my name is Phillip acne and I'm a professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh I study write teach and speak about tax law and specialize in nonprofit organizations and particularly with tax-exempt organizations though I am a professor I worked for five years at the office of the chief counsel of the IRS looking over the tax-exempt sector so I bring a wealth of experience we regulations oversaw the policy of the IRS and it was a very important time of my life and I enjoyed the time working with that office additionally before that worked for Baker Botts LLP is a corporate attorney for three years doing securities work and investigations into accounting irregularities now I don't have much time I've got five minutes so let me cut to the chase this is about oversight of nonprofit organizations the IRS as a practical matter is seen as the nation's primary nonprofit regulator though the law is enacted by Congress and the regulations implemented by the IRS Treasury could be improved there's a real crisis and nonprofit organization oversight right now which is that the budget is not sufficient to allow the job the IRS to do the job that needs to do well it's not there I have some numbers that you can see in my written testimony but I'll use one fact from the there was a great ProPublica piece I don't know if you saw it the other day it's called how the IRS was gutted over a period of eight years and I'll use one number the IRS today has fewer than 10,000 auditors the last time it had that few auditors 1953 1953 for reference in terms of the exempt organizations sector this is the folks that are watching over these nonprofits that we're caring about today they have in the range of 200 auditors in the range of 200 determination specialists that are looking over this sector so while the IRS presence has shrunk the nonprofit world has gotten much bigger in that same period of time there's over three trillion of assets in that sector and about 5% of GDP takes place in there there are over one point eight million organizations that the IRS is overseeing within that world the nonprofit sector is a terrific force for good it's an incredible small D Democratic effort at solving our problems in our nation's soup kitchens and our churches and in our schools it's important that there be good oversight of this group they take care of Americans daily in our lives and it matters what happens there are those who take advantage of these organizations or direct the organizations to their own self-interests carry out their own things that they want to do the law should be there to stop them from taking those actions and when I worked at the IRS they were working hard every day to do that activity I know folks in state offices they were working hard every day to take care of that activity but realistically the amount of money the resources that are just not there they are mr. chairman I'm not certain what this subcommittee has in mind hopes to accomplish through this hearing a hearing on nonprofit oversight could do real good for this community I see newspaper stories every day about people taking advantage of charities and it breaks my heart when I see that happen if this is going to be a tit-for-tat showing this foundation that's conservative did this or this foundation that's liberal did that it ain't gonna help us it just becomes a tit-for-tat political effort I'd like to see these nonprofits operating better and I hope it can be about that where's the IRS does the IRS have the right rules does the IRS have the right resources it needs to conduct the oversight you're conducting the oversight over the folks who are conducting the oversight and it don't think those folks have the resources they need and there probably are things we could do about the laws as well almost at the end of my time let's talk about what role the IRS plays in nonprofits oversight and how we can improve that in function to ideally raise up our nonprofit sector and build confidence in American taxpayers that laws are even and lien forced every day I'm worried that we have a real crisis on our hands with that nonprofit oversight not as a matter of bias but it is a matter of just not having the resources to get the job done they work hard every day but they don't can't do everything we're asking too much of them right now they need more thank you very much and I'm happy to take questions Thank You mr. Hackney it's so you were the IRS you were over the 501c3 through 20 whatever the numbers are section yes mr. chairman I worked there from 2006 to 2011 and I was a senior technician reviewer towards the end and regulations into supporting organizations and dealt with you know 529s yes that was in the national office okay all right thank you your former colleagues would be really happy with your opening statement the chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia the vice chair of the Subcommittee on government operations miss rice thank you very much mr. chairman and mr. Fenton's let me let me begin with you I would assume that you're familiar with Department of Justice inspector general report that was released in February of 2018 pertaining to Andrew McCabe and the conversation he had opportunity to the okay there was some interesting information that is revealed in that report specifically a telephone conversation that McCabe had with a principal associate Deputy Attorney General possibly Mathew Axelrod pertaining to the Clinton Foundation are you familiar with what I'm talking about in that conversation yes okay can you briefly describe what that conversation consisted of well according to the IG report which I do quote in my testimony they had this conversation regarding the Clinton Foundation investigation in August of 2016 McCabe said that the Justice Department expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton Foundation investigation during the president's presidential campaign according to mckay be pushed back asking are you telling me that i need to shut down a validly predicated investigation McCabe told us the IG that the conversation was very dramatic he had never had a similar confrontation before with DOJ but prior to that senior DOJ officials refused FBI requests to issue subpoenas on Clinton Foundation issues earlier in 2016 according their reports and that you know since then supposedly there has been a new investigation launched but I haven't seen any of the indicia of a serious investigation by the Justice Department yet well I would agree that there was a very dramatic conversation and McCabe said as you as you mentioned there that had never had a conversation like this as in his career at the FBI do you believe that this demonstrates that the Justice Department was actively trying to protect Clinton Foundation from an FBI investigation yeah it's just one of I think a few pieces of evidence demonstrating that the Clinton Foundation was being protected by the Justice Department especially during that election year these pay-to-play allegations for instance that we uncovered these emails they came out in August of 2016 not that we timed them to come out in August 2016 that was a result of the Justice Department taking you know eight nine months it released them to us once or the State Department taking eight nine months to release them to us after they've received them from Hillary Clinton and Miss Aberdeen but so this is a very tricky time period and so I can imagine it was pressure on the FBI just so what in your opinion would be the reason that they were trying to protect the Clinton Foundation well the Justice Department at the time was working with the Clinton campaign to target President Trump they were targeting President Trump one of the key folks involved in that was Peter struck whose dad had demonstrated bias as an FBI official against mr. Trump and in for and for mrs. Clinton you know irony the irony of the McCabe situation is the cave is accused of leaking in pushback to the Justice Department saying that we are investigating Hillary Clinton which actually happened to be acting and acting accurate but was not something he was supposed to be telling the newspapers that's why he allegedly lied about leaking to it would you say you know there were some in the FBI who wanted to do this would you say it's somewhat at least calls us some red bags for the Justice Department it sounds what you're alleging is that they were actively involved in trying to influence the election oh it sure does I think this is an area that needs to be explored I wish it had been explored by this Congress it wasn't sufficiently I know there was pushback from the DOJ and I know there's all sorts of concerns about foreign interference in our elections but when you have bureaucracies like the DOJ putting their thumbs on the scales it's something that both parties ought to be concerned about because you know one day the shoe will be on the other foot politically speaking and we just want to be able to restrain the agencies from being their own arm of the branch of government so this may be another way of asking a similar question at least a similar train of thought why would the Justice Department try to pressure the FBI to stop a perfectly valid investigation for political reasons I mean there were other investigations that were ongoing at the time before the that that concerned president troller then candidate Trump and Hillary Clinton so I the complaint about overt steps targeting the Foundation's seem to be well not credible that's why mr. McCabe reacted so strongly well I believe what you've just said is the whole reason we're here and mr. Hackney although I appreciate your opinion expressing why and how we need to do our oversight what has just been said is a precise reason why we are doing oversight and with that mr. Chairman I yield back I thank the gentleman from Georgia the chair recognizes ranking member of the subcommittee mr. Connolly the gentleman from Virginia Thank You mr. chairman I swear mr. fitton listened to your testimony it's like being an Alice in Wonderland the idea that why are we here so let's let's just put ourselves in context because apparently none of this is happening in the real world we just had a sentencing hearing in New York in which the president's personal attorney was given three years of jail time this is a speculation about what someone might have done this is a crime admitted to and in the sentencing it wasn't identified explicitly that individual number one coordinated and directed this illegal activity for which mr. Cohen is going to jail not speculative not phony informants not make-believe whistleblowers not not smearing or hearsay this is now in the court record you just made light you almost dismissed well Russian interference in our election that's a pretty big thing and to compare the idea of somebody putting their thumb on the scales of justice in the Department of Justice to protect the Clintons even though there's no criminal charge to that effect and in fact the FBI did look at it and found no there they're not once but twice mr. Comey himself we had Russian interference our election all of our intelligence committee agrees with that the FBI agrees with that most senior officials in the Trump administration with respect to foreign policy and law enforcement agree with that except the president we have we have Creole investigations mr. fitton not about the Clinton Foundation but about the Trump foundation we have a ruling and I'd like to enter that ruling mr. chairman into the record from the Supreme Court of the state of New York saying there is sufficient grounds to go forward with a criminal investigation of the Trump foundation not the Clinton Foundation without objection and we're not talking about it here because we're making a political point mr. heiss says that's why we're here yes why we're here is the grand Christmas Christmas miracle hope that we will distract the American public from the business at hand that is grave and serious and undermines democratic institutions and norms and mr. fitton candidly I would have expected more from judicial watch than your testimony mr. Hackney can I respond briefly briefly the concern is that I made a statement but if you wish to respond I will investigate the concern is the investigation of Russia attempts to influence our policy in the United States is geared at focusing on President Trump to the exclusion of what happened Russian attempts to try to persuade or guarantee a positive result on their uranium one scandal and Russian admitted efforts by the Clinton campaign to base its dossier that was used to spy on president Trump with allegations generated by Russian intelligence yep if there was a broad investigation into the full penalty of what Russia was trying to do with respect to both parties I think Americans of both parties would be happy I think unfortunately because of the issue of time I'd be glad to give you more time later but I would just say this committee the Republican side had an informant on the so-called uranium one thing and they held him from us for three months and oh my god this was going to be explosive testimony and when we finally got a crack at him on a bipartisan basis his testimony fell apart he had no no evidence of criminal activity of any kind in fact no evidence of quid pro quo and here you are repeating a slander that has no factual basis behind it meanwhile we have court evidence court evidence with respect to what's going on currently mr. Hackney my time is limited your irs background so these two witnesses Republican witnesses who are litigants to a lawsuit not whistleblowers coming next they wrote the IRS with a one-page summary of their so-called interview with mr. Kessel and from the result of the reaction of the IRS to that request was a denial of the letter of the request you know IRS why are