Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Money Laundering Allegations at Media Matters
David Brock is a well known ally of the Democrats, a friend and supporter of the Clintons, and a frequent visitor at the White House. His main organization, Media Matters, lays claim, as a non-profit, to being some sort of media watch dog and “fact checker”, even though it almost exclusively attacks right-of-center media outlets and, of course, Fox News. If Zero Hedge is correct in its analysis, it it has also been a front for money laundering for David Brock.
I have little to say on this myself, only to suggest that others here read and evaluate what Zero Hedge is saying. I am curious what financial folks here on Rico have to say about their analysis. I am also wondering if Brock and company would be up for criminal charges. Given Brock’s very close connections with both Obama and Clinton, this could prove incredibly damaging. The following is the heart of Zero Hedge’s analysis:
Published in PoliticsLet’s recap
Say, for example, you donate $1,062,857 to Media Matters for America. This is how David Brock would have used your charitable donation in 2014:
- Media Matters would receive your $1,062,857 donation
- The Bonner Group would earn a $132,857 commission
- Media Matters would retain $930,000
- Next, Media Matters would give what’s left of your entire donation, $930,000, to the Franklin Education Forum
- The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $116,250 commission
- The Franklin Education Forum would retain $813,750
- The Franklin Education Forum would then forward the remaining $813,750 to The Franklin Forum
- The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $101,718 commission
- The Franklin Forum would retain $712,031
In the end, Brock’s solicitor would have pocketed $350,825, almost a third of your initial donation! That’s a far cry from the advertised 12.5% commission.
As bizarre as that scenario may sound, this is exactly what David Brock did in 2014.
Six percent went to charitable grants. (Sean Davis with The Federalist).
Believe me, I would love to see a flowchart which showed a Russian crime boss/mining tycoon giving to the Clinton Foundation, which then goes to Media Matters, which is in turn used to fund “tours” to Thailand. But sometimes you have to settle for tax evasion.
The Clinton Foundation is not a charity and doesn’t claim to be; it’s an operating foundation. My own group, American Cinema Foundation, the Red Cross, the NRA–none of them are set up to pass donations on to others. All of them tell you up front what their programs are and what your money buys. Of course, if hypothetically Wayne LaPierre took your dough and spent it on chateaus in the south of France, that would still have been an abuse of the system.
An organization that claims it passes most of the money directly to the deserving (however you define that) is a charity.
Admittedly, the terminology is overlapping and confusing. But take it from me: if Brock did what Zero Hedge claims, it’s not even a close call.
Oh, c’mon. As the FBI Directee could tell you, there is no evidence of intent here. David Brooks didn’t plan on all that money sticking to his fingers. It just happened.
I want to thank @elcolonel above for what seems (to a dummy like me) a clear and thorough explanation. I also await what @brentb67 has to say, as it will include all the financial instruments and transactions in a very thorough way. But at the end, I will look just as stupified as I do in the avatar.
From the Daily Caller article:
It’s interesting to be able to lump half your income as “other expenses.” It would be interesting to see a few of those: “Jet fuel for Lolita Express” “Reimbursement to Energizer for gourmet take-out for Secret Service detail” “Payment for hearses to sit outside Clinton IT employees’ homes prior to testimony before Congress” …
Just because there are no statutes that refer to this as money laundering doesn’t mean it isn’t money laundering.
Yes. Every time I get the urge to laugh at Donald Trump’s hair, I look at that photo of David Brock.