tv House Oversight Subcommittee Hearing on the Clinton Foundation CSPAN December 13, 2018 2:13pm-4:57pm EST
mr. meadows: the subcommittee on government operations will come to order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. the chair notices the present of -- presence of our colleague, mr. gosar, i ask unanimous consent if mr. gosar would be allowed to fully participate in this hearing. without objection, i guess he's on the way. ok. he was just here. he's like a ghost of christmas past. so, i want to thank both of the witnesses for being here. nonprofit organizations that qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501-c-3, must be organized and operate exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific or other similar purposes. clinton foundation is registered as a 501-c-3 but
continues to come under scrutiny for a failure to meet requirements to retain the tax exempt stat us. today's subcommittee will examine the reports and allegations against the clinton foundation and related to allegations of pay to play activities. this subcommittee will also hear testimony from whistleblowers alleging the abuse of the charitable organization's status by the collin fon foundation. just -- clinton foundation. just recently the clinton foundation was back in the news due a sharp decrease in donations. the donations to the foundation were $63 million in 2016. and only $26.6 million in 2017. this represents a 58% decrease in the span of one fiscal year and correspondents with obviously secretary clinton's loss in the 2000 presidential election. now, several reports suggest that the decrease in donations
could reflect a pay to play activity in the years prior to he decline in donations. the pay-to-play reports has led congress to call for a special prosecute to investigate the collin foundation. in response, former attorney general sessions apointed u.s. general attorney to investigate the alleged wrongdoings by the . inton foundation we were asked to be updated on the operations and progress of the investigation and unfortunately d.o.j. has been unwilling to make him available. i find this not only frustrating for me, but frustrating for the american people. if indeed a special prosecute was not appointed -- prosecutor was not appointed and mr. huber was supposed to take that role, why indeed have we not heard from him publicly in almost
nine months? so, sadly we will look at his loss of testimony today, as perhaps an entitlement on his inability to provide transparent oversight testimony before this committee. the i.r.s. was also to attend this oversight and the potential claims of the whistleblowers. sadly, mr. horton was unable to attend due to death in his family. this is certainly recognized as a legitimate excuse and my thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family in this tough time. but we do have with us today tom fenton, president of judicial watch, who will be testifying here today about the body of work that he has conducted as it relates to the use of clinton foundation as a vehicle for pay-to-play transactions. and finally, mr. phillip
hackney, an associate professor of law at the university of pittsburgh. he rounds out our first panel and will discuss the allegations against the trump foundation that we have -- where there has been the subject of media reports as ell. we've also received documents that are part of a larger 48-page whistleblower claim ubmission. approximately 6,000 pages of documents. the claims allege abuse of charitable organizations status by the clinton foundation. to further discuss their claims, we'll be joined by mr. lawrence doyle and mr. john monaghan on a separate panel following our current witnesses. i'd like to thank everyone for being here today and look forward to your testimony. i now recognize the ranking member, my good friend, mr. connolly, for his opening statement.
mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. and this, i guess, may be your last hearing? as chairman of the subcommittee. mr. meadows: i'm gladded you added the last part of that. -- glad you add the last part of that. mr. connolly: i certainly look forward to working with you again in the new congress. unfortunately i don't really look forward to working with you today. you know, here we are a few weeks before christmas and my republican friends are egifting an old trope that needs desperate reworking. they have found nothing. but that doesn't stop them from trying to do it again. and of course mr. cummings and i have repeatedly ared -- requested that we have witnesses from the trump foundation and from mr. whitaker's foundation before us if we're going to be looking at nonprofit foundations. but let's actually look at some that have outstanding allegations, including a
pending criminal investigation against them, unlike the clinton administration. so let's look at this latest so-called set of allegations with respect to the clinton foundation. this next panel has two private individuals, both republicans, who will explain how they submitted a complaint to the i.r.s. and the f.b.i. against the clinton foundation. they have already conceded that they are not whistleblowers. instead they are would-be plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to make money. that's not a whistleblower. they also admit they have no firsthand knowledge of any wrongdoing. their first claim is that internal reports issued a decade ago suggest that there were mismanagement challenges at the foundation. these internal reports were already leaked by wikileaks
long ago. the clinton foundation commissioned these reports internally, follow varle -- voluntarily, and then made substantial improvements to the followings. that'sneath ar scandal nor new. next, they claim there was a prid kyo pro between the clinton foundation and their donors. that's not what this report said. they said some employees raised concerns about donors who, quote, may have an expectation of kid with pro could he benefits in return -- kid with pro could he -- quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts. but they said some donors might have had expectation, even if unfulfilled. nevertheless, that doesn't stop some from trying to smear yet again the clinton name. next, they will report an -- on a secret interview they
conducted with the chief financial officer of the foundation, andy kessel. during a breakfast in 2016. they claim mr. kessel made statements criticizing president bill clinton and the foundation. they claim that mr. kessel stated, and i quote, i know where all the bodies are buried, unquote. my lord. but mr. kessel denies saying this. and all we have to contradict him is a one-page summary submitted as part of a complaint by these republican litigants in the lawsuit. so what did the i.r.s. and f.b.i. do with the complaint? the i.r.s. rejected it. according to the testimony of these two gentlemen, the i.r.s. sent them a denial letter. they said that they have appealed. but they refused to give us a coppy of their original complaint or their appeal. how about the f.b.i.? well, apparently the f.b.i. interviewed the clinton foundation's c.f.o. last year, but like the i.r.s., took no
further action that we know of. the chairman invited the justice department to be here today. they refused to come. the trump justice department refused to send someone to this hearing. i will agree with the chairman, when a request is made by this committee, the executive branch, it should always be honored unless there are extraordinary circumstances. but i suspect one of the reasons they're not here is because there's no there there and they don't want to have to testify to that fact, given the pillarring president trump has engaged in with respect to the clintons personally. finally, there's one last allegation, mr. chairman. two days ago john solomon wrote an opinion piece in "the hill." a newspaper here on the hill, claiming that the clinton foundation somehow misled the i.r.s. based on state regulatory filing errors. this was reported two years ago . ne tax expert summarized the allegations then as, quote, minor infractions equivalent to
reporting someone who was issued a traffic ticket for parking 15 inches from the curb instead of the statutory 12. unfortunately this is part of a pattern. my friends on the other side of the aisle have been making unsubstantiated claims against the foundation for years. last year republicans in this committee launched a joint investigation with the intelligence committee with claims of explosive new evidence from a confidential informant. who could demonstrate secretary clinton orchestrated a quid pro quo with all nine agencies of the agency and foreign investment in the united states to approve the iranian one deal, remember that one, and corruptly direct millions of dollars to the foundation in return. my friends with held their secret informant from us for months. but when we finally got the opportunity to interview that informant, his claims fell apart. and failed to provide any evidence from the repeated and baseless claims. before this hearing i sent a letter to you, mr. chairman,
asking if you planned on inviting the clinton foundation to also invite the trump foundation and the foundation operated by acting attorney general matt whitaker. there have been serious allegations against both. including a judicial ruling saying that a case against the trump foundation in fact can go forward. but unfortunately those requests have fallen on bound soil. just last month a judge ruled in new york state that the attorney general could proceed with its suit against the trump foundation for serious allegations of, and quote the judge, not an informant, failure to operate management foundation in accordance with corporate and statutory rules and the fiduciary obligations resulting in misuse of charitable assets. then "the new york times" reported that acting attorney general whitaker's former organization paid more than $1.2 million in dark money from unanimous conservative donors to target and defeat democrats
in elections. instead, we have our ump teent hearing in the latest clinton conspiracy theory and of course we don't want to look at those charges. my friends, the republican majority leader kevin mccarthy justified the massive investigations, will you will -- you will recall, into hillary clinton by touting his parties a efforts to bring down her poll numbers. that was the motivation. they had eight committees, including this one, and a select committee squander millions of dollars and found very little. yet now the democrats are about to gain control and mr. mccarthy now says we should not investigate president trump, that agenda, he says, would be too small. that would -- we should focus on other problems like perhaps once again the clintons. the truth is there are very serious issues we ought to be investigating instead of this one. chairmanned me o's --ed me osaka and ranking member -- chairman meadows and ranking member cummings sent a letter to the trump administration about separating children at
the border and i applaud you for that and i supported that effort. we did not get a single document, we were completely stymied. and despite our request, no subpoenas were issued and no hearings held. of course it's the prerogative of the chairman of the full committee, he's chosen to call this one. unfortunately i trust and i i think for most people it looks like a last gasp at partisanship. i thank the chair. mr. meadows: so i thank jt for his opening remarks -- the gentleman for his opening remarks. i'd like to make two very quick clarifications for my good friend. i mean that in all sincerity. mr. huber's absence here today, if there's no there there, is certainly not an excuse not to be here. i think the chairman would agree with that. because if that's the benchmark that we're going to use, then all we have to do is hear from them that there's no there there and no one shows up. and i don't think that that's consistent on either way. i'd also like to highlight that
if indeed we're here a little bit longer, which it appears we're willing to do, i'm certainly willing to look at all of the foundation issues. i've signed on 22 bipartisan letters for oversight. probably the most of any republican member in that regard. because i believe that oversight done properly is what we need to do. i want to make one clarification. if we're going to look at foundations, we do need to look at all of them. i believe that we need to start where it's $2.5 billion on the clinton foundation versus $19 million on the trump foundation. there's a big disparity there in terms of overall revenues. yet i look forward to cooperating with the new chairman. not to be presumptuous on government operations in the new congress, where we do real oversight. so i want to make sure that i clarified that. mr. fitton, you are recognized for your opening statement.
before we do, that i'm going to have both of you stand, please. if you'll stand and i'll actually ask you -- i'm going to swear you in now. then i'll read your credentials after that. if you'll raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? please be seated. let the record reflect that both witnesses answered in the affirmative. so we're going to go ahead, mr. tom fitton, you're the president of judicial waffwafment you are hereby recognized for five minutes. mr. fitton: thank you, chairman meadows, and thank you, mr. connolly, for conducting this hearing. judicial watch is a conservative nonpartisan educational foundation dedicated to promoting transparency, accountability and integrity in government politics and the law.
