An apparent $100 million deception on Australian taxpayers "under a partnership with the Clinton Foundation"
Quick update on Friday's Clinton enquiries first
Last Friday I wrote quite a lengthy note to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade asking for a response by COB tomorrow.
Today DFAT's media team wrote to say they're working on our questions but will need until COB Thursday to fully respond. I reckon that's fair enough, there's a huge amount of work in it.
$100M payment under a misleading and deceptive agreement with the Clinton Foundation
First by way of background - this from the Gillard Government in 2011 announcing Australia's intention to allow our Federal Court to override patent protections for certain pharmaceuticals.
The Prime Minister's department was responsible for the detailed research on the risks and consequences of changing the pharmaceutical patent system.
Here is a screenshot of then Prime Minister Gillard's DPMC Best Practice Unit on this matter.
The Regulation Impact Statement dealing with the consequences of the changes to patent protections is here:
And here are the first two pages - of interest to us is the disclosure that payments made "under the partnership agreement" with the Clinton Foundation total in excess of $100M.
Before commenting on the Clinton related matters I'll briefly comment on the processes, time, accountability and rigour associated with this regulatory risk assessment.
The oversight and review process is clearly extensive with a lengthy iterative process in finalising the document.
Here's a snapshot of one of many letters commenting on the integrity and accuracy of the RIS.
Having established the integrity of the data and process we can get stuck into the real issue.
Australian Government pays $100m "under a partnership with the Clinton Foundation".
This is the relevant paragraph from the RIS above.
The William J. Clinton Foundation provides funding for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Under a partnership with the Foundation, Australia has provided a total of $100 million over the last four years to improve the delivery of HIV/AIDS treatment and care in the Asia Pacific region.8
The footnote (8)
8 ‘AusAID-Clinton Foundation Partnership’, AusAID, viewed 5 August 2011 at <http://www.ausaid.gov.au/keyaid/hivaids/foundation.cfm>
The website no longer exists however it is archived - this is the view current at August 2011.
The details on that archived website above accord with the MoU signed by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and William Jefferson CLINTON released under FOI by DFAT and published by us.
CLINTON at the time of signing the MOU was a disbarred former lawyer subject to the order of a US court following its perjury judgement against him. He had no role in the Clinton Foundation and was not authorised and could not be authorised to represent it.
Building the Clinton Presidential Library was the sole and exclusive purpose for which various trustees were approved by the US IRS to operate a charitable Trust or Foundation bearing the name of the US President in respect of whose administration the Library was to be built.
Clinton held himself out as a proprietor of the Foundation in the MOU he signed. As a disqualified person with no role in the Presidential Library Foundation he purported to represent he had no authority or power to "make the battle against HIV a major area of focus for his Foundation"
His signature appears over the name of an incorporated entity in which Clinton had no role. That incorporated entity was deregistered by US authorities for persistent and egregious failure to lodge returns.
On 31 March 2016 we published this article on the Clinton and Ranbaxy frauds in the provision of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. At that time I had no idea that we had spent more than $100M under the partnership created by the fraudulent MoU with the Clinton Foundation.
(There's a lot of detail in that quite lengthy post from March about the prosecution of Ranbaxy by the US Department of Justice over its counterfeit drugs. That crook in the photo above knew all about it too. Here's the last few pars of our article)
Because of Clinton's impeachment, court findings about his perjury and broader dishonesty, Clinton is not a fit and proper person to be associated with a US charity. And until 2013 he didn't and couldn't hold an office in the charitable foundation that bore his name, the one that was registered in the United States to raise money for a "presidential library".
That didn't stop the Australian Government signing a useless Memorandum of Understanding with the fraudster in 2006.
Nor did it stop us handing over around $80M of taxpayer money to the foundation bearing his name (MPS note August 2016 - looks like we can add $100M to that figure).
Nor did it stop this, as DFAT told me in a statement last week:
“Prior to 2013, a small amount of Australian aid money was expended on Ranbaxy pharmaceutical products in Papua New Guinea to support the PNG Government’s health programs.”
Media Liaison Officer
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ho hum. A small amount of smoking gun. Perhaps not so small if it's you or your mum who got the Ranbaxy dodgy drugs.
Clinton has star power. His name sells. Politicians of all hues love to be photographed with him.
Here's Alexander Downer after signing the dodgy MOU in 2006.
Here's Julie Bishop re-signing a deal with the CHAI (no, not the de-registered Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative Inc that we contracted with, this is the all new CHAI, the Clinton Health Access Initiative) in 2013.
Clinton is a crook, pure and simple. I've reported on the US court findings here on this website. I've shown you the emails from US regulators. What is it with our politicians who are prepared to excuse the inexcusable?
As I've been writing and researching this morning it struck me that there's considerable prima facie evidence of serious indictable offences in the conduct of Clinton and others.
We have had some success in reporting similar matters to Australian police forces.
I have some letters to write in order to report the serious indictable offences I believe are disclosed by my research in this matter. Stand by for part two where I'll publish my reports.