Shortly After February 1, 2013: The ethics agreement with the Clinton Foundation ends; donations from foreign governments increase.

Clinton at the main annual Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) meeting, on September 22, 2014 in New York City. (Source: John Moore / Getty Images)

Clinton at the main annual Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) meeting, on September 22, 2014 in New York City. (Source: John Moore / Getty Images)

As soon as Clinton’s term as secretary of state ends, the “memorandum of understanding” between the Clinton Foundation and the Obama White House also comes to an end. As a result, the Clinton Foundation resumes accepting increased donations from foreign governments. For instance, shortly after Clinton resigns, the foundation receives a $2 million donation from a conglomerate run by a member of China’s National People’s Congress.

The Wall Street Journal will report that news of such donations from foreign governments “prompted criticism from Republicans and some Democrats, who said it represented a conflict for a potential future president,” given the anticipation that Hillary Clinton would run for president again in 2016. (The Wall Street Journal, 3/19/2015

United Arab Emirates and Germany begin donating to the foundation for the first time, and other countries such as Saudi Arabia resume donating after holding off during Clinton’s time as secretary of state. (February 25, 2015)

April 2013—March 2015: Hillary Clinton is paid more than $21 million for 92 speeches given between April 2013 and 2015.

That averages $235,000 per speech. The speeches are given between the end of her time as secretary of state in February 2013 and the formal start of her 2016 presidential campaign in April 2015.

In 2016, Clinton will comment, “Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that…really comes down to, you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that…” (CNN, 2/6/2016)

April 24, 2013: In a private speech, Clinton says that with everybody watching “all of the back room discussions and the deals… you need both a public and a private position.”

Clinton poses with Tom Bozuttorecently spoke at a private event in Irving, Texas, to the National Multi-Housing Board of Directors.

Clinton poses with Tom Bozzuto, chair of the National Multi-Housing Council’s board of directors, shortly before giving her first paid speech since retiring as secretary of state. (Credit: public domain)

Clinton gives a private paid speech for the National Multi-Housing Council, a trade association for rental owners and managers. In it, she says, “[P]olitics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”

The comments will be flagged as potentially politically embarrassing by Tony Carrk, Clinton’s research director. Although the comment is made in private, Carrk’s January 2016 email mentioning the quote will be made public by WikiLeaks in October 2016. (WikiLeaks, 10/7/2016)

August 13, 2013: Hillary Clinton has based herself and her aides at the Clinton Foundation while she prepares to run for president again.

Clinton speaking at a press conference in December 2014. (Credit: Politico)

Clinton speaking at a press conference in December 2014. (Credit: Politico)

It is reported that with Clinton’s term as secretary of state having ended in February 2013, she is centering her activity in the Clinton Foundation. She had been a non-paid member of the foundation’s board of directors before becoming secretary of state, and she returns to the board. Many of her closest aides left the State Department at the same time she did and continue to work for her in a private capacity, such as Huma Abedin, Maura Pally, and Dennis Cheng.

Clinton and her staff are relocating to the foundation’s headquarters in New York City. The New York Times reports: “In the coming months, as Mrs. Clinton mulls a 2016 presidential bid, the foundation could also serve as a base for her to home in on issues and to build up a stable of trusted staff members who could form the core of a political campaign.” (The New York Times, 8/13/2013)

September 10, 2013: Records are sought for Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s multiple simultaneous jobs.

The Judicial Watch logo (Credit: Judicial Watch)

The Judicial Watch logo (Credit: Judicial Watch)

Judicial Watch, a politically conservative non-profit advocacy organization, files a complaint against the State Department in a US district court seeking records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) relating to Abedin, Clinton’s former deputy chief of staff. Judicial Watch is particularly interested in Abedin’s role as a “special government employee” (SGE), a consulting position which allowed her to represent outside clients while also serving at the State Department. (Judicial Watch, 3/12/2015) 

The lawsuit will be dismissed in March 2014, but then in June 2015 it will be reopened due to the discovery of Clinton’s private email account. (Judicial Watch, 6/19/2015)

September 22, 2013: The Clinton Foundation’s possible conflicts of interest are scrutinized.

Bill Clinton (left) and Douglas Band (right). (Credit: The White House)

Bill Clinton (left) and Douglas Band (right). (Credit: The White House)

The New Republic publishes a long investigative article about Douglas Band, who has simultaneously been Bill Clinton’s personal assistant, a top manager in the Clinton Foundation, and the head of the Teneo consulting firm. It discusses the Clinton Foundation: “Bill Clinton now leads a sprawling philanthropic empire like no other. The good it achieves is undeniable. It has formed partnerships with multinationals and wealthy individuals to distribute billions of dollars all over the globe. Its many innovative projects include efforts to lower the costs of medicines in developing nations and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in major cities. And yet it’s hard to shake the sense that it’s not all about saving the world. There’s an undertow of transactionalism in the glittering annual dinners, the fixation on celebrity, and a certain contingent of donors whose charitable contributions and business interests occupy an uncomfortable proximity. More than anyone else except Clinton himself, Band is responsible for creating this culture. And not only did he create it; he has thrived in it.”