without a doubt we're the most active freedom of information act requester and litigater in the nation today. and it's no secret that judicial watch has had concerns over the years about the clinton's ethics and respect for the rule of law. so it was with some skepticism we greeted promises by hillary clinton in 2008 and 2009 to conduct herself accordingly or appropriately with respect to the foundation as a condition of her being approved as secretary of state with some skepticism. at the time, even cnn reported that bill clinton'sably -- complicated business interests could present future conflicts of interest that result in unneeded headaches for the incoming commander in chief. to reassure president obama and senators from both parties, mrs. clinton's -- mrs. clinton agreed to not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which the william clinton foundation is a party or represents a party. additionally the clinton promised that the president's
speeches and business activities would undergo a state department ethics review and that the clinton foundation, would disclose its donors online and agree to significant restrictions on support from foreign governments. neither of which, to be fair, wasn't required by law, but was contingent on her being confirmed by the senate. we had zero confidence that these promises would be kept and we began monitoring the ethics process and filed the freedom of information act request in 2011 to see how that ethics process was being implemented. we were ignored for two years by the administration. we sued in 2013. and found something which wasn't terribly surprising to us but still shocking. that former president clinton gave 215 speeches and earned $48 million while his wife presided over u.s. foreign policy. not one of those speeches was deemed a conflict of interest. that also included a consultsy with the controversial clinton foundation advisor, doug band. the -- who ran something called
-- [inaudible] -- the group. that ended after they were caught up in a failed investment firm known as m.s. global. state department legal advisors approved bill clinton's speeches in china, in russia, saudi arabia, egypt, the u.a.e., panama, turkey, taiwan, india, the caiman islands, and other countries. the speeches -- the approvals were routinely copied to hillary clinton's senior chief of staff who had been a foundation official, had negotiated the ethics agreement, which raised, again, conflicts interest of issues as to why she was involved in this process at all. the documents also showed that mr. clinton received a staggering sum from saudi ben factors specifically. between $18 million and $1550 million were raised from the saudis -- $50 million were ratesed from the saudis during this time period. while mrs. clinton served as secretary of state, bill clinton gave two speeches in saudi arabia, earning a total
of $600,000. he spoke at the global business forum in riyadh, founded by the saudi investment authority, and sponsored by a commercial closses a with close ties to the saudi family who received $300,000 for that speech. there was one deal that was turned aside, but the exception in many ways proves the rule that this ethics process was no more than a rubber stamp to allow bill clinton to raise money from foreign corporations , mostly controlled or too often controlled by foreign governments. specifically also the documents show that he was approved to speak to something called renaissance capital, which is a russian government linked firm. it turns out later was connected to the iranian one issue. again, approved without comment by the so-called ethics process in the state department. and then we found the clinton email server. judicial watch litigation, to
sum up, found the clinton email server. our freedom of information act request and lawsuits forced the state department to admit they had all these emails they weren't telling anyone about. also another employee of the state department who was participating in this server was abedin, who according to testimony she gave to judicial watch, needed it to conduct the clintons' personal and family business. to be sure, documents we uncovered later as a result of uncovering the clinton email server, showed scooter libby clinton -- clinton foundation was in regular contact with abedin and others in the state department, to get special favors and treatment for supports and allies of the foundation. specifically, for instance, gilbert shagori, who was asked to be put in touch with the state department's substance person on lebanon. this was by doug band, the clinton foundation official. band notes that he's a key guy there, lebanon and to us, and i insists that abedin call the
ambassador to connect them. shagori is a close friend of president clinton, top donor to the foundation. he's near the top. gave between $1 million and 5ds million to the foundation and pledged a billion thrars to the clinton global initiative. i don't know if he the money. he was convicted on money laundering. so you can see that the clinton foundation, the clinton state department almost immediately broke promises to president obama and the senate to maintain a wall of separation between the foundation and state. e have numerous instances of pay-to-play and favoritism for clinton foundation supporters with the clinton state department. it's so bad that the crown prince of bahrain couldn't get a meeting directly with mrs. clinton through the state department, so he went through the clinton foundation to try to get the meeting. many have noted that it was hard to tell where the clinton state department ended and where the clinton foundation
began. this is in response to these disclosures, again, not of insider documents, but government documents that have been hidden from the american people. then there's uranium one controversy. specifically it was a controversial 2010 uranium one deal. there were moneys that were funnels into the clinton foundation by uranium one interests, specifically mr. frank. from moneys were hidden the american people. the foundation promised to disclose these moneys. as i said, this earlier was ent, $31.3 million given to, for instance, the foundation beginning in january, 2018. or around the year -- 2008. or around the year 2008. we have the new documents, the document of the renaissance capital, $500,000, which is just the tip of the iceberg.
and since then both "the new york times" has reported that uranium one's chairman used his family's foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the clinton operation. of course as i said, none of this was disclosed. shortly after the russians announced their intention to acquire mistaken uranium one, mr. clinton received that $500,000 speaking fee from the renaissance capital organization. so, we're asking for documents for uranium one. we're getting the proverbial hand to the face from the administration on this. it's unfortunate that even the trump administration doesn't want to divulge the full truth about this. but there is enough evidence to warrant serious investigations of the clinton foundation and there is evidence that in addition to in the clinton foundation investigations that may have been taking place during the obama administration were suppressed by the justice department.
so frankly it's no surprise the justice department isn't here today. so i look forward to your questions. thank you. hedhed -- mr. meadows: thank you. mr. hackney, you're recognized and so i didn't say this and should have, if you will try to keep your oral testimony to five minutes, we'll be a little bit generous with you as well. you're now recognized. mr. hackney: thank you, mr. chairman meadows, ranking member connolly, and members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting me here today to talk about a subject that is near and dear to my heart, nonprofit oversight. my name is phillip and i'm a professor of law at the university of pittsburgh. i study, write, teach and speak about tax law and specialize in nonprofit organizations, particularly with tax-exempt organizations. though i am a professor, i worked for five years at the office of chief council of the i.r.s. looking over the tax exempt sector. so i bring a wealth of
experience. we wrote regulations, oversaw the policy of the i.r.s., and it was a very important time of my life and i enjoyed the time working with that office. i additionally before that worked for baker as a corporate attorney for three years, doing securities work and investigations into accounting irregularities. now, i don't have much time. i've got five minutes. so let me cut to the chase. this is about oversight of nonprofit organizations. the i.r.s. s as a practical matter is seen as the nation's primary nonprofit regulator. though the laws enacted by congress and the regular laces implemented by the i.r.s. -- regulations imple. ed by the i.r.s. and treasury could be -- implemented by the i.r.s. and treasury could be improved, there's a real crisis in nonprofit oversight right now which is that the budget isn't sufficient to alout i.r.s. to do the job that needs to do well. it's not there.
i have some numbers that you can see in my written testimony. but i'll use one fact from the -- there was a great pro public piece, i don't know if you saw it the other day. it's called, how the i.r.s. was gutted. over a period of eight years. and i'll use one number. the i.r.s. today has fewer than 10,000 auditors. the last time it had that few auditors, 1953. 1953. for reference in terms of the exempt organization sector, this is the folks that are watching over these nonprofits, that we're caring about today, they have in the range of 200 auditors. in the range of 200 determination specialists that are looking over this sector. so while the i.r.s. presence has shrunk, the nonprofit world has gotten much bigger in that same period of time. there's over $3 trillion assets in that sector.
and about 5% of g.d.p. takes place in there. there are over 1.8 million organizations that the i.r.s. is overseeing within that world. the nonprofit sector is a terrific force for good. it's an incredible small deed democratic effort -- small d democratic effort at solving our nation's problems. it's important that there be good oversight of this group. they take care of americans daily in our lives and it matters what happens. there are those who take advantage of these organizations or direct the organizations to to their own self-interest. carry out their own things that they want to do. the law should be there to stop them from taking those actions and when i worked at the i.r.s., they were working hard every day to do that activity. i know folks in state offices that are working hard every day
to take care of that activity. but realistically the amount of money, the resources that -- they're just not there. they aren't, mr. chairman. i'm not certain what this subcommittee has in mind, hopes to accomplish through this hearing. a hearing on nonprofit oversight could do real good for this community. i see newspaper stories every day about people taking advantage of charities and it breaks my heart when i see that happen. if this is going to be a tit for at that time, showing this foundation that's conservative did this or this foundation that's liberal did that. it's not going to help us. it just becomes a tit for tat political effort. i'd like to see these nonprofits operating better and i hope it can be about that. where is the i.r.s.? does the i.r.s. have the right rules and resources it needs to
conduct the oversight? you're conducting the oversight over the folks who are conducting the oversight and i don't think those folks have the resources they need and there probably are things we could do about the laws as well. almost at the end of my time. let's talk about what role the i.r.s. plays in nonprofits, oversight and how we can improve that and function to ideally raise up our nonprofit sector and build confidence in american taxpayers, that laws are enforced every day. i'm worried that we have a real crisis on our hands with that nonprofit oversight. not as a matter of bias but as a matter of just not having the resources to get the job done. they work hard every day. but they don't -- can't do everything. we're asking too much of them right now. they need more. thank you very much. i'm happy to take questions. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. hackney.