in the world with the IRS deny something like that well how should we read that so I won't talk specifically to any particular organization or circumstances but in terms of thinking about the IRS assessment of any particular whistleblower claim it's going to be a number of considerations particularly did someone bring actual credible information that leads to something that returns tax dollars in some way and they must be concluding forgive me there this if the IRS has made that choice with anomalisa blower act the primary thing must be that no one is bringing something to the table there and I do want to note I just wanted to say to vice-chair twice I agree fully that this committee has an important role in oversight so much mr. chairman not just a unanimous consent request I thank the chair thank you both for testimony I'd like to enter the record our correspondence mr. chairman our letter to you dated November 29th requesting the brightening of this hearing your one point your one page response to us in December 4th and our counter to that our response to that on December 10th I'd like to enter it into the record without objection I don't know I don't know that I've seen the December 10th letter but I'm sure I will well I mean today's the 12th so maybe maybe it's maybe it's in the mail it's probably in the mail I think my good friend knows I don't play surprises with him and that's why tricks the chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio mr. Jordan I think the Chairman I just respond to my good friend from Virginia we're not trying to distract anyone we're just trying to trying to stop this double standard that exists in our culture today there's one set of rules for us regular folk but it looks like to me a different set if if you're part of the politically connected class and that's all this is about and we have to whistleblowers what we haven't heard from we're gonna hear from them here in a second we'll find out what they have to say and hopefully get to the truth so before before I come to you though mr. fitton I want to go to mr. Hackney mr. Hackney why don't you work at the IRS again I was in the exempt organizations branch of tax exempt government entities what years 2006 to April of 2011 I got an opportunity to join the faculty of Louisiana State University Law School and it was an exciting opportunity but wonderful we're happy for it but you were there when that when the targeting of conservative groups started then right apparently it did but I was not involved in any of that says you were ahead of exempt advised the Commissioner regarding exempt organization requirements you know this all took place in the example exempt organization division of the IRS but I did not handle one you know anything about it I did not hand who work with Lois Lerner um I did work with Lois and you did but you didn't know anything about the be on the look-out list or anything like that I was not aware of those particularly when do you find out it that the IRS was targeting conservative people in this this whole double standard that I just mentioned was going on right in the very division that you were supposed to be advising and overlooking sure I appreciate the question so I would disagree with characterization of targeting but I was at the meeting well you don't think people were targeted don't believe they were I think there was there was a list had three terms on 9/12 Tea Party and conservative those are those terms come up you got put on the list yeah I absolutely appreciate the question and I you don't think it was targeting the president I believe doing its best to do its job and didn't have the Reese horses and was trying to find ways of accomplishing its what about research this is about targeting specific points of view mr. Hackney I understand that Attorney General in the president states had a big press conference when it became public and said we're gonna get to the bottom of this they talked about possible criminal liability and you're saying it didn't even exist in the very Division that you were head of I'm not saying it didn't exist I'm not saying that they were not looking at Tea Party organizations but I'm also saying that they were looking at many different other organizations as you'll see from various reports that came out later that is not true that is not what the Inspector General said and and frankly if it was just you know we're looking at everyone the same I don't think Lois Lerner would have taken the fifth when she sat right where you were setting here today but I got to get to mr. Fenton's in my last two minutes and 30 seconds here two billion since 2001 right mr. fitton that's what the Clinton Foundation took in is that right numbers like that I've seen 48 million in speeches I think you said in your opening statements that we did the math you said like 200 so that's like quarter million dollars for every single speech he's pretty good I mean I've heard him speak but that is that is amazing and then you said in 2008 when Secretary Clinton became secretary there was an agreement that that I think in your testimony you said there are certain things she had to do for the duration of her appointment she would not be involved in all this money the Clinton Foundation was taken in and all the speeches that her husband was doing right she wouldn't be cited offered making decisions about that is that right and the Clinton Foundation would disclose his donors so there was an agreement that she had she worked out when she was Senate confirmed right okay did they follow the agreement no I'm not not in my view at least so they had to get two permission for her to be Secretary of State and continue to do all the things they did they got permission to got the okay and then they didn't follow him no they immediately began the foundation immediately contacted Miss Abidine who work closely with mrs. Clinton to start getting things done for foundation supporters as I've described and it's not what I described the emails so the secretary did she kept her part of the deal but she just had her lawyer or her chief of staff sign off on everything is that sort of how it worked yeah but Dean did the heavy lifting there yeah you think there's a double standard right now in America mr. Fenton's oh yeah mrs. Clinton's being protected by and was protected and frankly still is being protected from the consequences of her behavior at the State Department and subsequently my colleague from Virginia talked about some things that have happened recently with mr. Cohen but I think it's interesting I don't remember anyone associated during the Clinton vest I don't know anyone associated with the Clinton investigation well first of all I didn't even call an investigation remember what they were told to call it matter yeah it's called a matter right it was obviously the investigation but was told told to be called a matter I don't remember Cheryl Mills getting her door kicked in at 5:00 in the morning and having everything confiscated I remember that at all in fact she worked out a deal ahead of time got immunity before she even turned over any of her records or communication is that right yeah I'd like to you know I would just love the committee's are someone to investigate we're doing it separately Judicial Watch but to find out whether or not as reports suggests the foundation investigation the FBI was invented conducted in 2016 was actively suppressed by the Justice Department and curtailed you know public reports are that FBI agents were only able to read newspaper articles as part of their investigation they were denied subpoenas and other basic tools available to them yeah when you compare and contrast the Special Counsel investigation into President Trump and his associates that's what a real investigation looks like abuses aside we haven't had anything comparable even during the Clinton email issue yeah certainly this is tied to the Clinton email issue chairman I'm a little over time it's like if I could wrote real quick I didn't expect to spend as much time with mr. Hackney denying that there was targeting at the IRS but you're you're I think exactly right I I've never seen this happen mr. fitton where the director of the FBI is fired the deputy director is fired the chief legal counsel is demoted then leaves FBI counsel lisa page is demoted then leaves and Peter struck deputy head of counterintelligence the FBI is demoted and then fired I never seen that happen but what's interesting those are the same people who ran the Clinton investigation then started and launched the Russian investigation never seen that happen to any other federal agency even as bad as the IRS was they only had a couple people and now they've got fire they just left they're still getting the pension so I've never seen thing like that and the other thing that always strikes me as sort of interesting and I'll close with this why could mr. chairman is the names they gave the investigations right the Clinton investigation was the mid-year exam but the investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign in Russia was crossfire hurricane I like that just just the name suggests a completely different approach and a completely different standard in how they're gonna run the investigation with that I'd yield back mr. chairman I thank the gentleman the the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York for a very generous five minutes thank you thank you mr. chairman and I I thank both panelists and my colleagues for being here the Clinton Foundation is located in the district that I'm privileged to represent so I've been able to attend many of their functions conferences to see firsthand some of the outstanding work that they are doing in New York and in my district the van the foundation has supported physical education programs and a hundred and forty nine schools projects are underway to restore New York's Harbor provide free job training for homeless female veterans and help hundreds of high school seniors perfect prepare for graduation and in college and I have a whole list of things I would like to ask unanimous consent to put in the record their activities mr. chairman and my district in New York and across the country without objection now now I find it very ironic in this hearing today that the Republicans are targeting the Clinton Foundation which is headed by two people who are out of office who are not in government yet there are other foundations where people are in government in very high positions the Trump foundation the Whitaker foundation that they are not investigating so I would suggest that we should be also investigating those foundations so professor Hackney I'd like to ask you about some of the allegations concerning the Whitaker foundation now the acting Attorney General and before arriving at the Justice Department he was the president an executive director of the foundation for accountability and civic trust fact his charity was supposed to be focused on promoting ethics and transparency and thus they had a tax-exempt status but last month the New York Times reported that fact was paid more than 1.2 million in so-called dark money from undisclosed conservative donors so professor Hackney can you describe and explain dark money what is it and are there any concerns about when dark money is used to fund nonprofits like this one absolutely so dark money is a name given to money that comes in to nonprofit organizations that are tax-exempt but nobody can see at least the public can't see this money so particularly organizations our social welfare organizations these are advocacy organizations they carry out that often can take the look of politics but may stay away from being into FEC as a result of not engaging in electoral activity where that have to disclose under campaign finance law this money comes into a c4 c5 c6 labor unions business leagues and social welfare organizations and in the past the the IRS at least knew because the there was a disclosure on Schedule B the IRS recently removed that so not even the IRS knows this means that we don't know who's funding particular advocacy work that is moving towards elect particular candidates it's dark okay well we have legislation which we hope to pass as our first bill and we take over in January which would disclose where this money is coming from and that's not all last month mr. Whitacre released his financial disclosure form that showed that he received nine hundred thousand over that four from his foundation in 2016 and 2017 that's over half a million dollars a year are you aware of what he did to deserve that kind of salary mr. Hackney I'm not gonna speak to any particular organization as I indicated well there are there regulations that govern how much in salary with with with a 501 C 3 the organization must pay a reasonable salary and in order to determine what a reasonable salary is you're supposed to go and look at what other people in a like spot are playing and now this is assuming that you are doing particular work and so on it has to be a full facts and circumstances analysis well can you explain what lost fact this this a Whittaker foundation may have violated again not going to talk specifically to the fact in particular one interesting aspect you had mentioned there was a fund that came through and I think it's worth mentioning donor advised funds here in donor advised funds are accounts that individuals are able to set up with places like fidelity and Community Foundation's in the area they're able to take an immediate deduction but money doesn't necessarily flow to charitable purposes right away the interesting thing with a Duren advised fund is that it is a public charity and it can be used to make a charity that is would otherwise be a private foundation into a public charity I would love to have an opportunity to talk about