The article also says, “For corporations, attaching Clinton’s brand to their social investments offered a major PR [public relations] boost. As further incentive, they could hope for a kind word from Clinton the next time they landed in a sticky spot. ‘Coca-Cola or Dow or whoever would come to the president,’ explains a former White House colleague of Band’s, ‘and say, ‘We need your help on this.’ Negotiating these relationships, and the trade-offs they required, could involve some gray areas.” Potential conflicts of interest with Band’s Teneo company, the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary Clinton’s role as secretary of state were a major issue as long as she held that job. (The New Republic, 9/22/2013)

October 2013: Clinton’s brother gets a financial stake in a mining venture in Haiti.

Clinton presided over the grand opening of a Haitian industrial park in October 2012, two months before VCS Mining got a lucrative gold mining permit. (Credit: Getty Images)

Clinton presided over the grand opening of a Haitian industrial park in October 2012, two months before VCS Mining got a lucrative gold mining permit. (Credit: Getty Images)

In December 2012, a US-based company called VCS Mining wins one of the first two gold-mining permits issued by the Haitian government in more than 50 years. The mining project is heavily criticized by Haitian politicians who call it a potential environmental disaster and a waste of resources. Its permit is put on a hold due to the backlash.

In October 2013, Hillary Clinton’s brother Tony Rodham is added to VCS Mining’s advisory board. Rodham is rewarded with stock options in the mining company that will vest if the mine is successful. Both Rodham and VCS Mining chief executive and president Angelo Viard later claim that Rodham was added to the board after a chance meeting at the previous year’s Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) annual conference. Both also claim that Rodham’s involvement with the mining company has nothing to do with the political power of the Clintons in the US or in Haiti. (Bill and Hillary Clinton are widely seen as leading the reconstruction effort since the 2010 Haiti earthquake.) Rodham used to work as a repo man, prison guard, and private detective, but has more recently worked for an investment firm. (The Washington Post, 3/20/2015)

In March 2016, the New York Times will report that many in Haiti see Rodham’s involvement in the mining company as him taking advantage of his sister’s political influence for personal profit. (The New York Times, 3/14/2016)

One week after the Times article that suggested Clinton could be hurt politically by the connection, VCS Mining will announce that Rodham has stepped down from the board due to company “restructuring.” (VCS Mining, 3/21/2016)

December 4, 2013: Some Bill Clinton doodles are made public due to the hacker Guccifer.

One of Bill Clinton's doodles. Guccifer added his name to it. (Credit: Guccifer / Gawker)

One of Bill Clinton’s doodles. Guccifer added his name to it. (Credit: Guccifer / Gawker)

Gawker publishes some doodles made by Bill Clinton when he was US president. Gawker claims the doodles come from the Romanian hacker nicknamed Guccifer. It is not clear where or how Guccifer got the doodles, except they come from a folder called “Wjcdrawings.” It is probable the doodles were stored either on The Clinton Library’s server (which has a .gov address) or The Clinton Foundation’s server. (Gawker, 12/4/2013) If it’s the latter, that would help verify Guccifer’s later claim that he looked into Clinton’s private email server, because it apparently was also The Clinton Foundation’s server until early 2015.

May 5, 2014: 29 of the 30 companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average index have donated to the Clinton Foundation.

140505ThirtyDowJonesCompanies

30 Dow Jones Companies (Credit: public domain)

This is according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Twenty-five of the Dow Jones’s 30 companies gave donations directly to the Clinton Foundation, while 27 of the companies announced philanthropic projects are to its associated Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). Sixteen of the companies also responded to a plea from Hillary Clinton’s State Department to help underwrite a $60 million US pavilion at the 2010 Shanghai Expo. The lone holdout is UnitedHealth Group Inc.

The 30 companies listed on the Dow Jones Industrial Average, collectively spent $193 million last year lobbying the federal government and Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

As an example, Procter & Gamble Co., known for making a variety of household items, gave $3.9 million to CGI and donated another $3 million to the pavilion fund. While Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, the company lobbied the State Department on more than two-dozen issues, including trade deals and China policy.

Even Bloomberg News, which conducted this news analysis, is owned by Bloomberg LP, which has given $50,000 to $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and also has given money for the pavilion. Additionally, Bloomberg Philanthropies has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation.

140505DavidAlmasipublic

David Almasi (Credit: public domain)

David Almasi, the executive director for the National Center for Public Policy Research, says such donations are “always going to raise suspicions. It’s the appearance of impropriety that is the problem. If [the Clintons] are going to play like this, they are going to have to accept that we are going to be skeptical.”