so you were at the i.r.s., you were over the 501-c-3 through 20 whatever the numbers are section? mr. hackney: yes. i worked there from 2006 to 2011 and i was senior technician reviewer toward the end. wrote regulations into supporting organizations and dealt with -- yes, i was in the national audit. mr. meadows: ok. thank you. your former colleagues would be really happy with your opening statement. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, the vice chair of the subcommittee on government operations, mr. hice. mr. hice: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. fitton, let me begin with you. i would assume that you're familiar with the department of justice inspector general report that was released in february of 2018 pertaining to andrew mccabe and the
conversation he had pertains to the -- mr. fitton: yes. mr. hice: ok. there's some interesting information that's vealed in that report. specifically -- that's revealed in that report. specifically a telephone conversation that mccabe had with a principal associate attorney general, possibly matthew axelrod. pertaining to the clinton foundation. are you familiar with what i'm talking about and that conversation? mr. fitton: yes. mr. hice: can you briefly describe what that conversation consisted of? mr. fitton: according to the i.g. report, which i do quote my testimony, they had this conversation regardinging the clinton foundation investigation in august of 2016. mccabe said that the justice department expressed concerns about f.b.i. agents taking overt steps in the clinton foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. according to mccabe, he pushed
back asking, are you telling me i need to shut down a validly predicated investigation? mccabe told us that the i.g., that the conversation was very dramatic. he had never had a similar confrontation before with d.o.j. but prior to that, senior d.o.j. officials refused f.b.i. requests to issue subpoenas on clinton foundation issues earlier in 2016, according to the reports. and that since then, supposedly there's been a new investigation launched. yet. haven't seen any mr. hice: i would agree that was a very dramatic conversation and mccabe said, as you mentioned there, that it never had a conversation like this. in his career at the f.b.i. do you believe that this demonstrates that the justice department was actively trying to protect clinton foundation from an f.b.i. investigation? mr. fitton: yeah. this is one of i think a few pieces of evidence demonstrating that the clinton foundation was being protected by the justice department,
especially during that election year. these pay-to-play allegations, for instance, that we uncovered, these emails they came out in august of 2016. not that we timed them to come out in august of 2016. that was a result of the justice department taking eight, nine months to release them to us or the state department taking eight, nine months to release them to us after they received them from hillary clinton and ms. abedin. but -- so this is a very tricky time period. i can imagine there was pressure on the f.b.i. -- mr. hice: what in your opinion would be the reason that they were trying to protect the clinton foundation? mr. fitton: the justice department at the time was working with the clinton campaign to target president trump. they worked -- they were targeting president trump. one of the key folks involved in that was peter struck, who demonstrated bias as an f.b.i. official against mr. trump and for mrs. clinton. irony of the mccabe situation is mccabe is accused of leaking and pushback to the justice
department. saying that we are investigating hillary clinton. which happened to be accurate, but was not something he was supposed to be telling the newspapers. that's why he allegedly lied about leaking to it. mr. hice: would you say -- mr. fitton: there were some in the f.b.i. who wanted to do this. mr. hice: would you say it's somewhat -- at least calls -- causes some red flags for the justice department? it sounds what you're alleging is they were actively involve in trying to influence the election. mr. fitton: it sure does. i think this is an area that needs to be explored. i wish it had been explored think about congress. it wasn't sufficiently. i know there's pushback from the d.o.j. and i know there's all sorts of concerns about foreign interference in our elections. but when you have bureaucracies like a d.o.j. putting their thumbs on the scales, it's something both parties ought to be concerned about. one day the shoe will be on the other foot politically speaking of we want to be able to restrain the agencies from
being their own arm, branch of government. mr. hice: this may be another way of asking a similar question, at least a similar train of thought. why would the justice department try to pressure the f.b.i. to stop a perfectly valid investigation? mr. fitton: for political reasons. there were other investigations that were ongoing at the time, donald at concerned trump and hillary clinton. the complain about overt steps targeting the foundation seem to be -- not credible, that's why mr. mccabe reacted so strongly. mr. hice: i believe what you've just said is the whole reason we're here. mr. hackney, although i appreciate your opinion, expressing why and how we need to do our oversight, what has just been said is the precise reason why we are doing oversight. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. meadows: i thank the gentleman from georgia. the chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. connolly, the gentleman from virginia.
mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. i swear, mr. fitton, listening to your testimony, it's like being in alice in wonderland. the idea that why are we here? so let's just put ourselves in context. because apparently none of this is happening in the real world. we just had a sentencing hearing in new york in which the president's personal attorney was given three years of jail time. this isn't speculation about what someone might have done. this is a crime admitted to. and in the sentencing it was identified explicitly that individual number one coordinated and directed this illegal activity. mr. cohen is going to jail. not speculative, not phony informants, not make-believe whistleblowers. not smearing or hearsay. this is now on the court record. you just made light, you almost
dismissed, well, russian interference in our election. that's a pretty big thing. and to compare the idea of somebody putting their thumb on the scales of justice and the department of justice to protect the clintons, even though there's no criminal tchoorge that effect, and in fact the f.b.i. did look at it and found no there there, not once but twice, mr. comey himself -- we had russian interference in our election. all of our intelligence community agrees with that. the f.b.i. agrees with that. most senior officials in the trump administration, with respect to foreign policy, and law enforcement, agree with that. xcept the president. we have criminal investigations, mr. fitton, not about the clinton foundation, but about the trump foundation. we have a ruling, and i'd like toent that are ruling into the
record -- to enter that ruling into the record. from the supreme court of the state of new york saying there is sufficient grounds to go forward with a criminal investigation. of the trump foundation. not the clinton foundation. mr. meadows: without objection. mr. connolly: and we're not talking about it here. because we're making a political point. mr. hice says that's why we're here. yes. hy we're here is the grand christmas miracle hope that we will distract the american public from the business at hand. that is grave and serious and undermines democratic institutions and norms. and, mr. fitton, candidly, i would have expected for from jirm watch than your system. -- judicial watch than your testimony. mr. hackney, -- mr. fitton: can i respond? briefly? mr. connolly: briefly. i made a statement but if you wish to respond i will -- mr. fitton: the concern is the investigation of russian attempts to influence our
policy in the united states is geared at focusing on president trump. to the exclusion of what happened with russian attempts to try to persuade or guarantee a positive result on the uranium one scandal. and russian admitted efforts by the clinton campaign to base its dossier that was used to spy on president trump with allegations generated by russian intelligence. if there was a broad investigation into the full penalty of what russia was trying to do, with respect to both parties, i think americans of both parties would be happen by that. mr. connolly: because of the issue of time i'd be happy to give you more time later, but i would say this committee, the republican side had, an informant on the so-called uranium one thing. and they held them for three months and oh, my god, this is going to be explosive testimony. when we finally got a crack at him in a bipartisan basis, his testimony fell apart. he had no evidence of criminal activity of any kind. in fact, no evidence of quid
pro quo. and here you are repeating a sland that are has no factual basis behind it. meanwhile, we have court evidence, court evidence with respect to what's going on currently. mr. hackney, my time is limited. your i.r.s. background. so this -- these two republican witnesses who are litigants to a lawsuit, not whistleblowers, coming next, they wrote the i.r.s. with a one-page summary of their so-called interview with mr. kessel. the result -- the reaction of the i.r.s. to that request was a denial of the letter of the request. you know i.r.s. why in the world would the i.r.s. deny something like that, how should we read that? mr. hackney: i won't talk specifically to any organization or circumstances. but in terms of thinking about the i.r.s. assessment of any particular whistleblower claim, it's going to be a number of considerations.
particularly did someone bring actual credible information that leads to something that returns tax dollars in some way? and they must concluding, forgive me there, if the i.r.s. has made that choice with a whistleblower act, the primary thing must be that no one is bringing something to the table there. i do want note, i wanted to say to vice chair highs, i agree fully that this committee has an important role in oversight. mr. connolly: just a unanimous consent request. i thank the chair. thank you. both for your testimony. i'd like to enter into the record our correspondent, our letter dated to you, requesting the hearing. your one-page response to us on december 4, and our counter to, that our response to that on december 10. i'd like to enter it into the record. mr. meadows: without objection. i don't know that i've seen the december 10 letter. but i'm sure i will. today's the 12th.
so maybe it's in the mail. mr. connolly: it's probably in the mail. i think my good friend knows i don't play surprises with him. mr. meadows: i know. that's why you get grin that i agree with -- the grin that i agree with. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. mr. jordan: i thank the chairman. i respond to my good friend from virginiament we're not trying to distract anyone. we're trying to stop this double standard that exists in our culture today. there's one set of rules for us regular folks, but it looks like to me a different set if you're part of the politically connected class. and that's all this is about. we have two whistleblowers we haven't heard from, we're going to hear from them here in a second and we'll find out what they have to say and hopefully get to the truth. before i come to you, i want to go to mr. hackney. mr. hackney, when did you work at the i.r.s. again? mr. hackney: i was in the exempt organizations branch of tax-exempt government entities. mr. jordan: what years? mr. hackney: 2006 to april of 2011. i got an opportunity to join the faculty of louisiana state university law school and it was an exciting opportunity.
mr. jordan: wonderful. we're happy for you. but you were there when the targeting of conservative roups started groups started then, right? mr. hackney: apparently did did but i was not involved in any of that. mr. jordan: it says you advised the commissioner. this all took place in the exempt organization division of the i.r.s. mr. hackney: i did not handle any -- mr. jordan: do you know anything about it? did you work with lois learner? mr. hackney: i did work with low ills. mr. jordan: but you didn't know anything about the be on the lookout list or anything like that? when did you first find out that the i.r.s. was targeting conservative people and this whole double standard i mentioned was going on right in the very division you were supposed to be advising and overlooking? mr. hackney: i appreciate the question. i would disagree with characterization of targeting. but i was at the meeting -- mr. jordan: you don't think people were targeted? mr. hackney: i don't believe they were. mr. jordan: there was a list that had three terms. nine, 12, tea party and conservative -- those terms
come up, you got put on the list. mr. hackney: i absolutely appreciate the question. mr. jordan: you don't think there was targeting? mr. hackney: i believe the i.r.s. was doing its best to do its job and didn't have the resources and was trying to find ways of accomplishing -- mr. jordan: this wasn't about resources. this was about targeting specific points of view. mr. hackney: i understand that. mr. jordan: the attorney general and the president of the united states had a big press quhonches it became public and said we're going to get to the bottom of this. they were going to talk about criminal liability and you said it didn't exist in the very division you were the head of? mr. hackney: i'm not saying it didn't exist and they were not looking at tea party organizations, but i'm also saying that they were looking at many different other organizations as you'll see from various reports that came out later. mr. jordan: that is not true. that is not what the inspector general said. frankly, if it was, we were looking at everyone the same, i don't think lois learner would have taken the fifth when she sat right where you were sitting here today. i have to get to mr. fitton in my last two minutes and 30 seconds here. $2 billion since 2001, right? that's what the clinton
foundation took in. is that right? $2 billion? $48 million in speeches, i think you said, in your opening statements. we did the math. you said like -- that's like a quarter of a million dollars for every single speech. he's pretty good, i've heard him speak. but that is amazing. then you said in 2008 when secretary clinton became secretary, there was an agreement that, i think in your testimony you said there are certain things she had to do for the duration of her appointment, she would not be involved in all this money the clinton foundation was taking in and all the speeches her husband was doing, right? mr. fitton: yes. mr. jordan: and the clinton foundation would disclose its donors. so there was an agreement that she worked out when she was senate confirmed. mr. fitton: right. mr. jordan: ok. did they follow the agreement? mr. fitton: no. not in my view at least. mr. jordan: they had to get permission for her to be secretary of state and continue to do all the things they did got permission and the ok and they didn't follow it. mr. fitton: no.