that that was an L got an element of the private foundation regs when an organization has one person that's donated a lot of money to them we put them into private foundations instead and they have restrictive rules that apply to them this donor advised fund move allows organizations to avert these private foundation rules well I think we should change that with law too now also it showed that the fact paid at least five hundred thousand to a Republican research firm known as America rising and according to its website the mission of this organization is quote to help its clients defeat Democrats in quote art R 5 501 3 C supposed to be nonpartisan so I'll talk to that there are two major rules that come in within 501 C 3 1 no electoral activity you go out and say elect miss bologna or elect german meadows you lose your exemption technically you also have limitations on lobbying what often happens in this space and that gets confusing is there's a concept of education if you're doing it in the context of a school fine if it's moving into another space you can get into difficult spaces and it's very hard area for my time is coming to an end but this website and I find this very disturbing says that they gauge this is in the website you can go look it up today quote the relentless pursuit of original and effective it's against Democrats in quote this does not sound like a nonpartisan 501 3 C to me it sounds like a political operative I personally think that this should be investigated and do you believe a professor that further investigation into fact and its tax-exempt status is warranted and how they were spending their money and why they were spending their money professor I don't want a specific time is expired you can sir but let me just say that the Republicans have refused rip to it to investigate current officials and current people who have these not-for-profits and they are obsessed with continuing to investigate the Clintons many years after they have been in office and uh and I think we should have investigations on these other two foundations their tax-exempt gentleman's time has expired thank you Miss here has been its stream Li gracious with both sizes so I'm gonna recommend that we stay with our five minute timeline starting with you the gentleman from Ohio from Iowa mr. Blum for five minutes thank you German metals thank you to our panelists for being here today quid pro quo I had to look it up the look it's Latin for something for something a favor granted in return for something in 2016 the Clinton Foundation received a twenty eight million dollar donation from Morocco's King Mohammed and shortly thereafter Secretary of State Clinton relaxed relaxed US foreign aid restrictions on Morocco mr. fitton was that a quid pro quo was that just a coincidence that's that's the matter that needs to be investigated the foundation the Clinton Foundation and its associated the Global Initiative was able to raise tons of money during mrs. Clinton's ten years Secretary of State and some of that was purely charitable there's no doubt there's purely charitable activities the foundation engaged in his congressman lonely highlighted but when you have these foreign governments making massive donations to the foundation and major corporations making massive foundations to the foundation many sometimes of which we're out of line with other charitable activities I think it's a fair question to ask what were they're expecting in return and was it a charitable enterprise or were they just buying insurance now that may or just making sure that they're there they would get a better hearing at over certain policies but does it mean anything happened illegally I don't know but no one's asking the question laureate University seventeen point six million to President Clinton while Hillary was Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State to be the honorary Chancellor I did not know that paid so well mm-hmm we as a founder at that University has another organization called International Youth Foundation that received 40 million dollars in grants while Secretary Clinton was in office after she left office the grants went from 40 million to a little over three million is that a coincidence you think mr. Finn I don't know you have to ask that you have to ask the question and this is why mrs. Clinton promised these disclosures and which makes it so problematic that certain these disclosures weren't followed as they were supposed to have been Ukrainian we asked the State Department give us the agreement what did mr. Clinton do agree to do in exchange for that enormous amount of money but that portion was blacked out by the State Department the ukrainian oil and steel magnate mr. Pinchuk donated between ten to twenty five million to the Clinton Foundation in return he was offered priority access to the State Department mr. Fenton's would you say its quid pro quo it certainly seems that way and then lastly and I know your organization has done some work on this mr. Fenn the uranium uranium one deal those interests involved in that deal contributed more than a hundred and forty million to the Clinton Foundation mr. Fenton could you fill this this organization what happened in return for that hundred and forty million dollars in contributions well the State Department in addition to other agencies approved the goal of those entities which was to get this stake in uranium one and again the FBI was looking into it and the allegation is the FBI investigation was curtailed and silenced or at least aspects of it were silenced from public disclosure to protect the Clintons and the Obama administration generally from controversy on this and again another area for investigation in your opinion how would that happen how would it be silenced how would it be curtailed how could that have we don't pursue certain leads you under charge in the case of the uranium one I think the allegations were that some folks were being charged and a lot of issues were being left out of the documents or the charging documents or the cases that would have embarrassed some so whether that all that is true or not I don't know because the Justice Department is giving us the documents Thank You mr. chairman and I have 33 seconds left let the record reflect and I have what we have a saying it looks like a pig if it sounds like a pig and if it smells like a pig it's probably a pig and I think based on what I read today something smells here I yield back my time I thank the gentleman from Iowa the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia miss Eleanor Holmes Norton Thank You mr. chairman I just want to establish what the standard should be we understand here we had a president in staid some on hand and a Secretary of State on the other was a unique situation so the absence of a standard is pretty clear so we got to look at the modus operandi for the foundation itself because they were bound to be instances in which a foundation would look as though it was receiving some favoritism and that's that's what happens I suppose when you had two very prominent people operating at this high corridor so I thought I'd look at internal reviews by the committin foundation now these were voluntary reviews and that's what interested me apparently the foundation noted some issues that the weren't as many governing board meetings as there should be there was not timely reporting of conflicts of interest those are the kinds of things that might have been found by some investigation but these were found by voluntary internal reviews by the foundation itself here again I'm looking for a standard as high as to how a foundation should act in this kind of situation mr. professor had me do you think the kinds of internal reviews that were conducted by the Clinton Foundation or our best practices is that how it should be done so again that don't want to speak specifically to the Clinton Foundation but as someone who actually goes out and trains directors to be directors of nonprofits I certainly encourage rigorous and engage discussion of a board a board should be engaged in what's going on the nature of various businesses is you'll have problems I'm sure each of the members have had challenges in their organizations that they run and it's important to do that kind of oversight I deeply appreciate as mr. heiss had noted this committee is important doing the oversight is really important it makes a difference in the functionality both of the government beyond that question now you look at the review that that the Clinton Foundation did it's fair to ask what we watch resulted and here I am informed that they updated their conflict of interest policy they reformed their vetting and gift acceptance policy I'm not asking you to look those particular reforms in the context you don't have but are those the kinds of reforms changes apologized for this code that you would expect a charity to make after commissioning reforms of the kind that I have just not as the Clinton Foundation but I highly recommend a good conflict of interest policy and a good gift acceptance policy they're critical to a nonprofit operation so there was always given the fact that one was the president and one was the Secretary had been the president and what had been the Secretary of State you can see how difficult this situation who was some employees who were interviewed had in fact this is information the committee has received raised concerns about donors who might have an expectation of a quid pro quo benefit in return for gifts again this is almost inherent in these two high-level officials operating in the same space on the other hand no evidence of a quid pro quo was ever found so I have to ask you that let me speak as a member of Congress I'm sure that when some give contributions to me they have an expectation of a quid pro quo does that mean that I am in fact guilty of something or of quid pro quo for accepting such contributions so again as to nonprofits watching out for people wanting things from you in return is a big part of what you have to worry about in the basic nonprofit and it becomes much more extreme as you have individuals who have additional power involved it's a critical question they all have to ask and it is and I can see the space in which these two were operating Clinton and the Clinton Foundation and the Secretary of State mr. chairman could I note for the record that the Clinton Foundation has received ratings for four out of four stars stars from Charity Navigator platinum rating from God star and a rating from charity watch and accreditation from the Better Business Bureau for meeting all 20 of its standards of governance effectiveness financing and fundraising thank you very much I thank the gentleman the chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona mr. Gosar for five eight Thank You mr. chairman good seeing mr. Fayden thank you now is it true that the most recent filings for the Clinton Foundation has shown a significant drop-off in donations now that they have no political power I haven't seen the filings themselves but been reports that's been a 62% drop-off in donations so Sidney Blumenthal and known political operative was retained by that Clinton Foundation correct yes I recall he's getting paid at $10,000 a month by the Clinton Foundation so now while he was getting a rather large paycheck from the Clinton Foundation he was also in Libya serving as then secretary Clinton's unofficial adviser correct according in the New York times and documents I think disclosed as a result in part by judicial watch his efforts he sent mrs. Clinton 25 memos on Libya he was also pushing his own financial interest by trying to get contracts correct yes at a court he worked for the Clinton Foundation and he had business concerns in Libya it's been reported is there an ethical concern with a known political operative working for a supposed nonprofit that is pushing for a war that he can profit from well maybe I think the public interest here is that mrs. Clinton promised she'd stay at a Clinton Foundation business and she immediately and secretly started taking advice from a Clinton Foundation official Sidney Blumenthal now as we turn this body over to the opposition party here and they launch fake investigations into foreign influence I would like to take time take some time to ask panel about real foreign influence because I know they're not going to now we continually see foreign governments and foreign entities funnel millions of dollars to environmental groups two of the largest environmental groups in the world the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club have received millions in grants from the sea chain foundation the sea change foundation itself got millions from a Bermuda company linked to Russia as we all know the environmental groups have undermined the energy sector in the United States they've even got fracking banned in the cash-strapped state of New York now if my friends across the aisle the media and mr. Muller were truly interested in Russian interference would it make sense to start there mr. fitton I've seen reports about that the Russians obviously have an interest in making sure that competitors are harmed in the energy sector and I'm surprised that has gotten more attention their involvement in the environmental movement here at the United States so are some money affecting US policies that Russia benefits it's incredible in my other committee the Natural Resources Committee we're trying to investigate the relationship between the National Natural Resources Defense Council and their links to Communist China government the NRDC has gotten cozy with the Environmental environmentally unfriendly Chinese government while suing the US government whenever it can particularly the US Navy and it's weapon development programs now