Bloomberg News notes, “Federal law bans companies from making donations to candidates. The once and possibly future first family’s political and philanthropic network offers the private sector access points in the form of charitable projects that polish brands on both sides of the transaction.”

Bill Allison, director of the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation, says, “Even the donors who are writing $10,000 checks are going to get a level of attention to their concerns from Bill Clinton, and he is someone who is married to — potentially — the next president of the United States.”

140505RalphNaderLikeSuccess

Ralph Nader (Credit: public domain)

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader says, “This is the new theme. It isn’t just PACs [political action committees], it is giving to foundations with the politician’s name on it. You’ve got to call these companies. You’ve got to meet with them. Socialize with them. You become more dependent on them. You become more obligated. It is a terrible web of influence that operates in nonprofit areas.” (Bloomberg News, 5/5/2014)

June 19, 2014: Bill Clinton accepts an award from a smaller charity and gets $500,000 for the Clinton Foundation.

160619ClintonNemcovaGettyHappyHearts

Bill Clinton with Petra Nemcova at the Happy Hearts Fund fundraising event on June 19, 2014. (Credit: Getty Images)

Czech fashion model Petra Nemcova survived the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami by clinging to a palm tree, while her husband was killed. Emotionally moved by the experience, she founded a charity dedicated to building schools for children in impoverished countries, called the Happy Hearts Fund. Beginning in 2011, she attempts multiple times to get former President Bill Clinton to attend one of her charity’s annual fundraising galas.

Trying again in July 2013, she invites Clinton to be the recipient of a lifetime achievement award at the next gala. She is so keen on having him attend that she is willing to schedule the date of the event to whenever he is available. However, Clinton declines the invitation, saying he is too busy.

According to Sue Veres Royal, who is executive director of Happy Hearts at the time, Nemcova then meets with officers at the Clinton Foundation, and afterwards, “[Nemcova] called me and said we have to include an honorarium for him — that they don’t look at these things unless money is offered, and it has to be $500,000.”

The invitation to Clinton is redone two months later, this time including an offer of $500,000 from Happy Hearts to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton accepts, and does accept the reward at the June19, 2014 gala in return for the money, which will be used on development projects in Haiti.

Veres Royal will later say, “The Clinton Foundation had rejected the Happy Hearts Fund invitation more than once, until there was a thinly veiled solicitation and then the offer of an honorarium.” She will be dismissed a few weeks after the gala due to conflict over the gala and other issues.

140619HaitiProtesters

While the Happy Hearts Foundation was awarding Bill Clinton with a Lifetime Achievement Award for his work in Haiti, Haitian protesters were outside of the event chanting ““Clinton, where is the money for reconstruction?” (Credit: public domain)

The donation will not be publicly revealed until the New York Times reports on it in May 2015. The Times will comment that “the episode provides a window into the way the Clinton Foundation relies on the Clintons’ prestige to amass donors large and small, offering the prospect, as described in the foundation’s annual report, of lucrative global connections and participation in a worldwide mission to ‘unlock human potential’ through ‘the power of creative collaboration.’  … [I]t is extremely rare for honorees, or their foundations, to be paid from a gala’s proceeds, charity experts said — as it is for the proceeds to be diverted to a different cause.”

Doug White, head of the master’s program in fund-raising management at Columbia University, says, “This is primarily a small but telling example of the way the Clintons operate. [Nemcova] has responsibility; she paid a high price for a feel-good moment with Bill Clinton. But he was riding the back of this small charity for what? A half-million bucks? I find it — what would be the word? — distasteful.” (The New York Times, 5/29/2015)

July 11, 2014: Nonprofit Quarterly publishes a story with the title, “The Philanthropic Problem with Hillary Clinton’s Huge Speaking Fees.”

Meyer Luskin (Credit: UCLA Newsroom)

Meyer Luskin (Credit: UCLA Newsroom)

It points out that both Bill and Hillary Clinton has recently been paid speaking fees that are sometimes “astronomical,” and significantly greater than other prominent politicians, including former US presidents. Furthermore, the Clintons often give speeches at public or private universities. These speeches are usually paid by private individuals or foundations, not by the universities themselves.