they immediately -- the foundation immediately contacted ms. abedin who worked closely with mrs. clinton to start getting things done for foundation supports, as i've described. it's not what i described. the email -- mr. jordan: so the secretary, she kept her part of the deal but she had her lawyer, her chief of staff, sign off on everything. is that how it worked? mr. fitton: yeah. abedin did the heavy lifting there. mr. jordan: you think there's a double standard right now in america? . mr. fitton: mrs. clinton was protected and frankly still is being protected from the consequences of her behavior at the state department and subsequently. mr. jordan: my colleague from virginia talked about some things that happened recently with mr. cohen but i think it's interesting. i don't remember anyone associated during the clinton investigated -- i don't know anyone associated with the clinton investigation -- first of all, they didn't call it an investigation. remember what we're told to
call it? mr. fitton: a matter. mr. jordan: we were told to call it a matter. it was supposed to be called an investigation. told to be called a matter. i don't remember sheryl mills getting her door kicked in at 5:00 and getting her stuff compensated. she worked out a deal ahead of time, got immunity before she turned over her records, is that right? mr. fitton: i would just love the committees or someone to investigate -- we're doing it separately -- judicial watch -- to find out whether or not, as reports suggests, the foundation investigation, the f.b.i. won conducted in 2016 was actively suppressed by the justice department and curtailed. public reports are that f.b.i. agents were only able to read newspaper articles as part of their investigation. they were denied subpoenas and other basic tools available to them. when you compare and contrast the special counsel investigation into president trump and his associates, that's what a real investigation looks like. abuses aside, we haven't had anything comparable, even
issue. he clinton email mr. jordan: mr. chairman, real quick, i didn't want to question mr. hackney -- i didn't get to question mr. hackney. i've never seen this happen, mr. fitton, where the director of the f.b.i.'s fired, the deputy director is fired, the chief legal counsel is demoted, then leaves. f.b.i. counsel leaves. demoted. leaves. peter struck, demoted and then fired. i've never seen that happen. what's interesting, those are the same people who ran the clinton investigation and started and launched the russia investigation. never seen that happen, any other federal agency, even as bad as the i.r.s. was. they only had a couple people and none of them got fired. they left. they're still getting a pension. i've never seen anything like that. the other thing that strikes me as sort of interesting -- and i'll close if i could, mr. chairman, the names they gave
the investigation, right? the clinton investigation was the mid-year exam. but the investigation into possible coordination between the trump campaign and russia was cross fire hurricane. i'd like to -- just the name suggests a completely different approach and a completely different standard in how they're going to run the investigation. with that i yield back, mr. chairman. mr. meadows: i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york for a very generous five minutes. mrs. maloney: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank both panelists and my colleagues for being here. the clinton foundation is located in the district i'm privileged to represent so i've been able to attend many of their functions, conferences to see firsthand some of the outstanding work that they are doing in new york and in my district. the foundation has supported physical education programs in 149 schools, projects are under way to restore new york's
harbor, provide free job training for homeless female veterans, and help hundreds of high school seniors prepare for graduation and college. i have a whole list of things i'd like to ask unanimous consent to put in the record their activities, mr. chairman, in my district, in new york, and across the country. mr. meadows: wowed. mrs. maloney: i find it very ironic in this hearing today that the republicans are targeting the clinton foundation which is headed by two people who are out of office, who are not in government. yet, there are other foundations where people are in government in very high positions. the trump foundation, the whitaker foundation. that they are not investigating. so i would suggest we should be also investigating those foundations. so professor hackney, i'd like to ask you about some of the allegations concerning the whitaker foundation, now the
acting attorney general, and before arriving at the justice department, he was a president and executive director of the foundation for accountability and civic trust. fact. his charity was supposed to be focused on promoting ethics and transparency and thus they had a tax-exempt status. but last month, "the new york times" reported that fact was paid more than $1.2 million in so-called dark money from undisclosed conservative donors. so professor hackney, can you describe and explain dark money, what is it, and are there any concerns about when dark money is used to fund nonprofits like this one? mr. hackney: absolutely. so dark money is a name given to money that comes into nonprofit organizations that
are tax-exempt but nobody can see. at least the public can't see this money. so particular dark money organizations are social welfare organizations. these are advocacy organizations that carry out work that often can take the look of politics but stay away from going into s.e.c. as a result of not engaging in electoral activity where they'd have to disclose under campaign finance law, this money comes into a c-4, c-5, c-6, labor unions, business leagues and social welfare organizations and in the past, the i.r.s., at least, knew because there was a disclosure on schedule b. the i.r.s. recently removed this. the i.r.s. doesn't know. we don't know who's funding particular advocacy work that is moving towards to elect
particular candidates. it's dark. mrs. maloney: we have legislation as we hope to pass our first bill when we take over in january which would disclose where this money is coming from. and that's not all. last month, mr. whitaker released his financial disclosure form that showed he received $900,000 -- over that -- from his foundation in 2016 and 2017. that's over half a million dollars a year. are you aware of what he did to deserve that kind of salary, mr. hackney? mr. hackney: i'm not going to speak to any particular organization, as i indicated. mrs. maloney: well, then, are there organizations that govern how much in salary? mr. hackney: with a 501-c-3, organization has to pay a reasonable salary. in order to determine what a reasonable salary is, you're supposed to go and look at what other people in a like spot are paying. now, this is assuming that you
are doing particular work and so on. it has to be a full facts and circumstances analysis. mrs. maloney: well, can you explain what is fact, this whitaker foundation may have violated? mr. hackney: again, not going to talk specifically to fact, in particular, one interesting aspect you had mentioned was a fund that came through. i think it's worth mentioning, donor advised funds here, in donor advised funds are accounts that individuals are able to set up with places like fidelity and community foundation and they are able to take an immediate deduction but money doesn't necessarily flow to charitable purposes right away. the interesting thing with a donor advised fund is that it is a public charity and it can charity that a
is -- that otherwise would be a public foundation into a private charity. i'd love to have an opportunity to talk about that. that's an element of the private foundation regs when an organization has one person that's donated a lot of money to them, we put them into private foundations instead and they have restrictive rules that apply to them. this donor advised fund move allows organizations to avert these private foundation rules. mrs. maloney: well, i think we should change that with law too. also, it showed the fact paid at least $500,000 to a republican research firm known as america rising. and according to its website, the mission of this organization is, quote, to help its clients defeat democrats, end quote. are 501-c-3's supposed to be nonpartisan? mr. hackney: so i'll talk to that. there are two major rules that come in within 501-c-3's.
one, no electoral activity. mrs. out and say, elect maloney or elect chairman meadows, you'll lose your exemption technically. you also have limitations on lobbying. what often happens in this space, and it gets confusing, there is a concept of education. you're doing it in the context of a school, fine. if it's moving into another space, you can get into difficult spaces. it's very -- mrs. maloney: my time is coming to an end but this website -- and i find this very disturbing -- says they gauge -- this is in the website. you can go look it up today. quote, the relentless pursuit of original and effective hits against democrats, end quote. this does not sound like a nonpartisan 501-c-3 to me. it sounds like a political operative. i personally think this should be investigated. and do you believe, professor, that further investigation into
fact and its tax-exempt status is warranted and how they were spending their money and why they were spending their money? mr. hackney: professionor -- mr. meadows: her time has expired. you can answer it. mrs. maloney: let me say republicans have refused to investigate current officials and current people who have these not for profits and they are obsessed with continuing to investigate the clint ons many years after -- clintons many years after they have been in office. i think we should have investigations on these other two foundations. their tax-exempt status. mr. meadows: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair has been extremely gracious with both sides. so i am going to recommend that we stay with our five-minute timeline. starting with you, the gentleman from ohio -- from iowa, mr. blum, for five minutes. mr. blum: thank you, chairman meadows. quid proquo.