I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone here that China sees the US Navy as its greatest foe mr. Fenton's should a non-profit be made to register as a foreign agent if it is taking funds and orders from a foreign government that is trying to harm us national and energy security may be one of the things I noted about the Clinton Foundation activities is that Doug ban and others were always advocating on behalf of foreign nationals which raised an issue of the foreign agents Registration Act as well but certainly if my understanding of the law is that there would be registration requirements potentially if you're essentially taking orders from a foreign government and beholden to them financially now nonprofits like the Open Society Foundations have been giving billions from wealthy benefactors is that correct yes okay now while there's nothing wrong with someone giving their money to an organization like open society there is a problem when the federal government doles out millions of dollars in grants to these organizations for instance the National Immigration Law Center received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from the federal government and over a 1 million from the open society foundation while working against US interest does it make sense to dole out taxpayer funds to groups that not only look to erode us sovereignty but are against official US positions mr. Fenton's well I think it's controversial I think by what also would be controversial is that the source operation and mr. Soros is foundations I think is gonna spend about a billion dollars this year as you point out mostly of his own money it's subsidized in part by US tax dollars and he's a controversial figure in terms of his policy outlooks and I question why his tax dollars are supporting them it's definitely the one last comment mr. chairman you know when we start looking at nonprofits I actually was part of a non-profit and you're rated about how much of your dollar goes to the mission statement of what you detail so for example a good non-profit ninety seven cents of every dollar goes to that mission statement and listen to mr. Hackney I now noticed that the Clinton Foundation was very top-heavy with a lot of employees a lot of exorbitant travel and and not really a dollar wise penny spent thank you thank you gentlemen chair recognizes miss Warren Coleman for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman thank you gentlemen for being here today mr. fitton let me ask you something very quickly before your position was judicial watch where we hear various jobs I work for other conservative nonprofits accuracy and media have you ever worked for government government no well back when I was a kid I work for the town but have you ever worked for Republican elected official No thank you I always worked in the nonprofit sector thank you today we're holding this hearing again this is another hearing and a multi-year investigation of the Clinton Foundation completely enough substantial unsubstantial allegations but at the same time we refuse to do anything not I to investigate various serious allegations related to the Trump administration Foundation both last month the state judge in New York who ruled there prosecutors could proceed with legal action against the Trump foundation for allegations focusing on and I quote the misuse of charitable assets and self-dealing close quote let me read from that judge's ruling quote petitioners also the petitioner also alleges the charitable assets primarily consisting of money donated by outside sources were used to promote mr. Thomas properties purchase personal items advance mr. Trump's presidential election campaign and settle certain personal legal obligations professor is the judge's ruling an indication that the allegations against the Trump foundation are credible so I don't want to speak directly to Trump whether or not you your perspective on the judges yeah I mean when a judge finds something that is a finding in the public record it becomes a part of the public record and what were your sort of reaction to this notion of self dealing so I again don't want to speak specifically to the Trump foundation it's a major issue within private foundations when wealthy individuals put significant money and use it for their own purposes but that's not as to the would you would you agree that this is this foundation this Trump foundation is worthy of congressional oversight I believe the entire nonprofit sector is worthy of oversight this foundation absolutely professor on June 15th you wrote an op-ed in The New York Times about the Trump foundation in that piece you wrote and I quote as a former attorney for the chief counsel of the IRS who specialized in nonprofit organizations I believe mr. Trump is also criminally liable for his actions if I was still at the IRS based on the lawsuit I would take a criminal I would make a criminal referral in charges of tax evasion or false statements on a tax return or both why specifically do you believe mr. Trump is criminally liable for his actions regarding the Trump foundation and how serious do you consider the crimes of tax evasion or making false statements aren't tax returns so again I'm not going to speak to the Trump foundation here my writing speaks for itself and let me ask you a question about that sure you wrote an op-ed article you're here testifying and there been specific questions to you why are you suddenly unwilling to answer specifically regarding the the the purpose for which we are here today and the chair would weigh in on this let me just say that the gentlewoman makes a point if you've written an op-ed you can't all of a sudden as much as I might like you to not comment on it you you can't not do that I mean she's asking a legitimate question you need to you need to answer it mr. Hackney let me go there so charity matters deeply and it matters deeply that the people who file returns take care to do the things that they intend to do and when they take that money and if they use it in ways over a series of years that's problematic and they sign that return in those instances where it is over a period of time I think that's significant and does warrant I do do you stand by what you wrote I stand by what I wrote okay in your Ovid you also are quoted as saying the IRS saves criminal consequences for notorious and continuous violations of the law and the misuse of a charity for personal and political purposes over the years as alleged by the New York State Attorney General is in fact the type of case that the IRS goes after with criminal sanctions what notorious and continuous violations of the law were you referring to that you believed that were committed by the Trump convention and so mr. Hackney her time is expired but you can answer the question just very quickly there's been a series of representatives and I did not study up for that specifically right now but there's been a series of representatives have used their charities there was even one recently I think out of my state of Pennsylvania I'm not positive about that but there have been a series of ones that the IRS has brought in those contacts thank you you know professor you have frustrated me you are a person who has written what you believe you are a professor you are a scholar you have a former IRS employee and then you can't even feel comfortable and supporting what you've already said in writing with that I yield back I do support it the chair recognizes himself for a series of questions mr. Hackney let me follow up on Miss Watson Coleman how many how many pages of the documents the Trump Foundation and their filings have you reviewed I've reviewed all of their 990 PFS over a long period tax returns that the IRS has filed I've also reviewed the public record in terms of the reports made by David Ferran fold in terms of their in terms of what is their internal documents would you be qualified to provide an audit in terms of what they've done or not done based on the review I'm not certain of the question based on the documents you've reviewed yep would you be qualified to be able to give an opinion on an audit of the Trump foundation so I think you're asking have I seen every single possible document out there and I have not seen every possible document out there I'm doing based on what the public record is and that's that that was it that I had done in that that's so based on public record you're saying that there's enough in the public record to say that there should be a criminal referral mr. Hackney you know you're a law professor I mean I would find that just I think that's different than saying that he's definitely discussed to the fact that but my question remains are you saying there's enough in a public domain to refer it as a criminal matter I believe there were in the instance in your under oath so in your law professor so I want to see your students be able to answer this accurately absolutely I believe where we know that there is a high likelihood that there have been false statements in a return and there have been choices and how do you know that it appears that there were false statements appears and no are two different words I understand what you're saying so you don't know I I believe based on the public record and that was what I was writing a based upon so based on a public record you think there's enough for a criminal referral I believe that in that report that there was enough to show possible problems there but again I don't want to go into that and I'm not prepared to talk to specific facts this hearing was called the last minute and I have not had that time well you as a witness were called it a last minute by the minority so I just want to make sure that that's clear okay so let me let me go a little bit further mr. Fenton's I want to want to talk about everybody's talking about how great the Clinton Foundation is and how above board and a ratings and platinum ratings and gold ratings and all of this there is a report from November 10th of 2008 which is an internal audit it actually comes from an internal audit that has a conclusion says the challenges and deficiencies plaguing the foundation cannot be overstated there are real and undermine the organization's effectiveness immediately and more long-term to address these issues that present immediate threats the foundation should revamp its legal and HR operations should review its governance structure and documents and should have an open and honest discussion with the president about the future of the foundation would you not find that alarming if that was the conclusion of an internal audit mr. fit I wouldn't want to get an audit like that so you know the problem is there's another audit and mm yeah you got a microphone oh there was another audit in 2011 that raised some of the same issues well not as directly but suggesting well that's where I was going and I appreciate you mentioning that because that was in 2010 and then another audit in 2011 as you talked about a very different firm talked about the potential flicks of interest and the fact that those conflicts of interest policies that were were suggested to be put in place however this is a quote however we did not find any evidence of the enforcement of the conflict of evidence a conflict of interest are you saying that in your discovery process with FOIA that there is a potential conflict of interest between the charitable mission of the Clinton Foundation and what might have been going on have you found that yes mrs. Clinton and mr. Clinton and the foundation recognized those potential conflicts of interest and tried to reassure the President Obama and the Senate that they would be taken care of and disclosed and as I said they were either rubber-stamped or key aspects of it weren't disclosed and or in the case of mrs. Clinton she directly started violating her own agreement and by dealing with this Sidney Blumenthal and and allowing her staff to on a regular basis take care of Clinton Foundation interests using public resources mr. Fenton's is it likely based on reports that you've seen is it likely that the special counsel is also looking into things other than Russian collusion narratives for President Trump based on reports that you've read they looking into other matters as it relates to president Trump oh yes I would assume the Southern District investigation the campaign finance allegations that have been raised up there were as a result initially of interest from the is it likely that they're looking into the Trump foundation as well I wouldn't surprise me okay based on your testimony I guess what I'm trying to figure out if if the Special Counsel is looking at that why would Attorney General Eric Holder not have looked into some of the issues as it related to the uranium one deal and and why would they have looked the other way because apparently according your testimony they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted the committee members to criminal activity that they uncovered and that was a quote from your written testimony the investigation was ultimately supervised by US Attorney rod Rosenstein and andy mackay ended amazing how these names continue to show up hidden and amazing and with that if there's no further business before this panel we will excuse you - gentlemen we thank you for your testimony and we'll ask the next panel to be set up thank you thank you very much what okay thank you oh he's Doyle he's Doyle I'm warning him he wants to switch Oh what do you want us to do the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will come to order I'm pleased to introduce our second panel mr. Lawrence W Doyle managing partner of the income advisors and mr. John my nahan principal at jfm & Associates welcome to you all pursuant to committee rules all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify so if you will please stand and raise your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the hold the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God all right thank you please be seated let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative in order to allow time for discussion and quite frankly for a Q&A that you'll get quite a bit of your entire written statement will be made part of the record but we would ask that you would limit your oral testimony or opening remarks to five minutes there's a clock in front of you to remind you of that it'll turn yellow when you have 30 seconds left if you'll please make sure that you press the button when you're speaking and so what we will do is is we can we can you know have your own opening testimony a combined 10 minutes so however you want to do that and so mr. mr. Doyle will come to you first and then what you can yield to mr. Monaghan I would like to yield to mr. Moynahan to open please okay so mr. Moynahan you are recognized for up to 10 minutes in Thank You chairman like to thank you chairman meadows and other members of the committee for having us here today my name is John Moynihan and I'm one of three partners that engaged in this investigative effort involving a 501 C 3 and in particular the Clinton Foundation the subject today's hearing please note that we do many investigations into 501 C 3 s and this is just one of many finished I'd like to introduce my two colleagues that are here today mr. Doyle and if it's possible mr. Thomas Raglan from the clock hill law firm tom has been very active with us in our efforts as we move through this at the conclusion mr. Doyle's introduction I would like to answer two questions for the committee why are we and why did we do this I think they'll give some good color and background as to what we're doing how we do this for a living what our motivations are and why we're here to give at this point some special tanks the three other individuals who worked on this matter mr. Robert Nieves was behind me he was a senior SES executive in the US Drug Enforcement Administration where I worked for many years with mr. Nieves on money laundering and financial crimes mr. John Shiro from the law firm of bata Chandu II is a master tax analyst fiduciary and trust advisor in the field of taxation and investments mr. Thomas scandal an attorney a law firm in Massachusetts was a litigator who challenged us the entire process our evidence and the way we went about this to ensure the integrity of what we're going to talk about today at this time I'd like to yield to mr. Doyle congressman meadows and members of the committee thank you very much for the invitation to present and discuss the topic relating to the oversight of nonprofit organizations with a specific case study on the Clinton Foundation my name is Larry Doyle and for purposes of background John Moynihan and I are the two proudest graduates of the College of the Holy Cross the jesuit jesuit inspired pursuit of the truth competitiveness and playing by the rules have been our calling cards and our commitment throughout John's career in and around loss law enforcement in mine on Wall Street the last ten years I've spent countless hours involved in literary and investigative pursuits related to regulatory failure the comparisons I see between the subprime mortgage market lack of ratings and regulatory performance and the Madoff scandal to to today's topics are stark on that note I welcome providing the following context and perspective for today's hearing they are currently approximately 1.75 million not-for-profit organizations in our nation today 90% of these not-for-profits fall within the 501 C subset while close to two-thirds are 501 C 3 public charities recent data highlights that these not-for-profits annually gener generate approximately 1.7 four trillion with a T dollars a 250 percent increase over the last 20 years equating it to approximately 9% of our nation's GDP on a standalone basis this segment of our economy would be the tenth largest economy in the world all of which begs the question who's minding the store looking out for the donors and upholding the rule of law but it's quick you want to introduce Tom yeah at this point at this point mr. chairman like mr. Raglan to introduce himself at this point I'd like to answer two questions who are we we are a political we have no party affiliation to this whatsoever no one has financed us I don't know Jim and Meadows I just met him today I don't know any of you people okay I'm happy to meet you but we have no relationship to any of you okay we have forensic investigators that approached this effort in a nonpartisan professional objective independent way we have never been policin we come from law enforcement of Wall Street where each of us has dedicated our entire lives and careers to the rule of law doing the right thing pursuing facts we follow facts that's all none of this is our opinion I emphasize none of this is our opinion these are not our facts they are not your facts they are the facts of the Clinton Foundation why did we do this this is our profession people will ask us are you doing this for money the answer is yes this is how we make a living we do cases it's that simple we have forensic investigators former US law enforcement and private practice making our living conducting these cases we did not choose this topic because of who the individuals are or were in fact we applaud the efforts of the philanthropic nature of the Clinton Foundation on some of the efforts that they have done that's not in dispute we're not here to dispute that rather we have backgrounds in 501c3 charities including work for both inside and outside of them we know the risks in the frequent short Falls 501 C 3 501 C 3 s have been found to be particularly vulnerable to abuse and a lack of oversight especially on the global front we share a deep and profound commitment to protecting taxpayer dollars in that context we saw the controversy surrounding this entity as a significant amount of monies including US tax dollars that were flowing through this foundation we decided in financed out of our own pocket to examine this ourselves we also firmly believe that no one is above the rule of law regardless of party and those who occupy senior positions in our government or a special duty it's important to stress that we have not made any conclusions and to set the record straight we do not have a lawsuit against anybody we don't have a complaint against anybody we have a submission of probable cause to the IRS that said we use the FOIA quite substantially in other tools at our disposal to gain quite a bit of public and non-public information all of the information was obtained completely legally into the various tools of Investigations that we have at this time what we would like to do in an expeditious fashion is to state in bullet form the process we went through and to state our findings that are in our submission to the IRS it is a complex issue this significant amount of information but let it be said our claim is a tax claim it's a claim of probable cause indicating that the foundation operated outside the bounds of its approval that came from the IRS that's our claim you have two minutes yep if we could read our investigative process to you kind of in quick fashion here's what we did we went to the nine 90s where financial investigators we started with the returns that the foundation filed not that we filed not that you filed that they filed these were their revenue sources in their expenses we attempted to reconcile all of those donations with expenses the basis of our claim is we were unable to do that on that note we followed the money so we made extensive spreadsheets of their revenues and expenses we analyzed their income statements and we did a macro review of all their donors which it's a very bar bailed sort of foundation less than 1/10 of 1% of the donors gave 80% of the money so we followed the money we further went and looked at consent decrees that were issued against the foundation by various states we reviewed the responses from all the states in which they operated to specific questions about violations consent decrees or penalties that they may have paid to those states we did an analysis of that the results are quite shocking in addition to that we sourced contracts mo use and interaction with foreign governments including email exchanges between senior foundation executives and government officials additionally we did a review of all their foreign offices and we drew a spread map a spreadsheet comparing the Clinton Foundation with the Global Fund and PEPFAR the results were stark our conclusions in the interest of time are this foreign agent the foundation began acting as an agent of foreign governments early in its life and has continued doing so throughout its existence as such the foundation should have registered on the fara ultimately the foundation in its auditors acknowledged this fact and conceded in formal submissions that it did operate as an agent therefore the foundation is not entitled to 501c3 tax-exempt 'ln privileges as outlined in IRS 170c two misrepresentations the Clinton Foundation did not comply with the requirements of 501 C 3 and that it far exceeded the purposes detailed in its original Articles of Incorporation filed December 23rd 1997 it subsequently reaffirmed in numerous other records across many jurisdictions including with Nara the foundation did pursue programs and activities for which it had neither sought nor achieved permission to undertake such was the case even before the completion in transferal of the presidential library in 2004 as such representation representation by the foundation to donors what was a misrepresentation of the approval organizational tax status allowing it to raise funds for the presidential library and related programs therein in these pursuits the foundation failed the organizational and operational tests 501 C 3 Internal Revenue Code 7.2 5.3 additionally the intentional misuse of donated public funds the foundation falsely attested that it received funds and use them for charitable purposes which was in fact not the case rather the foundation pursued an array of activities both domestically and abroad some may be deemed philanthropic al biet unimproved while others much larger in scope are properly characterized as profit oriented taxable undertakings of private enterprise again failing the operational tests from philanthropy philanthropy referenced above the investigation clearly demonstrates that the foundation was not a charitable organization per se but in point of fact was like was a closely held family partnership as such it was governed in a fashion in which it sought in large measure to advance that the personal interests of its principles as detailed within the financial and analysis of this submission and further confirmed within the supporting documentation and evidence section our last finding donors responsibilities the private foundations that donated to the Clinton Foundation are themselves subject to tax payments on the donations that they made to the foundation under Code IRC for 9 4 5 unless they meet specific conditions as outlined in IRS Code 727 19 582 completed thank you for your time thank you both for your testimony the chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio mr. Jordan Thank You mr. chairman as you said I didn't I didn't know you guys I just came to hearing today wanted to see what you had to say tell me your backgrounds are you both accountants no my background my undergraduate degree from Holy Cross ba economics MBA International Finance Old Dominion University magna laude mr. Doyle I worked I also graduated from Holy Cross as an economics major I worked on Wall Street I'm still involved in around finance for the last 10 years I've spent extensive time investigating and writing about regulatory failure including publishing a book a good let's go back to some of the things you said in your opening comments you said there earlier session mr. Connolly said you guys were you had you're in the midst of a lawsuit that's not that's not accurate no that's completely inaccurate what we do is we do an investigation of the whistleblower statutes if you find in dish' probable cause we have not formulated any conclusions about this we are under the law to submit that to the IRS that is the jurisdictional oversight for this we've made that this mission whatever the IRS finds and concludes we stand by so you you've submitted that claim or that concern you have to the IRS what you call a probable cause submission when do you do that August 11th 2017 so a year ago a year and a half ago almost okay and why did you start this investigation you getting someone hire you to go dig into this and figure out what's going on no nobody hired us to begin this investigation we do 501c3 work to be quite frank you did if you find out there's there's a big-time abuse you could there's some kind of you get paid we do this we do this for a living yeah if the kenan foundation was a 2.5 million dollar issue it would not have been asked how many other cases when you've done where you filed a probable cause submission to the IRS how many other times you done that first time first time mm-hmm so have you got paid before I mean this this okay well we will get hired by law firms who represent 501 C 3s that I need to get cleaned up that's what I figured okay so let's turn to a few the things that I highlighted in your in your statement you said the books don't balance right the revenue doesn't match expenses what have you made that sense you've got a little detail there give me an example well we did we did review revenues versus expenses you know across all their 990s it's not so much that they didn't balance its what would be represented