For instance, in March 2014, Hillary was paid $300,000 to speak to students and faculty at UCLA [The University of California, Los Angeles]. The entire fee was paid through a private endowment by Meyer Luskin, president of Scope Industries, a food waste recycling company. In 2012, Bill Clinton was similarly paid $250,000 for a UCLA speech paid by Luskin. In both cases, the money allegedly went to the Clinton Foundation. (Nonprofit Quarterly, 7/11/2014) However, ABC News has tried and failed to get any documentation from the Clintons proving the speaking fees went to the foundation. (ABC News, 7/9/2014)

Nonprofit Quarterly then suggests this means the Clintons’ speeches to universities could be a way for rich donors to give well over the usual campaign spending limits to Hillary’s “all but inevitable presidential campaign” by effectively “repurposing” money through these large speaking fees. “It would be terribly disappointing to imagine that the colleges and universities paying the Clintons these sums might be fronting, hopefully unknowingly, for individual donors supporting these colleges’ lecture series, but individually have personal or political agendas that would benefit from being associated with an institution of higher education that pays Bill or Hillary Clinton a couple of hundred thousand for a speech—even if the money ends up in the Clintons’ family foundation.” (Nonprofit Quarterly, 7/11/2014)

November 19, 2014: The Clinton Foundation’s travel expenses almost double from the previous year.

Bill and Chelsea Clinton (left and center) in Johannesburg, South Africa, on August 8, 2013. (Credit: Jemal Countess / Getty Images Europe)

Bill and Chelsea Clinton (left and center) in Johannesburg, South Africa, on August 8, 2013. (Credit: Jemal Countess / Getty Images Europe)

Newly released tax filings indicate that travel expenses for the Clinton Foundation were $8.5 million in 2013, nearly double that of previous years. This is 10% of the foundation’s total expenses. The filing notes, “The Board recognizes that, due to extraordinary security and other requirements, William J. Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Chelsea Clinton may require the need to travel by charter or in first class, the determination of which will be made on a case-by-case basis.” All three Clintons had not been members of the board in previous years, due to Hillary being secretary of state. The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) also was spun off as a separate entity during her tenure, then remerged into the foundation in 2013. However, expenses are not itemized to determine how much travel costs are for each person or program. (Politico, 11/19/2014)

In the previous year’s income tax form, the foundation claimed that it had not provided “first class or charter travel” for any of its employees. (The Clinton Foundation, 9/10/2013)

February 18, 2015: Most major donors to the Clinton Foundation are foreigners or political supporters of the Clintons.

Dennis Cheng (Credit: public domain)

Dennis Cheng (Credit: public domain)

The Washington Post reports that nearly half of the major donors who are backing Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, as well as nearly half of the bundlers for her 2008 presidential campaign, have given at least $10,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Additionally, “many of the foundation’s biggest donors are foreigners who are legally barred from giving to US political candidates. A third of foundation donors who have given more than $1 million are foreign governments or other entities based outside the United States, and foreign donors make up more than half of those who have given more than $5 million.”

The high percentage of donations from overseas is considered “especially unusual” for a US-based charity. The Post comments that many foreign donors “are likely to have interests before a potential Clinton administration—and yet are ineligible to give to US political campaigns.” The Post also notes, “The overlap between the Clintons’ political network and their charitable work was apparent [on February 13, 2013], when Dennis Cheng stepped down as the foundation’s chief development officer ahead of his expected role as a key fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.” (The Washington Post, 2/18/2015)

February 25, 2015: Bill Clinton won’t tell the State Department how much he’s being offered to give speeches, making it difficult for the department to reject any offers.

Richard Painter (Credit: Harvard Center for Ethics)

Richard Painter (Credit: Harvard Center for Ethics)

Politico reports, “In hundreds of documents released to Politico under the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], not a single case appears where the State Department explicitly rejected a Bill Clinton speech.” They raised serious questions about only two speech proposals. “Instead, the records show State Department lawyers acted on sparse information about business proposals and speech requests and were under the gun to approve the proposals promptly.”

The Clintons made a deal with the White House to require State Department ethics officials to give their approval of all of Bill Clinton’s paid speech offers. However, the deal didn’t require Clinton to reveal how much he would be paid for any speech, and he didn’t voluntarily disclose this, so the officials were unable to judge if he was being overpaid and thus essentially bribed. He also didn’t reveal potential conflicts of interests with those paying for the speeches, such as donations to the Clinton Foundation or other relationships with the Clintons.

Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer, says that since the department officials didn’t know the specific speech fees in advance, he doesn’t see how they could have fairly judged whether to approve the speech or not. “That would be a gap if they didn’t find out at all.” (Politico, 2/25/2015)

March 3, 2015: Republican National Committee (RNC) chair Reince Priebus suggests Clinton could have mixed diplomacy and private fundraising in her emails.

Reince Priebus (Credit: Win McNamee / Getty Images)

Reince Priebus (Credit: Win McNamee / Getty Images)

Responding to news reports that Clinton used only a private email and private server while secretary of state, Priebus attempts to tie them into previous reports scrutinizing the Clinton Foundation and its fundraising from foreign governments. “It makes you wonder: Did she use the private emails so she could conduct diplomacy and fundraising at the same time?” (Politico, 3/3/2015)

March 4, 2015: A non-profit watchdog suggests Clinton hid her emails because her government work and Clinton Foundation work was intertwined.