had to look it up. it's latin for something for something. a favor granted in return for something. in 2016, the clinton foundation received a $28 million dough mation -- donation to morocco's king. and secretary of state clinton relaxed foreign aid restrictions on morocco. mr. fitton, was that a quid pro quo or was that a coincidence? mr. fitton: that's the matter that needs to be investigated. the foundation, the clinton foundation you and its associated global initiative was able to raise tons of money during mrs. clinton's tenure as secretary of state. and some of that was purely charitable, there's no doubt. purely charitable activities. the foundation engaged in as congresswoman maloney highlighted but when you have these foreign governments
making massive donations to the foundation and corporations making massive donations to the foundation, which was out of line, there is a fair question to ask, what were they expecting in return? was it a charitable enterprise or were they buying insurance? that may -- just making sure their -- they would get a better hearing at -- over certain policies. does it mean anything happened illegally? i don't know. no one's asking the question. mr. blum: laureate university $17.6 million to the clinton foundation when hillary clinton was secretary of state to be honorary chancellor. i did not know that paid so well. the founder of that university has another organization called international youth foundation that received $40 million in grants while secretary clinton was in office. after she heft office, the
grants went from $40 million to a little over $3 million. is that a coincidence, do you think, mr. fitton? mr. fitton: i don't know. you have to ask the question. and this is why mrs. clinton promised these disclosures which makes it so problematic that certain -- these disclosures weren't followed as they were supposed to have been. mr. blum: well, the -- mr. fitton: we asked the state department. hat did mrs. clinton do in exchange for that money but that was blocked out. mr. blum: another donated between $10 million to $25 million to the clinton foundation. was offered priority access to the state department. mr. fitton, would you say that's a quid pro quo? mr. fitton: certainly seems that way. mr. blum: then lastly -- i know your organization has done some work on this, mr. fitton. the uranium one deal. those interests involvement
eal contributed more than $140 million to the clinton foundation. mr. fitton, could you fill this organization in on what happened in return for that $140 million in contributions? mr. fitton: well, the state department and other agencies approved the goal of those entities which was sue -- get the stake in uranium one. again, the f.b.i. was looking into it. the allegation is the f.b.i. investigation was curtailed and silenced, or at least aspects of it were silenced from public disclosure, to protect the clintons and the obama administration generally from controversy on this. again, another area for an investigation. mr. blum: in the opinion of the chair, how would that happen? how would it be silenced? how would that be curtailed? mr. fitton: you don't do certain leads. in the cases of uranium one, i
think the allegations were some folks were being charged and a lot of issues were being left out of the documents or the charging documents or the cases that would have embarrassed some. so whether all that is true or not, i don't know, because the justice department isn't giving us the documents. mr. blum: thank you. mr. chairman -- and i have 33 seconds left, let the record reflect. in iowa we have a saying, if it looks like a pig, if it sounds like a pig, and if it smells like a pig, it's probably a pig. and i think based on what i read today, something smells here. i yield back my time. mr. meadows: i thank the gentleman from iowa. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. eleanor holmes norton. ms. norton: thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to establish what the standard should be. i understand here we have a president of the united states on one hand and a secretary of
state on the other, it was a unique situation. so the absence of a standard is pretty clear. e got to look at the modis op erendi for the foundation itself because there were bound a e instances in which foundation would look as though it was receiving some favoritism. that's what happens, i suppose, when you have two prominent people operating at this high i'd look i thought at internal reviews by the clinton foundation. now, these were voluntary reviews and that's what interested me.
apparently the foundation noted , there weren't as many board meetings as there should be, there wasn't timely reporting of conflicts of interests. those are the things that could have been found in some investigation but these were found by voluntary internal reviews by the foundation itself. i'm looking to a standard as to how a foundation should act in his kind of situation. mr. hackney, do you think the kind of internal reviews that were conducted by the clinton foundation, best practices, is that how it should be done? mr. hackney: so, again, i don't want to speak specifically to the clinton foundation, but as someone who actually goes out and trains directors to be
directors of nonprofits, i certainly encourage rigorous, engaged discussion of a board. a board should be engaged what's going on. the nature of various businesses -- as you'll have problems, i'm sure. each of the members had challenges in their organizations that they run, and it's important to do that kind of oversight. i deeply appreciate, as mr. heist noted, this committee -- mr. hice noted, this committee is important. it makes the difference in the functionality both of the government and the operations out there. ms. norton: thank you very much. that goes well beyond my question. mr. hackney: yep. ms. norton: now, you look at the review that the clinton foundation did, what resulted? and here i am informed that they updated their "conflict of interest" policy. r r their "invest -- they
their "investing and gift" policy. i'm not asking to look at those particular reforms, but are those the kind of reforms or exchanges -- i apologize for this cold -- that you would pect a charity to make after commissioning reforms of the kind that i have just -- mr. hackney: again, not to the clinton foundation but i highly recommend a good "conflict of interest" policy and good "gift" policy. ms. norton: so one was the president, one had been the secretary of state, you can see how difficult this situation was. some employees who were interviewed had in fact -- this is information the committee has received -- raised concerns about donors who might have an expectation of a quid pro quo
benefit in return for gifts. again, this is almost inherent in these two high-level officials operating in the same space. on the other hand, no evidence of a quid pro quo was ever found. so i have to ask you -- let me speak as a member of congress. give e that when some contributions to me, they have an expectation of a quid pro quo. oes that mean that i am in act guilty of some aura of quid pro quo for accepting such contributions? mr. hackney: so, again, as to nonprofits, watching out for people wanting things from you in return is a big part of what you have to worry about in the
basic nonprofit and it becomes much more extreme as you have people with additional power. it's a question you have to ask. ms. norton: and i can see the space in which these two were operating, clinton and -- the clinton foundation and the secretary of state. mr. chairman, could i note for the record that the clinton foundation has received ratings four out of four stars from charity navigator, platinum rating from guidestar, an a rating from charity watch, accreditation from the better business bureau for meeting all 20 standards of governance, effectiveness and fundraising? thank you very much. mr. meadows: i thank the gentlewoman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, for five minutes. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. good seeing you, mr. fitton. is it true the most recent
filings from the clinton foundation shows a significant dropoff in donations since they have no political power? mr. fitton: i haven't seen the dropoffs. 60% mr. gosar: now, sidney was retained by the clinton foundation, correct? mr. fitton: yes. getting paid $10,000 a month from the clinton foundation. mr. gosar: now, he was also in libya serving as then-secretary clinton's unofficial advisor, correct? mr. fitton: according to "the new york times" and documents i think disclosed as a result in part by judicial watch's efforts he sent mrs. clinton 25 memos on libya. mr. gosar: he was also pushing his own financial interests by trying to get contracts, correct? mr. fitton: yes. he worked for the clinton foundation and he had business concerns in libya, it's been reported. mr. gosar: is there an ethical concern with a none political
operative working for a supposed nonprofit that's pushing for a war that he can profit from? mr. fitton: well, maybe. i think the public interest here is that mrs. clinton promised she'd stay out of clinton foundation business and she immediately and taking advice from a clinton foundation official, sidney blumenthal. mr. gosar: now, as we turn this over to the minority, i'd like to take time -- take some time to ask the panel about real foreign influence, because i know they're not going to. now, we continually see foreign governments and foreign entities funnel millions of dollars to environmental groups, two of the largest environmental groups in the world, the natural resources defense council, and the sierra club have received millions in change om the c foundation. the c change foundation itself got millions from a bermuda company linked to russia. as we all know, the
environmental groups have undermined the energy sector in the united states. they've even got fracking bans in the cash strapped state of new york. if mr. mueller was truly interested in the russia interference, wouldn't it make sense to start there, mr. fitton? mr. fitton: i've seen reports about that. the russians obviously have an interest in making sure that competitors are harmed in the energy sector and i'm surprised it hasn't gotten more attention, their involvement in the environmental movement here in the united states. mr. gosar: so russia money affecting u.s. policies that russia benefits is incredible. in my other committee, the natural resources committee, we're trying to investigate the relationship between the natural resources defense council and their links to communist china government. the nrdc has gotten cozy with the environmentally unfriendly chinese government while suing
the u.s. government whenever it can. particularly the u.s. navy and its weapon development programs. now, i'm sure i don't need to remind anyone here that china sees the u.s. navy as its greatest foe. mr. fitton, should a nonprofit be made to register as a foreign agent if it is taking funds and orders from a foreign government that is trying to harm u.s. national and energy security? mr. fitton: maybe. one of the things i noted about the clinton foundation activities is that doug and others were always advocating on behalf of foreign nationals, which raised an issue with the foreign agents registration act as well. but certainly if my understanding of the law is that there would be a registration requirement, potentially, if you're essentially taking orders from a foreign government and beholden them financially. mr. gosar: now, nonprofits like the open society foundation, has been given billions from
wealthy benefactors, is that correct? mr. fitton: yes. mr. gosar: while there's nothing wrong with someone giving their money to an organization like open society, there is a problem when the federal government doles out millions of dollars in grants to these organizations. for instance, the national immigration law center received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from the federal government and over $1 million from the open society foundation while working against u.s. interests. does it make sense to dole out taxpayer funds to groups that not only look to erode u.s. sovereignty but are against official u.s. positions, mr. fitton? mr. fitton: well, i think it's controversial. i think what also would be controversial is that the sorrows foundation and i think mr. sorrows will spend $1 billion, mostly from his own money, is subsidized by u.s. tax dollars. he's a controversial figure. i wonder why our tax dollars
are supporting him. mr. gosar: one last comment, mr. chairman. you know, when we start looking at nonprofits, i actually was part of a nonprofit. you raise about how much of your dollar goes to the mission statement of what you detail. so, for example, a good nonprofit, 97 cents of every dollar goes to their mission statement. listening to mr. hackney, i notice the clinton foundation was very top heavy with a lot of employees, a lot of exorbitant travel and not ally a dollar wise penny spent, thank you. mr. meadows: i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes mrs. watson coleman, for five minutes. mrs. watson coleman: thank you. mr. fitton, very quickly, before judicial watch, what was your various jobs? mr. fitton: i worked with accuracy and media. mrs. watson coleman: have you ever worked for government?
