“We can’t deal with risk-averse (donors). We can’t honestly tell people we’re going to succeed and not going to waste some money.”

Ira Magaziner, Chairman, Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative Inc - May/June 2005

You are right to wonder why we needed the Clinton Foundation when Australian governments are so good at wasting money all by themselves.

Last week I detailed some of the offences and offenders who might be of interest to the FBI in its criminal investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

Over the next few days we'll publish reams of details in support of those allegations -  including the crime reports, the documentary evidence to support those reports and my take on further potential criminal charges arising from some very disturbing but quite easily discovered conduct.

A growing group of very well informed, smart people is pushing for Clinton related prosecutions - "Imperator Rex" is the Twitter handle of one of them.  He's from the US but he poses a very good question for all Australians:

Indeed. And why would the Aussie government donate $millions to CHAI / CF to provide services in Asia that they could provide direct? What did the Aussie politicians get in return? Any Aussies out there - reply or IM me! I want info! 👇 https://t.co/iEGrrVW6Ms

— Imperator_Rex (@Imperator_Rex3) January 16, 2018

He's spot on!

In 1974 the Whitlam Government established Ausaid. By the time Clinton started taking our money, Ausaid had been in the aid caper in our region for more than 30 years and it had a reasonable grasp on its business - here's its mission:

....to implement the overseas aid policy of the Australian government of the day. Among the agency's stated subsidiary goals were improving health and education services, fighting corruption, improving security, engaging in the fight against HIV/AIDS and improving the effectiveness of government organisations through training and other assistance.

So we had our own aid delivery organisation that had at least some idea of what it was doing.

Bill Clinton and his crew were making things up as they went along.

They had no expertise in HIV/Aids or running charitable foundations.

Their operation was a shambles.

So to kick our series of publications off, I'd like you to see the Clinton Foundation back then as Bill and his senior people saw it.

The glossy puff piece below dates from around the time we started donating Australian taxpayer funds to Bill and friends.

Keep in mind this is them putting their best foot forward!

On 22 February 2006 Alexander Downer and Bill Clinton signed a MOU under which we agreed to pay Bill and the boys $25M to 'fight' HIV/Aids.  At the time we were already pumping $600M into the regional HIV/Aids effort.  

So what did the Clinton Foundation give us that we didn't already have?  

Here are 3 quotes from the Clinton Foundation glossy puff-piece below - from Bill Clinton, chief of staff Bruce Lindsay and Ira Magaziner who headed the HIV/Aids operations.

Bill Clinton

When Bill Clinton completed his presidential terms, he says with a characteristic flash of self-deprecating humor, “I was too young to quit [working], too inept to play golf, too out of shape to play saxophone and too much of a Calvinist to lay [Southern for “lie”] down.” So he studied our handful of activist former presidents, especially Jimmy Carter, and concluded that, like Carter, international activism would suit him just fine. First, however, Clinton had to pay off his considerable legal bills (accumulated in defending himself against impeachment charges), and write an autobiography (My Life, Knopf, 2004). Those two tasks dovetailed very nicely.

CoS Bruce Lindsey

“We had no idea of becoming a grantgiving organization,” says Lindsey, adding with a chuckle, “We wanted people to give grants to us. At some point, of course, it would be nice to have enough money to make grants.”

HIV/Aids division chairman Ira Magaziner

Financial support comes from Western governments, multilaterals like the World Bank and private foundations and individuals. The private entities are not solicited; they come on their own, and their contribution is accepted only if they’re “entrepreneurial and risk-taking,” explains Magaziner. “We can’t deal with risk-averse foundations. We can’t honestly tell people we’re going to succeed and not going to waste some money.”