we wanted to get our own we did our own work all our own work and we created spreadsheets yeah looked at okay what on a line item by line item basis how much were salaries how much on travel how much on office expenses and just created that spreadsheet again just to follow the money yeah right it's not about balancing it's about what they spend it on exactly got it got it you also said senior foundation executives and government officials were talking all the time and emails and there was some I think their statement said was something some it was stark what they had to say I think was the word you used walk me through one of those emails give me an example of that well I mean deed discussions between the senior foundation officials prior to the library being turned over to the National Archives while they were in the process of looking to launch their health-related activities just the nature of pushing that those programs and and when we looked at that that caused concern in terms of well this look to be far outside what they were approved for you know so they were out there they're talking about these health-related activities when we read their articles of incorporation they were approved for a library so that that to us just was an addition you get a can you get the committee an example of one of those emails where they're way outside the limits of the parameters are where they're supposed to be on that specific example we're talking about a European country that is in a dialogue with senior members of the foundation and eventually signed an MoU for cash flows support programs that was happening in 2002 the library which is the only approval that the IRS gave to them to the foundation was turned over in 2004 two years before the library was turned over to Nara senior officials are in email exchanges in dialogue negotiating an MoU between a European based company country in an African country we have those exchanges ok so to us that's a red flag because your approval was for a library why are you negotiating health related contracts if you wanted to do that you can you change your Articles of Incorporation you seek approval from the IRS because that was specifically stated in the determination letter given to the foundation the IRS gave them a feminine letter following a 10:23 application that said should you change the purpose sauce intentions of what you're doing you need to contact us for approval they did not do that and one message over and above that in one of those emails the statement was made this is not a Clinton Foundation program per se which in our reading and understanding of the law so which means it's just isn't right yeah no I understand ok mr. chairman I'm out of time may I have a second round the chair recognizes mr. Norton for five minutes you submitted thank you sir a complaint to the IRS and the FBI with allegations against the Clinton Foundation I think you testified to that in August that's not correct ma'am that is no we submit what it is is we put together our investigative findings and then we we do a submission it's not a complaint it's probable clause a complaint is a final document that's gets submitted to the courts if we're gonna indict somebody or something like that that's not what this is we actually haven't reached any conclusions we just are citing in our submission indicia or probable cause as to what has gone on just just to be correct why why won't you give us a copy of whatever it is you submitted we anticipated that question we have this as an ongoing matter and we don't know how the IRS will rule on that suffice it to say the point of not withholding it from this committee I want to I want to answer your question very specifically because there may be further causes of action that we can't pursue under the law and we are not going to sacrifice our opportunity to pursue those this is how we make a living not everything that we have done in our investigations are in those submissions we only we only put in our submission that which is applicable to a tax claim we have not put into our submission anything that is not applicable to attack so they saw that there's more to come not necessarily in this forum but yes now to EA to reiterate you are not whistleblowers we file we are people who are not from inside the Clinton Foundation we are financial vestigators on the outside of the Clinton Foundation and we have to file a claim under the whistleblower potential plaintiffs in a key tam lawsuit no you can't you cannot be a key team plaintiff in a tax case that is not allowed within the law so what are you we in this case we file under the whistleblowers you didn't tell our staff last Friday that you are plaintiffs in a quitan lawsuit absolutely not that is completely incorrect when our staff the committee staff asked you for copies of documents you submitted to the IRS an FBI you declined you also said that you had provided no documents to Republicans on this committee we have not somehow however on Monday our Republicans did obtain 1,300 pages correct of documents from your submission when they sent them over to us they claimed you gave chairman Meadows office these documents on a disk if anybody from the room said you provided them did you or your attorney provide these documents to chairman meadows his staff or any other Republicans we did not so we're very confused last Monday our staff emailed you or rather your attorney to ask if these documents again I apologize were provided by you he responded more Nahan and all did not provide any documents to meadows staff correct it is my understanding that they gave the document that they were it is my understanding they were given those documents by a reporter named John Solomon on his own initiative do you stand by your statements so that your condition says you had nothing whatsoever with providing these documents to Republic well that's not what you asked me well then you asked me if I report it if I delivered the documents to the Republicans and we did not but you did have something to do with it yes but you didn't ask me that so if you're asking me now I and the question the answer is those documents following a preliminary denial letter by the IRS in which they asked for us for an appeal we sent in the appeal with pictures of their own IRS agents working on the case we submitted that our piano's documents with very contradictory information from our Republicans conversation they send us an email on Tuesday and and I'm quoting from it we receive the same 1,300 pages via Meadows office and they receive this material from Doyle Morna hand door Mona Han we didn't do that we're ready to come forward and share documents we have been treating them as treat as whistleblowers after we received these documents we asked them for permission understand I'm quoting to share with you last Friday their lawyer confirmed we were good to share these documents no look I don't understand both of these explain it we were emphatic with your staff member that both sides have the same materials that whatever the Republicans have the Democratic side should have as well we are here not right versus left John and I we are all about right versus wrong well with regard to your question I want to be very specific those materials we later learned was supplied to the Republican side by John Solomon we gave materials to John Solomon in our exercise of trying to understand the playing field here with the IRS with its low number of personnel doing this census why don't you give him to a reporter he's a reporter and did you know I would you know that he would then he'd give them to the committee we did not know that we did not know that mr. Chairman I suggest that we take this matter up to clarify this confusion outside of hearings I'll be glad to do that I can assure the the gentlewoman that anything that I have the minority has and you know that I will not keep documents from you and so I do want that to be clear as do we I think you're in possession of everything that I have and we want to make sure that everybody has a Lavy lay the level playing field here the gentleman from Iowa is recognized Thank You mr. chairman thank you I think you said both of you have done extensive work with 501 C 3 is that correct yes could you tell me then what what is the average percentage of donations or revenues that go to the intended beneficiaries in the average 501 C 3 I mean is it is it 20% is 80% I don't know a lot of the ones that we work on to be quite frank are the ones that have problems okay so if you're asking me the question relative to the cases we've worked on it's significantly lower than that not relative to the cases you work on just for the industry what would be you would hope and at least 15 maybe no more than 15% was administrative yeah 85% of contributions would go to the intended beneficiaries 80% some they're people gotta make a living and and and you can expect administration within those but this is about philanthropy and in public support for this you got to give it to the people who need it what was the percentage for the Clinton Foundation based upon the information we have from their 990s and we do not believe that that is complete because we do not have subpoena power that ranged somewhere around 40% actually congressman if I could it would hopefully be beneficial if I could just quickly run through the percentage breakdown of expenses if that's okay probably take too much time okay so okay so you have an idea I mean the grants and allocations they gave 12 with 12% compensation salary and benefits 26% travel 8% other and all other expenses 12% these percentages seem in line to you given your expertise overall it might have been about 40% by our calculation ended up going to programs in 60% was it what happened to the revenue levels the contribution levels of the Clinton Foundation once the Clintons were no longer in political power what happened to him go up or down yeah they they went down but quite nificantly quite frankly our analysis doesn't include that our analysis takes takes this particular foundation from 2005 right through 2015 we break it down dollar by dollar we start with the first employer identification number issued by the IRS and we tally that up year by year we take the second employer identification number that was used solely for a two year period for the initial chai which from our Freedom of Information Act requirements was approximately 22 million dollars and was not approved to do that and anything in your analysis did you come across what appeared to be pay to play they know that wasn't the focus necessary very clear to be very clear our focus is on financial analysis and whether they live within the boundaries as part and parcel of that investigation we did come across instances of that but we put that into a catch-all category of just outside the boundaries that's not really a mr. Gerron I can yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from while you said in your opening statement you use the term agent of a foreign government give me an example of that sure there are so many examples Mozambique Mozambique in in 2002 it was a memorandum of agreement between the foundation in the Mozambique to work on their behalf through their Ministry of Health Program and again through that engagement it was plainly obvious again based on emails that we've reviewed that this was not a Clinton Foundation program per se they were there to support the Mozambique Ministry of Health so really if one reduce this to layman's terms they were brokering money and they were brokering pharmaceuticals that's the term on Wall Street we use brokering John uses the term agent they were they were an agent of money through these donors they would take a for lack of a better term a Vig in terms of their fees broker the money and then they negotiated these relationships with pharmaceutical companies by the same token they were brokering the pharmaceuticals and again taking the Vig is that why you I think one of your concluding remarks was the Clinton Foundation functioned as a closely held family partnership not a charity yes the reality is the difference between public charities private foundations are very exact public charities our organizations that are allowed to solicit funds from the general public which is what they were approved for for the library and they they follow that they solicited funds from public folks going along with that public charities really don't make grants they don't they're the end-uses they they do the program I have my own 501 C 3 s involving Bass baseball I fix up a lot of baseball fields and Massachusetts so when people donate to that it's very $20,000 um we go and we pull the weeds out okay we do the work private foundations are different Melinda and Bill Gates on those boards there may be one or two individuals those foundations are governed in a way that there is a specific function that's going to go on and they issue grants a lot of times those grants go to a public charity there are striking differences between public charities and private foundations what happened here for whatever reason we don't know and don't have an opinion on it it became a hybrid and and our analysis shows that this hybrid modeled the global fund in Geneva Switzerland that's that is a hugely important point the difference between the global fund being a Geneva based operation that does exactly what mr. Doyle said which is to take funds from one company one country excuse me for whatever purpose pharmaceuticals a tuberculosis and to help another country they are the facilitator the agent the difference is they not subject to US taxation jurisdictional law the Clinton Foundation in conjunction with those same donor countries to the Global Fund in the same recipient countries as the Global Fund created a separate entity called unit