mr. fitton: when i was a kid i worked for -- mrs. watson coleman: have you ever worked for a republican official? mr. fitton: no. i always worked in the nonprofit sector. mrs. watson coleman: thank you. today we're holding this hearing again. his is another hearing and a multiyear investigation of the clinton foundation completely substantial -- un allegations but at the same time we refuse to do anything -- not i -- to investigate various serious allegations related to the trump dministration foundation, both . a new york judge ruled that prosecution could proceed with allegations against the trump foundation for allegations focusing on, and i quote, the misuse of charitable assets and self-dealing, closed quote. let me read from that judge's ruling. quote, petitioners also -- the
petitioner also aledges that charitable assets primarily consisted by outside sources were used to promote mr. trump's properties, purchase personal items, advance mr. trump's presidential election campaign, and settle certain personal legal obligations. professor, is the judge's ruling an indication that the allegations against the trump foundation are creditable? mr. hackney: so i don't want to speak specifically to trump foundation. mrs. watson coleman: speak whether or not your perspective on the judge's -- mr. hackney: when a judge finds something, that's a finding in the public record. it becomes a part of the public record. mrs. watson coleman: what was your sort of reaction to this notion of self-dealing? mr. hackney: so i -- again, don't want to speak specifically to the trump foundation. it's a major issue within private foundations when wealthy individuals put significant money and use it
for their own purposes. that's not as to the -- mrs. watson coleman: would you agree that this is -- this foundation, this trump foundation is worthy of congressional oversight? mr. hackney: i believe the entire nonprofit sector is worthy of oversight. i would -- mrs. watson coleman: that would include this foundation. mr. hackney: absolutely. mrs. watson coleman: professionor, on june 15 you wrote an op-ed in "the new york times" about the trump foundation. in that that piece you wrote, and i quote, an a former attorney for the chief counsel of the i.r.s. who specialized in nonprofit organizations, i believe mr. trump is also criminally liable for his actions. if i were still at the i.r.s., based on the lawsuit, i would take a criminal -- i would make a criminal referral and charge him with tax evasion or false statements on a tax return or both. why specifically do you believe mr. trump is criminally liable for his actions regarding the trump foundation and how serious do you consider the crimes of tax evasion or making
false statements on tax returns? mr. hackney: again, i am not going to speak to the trump foundation here. my writing speaks for itself. it -- mrs. watson coleman: let me ask you a question about that. mr. hackney: sure. mrs. watson coleman: you wrote an op-ed article. you're here testifying and there have been specific questions to you. why are you suddenly unwilling to answer specifically regarding the purpose for which we are here today? mr. meadows: and the chair would weigh in on this. let me just say that the gentlewoman makes a point. if you've written an op-ed, you can't all of a sudden -- as much as i might like you to not comment on it, you can't not do that. mean, she's asking a legitimate question. you have to answer it, mr. hackney. mr. hackney: let me go there. so charity matters deeply and it matters deeply that the people who file returns take care to do the things that they intend to do.
mrs. watson coleman: professor -- mr. hackney: and when they take that money and if they use it in ways over a series of years that's problematic and they sign that return in those instances where it is over a period of time, i think that's significant and does warrant discussion. mrs. watson coleman: do you believe what you wrote? mr. hackney: i do. mrs. watson coleman: do you stand by what you wrote? mr. hackney: i stand by what i wrote. mrs. watson coleman: ok. in your op-ed you're also quoted as saying, the i.r.s. saves criminal consequences for notorious and continuous violations of the law. and the misuse of a charity for personnel and political purposes over the years as alleged by the new york state attorney general is in fact the type of case the i.r.s. goes after with criminal sanctions. what notorious and continuous violations of the law were you referring to that you believe that were committed by the trump foundation? mr. meadows: mr. hackney, her
time has expired but you can answer the question. mr. hackney: just very quickly. there's been a series of representatives. i did not study up for that specifically right now, but there's been a series of representatives that gives to charities. there was one recently i think out of my state of pennsylvania. i'm not positive about that. but there have been a series of ones that the i.r.s. has brought in those context. mrs. watson coleman: thank you. you know, professor, you have fres treated me. mr. hackney: i apologize. mrs. watson coleman: you are a person that has written what you believe. you are a professor, you are a scholar. you are a former i.r.s. employee. and you can't even feel comfortable in supporting what you've already said in writing. with that i yield back. mr. hackney: i do support it. mr. meadows: the chair recognizes himself for a series of questions. mr. hackney, let me follow-up on mrs. watson coleman. how many pages of the documents of the trump foundation and their filings have you reviewed? mr. hackney: i've reviewed all of their 99 p.f.'s but --
sorry. tax returns that the i.r.s. has filed. i've also reviewed the public record in terms of the reports made by david farenthold. mr. meadows: in terms of what is their internal documents, would you be qualified to provide an audit in terms of what they've done or not done based on the documents you reviewed? mr. hackney: i'm not certain of the question. mr. meadows: based on the documents you've reviewed -- mr. hackney: yep. mr. meadows: would you be qualified to be able to give an opinion on an audit of the trump foundation? mr. hackney: so i think you're asking, have i seen every single possible document out there, and i have not seen every possible document out there. i'm doing based on what the public record is and that's -- that was it that i had done in that. mr. meadows: based on public record, you're saying there's enough in the public record to say there should be a criminal referral, mr. hackney? you're a law professor. i mean, i would find that just
unimaginable. mr. hackney: that's different than saying he's definitely -- i discussed to the fact that -- mr. meadows: but my question remains, are you saying there's enough in the public domain to refer it to a criminal matter? mr. hackney: i believe there were in the instance where -- mr. meadows: you're under oath and you're a law professor so i want to see your students be able to answer this accurately. mr. hackney: absolutely. i believe where we know that there is a high likelihood that there have been false statements in a return and there have been choices -- mr. meadows: and how do you know that? mr. hackney: it appears that there were false statements. mr. meadows: and pires and know are two different -- appears and know are two different words. mr. hackney: i understand what you're saying. mr. meadows: so you don't know? mr. hackney: i believe based on the public record and that what i was writing about based upon. mr. meadows: based on a public record you think there's enough for a criminal referral? mr. hackney: i believe that in
at report that there was enough to show possible problems there. but, again, i don't want to go into that and i did not prepare to talk to specific facts. this hearing was called at the last minute, and i have not had that time. mr. meadows: well you as a witness were called at the last minute by the minority so i just want to make sure that's clear. mr. hackney: i appreciate that, mr. chairman. mr. meadows: let me go a little bit further, mr. fitton. i want to talk about -- everybody's talking about how great the clinton foundation is and how above board and a ratings and platinum ratings and gold ratings and all this. there is a report from november 10, 2008, which is an internal audit -- it actually comes from an internal audit that has the conclusion -- it says the challenges and deficiencies plaguing the foundation cannot be overstated. there are real and undermine
the organization's effectiveness immediately and more long term. to address these issues that present immediate threats, the foundation should revamp its legal and h.r. operations, should review its governance structure and documents and should have an open and honest discussion with the president about the future of the foundation. would you not find that ayou larming if that was the conclusion of an internal audit, mr. fitton? mr. fitton: i wouldn't want to get an audit like that. mr. meadows: so -- mr. fitton: the problem is, there's another audit in -- mr. meadows: you got a microphone. mr. fitton: there was another audit in 2011 that raised some of the same issues. mr. meadows: well -- mr. fitton: not as directly but suggesting -- mr. meadows: well, that's where i was going and i appreciate you mentioning that because that was in 2010 and then another audit in 2011, as you -- by a very different firm, talked about the potential
conflicts of interest. and the fact that those conflicts of interest policies that were suggested to be put in place. however, this is a quote -- however, we did not find any evidence of the enforcement of the conflict of evidence -- conflict of interest. are you saying that in your discovery process with foia that there is a potential conflict of interest between the charitable mission of the clinton foundation and what might have been going on? have you found that? mr. fitton: yes. mrs. clinton and mr. clinton and the foundation recognized those potential conflicts of interest and tried to reassure president obama and the senate they would be taken care of and disclosed and as i said, they were either rubber stamped or key aspects weren't disclosed or in the case of mrs. clinton,
she directly started violating her own agreement by dealing with sidney blumenthal and allowing her staff to on a regular basis take care of clinton foundation interests using public resources. mr. meadows: mr. fitton, is it likely, based on reports that you've seen, is it likely that the special counsel is also looking into things other than russian collusion narratives for president trump based on reports that you read? looking into other matters as it relates to president trump? of mr. fitton: oh, yes. i would assume the southern district investigation, the campaign finance allegations that have been raised up there were as a result initially of interests from the -- mr. meadows: is it likely they're looking into the trump foundation as well? mr. fitton: it wouldn't surprise me. mr. meadows: ok. based on your testimony -- i guess what i'm trying to figure out, if the special counsel is looking at that, why would
attorney general eric holder not have looked into some of he issues as it related to the uranium one deal? and why would they have looked the other way? according to your testimony, they did not know whether the f.b.i. or d.o.j. ever alerted the committee members to criminal activity that they uncovered. and that was a quote were your written testimony. the investigation was ultimately supervised by u.s. ttorney rod rosenstein and andy mckay. isn't it amazing how these names continue to show up? isn't it amazing? with that if there is no further business before this panel, we will excuse you two gentlemen. we thank you for your testimony and we'll ask the next panel to be set up. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
mr. meadows: the committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. i'm pleased to introduce our second panel. mr. lawrence w. doyle, j.f.m. advisors and mr. moynihan, principal at j.f.m. and associates and welcome to you all. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. so if you will please stand and raise your right hand.
do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? all right. thank you. please be seated. let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow time for discussion and, quite frankly, for q&a that you'll get quite a bit of, your entire written statement will be made part of the record but we would ask that you would limit your oral testimony or opening remarks to five minutes. there's a clock in front of you to remind you of that. it will turn yellow when you have 30 seconds left. if you'll please make sure that you press the button when you're speaking and so what we ill do is we can have your opening testimony a combined 10 minutes so however you want to do that and to, mr. doyle, we'll come to you first. and you can yield to mr.