John Wonderlich (Credit: Personal Democracy Media)

John Wonderlich (Credit: Personal Democracy Media)

The New York Times reports that a Clinton spokesperson has declined to comment on Clinton’s “use of clintonemail.com for matters related to the Clinton Foundation, which has received millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments.”

However, John Wonderlich, policy director of the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit organization that advocates transparency in government, comments, “It seems her intent was to create a system where she could personally manage access to her communications” both relating to her secretary of state work and the Clinton Foundation. “Given all the power she had as secretary of state, a lot of that work would be jumbled together. Her presidential ambitions and the family foundation would be wrapped up technically in email.” (The New York Times, 3/4/2015)

March 7, 2015—Mid-July 2016: Donations to a state senate election lead to potential conflicts of interests in three FBI investigations for a high-ranking FBI official.

The Clintons stand behind Terry McAuliffe during his inauguration as the Commonwealth of Virginia’s 72nd governor. (Credit: Patrick Semansky / The Associated Press)

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe is widely considered the best friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and was co-chair of one of Bill’s presidential campaigns and the chair of Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign. In March 2016, McAuliffe says, “We’re best friends, I’ve been family friends with the Clinton’s for thirty years. It’s a great relationship, we vacationed together for years, we’re just very personal friends…” (The Valley’s Music Place, 3/31/2016)

On March 7, 2015, McAuliffe and other state Democratic Party leaders meet with Dr. Jill McCabe and persuade her to run for a state senator seat in Virginia. Dr. McCabe is a hospital physician who has never run for political office before. This has potentially larger political implications, because her husband is Andrew McCabe, an FBI official who runs the FBI’s Washington, DC, field office at the time.

Dr. Jill McCabe (Credit: Twitter)

Dr. Jill McCabe (Credit: Twitter)

FBI officials will later claim that after the March 7, 2015 meeting, Andrew McCabe seeks ethics advice from the FBI and follows it, avoiding involvement with public corruption cases in Virginia, and also avoiding any of his wife’s campaign activities or events.

Five days before Jill McCabe is asked to run, on March 2, 2015, the New York Times publicly reveals Clinton’s use of a private email address, and her use of a private email server is revealed two days later, starting a major and prolonged political controversy. Jill McCabe announces her candidacy on March 12, 2015.

On July 10, 2015, the FBI’s Clinton email investigation formally begins, although it may have informally begun earlier.

Andrew McCabe and Jill McCabe pose at a campaign event in 2015. (Credit: Sharyl Attkisson)

Andrew McCabe and Jill McCabe pose at a campaign event in 2015. (Credit: Sharyl Attkisson)

Andrew McCabe’s Washington, DC, field office provides personnel and resources to the investigation. At the end of July 2015, he is promoted to assistant deputy FBI director, the number three position in the FBI.

During the 2015 election season, McAuliffe’s political action committee (PAC) donates $467,500 to Jill McCabe’s campaign. Furthermore, the Virginia Democratic Party, ”over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control,” according to the Wall Street Journal, donates an additional $207,788 to her campaign. “That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe’s control or strongly influenced by him.”

This represents more than a third of all the campaign funds McCabe raises in the election. She is the third-largest recipient of funds from McAuliffe’s PAC that year.

Virginia State Senator Dick Black (Credit: Twitter)

Virginia State Senator Dick Black (Credit: Twitter)

On November 3, 2015, Jill McCabe loses the election to incumbent Republican Dick Black. Once the campaign is over, “[Andrew] McCabe and FBI officials felt the potential conflict-of-interest issues ended,” according to the Journal.

In February 2016, Andrew McCabe is promoted to deputy FBI director, the second highest position in the FBI. In this role, he is part of the executive leadership team overseeing the Clinton email investigation, though FBI officials say any final decisions are made by FBI Director James Comey.

However, that is not the only potential conflict of interest. By February 2016, four FBI field offices are conducting investigations of the Clinton Foundation. McAuliffe was a Clinton Foundation board member until he resigned when he became the governor of Virginia in 2013. (The Wall Street Journal, 10/24/2016)

Also, at some point in 2015, if not earlier, the FBI begins conducting an investigation of McAuliffe. When the existence of this investigation is publicly leaked in May 2016, media reports suggest it may involve McAuliffe’s financial relationship with a Chinese businessperson who has donated millions to the foundation. It is also reported that investigators have looked at McAuliffe’s time as a board member of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), a yearly conference run by the Clinton Foundation.  (CNN, 5/24/2016)

Andrew McCabe (Credit: Getty Images)

Andrew McCabe (Credit: Getty Images)

In the spring of 2016, Andrew McCabe agrees to recuse himself from the McAuliffe investigation, due to McAuliffe’s donations to Jill McCabe’s election campaign. However, he doesn’t recuse himself from the Clinton Foundation investigation or the Clinton email investigation, despite McAuliffe’s close ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton. (The Wall Street Journal, 10/24/2016)

In mid-July 2016, the FBI seeks to reorganize the Clinton Foundation investigation. McCabe decides the FBI’s New York office should take the lead, while the Washington office that he formerly headed should take the lead with the McAuliffe investigation. The Journal will later report, “Within the FBI, the decision was viewed with skepticism by some, who felt the probe would be stronger if the foundation and McAuliffe matters were combined.” However, the decision is implemented.

