Seriously?! Clinton Foundation suddenly finds $26 million in undisclosed donations

Just when you think it couldn’t get worse, it does. No, this isn’t about Benghazi or secret, private e-mails being used to conduct government business - although those are pretty bad too. No, the latest scandal plaguing Hillary Clinton involves her personal charity, the Clinton Foundation. Turns out the Clinton Foundation failed to disclose about $26 million. There’s no way that money came from any sketchy sources, right? Buck Sexton has the story and reaction.

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

Up to $26 million. That's a lot of money, isn't it? That's pretty much in any context except for government spending. They can spend $26 million for toilet seats on the Pentagon. $26 million is generally speaking a lot of money. That's the kind of number you would think, well, could they really fail to disclose -- could someone just lose $26 million in the couch cushions. I mean, maybe some Saudi royals. But for normal folks. Could 26 million just sort of get lost in the shuffle? No. But for the Clintons apparently -- or the Clinton Foundation, about 26 million bucks, that sort of gets -- no one knows where it is. That's the latest on the information that we're getting about the Clinton Foundation. What they're telling us here that they may have failed to disclose, I don't know, you know, call it a couple of handfuls of cash. I'll go about with 20 to 25 million, maybe 26. Just whoopsie. Never said anything about it. Of course, this is not an isolated incident. They've had to readjust their tax returns. How many charities do you know of, by the way, that say, well, we'll just have to redo our tax returns for a while. How many charities do you know of where that's actually happened recently?

How many charities do you know where there's so many people who seem really intent really serious about making sure that nobody knows that they're giving to the charity? I know there are anonymous donations to some charities. But usually when corporations and major international entities of some kind or another give money to feed the children, promote women's education, stop the spread of malaria, whatever, usually they're really excited about people knowing about this or at least know the PR value of such that they want individuals to know about this. They want people to know that they had given this money. With the Clinton Foundation though, it always like, well, we don't want people to really know about this. We don't people to actually have to go down a list and see all the names.

There's a bunch of things in the latest revelation that I find interesting and a bunch of things that are worthy of a few minutes of our time. There's not much that's new in dealing with Clintons. In the sense, if there's such a thing as corruption, then the Clintons are corrupt. But, somehow, we won't hear very much from the Clintonistas about that. Right? They'll just try to talk about everything else, which is understandable to some degree.

But there's one thing I came across here in this piece in the Washington Post. Who is paying Chelsea Clinton for speeches, by the way? This doesn't not necessarily get thrown in and lumped in with the rest of this. But what are you paying Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of the Clintons, who, I don't know, could be a lovely human being, don't know, but I don't think she really should be giving speeches to major corporations or individuals or organizations, about what exactly? I mean, if it's about how to be successful and get ahead. Well, I suppose the best advice she could give, be really, really lucky and be born really rich and powerful. But they're paying her. Which also feels like another means of buying Clinton influence. Right?

That's what that's about. $600,000 for what was apparently ten minutes of work at MSNBC. That also has to be on the same side as a lot of these other Clinton arrangements. These sort of special Clinton details. Right?

That's something else that should be added in there. But if we'll be fair about this, there's nothing that can really compare to Mr. Bill because he really loves to give speeches. He just wants to hold the world close into his chest. Close into his bosom. I mean, he said bosom, didn't he? Get a little close in there, a little snuggle. It will cost you like half a million dollars. But a Clinton snuggle is the best kind of snuggle. It's getting creepy, I know. But the point is that people pay this guy way too much money for a speech. It's not just for the speech. It's for the access and the influence that comes with writing the check. We all know that, and more of this has come out.

The Clinton Foundation is starting to look like the charity equivalent of Slimer from Ghostbusters. Just trying to get as much money and bring in as much cash as it possibly can. With Slimer, it's hotdogs. With the Clinton Foundation, it's just donations. That's what's going on here. They cannot get enough. $26 million, they've said, over the last year or two?

There's never enough for them. There's one entity that donated -- or, paid a speaking fee of $250,000 to $500,000. I also love the ranges. Because they don't know how much they got paid. Anyway, was the energy minister of Thailand. Okay. If your wife is Secretary of State, you can have a foreign government entity pay you up to half a million dollars to show up and be like, hey, I like energy. Not as much as I like ladies, but I like energy.

I mean, half a million dollars for this. You must be joking. You can't be taking this seriously. But people seem to be taking this seriously for whatever reason. Or believe it. They want to believe it. The Clintons have become Santa Claus for Democrats. It's just too painful to think that this is not what they've been told it is. Half a million dollars -- up to half a million dollars from energy ministry in the Thailand.