moynihan. mr. doyle: i'd like to yield to mr. moynihan to open, please. mr. meadows: mr. headline man, you are recognized for up to 10 minutes. mr. doyle: thank you -- mr. moynihan: thank you, mr. chairman. my name is john moynihan and one of three partners that engaged in this investigative effort involving a 501-c-3 and in particular the clinton foundation subject to today's hearing. please note that we do many investigations into 501-c-3's, nd this is just one of many. when i'm finished i'd like to introduce my two colleagues that are here today. mr. doyle, if it's possible. mr. thomas ragland. tom has been very active with us in our efforts. as we move through this, at the conclusion, mr. doyle's introduction, i'd like to answer two questions for the committee. who are we? why did we do this? i think that gives some good
color and background as to what we're doing, how we do this for a living, what our motivations are and why we're here. i'd like to give at this point some special thanks to three other individuals who worked on this matter, mr. robert nevers, who is behind me, senior s.c.s. executive in the u.s. drug enforcement administration where i worked many years with him on money laundering. john, master tax analyst, fiduciary and trust advisor in the field of taxation and investments. tom, attorney at a law firm in massachusetts who's a litigator who claled us the entire -- challenged us the entire process. the way we went about this to ensure the integrity what we will talk about today. at this time i'd like to yield to mr. doyle. mr. doyle: congressman meadows,
members of the committee, thank you very much for the invitation to present and discuss the topic relating to the oversight of nonprofit organizations with the specific case study on the clinton foundation. my name's larry doyle. for purposes of background, john moynihan and i are the two proudest graduates of the college of the holy cross. the jesuit inspired pursuit of the truth, competitiveness, playing by the rules have been our calling cards and our commitment throughout john's career in and around law enforcement and mine on wall street. for the last 10 years i spent countless hours involved in literary and investigative pursuits related to regulatory failure. the comparisons i see from the subprime mortgage market, the madoff scandal, to today's
topics are stark. on that note, i welcome providing the following context and perspective for today's hearing. there are currently approximately 1.75 million not for profit organizations in our nation today. 90% of these not for profits fall within the 501-c-3 subset. close to 2/3 are 501-c-3 public charities. recent data highlights that these not for profits annually generate approximately $1.74 250% on with a t, a increase over the last 20 years. equating to approximately 9% of our nation's g.d.p. on a stand-alone basis, this segment of our economy would be the 10th largest economy in the world. all of which begs the question
-- who's minding the store, looking out for the donors, and upholding the rule of law? let us quick -- do you want to introduce tom? mr. moynihan: at this point, mr. chairman, i'd like mr. ragland to introduce himself. >> mr. ragland from the -- mr. moynihan: who are we? we are apolitical. we have no party affiliation to this whatsoever. no one has financed us. i don't know chairman meadows. i just met him today. i don't know any of you people, ok. i'm happy to meet you but we have no relationship to any of you. ok. we are forensic investigators that approached this effort in a nonpartisan professional objective independent way. we have never been partisan. we come from law enforcement and wall street. where each of us have dedicated our entire lives and careers to the rule of law, doing the right thing, pursuing facts.
we follow facts. that's all. none of this is our opinion. i emphasize, none of this is our opinion. these are not our facts. they are not your facts. they are the facts of the clinton foundation. why did we do this? this is our profession. people will ask us, are you doing this for money? the answer is, yes. this is how we make a living. we do cases. it's that simple. we are forensic investigators. former u.s. law enforcement and private practice, making our living conducting these cases. we did not choose this topic because of who the individuals are or were. n fact, we applaud the efforts of the philanthropic nature of the clinton foundation on some of the things they have done. that's not in dispute. we are not here to dispute that. rather, we have backgrounds in 501-c-3 charities, including work for both inside and
outside of them. we know the risk and recent shortfalls. 501-c-3's have been found to be particularly vulnerable to abuse. and a lack of oversight. especially on the global front. we share a deep and profound commitment to protecting taxpayer dollars. in that context, we saw the controversies surrounding this entity as well as the significant amount of moneys, including u.s. tax dollars that were flowing through this foundation. we decided and financed out of our own pocket to examine this ourselves. we firmly believe that no one is above the rule of law, regardless of party. and those who occupy senior positions in our government owe a special duty. it's important to stress we have not made any conclusions and to set the record straight, we do not have a lawsuit against anybody. we don't have a complaint against anybody. we have a submission of
probable cause to the i.r.s. that said, we used the foia quite substantially and other tools at our disposal to gain quite a bit of public and nonpublic information. all of the information was obtained completely legally and through the various tools of investigation that we have. at this time, what we would like to do in an exper dishes fashion is to state -- expeditious fashion is to state in bullet form our find that is are in our submission to the i.r.s. it is a complex issue. there's a significant amount of information, but let it be said, our claim is a tax claim. it's a claim of probable cause indicating that the foundation operated outside the bounds of its approval that came from the i.r.s. hat's our claim.
mr. meadows: you have two minutes. mr. moynihan: if we could read our investigative process to you kind of in quick fashion, here's what we did. we went to the 990's. we're financial investigators. we started with the returns that the foundation filed. not that we filed. not that you filed. that they filed. these were their revenue sources and expenses. we attempted to reconcile all of those donations with expenses. the basis of our claim is we were unable to do that. mr. doyle: on that note, we followed the money so we made extensive spreadsheets of their revenues and expenses. we analyzed their income statements and we did a macroreview of all their donors. 's a very bar belled sort of foundation. less than .1% of the donors
gave 80% of the money. so we followed the money. mr. moynihan: we further went and looked at consent decrees that were issued against the foundation by various states. we reviewed the responses from all the states in which they operated to specific questions about violations, consent decrees or penalties they may have paid to those states. we did an analysis of that. the results are quite shocking. mr. doyle: in addition to that, we sourced contracts, m.o.u.'s, interaction with foreign governments, including email exchanges between senior foundation executives and government officials. additionally, we did a review of all their foreign offices, and we drew a spread map -- spreadsheet comparing the clinton foundation with the global fund and pepfar. the results were stark.
mr. moynihan: our conclusions, in the interest of time, are this -- foreign agent. the foundation began acting as an agent of foreign governments throughout its life and continues to do so. as such, they should have registered under farwa. the auditors acknowledged this fact and conceded in formal submissions that it did operate as an agent. therefore, the foundation is not entitled to 501-c-3 tax-exempt privileges as utlined in i.r.s. 170-c-2. misrepresentations. the clinton foundation did not comply with the requirements of 501-c-3 and far exceeded the purposes detailed in its original articles of incorporation filed december 23, 1997. subsequently reaffirmed in numerous other records across many jurisdictions, including with narwa. the foundation did pursue programs and activities for which it had neither sought nor achieved permission to undertake. such was the case even before
the completion and trfrl of the presidential library in -- transfer of the presidential library in 2004. as such, representation by the foundation to donors, what was a misrepresentation of the approval, organizational tax data allowing it to raise funds for the presidential library and related programs therein. in these pursuits, the foundation failed the operational test 501-c-3 internal revenue code 7.25.3. mr. doyle: additionally, the intention misuse of donated public funds -- the foundation falsely tested that it received funds and used them for charitable purposes. which was in fact not the case. rather, the foundation pursued an array of activities, both domestically and abroad. some may be philanthropic, albie it unimproved, while -- albeit unimproved, while others are properly characterized and taxable undertakes of private
enterprise, again, failing the tests of philanthropy referenced above. the investigation clearly demonstrates the foundation was not a charitable organization, per se, but point of fact was a closely held family partnership. as such, it was governed in a fashion in which it sought in large measure to advance the personal interests of its principals as detailed within the financial anail cisof this submission and further confirmed within the supporting documentation and evidence section. our last findings -- donors' responsibilities. the private foundations that donated to the clinton foundation are themselves subject to tax payments on the donations that they made to the foundation under code i.r.c. 4945. unless they meet specific conditions as outlined in .r.s. code 72719582.
mr. moynihan: completed. thank you for your time. mr. meadows: thank you for your testimony. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. mr. jordan: thank you, mr. chairman. s you said, i didn't i don't know you guy, i just came to hear what you say. tell me your background, are you accountants? mr. doyle: no, my background is n finance from old dominion. -- mr. moynihan: is in finance. mr. doyle: aye spent extensive time investigating and writing about regular willer to failure including publishing a book. mr. jordan: good. let's go back to things you said in your opening comments. you said earlier session, mr. connolly said you wered in miths
of a lawsuit, that's not accurate? mr. moynihan: that's completely inaccurate. we do an investigation under whistleblower statutes. if you find indicia, proximate cause, we are under the lew to submit that to the i.r.s., that is the jurisdictional oversight, we made that submission. whatever the i.r.s. finds and concludes, we stand by. mr. jordan: so you submitted that clim or concern you have to the i.r.s., what you call proximate cause submission, when did you do that? mr. moynihan: august 11, 2017. mr. jordan: a year ago, year and a half ago almost. why did you start this investigation? someone hire you to go dig into this and figure out what's going on? mr. moynihan: no, nobody hired us to begin this investigation. e do 501-c-3 work. mr. jordan: if you find out there's abuse, you get paid?
mr. moynihan: we do this for a living. if the clinton foundation was a $2.5 million issue it would -- mr. jordan: how many other cases have you filed a proximate cause with the i.r.s.? mr. moynihan: first time. mr. junior dan: how do you get paid? mr. moynihan: we're hired by law firms that represent 501-c-3's that need to get cleaned up. mr. jordan: you said the revenue doesn't match expenses, one of you made that statement. can you give me an example? mr. doyle: we did review revenues versus expenses across their 990's, it's not that they didn't balance, it's what's represent wesmed did our own work. all our own work, created spread sheets, looked at what on a line item but line item basis, how much on salary, on travel, on office expenses. just created that spread sheathe
to follow the money. mr. jordan: it's not about balancing, it's what they spend it on. mr. doyle: exactly. mr. jordan: you said senior government officials were talking in emails, there was some -- it was stark what they had to say is i think the word you used. walk me through one of those, give me an example of that mr. doyle: the discussions between the senior foundation officials prior to the library being turned over to the national archives, while they were in the process of looking to launch their health-related activities, just the nature of pushing that -- those programs. and when we looked at that, that caused concern in terms of this looked to be far outside what they were approved for. they were out there, they're talking about these health related activities when we read their articles of incorp. rarkse they were approve for a library. so that to us was an --
mr. jordan: can you give me an example of an email where they're way outside the parameters of where they're supposed to be. moin on that specific example we're talking about a european country that is in a dialogue with senior members of the foundation and eventually signed to .o.u. for cash flows support programs, that was happening in 2002. the library, which is the only approval that the i.r.s. gave to them, to the foundation, was turned other in 2004. two years before the library was them, the senior officials are negotiating an m.o.u. between a european based country and african country, we have those exchanges. so to us, that's a red flag. because your awe prufle --
approval was for a lie brear. why are you negotiating health-related contracts if you wanted to do that you can, you change your articles of incorp. e.r.a. you seek approval if the i.r.s., because that was specifically stated in the determination later -- letter, given to the foundation. the i.r.s. gave them a determination letter following a 1023 application that said should you change the purpose, sor, intentions of what you're doing, you need to contact us for approval. they did not do that. mr. doyle: and one message over and above that, in one of those emails, the statement was made, this is not a clinton foundation program per se. which in our reading and -- mr. nding of the law junior dan: all right, mr. chairman, i'm out of time. may i have a second round?