McCabe also is involved in an effort to shut down the foundation investigation in August 2016, but his role is unclear.

In October 2016, McCabe’s potential conflicts of interest will be revealed by two Wall Street Journal articles. (The Wall Street Journal, 10/30/2016) In early November 2016, the Journal will report that “some [in the FBI] have blamed [McCabe], claiming he sought to stop agents from pursuing the [Clinton Foundation] case this summer. His defenders deny that, and say it was the Justice Department that kept pushing back on the investigation.” (The Wall Street Journal, 11/2/2016)

Around that time, James Kallstrom, the former head of the FBI’s New York office, will say of McCabe, “The guy has no common sense. He should be demoted and taken out of the chain of command.” (The American Spectator, 11/1/2016)

April 12, 2015: Hillary Clinton launches her second presidential campaign.

Clinton launches her 2016 presidential campaign with a YouTube video on April 12, 2015. (Credit: CNN)

Clinton launches her 2016 presidential campaign with a YouTube video on April 12, 2015. (Credit: CNN)

She narrowly lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in 2008. Due to her long and prominent political career, she immediately establishes herself as the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic nomination. (The New York Times, 4/13/2015) 

She resigns from the board of directors of the Clinton Foundation on the same day to avoid conflict of interest issues. (Politico, 4/12/2015)

April 19, 2015: The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP), a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation, has over 1,000 undisclosed donors, and the amount they have given is unknown.

Bill Clinton (left) and Frank Giustra (right) in 2010. (Credit: Shannon Stapleton / Reuters)

Bill Clinton (left) and Frank Giustra (right) in 2010. (Credit: Shannon Stapleton / Reuters)

Bloomberg News calls this news report a “politically explosive revelation…because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state.” In December 2008, just before Clinton took office, the Clinton Foundation signed a memorandum of understanding with the Obama White House promising to reveal its donors. This agreement explicitly included the CGEP, so this revelation shows the agreement was not upheld.

Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra, who cofounded the CGEP with former President Bill Clinton, says, “We’re not trying to hide anything. […] All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified.”

Giustra and the Clinton Foundation assert that Canadian law prevents them from revealing the CGEP’s donors. However, Bloomberg News reports, “Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim.” Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada’s Department of Finance, says, “There’s nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors. It’s entirely up to them.” (Bloomberg News, 4/19/2015)

In November 2015, a Harper’s Magazine article will claim that the CGEP is actually a “slush fund” which has allowed politically toxic foreign contributors to anonymously donate money to the Clinton Foundation, with the hopes of influencing Clinton while she was secretary of state. (Harper’s Magazine, 11/17/2015)

April 26, 2015: The Clinton Foundation admits mistakes.

Maura Pally (Credit: The Clinton Foundation)

Maura Pally (Credit: The Clinton Foundation)

The foundation’s acting CEO Maura Pally says, “Yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don’t happen in the future.” Her comments come in the wake of numerous news reports about conflicts of interest and lack of transparency in the foundation.

Many of the reports are based on the book Clinton Cash by conservative author Peter Schweizer. According to CNN, Schweizer says he doesn’t “have ‘direct evidence’ of ethical misconduct, but [says] the pattern he uncovered should raise eyebrows and trigger an investigation.” (CNN, 4/27/2015)

Pally was a deputy assistant secretary under Clinton at State Department. 

April 26, 2015: “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons.”

Bill Allison (Credit: The Texas Tribune)

Bill Allison (Credit: The Texas Tribune)

This comment is by Bill Allison, who is a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit government watchdog group. Law professor Zephyr Teachout, a Democratic candidate for governor of New York in 2014, was an organizing director there. (The Daily Mail, 4/27/2015) It is headed by Chris Gates, who was chairman of the Democratic Party in Colorado. (The Colorado Independent, 9/9/2014)

April 30, 2015: The Clinton Foundation is said to be in a “campaign tailspin.”

The cover of The New York Post on April 21, 2015, is critical of the Clintons and The Clinton Foundation. (Credit: The New York Post)

The cover of The New York Post on April 21, 2015, is critical of the Clintons and The Clinton Foundation. (Credit: The New York Post)

Politico reports this after some major donors are reconsidering giving to the foundation due to recent negative media reports as well as Hillary Clinton’s recent announcement she is running for president again. An unnamed donor who gave at least $500,000 to the foundation last year says, “There are a lot of factors and the reputational is among them. We had some questions about how the money was being spent—and that was long before the problems were in the press.” (Politico, 4/30/2015)

May 4, 2015: Former President Bill Clinton responds to criticism of the Clinton Foundation and his large speaking fees.