South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha paid 500,000 to a million dollars for a speech by Clinton. Wow. Well done, South Korean energy conglomerate. I wonder if Hillary will be more favorably disposed towards something that may benefit you in the trade or foreign relations sector in the future. I'm guessing they're putting a yes up there on that one.

A China real estate development corporation paid the foundation from 250 to $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.

Qatar First Investment Bank paid for a speech of around the same cost at around the same time.

The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim provided between 250 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton. Hmm.

Massive telecommunications conglomerate in Mexico owned by Carlos Slim and also, I believe, was a major owner of the New York Times, they're going to give money to Hillary. This is a really smart business proposition for people all around the world. Right?

If you're a major conglomerate, international corporation, 250K to buy off the Secretary of State. And it might even just be insurance. There might not be a specific quid pro quo. But, by the way, that's not the standard for corruption. Go talk to Senator Menendez. Go talk to indicted, convicted, and facing prison time Virginia governor Bob McDonnell about quid pro quo corruption, meaning you have to get something in exchange for something in order for it to be real, criminal corruption. That's not the standard.

The standard is looking unseemly. As I said, the Clintons are the global Slimer of looking unseemly when it comes to corruption. More money. More money. Shovel it in all the time. They raise $102 billion. They give out an average of 10 percent to actual charities. They're middlemen. They say, I want to help the starving children of the world. So you say, okay, here's a bunch of food. So they eat most of it and throw an apple core at the people that need it and we're supposed to applaud them and say, oh, well done, Clintons, you're fabulous. This is preposterous. It's a giant slush fund. It's a branding exercise. It's a means for them to fund their lifestyle.

Do you think the Clintons have paid for very much in the way of travel since starting this foundation. They get to fly all over the world in private jets. Do you think they pay for their meals? Or do you think the foundation picks that up? Do you think they can hire whoever they want, whatever cronies they want and pay them with money that they've been able to gather with tax protection, of course. Right?

This is money that people get a tax exemption for. So they can just pay off their buddies. Their giant jobs program. They're almost like a government in exile. They get to fly all over the world and talk about how wonderful they are and raise all this money.

Oh, she made $25 million since January of 2014. Bill Clinton has been paid more than 104 million from 2001 to 2012. Despite all this, Hillary is just a cuddly grandma who wants to sit with you at the dinner table and be your friend. She cares about how hard it is for you to pay your bills. She is a private jet progressive my friend, she doesn't care about you and your bills. She doesn't even know how bills get paid really. I'm sure she could figure it out with a check. But this whole online bill pay thing, that's probably skipped past her because she hasn't had to pay her own bills in a few decades. She certainly hasn't had to pump her own gas. But now she's a populist. Now she's a fighter for the middle class. The richest 1 percent are getting way too much of the benefit. They're terrible. Except for me, I'm awesome. This is the promise she makes you. This is what she tells you.

You know, Bob McDonnell should have just said, 2007 -- remember this is the disgraced, indicted -- they wanted almost a decade in prison for this guy. It was like $150,000 in gifts. I mean, the Clintons, for them, that's like a fancy meal with all their cronies and the people who are buying them off. 150K -- nothing. That's the bar bill for Bill after a few fun nights out there in Davos. It's expensive, man. Those cocktails. The ladies in Davos. They know how to party.

So what Bob McDonnell should have done was that his wife was a world class artist or something. Then all the people who happened to get influence -- wanted to buy influence with Governor McDonnell. If you wanted to be corrupt Clinton style and get away with it. Usually this would be overpayment fraud and you would be investigated. But, I mean, the Clintons would get away with this. Because they've been overpaid for speeches very obviously. Bill Clinton got paid more for speeches the further away from the presidency he got because his wife was Secretary of State. It's very obvious. There's an increase in his speaking fees. That doesn't happen. He's not more relevant the further away from the presidency he gets. And, by the way, this whole notion of cashing in, how much have you seen W. walking around passing the hat? No. You don't have to cash in. The presidency should be the height of your service, of your career, of your life. There shouldn't be some afterwards. Let's make this a giant ATM machine. Let's let it ride. Let's have fun. No, that's not how this is supposed to go. Public service is not supposed to be a springboard to vast riches. But Governor McDonnell, he should have said his wife was a world class artist. Anybody who wanted to get some influence with the governor could have just paid, you know, 100, 200, let's call it a half a mil for whatever parent she throws together in the backyard. What? She's an amazing artist. It's the free market, man. People are allowed to buy her paintings. How is that different of Bill -- do you think the speech is worth a million dollars? Of course, you don't. It's ridiculous.

But this is the problem. The Clintons are so corrupt, that they overwhelm us with how slimy and gross they are. As I said, just like when we're dealing with Slime, we're all standing in the hallway saying, leave us alone. You're so gross.

