Clinton Foundation and Clinton State Department Now a Legit Scandal

[loco]

The Relationship Between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton State Department is Now a Legitimate Scandal

In August, the Associated Press pointed out that when government officials were excluded, over half of the people Clinton met with as Secretary of State were foundation donors. Moreover, Clinton had given special assistance to a foundation donor and personal friend applying for a passport.

Before that, in June, ABC News published a story about how Rajiv K. Fernando, who lacked any experience or expertise in the field, wound up on a top secret nuclear security board with a number of experts. Turns out, his promotion came at the request of Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, a Clinton Foundation donor. What’s more, Fernando stepped down following ABC’s inquiry.

An International Business Times investigation from May found that throughout the course of her tenure as Secretary of State, countries that had donated to the foundation saw increases in weapons sales from the State Department at higher rates than non-donor nations. At the same time, defense contractor donors, or those who had paid Bill Clinton for speeches, were more likely to receive contracts authorized by the department.

The Wall Street Journal reported in July of 2015, that shortly after becoming Secretary of State in 2009, Hillary Clinton helped the Swiss bank UBS out of hot water with the Internal Revenue Service after it donated to, and partnered with, the Clinton Foundation. UBS then paid Bill Clinton the largest speaking fee he’d ever received at the time the article was published.

Then, in 2010, an incident bearing a striking resemblance to the UBS affair became public: As the Washington Post later reported, Secretary Clinton helped Boeing secure a $3.7 billion deal to sell aircraft to the Russian government. Two months later, Boeing turned around and donated nearly $1 million to her public charity.

Yet another interesting story, with all the same trappings, was reported by The New York Times in April, 2015: Between 2009 and 2013, as Russia slowly gained control of Uranium One, the world’s largest uranium production company, UO’s chairman donated millions to the Clinton Foundation, and a Kremlin-linked investment bank paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech. The donations continued right up to the approval of a final deal which involved a number of agencies—including Clinton’s State Department—but were not disclosed to the Obama administration.

More than a charity, the Clinton Foundation is obviously a vehicle for personal and political advancement. It represents unchartered waters for American electoral politics. The conflicts of interest it has raised are historic. Many foundation donors are also campaign donors helping to put the former Secretary in the White House. And yesterday, news broke that former top Bill Clinton aide, Douglas Band, solicited speaking fees and gifts for the former president from donors to the foundation.

House Republicans are already gearing up to investigate Clinton if she wins the election. That news should worry Democrats looking ahead to the midterms in 2018, and the Census year presidential election in 2020—especially given the likelihood that they will subpoena the former Secretary to testify under oath. Hearing this news, it’s hard not to remember the presidential impeachment that dominated the news in 1998.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/10/the-relationship-between-the-clinton-foundation-an.html

[Coach is Back!]

https://www.hg.org/rico-law.html


What is RICO Law?

RICO law refers to the prosecution and defense of individuals who engage in organized crime. In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in an effort to combat Mafia groups. Since that time, the law has been expanded and used to go after a variety of organizations, from corrupt police departments to motorcycle gangs. RICO law should not be thought of as a way to punish the commission of an isolated criminal act. Rather, the law establishes severe consequences for those who engage in a pattern of wrongdoing as a member of a criminal enterprise.

Title 18, Section 1961 of the United States Code sets forth a long list of racketeering activities, the repeated commission of which can form the basis of a RICO Act claim. These underlying federal and state offenses exist independently of the act, and include the crimes of homicide, kidnapping, extortion, and witness tampering. Racketeering activities also include property crimes such as robbery and arson. A number of financial crimes are also listed, such as money laundering, counterfeiting, securities violations, as well as mail and wire fraud.

Penalties in Criminal Court

The RICO Act provides both criminal and civil penalties. This means claims can be brought by prosecutors on behalf of the government, or by private individuals. In criminal prosecutions, the jury must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the highest burden of proof that exists in the American legal system. Violations are punishable by up to 20 years in prison. The sentence can be increased to life in prison if authorized by the underlying crime. Offenders also face a fine of either $250,000, or double the amount of the proceeds earned from the activity.

As a tool for dismantling criminal enterprises, following a conviction the government is automatically given a forfeiture of all of the defendant’s interest in the organization. So not only do defendants lose all their money and property that can be traced back to the criminal conduct, but the organization itself can be severely crippled. And the government need not wait until after a guilty verdict, when the property expected to become subject to forfeiture may be difficult to locate. The rules of procedure in a RICO prosecution allow the government to freeze the defendant’s assets before the case even goes to trial.

Civil Remedies for Victims

For civil claims brought by private parties who have been victimized by a criminal organization, the burden of proof is less onerous than in criminal court. A preponderance of the evidence standard applies. This means the jury must find that it is at least slightly more likely than not that the racketeering activities did in fact happen as alleged. Despite the lower burden of proof, civil RICO lawsuits are difficult and expense for individuals to pursue. Those who win are rewarded, however. Successful plaintiffs can recover “treble damages,” or in other words, three times the amount of money they lost due to the defendant’s actions.

Specific Elements of a RICO Claim

Liability for a RICO violation requires that a person be involved in an enterprise that operates through a pattern of racketeering activity. This raises a couple of issues that will prove important to anyone defending or pursuing a RICO case. First, a controversy may arise as to what will satisfy the element requiring an enterprise. Corporations, partnerships, and other businesses will surely qualify as enterprises. But what about informal organizations, like street gangs?

The Supreme Court considered the issue, and determined that an enterprise can be any group with members who are associated in a relationship in order to achieve a common purpose, provided the relationship lasts long enough to allow them to pursue that purpose. In the terminology of RICO law, such groups are known as “association-in-fact” enterprises.

Another common issue concerns the element requiring a pattern of racketeering activity. The RICO Act itself defines the term pattern as two or more acts of racketeering activity within a 10-year period. However, the Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue as well. According to the Court, to qualify as a pattern, the criminal activities must be related and continuous. Relatedness will be established if the crimes have similar characteristics such as the same perpetrators, victims, and methods of commission. Continuity will be established if the crimes occurred over a substantial period of time. Some courts have interpreted this to mean at least one year.

The Importance of Legal Representation

Whether you are interested in filing a claim against a criminal enterprise, or need help defending a case brought against you, you will need experienced legal representation. A skilled attorney will use the complex provisions of the RICO Act to your benefit. To learn more, contact a RICO lawyer today.

Copyright HG.org