Bill and Hillary Clinton in Manhattan, New York, on January 6, 2015. (Credit: Carlo Allegri / Reuters)

Bill and Hillary Clinton in Manhattan, New York, on January 6, 2015. (Credit: Carlo Allegri / Reuters)

“There is no doubt in my mind that we have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy.” He says he won’t stop being paid for giving speeches. “I gotta pay our bills. And I also give a lot of it to the foundation every year.” He also says, “People should draw their own conclusions. I’m not in politics. All I’m saying is the idea that there’s one set of rules for us and another set for everybody else is true.” (NBC News, 5/4/2015)

The next day, Politico reports that his “I gotta pay our bills” comment strikes some Democrats as “off-key” and worrisome, given the vast wealth the Clintons have. (Politico, 5/5/2015)

May 5, 2015: The controversial book “Clinton Cash” is published, criticizing the Clinton Foundation.

The book, Clinton Cash (Credit: public domain)

The book, Clinton Cash (Credit: public domain)

The book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, written by Peter Schweizer, is published by HarperCollins. The book is highly critical of the Clinton Foundation, and is released within one month of Clinton announcing her candidacy in the 2016 presidential election. In November 2016, it will be revealed that the book is a major reason why the FBI starts an investigation into the foundation a short time after its publication.

The book causes controversy even before it is published, due to major media outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Fox News, getting exclusive stories based on different portions of the book. The Times at least says they didn’t pay anyone for their exclusives. (The New York Times, 4/23/2015)

The foundation also publicly admits that it made mistakes, due to a wave of negative reporting, with many stories based on the books’ contents.

The day the book is published, Clinton’s campaign posts a section its official website attempting to refute the book’s claims. Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta, writes: “The book has zero evidence to back up its outlandish claims… While we will not be consumed by these kinds of attacks, we will also not let them go unchallenged.” (The New York Times, 5/4/2015)

The book is widely read, staying five weeks on the New York Times’ best seller list. (The New York Times, 6/21/2015)

Peter Schweizer (Credit: clintoncashdotcom)

Peter Schweizer (Credit: clintoncashdotcom)

Much of the criticism of the book is based on the reputation and motives of its author. Schweizer is the president of the Government Accountability Institute, a right wing think tank, and was a research fellow at Stanford University’s right wing Hoover Institution. He is also a senior editor-at-large for Breitbart News, a controversial right wing news website so supportive of Donald Trump, the man who will become Clinton’s main opponent in the 2016 presidential election, that Stephen Bannon, the executive chair of Breitbart News, will resign in August 2016 to become the CEO of Trump’s campaign. (The New York Times, 8/18/2016)

Schweizer has written many books, most of them with an overt right wing political slant, such as Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, published in 2005.

Shortly after the book is published, the publisher announces that “seven to eight factual corrections” have been made to a revised version, calling them “actually quite minor.” (Politico, 5/14/2015)

A Newsweek review of the book comments, [J]ust because the book’s author, who has written for Breitbart News, is widely considered a right-wing guttersnipe… doesn’t mean he’s wrong. Well, at least not entirely wrong. He gets various dates and figures wrong… Mostly, though, it raises intriguing questions without ever really convicting.”

Newsweek continues, “The book contains many more lurid examples of Bill and Hillary [Clinton] doing things that look bad—from Bill taking juicy speaking fees from a major investor in the Keystone XL pipeline while Hillary’s state department reviewed the pipeline deal, to the Clinton Foundation accepting donations from a Swedish mining investor who more or less financed a coup in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. None of these actions are illegal. And it’s not even clear if they’re related. The rooster doesn’t cause the sun to rise, but this is the thrust of Schweizer’s argument. He never proves any laws were broken—in fact, he practically begins the book by hedging his accusations: ‘I realize how shocking these allegations may appear. Are these activities illegal? That’s not for me to say. I’m not a lawyer.'” (Newsweek, 5/1/2015)

May 15, 2015: The Clinton Foundation announces that it will place new limits on its fundraising activities.

In the wake of numerous critical news reports, and just days after Hillary Clinton announced her second presidential campaign, the foundation says that it will limit foreign government donations to six countries that have already funded Clinton Foundation programs: Britain, Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Norway. Other countries that donated in the last year, including Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, are not included. The foundation also says it will suspend its future overseas conferences. (Politico, 4/15/2015)

The foundation placed voluntary limits on itself in 2008 shortly before Hillary became secretary of state, but those limits were secretly violated in a number of ways.

May 15, 2015: Dozens of media organizations and journalists have donated to the Clinton Foundation.