Glenn created "The Senate Fails to Condemn INFANTICIDE" in response to the Senate not passing Nebraska Senator Ben Sasses' bill banning infanticide early this year. In an effort to help support pro-life charities, Glenn first posted this for sale on eBay before being banned multiple times before we finally had enough and put it up for sale on bidpal.net.

At the time of this post, the bid was up to $4,700 — but we can do better than that. Please help us raise money for a good cause, you don't even have to display it anywhere in your home, you can just keep it in storage or something! If you want this priceless piece created by one of the most influential people in the world of art, place your bids here.

Can you remember the economic crisis of 2008 and how you felt when the news broke that Lehman Brothers had collapsed? I have found an economic threat that everyone needs to be aware of, so you can prepare yourself in case we see another 2008 type collapse. I am going to present the evidence to you and I urge you to verify everything and to form your own opinion.

What is that threat?

It is a bank called Deutsche Bank. They are by far the most dominant bank in Germany which is the world's fourth-largest economy. In 2018 they had €2.08 Trillion worth of assets and the second-placed bank (DZ Bank) had €506 Billion worth of assets. To show you how dominant this bank is, they have more assets than the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th sized banks combined.
When we review a business there are three key parts to analysis:

  • Market sentiment
  • Business numbers
  • Technical Analysis

Market Sentiment

Deutsche Bank has a long history of potential scandals including going all the way back to World War 2 and dealing in Nazi gold. Below are five recent stories which have increased the negative sentiment around Deutsche Bank.

  1. In 2007, they purchased a portfolio of loans worth $7.8 billion and purchased insurance from Warren Buffets Company. It was discovered they did not set aside enough capital to cover any potential losses. Over the course of the ten years, they lost $1.6 billion, and when they sold the loan they did not update their financial statements to include the big loss
  2. The Panama Papers are an ongoing investigation looking for many things including offshore tax havens. These investigations have resulted in several heads of state resigning including in Iceland and Pakistan. Last November, 170 police raided 6 different offices in Frankfurt looking for evidence of money laundering.
  3. Estonia is a small country in Eastern Europe. It has a population of 1.3 million people and a GDP of €26 billion. In January, it was discovered Deutsche Bank got involved with a Danish bank called Danke Bank and processed over $230 billion worth of cross country payments (including from Soviet Russia) through one bank in Estonia.
  4. There have been rumors of issues with Deutsche for a while now and one of the solutions put forth was a merger with a bank called CommerzBank. The leaders of both companies met and they even got support from politicians. In April, news broke that the merger talks had failed because over worries the risks and costs would be too great.
  5. Last week in France, Investment banking boss Garth Ritchie and others were arrested in France over illicit tax transactions.

Business Numbers

Deutsche Bank is already struggling as they are losing staff, losing market share, and bonuses are expected to be down at least 10% and further rounds of cost-cutting to come. Now imagine the impact if business costs start going up.

The banking industry works in a very simple way. They raise funds through large bonds at low-interest rates and then sell those funds to business and individuals thru products like loans and credit cards at a higher interest rate which results in a potential profit.

Earlier this year, Deutsche Bank tried raising money through several bonds. They paid 180bp (basis points) on a two-year bond and 230bp on a seven-year bond. Let me put this in context for you. There is a small bank in Spain called Caixabank which paid 225bp on a five-year bond and one of the larger banks in Spain, BBVA paid 130bp on a five-year bond.

  • How and why is a small bank in Spain getting a better deal on bonds than a huge bank in Germany?
  • Why is a large bank in Spain getting a bond 100bp cheaper than a German bank?
  • What does the market know that we do not?

Stock Price

Deutsche is also missing revenue projections which further hurt the business ability to survive and prosper. As you can imagine all of this news has a deep and lasting impact on its stock price which is in deep trouble. Before I share the stock price, I need to put this into the context of the market and the industry compared to the big economic crash of 2008. Below you will see a chart of some banking stocks from around the world with their peak price prior to the 2008 crash, the low of the 2008 recession and the price today:

As you can see from the above chart the banks in America have recovered from the 2008 recession by anywhere up 375% and JP Morgan has not only recovered its price in full but is constantly setting new high's. Ireland went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the EU/IMF following the 2008 crash and even our national bank has more than doubled its price since 2008. The worst performing bank I could find was Societe Generale which has issues but is still hovering around its 2008 low price levels.

Now let's put that into the context of Deutsche Bank. Not only has the stock not rebounded but it is over 65% below its 2008 low at $6.75.

Technical Analysis

When you are dealing with the stock market, you also have people who study pricing through technical analysis. Experts look at things like FIB sequences, trend lines, and support levels. Support levels are a key metric for a stock failing because are looking to find where it will find support and potentially bounce higher.

