Pay for Pardons - Was Marc Rich (Or a Surrogate) One of the Currently-Secret Clinton Donors?

IRS Form 990 - Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax - is supposed to be open for public inspection.

Stamped "Copy for Public Inspection," the 2005 version of the Clinton Foundation's Form 990 includes a $46,167,890.00 contribution in Schedule B ("Schedule of Contributors") - with the contributor's name redacted.

That's on top of:

$10,028,614.00 - redacted
$5,000,000.00 - redacted
$4,318,754.00 - redacted
$4,273,305.00 - redacted
$3,999,960.00 - redacted
$3,150,000.00 - redacted
$3,000,000.00 - redacted

And that's just 2005, and just contributions over $1M.

In 2006, here's the breakdown of contributions over $1M:

$45,311,615.00 - redacted
$31,324,030.00 - redacted
$10,000,000.00 - redacted
$9,289,897.00 - redacted
$6,500,000.00 - redacted
$5,591,211.00 - redacted
$5,359,776.00 - redacted
$5,250,000.00 - redacted
$5,000,000.00 - redacted
$5,000,000.00 - redacted
$3,660,171.00 - redacted
$3,000,000.00 - redacted

The instructions for completing Form 990 in 2006 included this language:

***************************
M. Public Inspection of Returns, etc.

Some members of the public rely on Form 990, or Form 990-EZ, as the primary or sole source of information about a particular organization. How the public perceives an organization in such cases may be determined by the information presented on its returns.

An organization’s completed Form 990, or Form 990-EZ is available for public inspection as required by section 6104. Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF), is open for public inspection for section 527 organizations filing Form 990 or Form 990-EZ. <...>
***************************

As issues like the Middle East peace process, financial services regulatory reform, and other domestic and foreign policy issues of grave import are acted upon, I think the version stamped "Copy for Public Inspection" ought to match the "Copy Filed to Verify and Validate the Tax Write-offs the Cronies Received on Their Tax Returns."

Given that Marc Rich was pardoned for tax evasion in the first place it would be especially disillusioning for it to emerge that the lists reveal his name, or that of a surrogate.

- Dave

P.S. To see the Form 990s for the Clinton Foundation (reflecting the redacted amounts shown above): 2005 and 2006. To view prior years' Forms - including from years when Clinton was still President and in a position to deal in quid pro quos on the order of magnitude of "pay for pardons" - visit GuideStar.org (with a free subscription, you can view many organizations' Form 990s).

You have no room to crow since Bush gave you yours with a wink and a nod.

What are the quid pro quos? Was Marc Rich some kind of danger or threat to society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich

Ability to re-enter the country, for starters.

"Was Marc Rich some kind of danger or threat to society?"

The answer to that question - like many others this primary season - depends on your point of view, I guess.

- Dave

whose needed further investigation - that the Clinton WH did not do in their 8 years in office before he was pardoned. His actions included commodity speculation for BCCI. There are many nefarious actions he is rumored to have been involved in - all pardoned.

... of limitations, given his fig leaf of an excuse (similar cases had been heard as civil matters, not criminal ones)?

- Dave

... http://www.google.com/search?as_q=my+reasons+pardons+clinton+marc+rich&complete=1&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=nytimes.com&as_rights=&safe=images">in the NY Times, was that Marc Rich was convicted criminally for matters that others had been sued for civilly.

Reading thru the article, I see that Clinton wrote:

"Therefore, I required them to waive any and all defenses, including their statute of limitations defenses, to any civil charge the government might bring against them. Before I granted the pardons, I received from their lawyer a letter confirming that they 'waive any and all defenses which could be raised to the lawful imposition of civil fines or penalties in connection with the actions and transactions alleged in the indictment against them pending in the Southern District of New York'."

That's what I was asking; the op-ed that Clinton wrote addresses my question.

- Dave

Sheesh!

... am I going to have to ignore? Sheesh!"

; )

All kidding aside, if the inconvenient truth of the donor lists isn't a topic that concerns you, please click on the Ignore User feature for me.

- Dave

I'd prefer you follow the typical GD custom of posting one thread per topic. To do otherwise is much like spamming. Yes, you can keep clicking the little delete button, but as you get more and more spam this becomes more and more time consuming. It would be much more social to not take advantage of the system as you have been doing.

"Yes, you can keep clicking the little delete button, but as you get more and more spam this becomes more and more time consuming."

Yikes. Do you use a pair of scissors to cut out the stories and comics you intend to ignore before reading the newspaper, too, or just scan the headlines and move on to the next story?

- Dave

:shrug:

... my saying, "So I take your inability to discuss the facts as tacit admission that the Clintons have a problem here that you'd rather ignore until the general, when the GOP nominee will be sure to use it?"

- Dave

They can't seem to reach their climax can they. :banghead:

Or stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist?

The Clintons have a serious issue here. Better to lance this boil in the primaries.

- Dave

Won't these people ever stop. They are really turning into republicans.

and the lack of disclosure?

... on this issue could lead to the whole ostrich being eaten in the general.

- Dave

Who is this "they"? Who are "these" people?

Bitwit, here's a new term for you: non sequitur.

- Dave

have brought out the issues, I'll piggyback here. (You've been polite in responding, including to me, previously.)


1) I wish our media would investigatively report on ALL candidates with the zeal you use on the CLINTONs. I also wish that you, a DUer, would channel your estimable energy into going after RETHUGS moreso than Dems.

2) Will you support WHOEVER is the Dem nominee?

... you can "brawl" over the mashed potatoes, but everyone's cuddled up on the couch napping afterwards.

: )

"(You've been polite in responding, including to me, previously.)"

I think that's vital to civil discourse. I know I tend to tune out when I start seeing foul language, etc.

"1) I wish our media would investigatively report on ALL candidates with the zeal you use on the CLINTONs."

Me too. More importantly, I wish each voter took his/her own personal values system, and spent just a few hours actually researching the candidates' stands on those issues. For me, corporatist practices have been a long-time interest - hence my natural interest in these matters.

"I also wish that you, a DUer, would channel your estimable energy into going after RETHUGS moreso than Dems."

Please see my journal here on DU.

"2) Will you support WHOEVER is the Dem nominee?"

Absolutely.

- Dave

... offer tremendous bonus material to the DNC. But if the attitude is "we have mutually assured destruction" on this issue because of the Clintons, the primary voting public loses out.

- Dave

BTW, ever seen this list?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:U.S._Navy_slang

- Dave

Someone set us up the Clintone

Ha Ha Ha

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton

- Dave