Carlos Slim (Credit: ABC News)

Carlos Slim (Credit: ABC News)

The foundation’s records show that there are not many news outlets who would report on the foundation and didn’t donate some money to it. The following have given at least $1 million:

  • Carlos Slim, the Mexican multibillionaire who is also the largest New York Times shareholder.
  • James Murdoch, the chief operating officer of 21st Century Fox, and the son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch.
  • Newsmax Media, the conservative media outlet.
  • Thomson Reuters, the owner of the Reuters news service.

Others to donate smaller amounts include Google, Bloomberg, Richard Mellon Scaife, Mort Zuckerman, AOL, HBO, Viacom, Turner Broadcasting (CNN), Twitter, Comcast, NBC Universal, PBS, the Washington Post, and many more. (Politico, 5/15/2015)

May 21, 2015: The Clinton Foundation confirms that it received millions in previously unreported payments by foreign governments and corporations for speeches given by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The foundation won’t give the exact amount, but it is somewhere between 12 and 26 million dollars. Foundation officials say the income was not disclosed publicly because it was considered revenue, rather than donations. CNN calls this “the latest in a string of admissions from the foundation that it didn’t always abide by a 2008 ethics agreement to disclose its funding sources publicly.” (CNN, 5/21/2015)

May 26, 2015: The Clintons are criticized for mixing government work with fund raising.

Stephen Walt (Credit: public domain)

Stephen Walt (Credit: public domain)

Stephen Walt, a Harvard University professor of international affairs, says that the intertwining financial relationships between the Clintons, US defense contractors, and foreign governments who buy US weapons is “a vivid example of a very big problem—the degree to which conflicts of interest have become endemic. […] It has troubled me all along that the Clinton Foundation was not being more scrupulous about who it would take money from and who it wouldn’t. American foreign policy is better served if people responsible for it are not even remotely suspected of having these conflicts of interest. When George Marshall was secretary of state, nobody was worried about whether or not he would be distracted by donations to a foundation or to himself. This wasn’t an issue.” (The International Business Times, 5/26/2015)

June 2, 2015: The Washington Post reports on the controversial reputation of the Clinton Foundation.

Former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in Washington, DC, September 8, 2014. Their foundations have partnered to launch The Presidential Leadership Scholars Program. (Credit: Saul Loeb / Getty Images)

Former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in Washington, DC, September 8, 2014. Their foundations have partnered to launch The Presidential Leadership Scholars Program. (Credit: Saul Loeb / Getty Images)

“Today, the Clinton Foundation is unlike anything else in the history of the nation and, perhaps, the world: It is a global philanthropic empire run by a former US president and closely affiliated with a potential future president, with the audacious goal of solving some of the world’s most vexing problems by bringing together the wealthiest, glitziest, and most powerful people from every part of the planet. […] The foundation now includes 11 major initiatives, focused on issues as divergent as crop yields in Africa, earthquake relief in Haiti, and the cost of AIDS drugs worldwide. In all, the Clintons’ constellation of related charities has raised $2 billion, employs more than 2,000 people, and has a combined annual budget of more than $223 million.”

According to the independent watchdog group the American Institute of Philanthropy, the foundation spends about 89 percent of its money on its charitable mission. Thus that group has given it an A rating (with A-plus being the best). However, Charity Navigator, the other leading watchdog group that rates charities, has not issued a grade for the foundation, saying its structure makes it too complex to grade. In 2015, it put the foundation on its “watch list,” due to negative media reports. (The Washington Post, 6/2/2015)

June 10, 2015: Former President Bill Clinton says that he won’t stop giving paid speeches while his wife Hillary is running for president.

But when asked if he’ll keep giving paid speeches if she becomes the next president, he says, “No, I don’t think so.” In 2014 alone, Bill and Hillary were paid $25 million for 104 paid speeches, and such speeches have raised conflict of interest questions. Asked if he will continue to work for the Clinton Foundation if Hillary becomes president, he says, “That will be not an easy decision should she be elected president. She will have to decide…[We] will have to talk about it.” (CNN, 6/11/2015)

June 14, 2015: Bill Clinton says he and his wife Hillary don’t know if there were conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation.

Jake Tapper (Credit: CNN)

Jake Tapper (Credit: CNN)

CNN journalist Jake Tapper asks Bill Clinton, “I think a lot of people might say, OK, you say there’s no evidence that anything was done for [donors to the Clinton Foundation], but can you really say that these companies, these wealthy individuals, these governments, none of them sought anything? I mean, some of them did have business before the State Department.”

Clinton replies, “I don’t know. […] I know of no example. But you never know what people’s motives are.”

Tapper then says to him, “You say you don’t know if anybody sought any favor.”

Clinton responds, “No, and I don’t think Hillary would know either. She was pretty busy those years. And I never saw her study a list of my contributors or…and I had no idea who was doing business before the State Department.” (CNN, 6/14/2015)