aid that was formed in 2006 mr. Clinton and mr. Gates was on the board at unit 8 together formed with these countries this entity the difference being that unit 8 became the single largest donor to the Clinton Foundation those revenues did not stay outside of the United States they created jurisdiction and venue by flowing back into the United States Bank of America Boston Massachusetts that then becomes under the jurisdiction of the governing body Internal Revenue Service at that point they are going to be a facilitator in an agent of those money flows the IRS code could not be any more specific you can't do that in be an exempt organization it's okay that you do it you just pay your taxes okay I'm going to cut you off there the gentleman's time has expired so mr. Doyle mr. Moynahan I'm gonna ask you to try to be succinct and direct okay and and and bluntly maybe dumb it down for me I mean you're talking about stuff that quite frankly I have no clue you know when you start quoting different statutes and things like that the average American we just want to know if there's wrongdoing or not and I know you say you don't have an opinion if you don't have an opinion then why did you file a probable cause filing with the re-arrest because obviously have an opinion that something was wrong or you would have done a probable cause based on our effect on facts based on your facts do you believe there's probable cause of wrongdoing yes or no yes mr. Doyle hugely yes okay all right so so let me let me get to this I think you you guys have been well advised in terms of trying to protect your interests so let me just be blunt I checked with the IRS commissioner nothing that you say in this forum according to him will actually affect any potential claim that you've already submitted that's what he told me so if that is indeed the case do you have a problem giving the six thousand pages that you've submitted if it will not affect your financial claims to the minority and the majority of this committee do you have a problem with that we'll take that under advisement out so well then you need that you need to go ahead with your counsel right now because listen my patience is running thin mm-hmm you're here to provide expert testimony on what you've found and what I'm saying is is that if you have a legitimate claim we will protect that but in but if you're not going to share the information with this committee and and cut to the chase my patience is running out so I'll I'll give you a few seconds to talk to your attorneys and you can come back and decide how you want to proceed okay you so we just spoke to our attorney we will not be providing all those materials we will answer any questions that you have all right so so just so you're aware in your counsel is where have you submitted those all those documents to the IRS yes have you submitted them to the FBI yes okay we will compel you to to bring all those documents to this committee then and and I can just tell you I think you're being poorly advised by your counsel and I'm saying that directly to you sir let me just tell you this is a hearing to get to the truth and what you're saying is you're all about the truth mr. Monahan and now what you said sure so just ask a if you're about the truth then why aren't you willing to give us the documents because we're explaining the documents if we have other claims I don't think we should be sacrificing our potential I said if I could protect your financial claims and get a commitment from the IRS would you be willing to give those documents but that's not our only claim is with the IRS you keep making that mistake a claim isn't just with the IRS we have other claims that we can bring so so you're saying you're gonna bring civil a civil or against the foundation we have opportunities that we will pursuit this is what we do for lies so let me understand that so you're you're saying potentially you're going to bring a civil lawsuit against the Clinton Foundation and and that this public hearing might affect that know that we didn't say that what we're saying is that the IRS excuse me the IRS submission stands on its own merit the IRS will make their determinations based upon what they find if the IRS finds one way we'll have one reaction if they find another way we'll have another reaction with counsel mr. Monahan do you believe that based on any interviews that you've done with anybody at the Clinton Foundation that there was criminal activity that might have might have happened within the Clinton Foundation we believe there is in disher of that yes I and you base that based on what the interviews with whom we interviewed mr. Andy Castle Larry speak to that directly we were together we interviewed mr. Kessel on November 30th 2016 I had reached out to him in early to mid October of Andy was a former acquaintance of mine on Wall Street and he called me back on November 9th at 9:45 in the morning about three two three three and a half weeks after I had reached out to him we exchanged pleasantries I had informed mr. Kessel about my relationship with mr. Moynahan so that he was fully aware of who John was we got together and he was very forthcoming we stand by every word that we provided so what is forthcoming me I mean what what alleged criminal activity do you believe that the Clinton Foundation may have may have been a part of his statements to us very clear and very genuine he told us that mr. Clinton on a regular basis mixed and matched his personal business on an ongoing basis with that of the foundation all right so so your conversations with mr. Cassell indicated that there was commingling of funds between the president and the foundation is that correct expenditure of donated funds between his pro he would use donated funds to the foundation for personal use private enormous is what they would call it that was stated to us and so were there any other criminal allegations well he just stated to us very specifically and it kind of took us both off God to be quite frank guys I've been doing this business for a long time when someone says to me quote I know where all the bodies are buried it was shot but but that's hyperbole so go ahead tell me what is the other potential criminal activity that may have happened well his statements to us about that we have submitted with the IRS it's up to them to make a determination on that what are the alleged criminal other criminal activity that was communicated to you mr. Moynahan from mr. Castle what he communicated to us was the commingling of funds that's the most specific of illegal activities on a regular and ongoing basis did you did you have another interview with mr. Mis official miss who barber official bobber official yeah is there anybody else that you interviewed other than that we did who was that we're not at liberty to give that name sorry your sworn testimony let me just tell you that dog doesn't hunt here oh I know if you've interviewed someone else as a witness you're required to answer that or plea the fed well what do you want to do we made a confidentiality agreement with her at the time so we'll plead the fifth but what happened to speak about the interview we just thank you for named up so what you're saying is you have a confidentially confidentiality agreement with someone you interview yeah person's position a very senior position within the Clinton health care access program all right so within what is I guess referred to as chai is that the largest part of the claim foundation yes and how many how many dollars of assets would be in the chai part of the Foundation just give us a minute we'll look at that approximately 900 million by the analysis that we had done okay and what were the allegations that she alerted you to she stated very specifically that the funds were used as essentially a piggy bank you could travel in vacation when you wanted to that the senior administrators within this fund operating this fund treated this incoming of this as personal business foundation business for travel and personal expense so what you're saying is is that they could use the Clinton Foundation charitable donations for private travel and go on personal trips is that what you're saying yes we see that as conversion of foundation property what else we can she also referenced mr. Clinton's relationship with one of his largest donor that being Bill Gates at which point in time she said that they were not on speaking terms in referenced the the fact that at this point in time during 2009 that the the Health Initiative had not received no prior formal approval by the IRS for their activities in fact hold on so you're saying the Clinton Foundation had not received proper approval who did not receive proper approval the Clinton held that prior to 2010 chai was the acronym for Clinton hiv/aids what we are led to believe from this interview was mr. gates telling this to Clinton you need to get formal approval for this activity which went all the way back to 2002 that's the premise of our submission that and it was at that point in time that they actually went and got formal approval for that activity from the from the IRS and chai then became known as Clinton health asked excess initiative well alright so who approved the the 501 C 3 status for the foundation it would have been the IRS in one of who at the IRS do you have the document yeah well we haven't named is off him but we've got the determination letters and it was approved for what building a library or the initial approval was simply for a library so who who modified it that's what we worked on we saw no modifications to the Articles of Incorporation if you want to change the status you need to notify the IRA I get that you've said that before okay so was there any modification No all right we've got a second round the gentleman from Georgia I'm gonna go to you in just a second as soon as you're ready so could I answer to your question a very specific misrepresentation that went on with the second chai I think that's what you want to know in order to go forward the application has a schedule G that asks you if this second chai is a successor organization to a previous one so you have the library then you have this chai running unapproved they clearly were advised conversations evolving mr. gates and what-have-you as we've learned you've got to get approved they go and make an application in on the form schedule G when it's asked is this a successor operation they specifically and affirmatively answer no that is a misrepresentation because it's the same people doing the same thing it's the same people doing the same thing additionally we asked this individual about the Charity Navigator rating of a four star to which he laughed out loud and said I've worked with in charitable organizations at large firms the Clinton Foundation is the furthest thing from a four star rating in fact that person went on to further state to us that that she advised her own friends in multiple businesses where she had worked the previous to that to stop donating to the Clinton Foundation it was so bad all right so so gentlemen I'm gonna deal with a Jim from from Georgia let me let me say this so it is critically important that we have the documents you know we can hear your testimony all day long but it's it's not it's not fair to miss Norton nor to me for us to have your testimony that we can't verify with these other documents it's just like you submitting something and suggesting that it's one way with the IRS have you submitted these documents to the FBI yes do you believe that they have opened up an investigation on it based on your conversations with the FBI yes yes so you believe that there is an open criminal investigation by the FBI on the Clinton Foundation out of field office little so you believe out of Little Rock Arkansas there's an open criminal investigation into the Clinton Foundation going based on information that you've submitted to the FBI the agent informed me as to how very very very grateful he was for our documents in the case fashion in which we presented it all right so that that is incredibly important well if you're telling me there's an open criminal investigation maybe that under maybe that makes sense why mr. Huber was not here because if he couldn't comment on an ongoing investigation perhaps that's why he didn't show up that's why we want you to you as the committee to come to your own logical conclusions and not have us make conclusions for you all right I recognize the gentleman from Georgia Thank You mr. chairman and I apologize for having to step out I know some of my concerns and questions have no doubt already been covered but I do want to just bring up a couple of things from my own satisfaction and understanding and I will reiterate the the necessity of the documents to be very honest with you I was a little hesitant coming into this second panel here because I feel like you're using us for your own benefit and we need the information so that we can do the proper oversight that we're responsible for News me sir you invited us we didn't invite ourselves no but you've not turned over the documents and we need we need those documents to perform let me be very clear you invited us we told the staff members I understand if you didn't want to invite us then disinvite us I understand who invited who but also know there's a little game going on here and I understand from a financial perspective some of it but we are here to do oversight and we need cooperation did have you been in contact with attorney Huber or anyone on his investigative State team we we sent all of our information and documents to Salt Lake City Utah in early April we I did subsequent information in mid-april late May and then again in mid to late October our first communication with the US Attorney's Office out of Salt Lake was late November I guess was