We are very close to a key support level ($6.40) and if the price goes below this level, there is no saying exactly how low the price could go. At least one company expects Deutsche to fall below this support level, as several weeks ago UBS downgraded the stock to a sell order. This news was compounded last Friday when rating agency Fitch, downgraded their credit rating to BBB or two levels above JUNK status.

Other Information

I know you are likely reading this and thinking "this bank must have smart people in charge and surely they have a plan, right?" I am sure there is a plan and while they have kept their cards close to their chest, they have spoken in the past about the areas they foresee having growth for the company – they include business in Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt. Do they strike you as countries which are stable and will offer steady and reliable growth? Do you have to think really hard to imagine how this could go potentially very wrong?

Questions

I believe there is at least a solid case Deutsche is in a LOT of trouble. So what are possible scenarios for the future? I will lay out the key questions below but I must stress that it's impossible to say for sure what exactly will happen. One of the key numbers to remember here is they have roughly €50 billion worth of derivatives.

  • How likely is it that the bank can turn things around and survive?
  • How likely is it the bank continues to run into trouble, its stock price fails and eventually fails?
  • If you think it is likely it will fail, the question becomes what will the fallout be? Who will be affected?
  • Will they be bailed out?
  • If so, by whom? The German government, ECB, IMF, the Federal Reserve?
  • What will the German government think? Some members recently spoke out saying they would block public money for the proposed merger? Will they block funds if it failed?
  • Will other banks be exposed and affected? Will they have to take losses?
  • Will those losses be spread around or will one or more bank be mainly affect?
  • Will this affect the sentiment of the banking sector and cause a panic?
  • If there are issues and it starts affecting the stock prices, what will be the impact on other industries?

Last Question

The last question revolves solely around the banks and the regulators? How secure are the other banks? We all hear about how banks are now put through "stress tests" but how much trust do you put in those results? How much trust do you have in the regulators?

I know this may make me sound like a conspiracy theorist to some but it's an honest question. The Fed is on public record saying they want to keep this economy strong as long as possible. If a bank did not perform strongly in a stress test or even barely failed one, do you think they would report it?

Can you imagine the pressure that body would come under to stay silent? Can you imagine the rhetoric they would face with questions like, "Are you really going to fail one bank? Do you know how many people will lose their jobs if you do that?" Am I saying this is happening? No, but can you really rule it out 100% as a possibility?

I urge you to ponder on these questions, do your own research and find YOUR answers.

Update: The most freaquently asked question I have received from this column / show is how much time do we have to prepare. This is an impossible question to answer, as it could fail tomorrow, next week or might be next year. However I want to provide you a potential date for your diary – July 24th. That is when Deutsche will release their next earnings report and if it comes in below expectations, it could cause a further drop in price casting more doubt over the future viability of the bank.

Please support Jonathon's weekly podcast which is exclusive to the Blaze Media and available for FREE. He offers a unique perspective by promoting America's Founding Principles and brings every issue back to a set of core principles which are always based around the laws of nature. You can find links to his show by clicking here or by searching for Freedoms Disciple on your favorite audio platform.

Survey: Where do you stand on these conspiracy theories?

Thought Catalog / Unsplash

Have you seen this survey on the most-believed conspiracy theories in America?

It's no surprise the survey has been getting so much attention. The results are actually a pretty disturbing.

Infographic: Belief in Conspiracy Theories in the United States | Statista

I decided to put together a quick survey of my own, with slightly different wording.

Up-vote the ones you agree with and down-vote the ones you disagree with.

I believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK alone. However, I would not be surprised to find out the government sealed evidence that others were involved.

If by "deep state" you mean long-time Washington power brokers who are used to calling the shots and now feel threatened by Donald Trump not listening to their advice or council — yes, I do believe that many people like that are working against him and his administration.

Whether alien bodies are in Area 51 or not, I do believe the government knows more about UFOs than they have told us.

I do not believe the U.S. government was involved in 9/11, but as we know, NSA advisor Sandy Berger was caught destroying documents from the national archives related to both Bush and Clinton. All U.S. administrations have been to close to the Saudis, and the Saudis were involved in 9/11 at some level.

I believe the climate is always changing — it's natural. I would be willing to accept that man MAY play a role in this. But I do not believe in the solutions currently being discussed, nor do I believe the intention of most political activists are pure.

Any talk of the Illuminati provides the true dangers to man's freedom — like very powerful NGOS and men like George Soros — a perfect cover.

The U.S. government has done some horrible experiments on people and land — I also suspect they will do more things in the future. But I do not believe in the systematic spraying of chemicals using chemtrails.

The moon landing was real, but I see a time coming when people will not be able to trust their eyes due to deep fakes.

What do you think?

Let me know in the comments section below.