Posted on

Josh Gottheimer’s $2 billion conflict of interest that is the Clinton Foundation

Josh Gottheimer

October 29,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, News has just broken that the FBI is reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Will Josh Gottheimer FINALLY denounce Clinton’s unscrupulous actions and the Clinton Foundation improprieties?

If Josh Gottheimer refuses to denounce Hillary Clinton, it shows that he is beholden to the Clinton network as a result of their efforts – documented in the Wikileaks email releases – to help him buy a seat in Congress. It also shows that he accepts their belief that some people are “above the law,” as shown by Josh’s own actions in refusing to pay his taxes and his lack of transparency relating to the settlement after his assault of a woman.

Josh Gottheimer cannot honestly say he is running to represent the interests of the Fifth District, when he still supports the Clintons and the $2 billion conflict of interest that is the Clinton Foundation.

Posted on

The Clintons and the sordid UBS affair


By Ernest A. Canning

The story, as originally recounted by James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus of The Wall Street Journal, was, of itself, deeply troubling.  In March 2009, after meeting with Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton intervened with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of Switzerland’s most powerful banking institution, UBS.  The IRS, which at that time was seeking the identity of wealthy Americans who had stashed some $20 billion in 52,000 tax evading UBS accounts, then agreed that the Swiss bank need only turn over information on 4,450 accounts.  Afterwards, UBS increased its previous $60,000 in donations to the Clinton Foundation ten-fold.  By the end of 2014, UBS donations to the Clinton Foundation totaled $600,000.  UBS also “paid former President Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.”

Those facts, of themselves, raise disturbing questions.  Did a bank that still ranks as “the world’s biggest wealth manager” and has at its disposal a bevy of economists and law firms have a legitimate reason for paying Bill Clinton $1.5 million in speaking fees? Or was the $1.5 million and the tenfold increase in Clinton Foundation donations a reward for the former secretary of State’s intervention?  If the latter, that reward would have, under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A)), amounted to an illicit bribe.