two weeks ago all right so you have been in communication we received two incoming phone calls that Friday can you say with whom what who contacted one of the assistant US attorneys and when was that that Friday afternoon whatever that two weeks ago two weeks ago was it pry so there's no communication prior to two weeks ago in other words not know okay and what was the basic nature of the communication we are reviewing your materials okay so you did not have a conversation oh no no sir to be clear just like with the FBI it's a one-way communication they asked they don't tell all right so how do you know them whether or not they're following up on the information you gave them based upon their questions they didn't tell you that they're following up they they asked for giving an educated guess you believe absolutely right what about the Justice Department's inspector general Michael Michael Horowitz have you been in communication with him or anyone on his team we informed the inspector general of our submission and documents to by a letter back I could look at the date up probably somewhere mid year all right have you heard back has there been any communication no no all right so you don't know if anything is going on on that end at all all right in 2011 the Clinton Foundation hired an outside law firms Simpson Thacher that came up in the first the panel and they were talking about performing a governance review the organization are you familiar with with that yes all right this memos been widely spread in them in the media and you're familiar with it based on your investigation do you find any indication that there was ever a quid pro quo of donations in return for some sort of action by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State yeah but it doesn't come from that memo it comes from our own of this yeah well that was my question from your investigation yes are you convinced that that took place yes all right Thank You mr. chairman I yield back chair recognizes gentlewoman from the District of Columbia mr. Norton Thank You mr. chairman I want to further clarify because mr. Doyle you indicated how very grateful the FBI was for the information but the FBI never confirms what they're gonna do with and with with information or indicate that there would be an ongoing open criminal investigation did it pardon me you didn't hear my question mr. Doyle I did not hear it was you who said how grateful the FBI was to receive information yep yes I am asking you whether they in any way confirmed that this information would be used as part of an ongoing criminal investigation no he didn't know I want to just to clarify that yeah I also want to clarify because of your own status because you don't classify yourself as whistleblowers right well where we would be an outside whistle blow not an inside whistle blowing this is a key a key tam lawsuit against the Clinton Foundation's not involving us but not involving us we don't have a key team loss if you are potential plaintiffs for we will never have a key team tax lawsuit involving the Clintons it's not allowed we have a submission to the IRS we are not adverse to the Clinton Foundation if any action is taken it's taken by the IRS it's not taken by us we submit probable cause they determine if there's an action to be taken we are not adverse in our submission to the client to the Clinton Foundation we gave them probable cause they'll determine it are you seeking any monetary award yes if the IRS is successful the whistleblower statute allows for a reward for us how much money are you seeking whatever the IRS determines the whistleblower program has a ten to thirty percent payout we would maintain that the well revenue could run anywhere from 400 million dollars to two and a half billion dollars very important to put that on the record just to confirm you yourselves never worked for the Clinton Foundation no you have not had access to their internal files or anything of the like no no now your written testimony and here's this get this data gained you stated that you had sent your submission to the IRS on August 11th 2017 correct you also conceded and I quote this is important recently received we received a letter of preliminary denial of our claim correct we asked you what does that mean and we asked you for a copy of that letter from the IRS why won't you give us a copy since you did receive a letter up for them an area denial because we were in an appeal status right now you're appealing the denial so they actually encourage you they actually say in the letter please submit in a P actually ask you please submit an appeal as is if we're wrong so what we did is we sent our appeal in with a photocopy of the FBI and the IRS CID on the jackets removing boxes from the Clinton Foundation after they had brought a 757 down and taken all the materials out of the Clinton Foundation Little Rock Arkansas we sent that with our appeal to demonstrate to the IRS that you'll let it coming from Atlanta doesn't reconcile with what's going on in Little Rock Thank You mr. chairman the chair recognizes himself so I want to do a little follow-up here so your conversations with the special agents in Little Rock Arkansas mr. Doyle was that you that was me all right and so your conversations with them they acknowledge they had received your submission and the pages of documents is that correct that is correct and did they acknowledge any work that they're doing with that either directly or indirectly did not comment so they just said thank you for the suppose it was it was a very cordial professional conversation I can't comment thank you very much you know we were very very grateful for your your efforts and then you've been what makes you believe that there's a criminal investigation out of Little Rock then if that's the extent I spoke to him twice I spoke to him in August and then again in October alright so what would make you think that there's a criminal investigation mr. Doyle I mean if it was just gorgeous all I mean then why would you believe that there's well in the in the August conversation he said this is an open and ongoing situation all right so he said this is an open and ongoing situation investigation or situation or matter I apologize investigation alright so it was an open and going investigation that he couldn't comment on yes so that would in indeed indicate that there's an investigation in chairman look I worked with the DEA I do work all over the world in these cases still the fact that they followed up with the second inquiry not just hey thanks don't let the door hit you on the way out but then they follow up again that's not the sign of a closed investigation I get that mr. Moynahan but I can't take your experience at the DEA and and appreciate the thought but the other part of that is mr. Doyle if they said there was an open and ongoing investigation that's what you recall that they said that is what I recall to the best of my memory and so so if indeed there's an open and ongoing investigation and you've given the information to them why would the IRS not view that as substantial well that's did they know that there was an open and ongoing investigation we sent a picture to the I heard that oh they know that some part of the IRA isn't that in our appeal that in your opinion all right into that point congressman the IRS individual was I would say more than mildly surprised at our interaction with the FBI all right why do you think mr. Huber waited until November the 30th to call you about four letters that you'd sent prior because you'd sent one on the 14th the 18th the 29th and those were in April 29th of May as I recall in October the 10th or 12th based on what I understand why did they wait until November 30th to give you a call we don't know do you think it might have had to do with the fact that you're coming here to testify I mean that this testimony invitation just came recently I don't know why they were fully aware because we had asked them to come and be a witness at this particular hearing and then all of a sudden you get a phone call from mr. Huber's what second-in-command is that correct I don't know if he's the second but he was clearly an assistant US attorney he's dealing directly with mr. Huber so I find it just very coincidental that on November 30th a few days before the hearing after they had been noticed that we wanted them to come and testify all of a sudden they would start following up so mr. Doyle what did they say about the documents that you had provided them did they have them all congressman he said that we are reviewing your material I asked him if he could comment if further beyond that if this was open and ongoing he said we are reviewing your material he called me back a few hours later asked specifically about you know one exhibit and then asked further if you could you know do you have these on a disk I said I am have them on a thumb drive would you like them please resend them so I resent the the thumb drive that afternoon so was that the first time that that mr. Huber and his team actually got the documents from you mr. Doyle I was that was the third time so you're telling me that on November 30th they called you back and they couldn't find the first two submissions that you had made to the Department of Justice's and mr. Huber that they wanted you to send them again you're telling me what we're concluding that ourselves that's what we concluded and it was just what I've been told by DOJ which I do not believe just to be frank is that this was the normal process of following up on recent correspondence what was the most recent correspondence that you had with the Department of Justice that one October 10th well I had the correspondence that that with these well after the follow-up prior to the phone call what was the most recent correspondence you had with the Department of Justice mr. Huber we sent materials October to the 10th of 2018 delivered by FedEx on October 12th of 2018 I think I got a copy of the FedEx delivery yes and so they didn't respond to your April 4th letter they didn't respond to the letter later in April they didn't respond to the May 29th letter and they did and they finally responded to your October 10th letter a few days before a hearing that was coming up correct that is correct do you think that that's that shows the level of interest that a special prosecutor would show we don't know his caseload but quite frankly we're disappointed that three years level of effort goes into this we are not paparazzi we're not the media we don't want anybody even know who we are in the work that we do where financial investigators that's what we do we get paid to do this for a living we work for ourselves we don't get paid by anybody else in congressman it's disappointing that it took that long and we hear from them we shared our materials not only with the attorney office in Salt Lake also in Little Rock but other US Attorneys offices as well that had been indicated as you know providing support or working on Clinton related matters we also shared our materials with the US Postal Inspection Service so various jurisdictions the wietfeldt would be interested both at the state and federal level and you've shared all of those documents with those entities and yet you somehow do not believe that you should share it with Congress and the American people I want to hear this because frankly you can prosecute the Clintons are you gonna bring an action against the Clintons that would yield US economic consortium I don't think you are those intimate I thought hold on to your testimony and don't get cute with me because I promise you telling you the truth I promise you I thought you said you were all about the rule of all that was in your opening statement we are justice and truth and that's why we've presented to the law enforcement agencies of which you're not mr. Moynahan let me just say this we have an oversight responsibility and I can assure you that when you come in here it is incumbent upon you to be open and transparent and we can make criminal referrals just like anybody else now we cannot prosecute you're exactly right but what I can tell you is this is that when you come before us and you've shared it with all kinds of entities and to not actually listen to my my good friend to my right here and say you deserve to see the same evidence that we've shared with others I don't find how that actually provides a good foundation for truth and transparency it's just I think we're looking at this from completely different perspectives we have financial investigators we do cases we present our evidence to those jurisdictions in this case the IRS that would bring a case that's not what you do so that's why we present it to them and not to you okay well I can assure you that we do have something here that will compel us to get the information either from you or from the agencies sure and and I can assure you that we will so that my good friend to my right and the entire committee can review these documents and make their their own claim we welcome that from you final question mr. Doyle you said anywhere from 400 million to 2.5 billion dollars might be subject to taxation so you're saying worst case is in your opinion 400 million dollars were improperly used in a charitable foundation named the Clinton Foundation is that correct that is correct and it could be all of it it could be all of it all right if there's no further business before the committee's the committee stands adjourned

Channel: NewsNOW from FOX

Views: 2,210,333

Rating: 4.6433058 out of 5

Keywords: #MAGA, #Q, Q secret agent, Make America Great again, Clinton Foundation, #Clinton, Hillary Clinton foundation, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Clinton foundation hearing

Id: pbZSuN7vTXw

Length: 158min 39sec (9519 seconds)

Published: Thu Dec 13 2018