mr. meadows: the chair recognizes ms. norton for five minutes. ms. norton: you submitted a complaint to the i.r.s. and f.b.i. with allegations against the clinton foundation, i think you testified to that in august. > that's not correct, ma'am. ms. norton: that's not correct? mr. moynihan: we put together our findings and put together a submission, it's not a complaint, it's a probable cause. the complaint is a final document that gets submitted to a court. that's not what this is. we haven't reached any conclusions. we just are citing in our submission indicia or proximate cause as to what has gone on. just to be correct. ms. norton: why won't you give us a copy of whatever it is you
submitted? >> we anticipated that question. we have this as an ongoing matter and we don't know how the i.r.s. will rule on that. suffice it to say -- ms. norton: what's the point of withholding it -- withholding it if the committee? mr. moynihan: there may be further causes of action we can pursue under the law and we won't sacrifice our opportunity to pursue those. this is how we make a living. not everything we have done in our informations are in those submissions. we only put in our submission that which is apublic to believe a tax claim. we have not put into our submission anything that is not applicable to a tax claim. ms. norton: so there's more to come? >> not necessarily in this forum, but yes. ms. norton: to reiterate, you are not whistleblowers. mr. moynihan: we are people who are not from inside the clinton foundation. we are financial investigators on the outside of the clinton
foundation who file a claim nder the whistleblower status. . norton: your potential plaintiffs in a ketan lawsuit. mr. moynihan: no you can't be a plaintiff. ms. norton: you didn't tell our staff last friday that you were plaintiffs in a kitan lawsuit? mr. moynihan: absolutely not. that's completely incorrect. ms. norton: when our staff, committee staff, asked for copies of documents you submitted to the i.r.s. and f.b.i., you declined. you also said that you had provided no documents to republicans on this committee. mr. moynihan: we have not. ms. norton: somehow, however, on monday, our republicans did obtain 1,300 pages of documents . om your submission
when they sent them over to us, they claimed you gave chairman meadows' office these district f columbia yumets on a disk. they said you provided them. did you or your attorney provide these documents to chairman meadow, his staff, or any other republicans? mr. moynihan: we did not. ms. norton: so very confused. last monday, our staff emailed you. or rather your attorney. again,if these documents apologize, were provided by you. he responded moynihan and doyle did not provide any documents to meadows' staff.
mr. moynihan: correct. ms. norton: it is my understanding that they gave the documents -- that they were -- it is my understanding they were given those documents by a porter named john solomon on his own initiative. do you stand by your statement, your condition tension is you had nothing do whatsoever with providing these documents to republicans? mr. moynihan: that's not what you asked me. you asked me if i delivered the documents to the republicans and we did not. ms. norton: but you did have something to do with it. mr. moynihan: yes but you didn't ask me that. those documents, following a preliminary denial letter by the i.r.s. in which they asked for us for an appeal, we sent them the appeal with pictures of their own i.r.s. agents working on the case. we submitted that.
ms. norton: we're getting contradictory information from the republicans. they sent us an email on tuesday and i'm quoting from it. we received the same 1,300 pages via meadow's office and they received this material from doyle-moynihan. doyle-moynihan were reticent to come forward and share documents. we have been treating them as the whistleblowers. after we received these documents, we asked them for permission, understand i'm quoting, to share with you. last friday, their lawyer confirmed we were good to share these documents. now look, i don't understand both of these -- mr. moynihan: we were emphatic
with your staff member that both sides have the same materials. mr. doyle: that whatever the republicans have, the democratic side should have as well. we are here not right versus left. john and i, we are all about right versus wrong. mr. moynihan: with regard to your question, i want to be very specific. those materials we later learned were supplied to the republican side by john solomon. we gave materials to john solomon in our exercise of trying to understand the playing feel here where the i.r.s. with its low number of personnel doing -- ms. norton: why did you give them to a report her did you know he would then give them to the committee? mr. moynihan: we did not know that. ms. norton: i suggest we take this matter up to clarify this confusion outside of hearings. mr. meadows: i'll be blad to --
glad to do that. i can assure the gentlewoman anything the -- anything i have, the minority has. you know i will not keep documents from you. mr. doyle: as do we. we want that. mr. meadows: i think y'all are in possession of everything i have. and we want to make sure everything has a level playing field here. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think you said both of you have done extensive work with 501-c-3's, is that correct? mr. moynihan: yes. >> could you tell me, what's the average percentage of donations or revenues that go to the intended beneficiaries in the average 501-c-3. is it 20%? 80%? i don't know. mr. moynihan: a lot of the ones we work on to be quite frank, the ones -- are the ones that have problems. so if you're asking me the
question relative to the cases we've worked on, it's significantly lower than that. >> not relative to the cases you worked on, but in general. mr. moynihan: you'd hope not more than 15% would be administrative. > so 80%, 85%? mr. moynihan: people have to make a living, but this is about philanthropy. you have to give it to people who need it. >> what's the percentage for the clinton foundation? >> based on the information from the 990's and we do not believe that's complete because we don't have subpoena power that range omewhere around 40%. mr. doyle: if i could, it would be helpful to run through the
percentage breakdown of expenses. >> probably take too much time. do you have an idea? mr. doyle: grants and allocations 12%, salary and benefits, 26%. travel 8%. other expenses 12%. >> do these seem in line to youing given your expertise? mr. moynihan: overall it might have been 40% by our calculations ened up going to programs and 60% was administrative. >> what happened@revenue level, the level they have donations once they were no long for the power? they went up or down? mr. moynihan: they went down. frankly our analysis doesn't include that. our analysis take this is particular foundation from 2005 right through 2015. we break it down dollar by dollar. we start with the first
identification number issued by the i.r.s. and tally that up year by year. we take the second employer identification number that was used solely for a two-year riod for the initial chime which from our freedom of information requirement was $22 million and was not approved to do that. >> in your analysis did you come across what appeared to be pay-to-play? i the that wasn't the focus but did you come across it? >> to be clear, to be very clear, our focus is on financial analysis and whether they live within the boundaries. as part and parcel of that investigation, we did come across instances of that. but we put that into a catch-all category of just outside the boundaries. >> i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from ohio. >> you said in your opening statement you used the term agent of foreign government.
ive me an example of that. mr. doyle: there are so many examples. mozambique. n 2002, there was a memorandum of agreement between the foundation and mozambique to work on their behalf through their ministry of health program and again through that engagement, it was plainly obvious, again, based on emails that we've reviewed, that this was not a clinton foundation program per se. they were there to support the mozambique ministry of health. so really, if you want to reduce this to laymen's terms, they were brokering money and brokering pharmaceuticals. that's a term on wall street we use, brokering, don uses the
term agent, they were an agent of money through these donor, they would take a, for lack of a and broker a fee, the money and broker relationships with pharmaceutical companies, by the same token they were brokering the pharmaceuticals and taking some. >> i think one of your concluding remarks was, the clinton foundation if you thinked as a closely held family partnership new york city a charity. mr. moynihan: yes, the reality is the difference between public charity, private foundations are very exact. public charities are organizations allowed to solicit funds from the general public which is what they were approved for. for the library. they followed that. they solicitted funds from public folks. going along with that, public charities really don't make grants. they don't. they're the end users.
they do the program. i have my own 501-c-3's involving baseball. i fix up a lot of baseball fields in massachusetts. so when people donate to that, it's very, $20,000 or something, we go and pull the weeds out, we do the work. private foundations are different. melinda and bill gates. on those boards there may be one or two individuals. those foundations are governed in a way that there's a specific function that's going to go on. and they issue grants. a lot of times those grants go to a public charity. there are striking differences between public charities and private foundations. what happened here for whatever reason we don't know and don't have an opinion on it, it became a hybrid. and in our analysis shows that this hybrid modeled the global fund in geneva, switzerland. that's a hugely important point.
the difference between the global fund being a geneva-based operation that does exactly what mr. doyle said which is to take funds from one company, one country, excuse me, for whatever purpose, pharmaceuticals, tuberculosis, and to help another country, they are the facilitator, the agent. the difference is, they're not subject to u.s. taxation, jurisdiction or law. the clinton foundation, in conjunction with those same donor countries to the global fund, in the same recipient countries as the global fund, that a separate entity was formed in 2006. mr. clinton and mr. gates who as on the board at unitate together formed with these countries this entity. the difference being that it became the single largest donor
to the clinton foundation. those revenues did not stay outside of the united states. they created jurisdiction and venue by flowing back into the united states, bank of america, boston, massachusetts, that then becomes you should the jurisdiction of the governing body, the internal revenue service. at that point they are going to be a facilitator and an agent of those money flows, the i.r.s. code could not be any more specific. you can't do that and be an exempt organization. it's ok that you do it, you pay your taxes. >> i'm going to cut you off there, the gentleman's time has expired. mr. doyle, mr. moynahan, i'm going to ask you to try to be succinct and direct and bluntly, maybe dumb it for me. you're talking about stuff that quite frankly i have no clue, you know, when you start quoting
different statutes and things like that, the average american -- we just want to know if there's wrongdoing or not. i know you say you don't have an opinion. if you don't have an opinion then why did you file a proximate cause filing with the i.r.s.? obviously you have an opinion that something was wrong or you wouldn't have done a proximate cause. >> based on facts. >> based on your facts do you believe there's proximate cause of wrong doing? mr. moynihan: yes. mr. meadows: mr. doyle? mr. doyle: hugely. yes. mr. meadows: so let me get to this. i think you guys have been well advised in terms of trying to protect your interests. let me just be blunt. i checked with the i.r.s. commissioner. nothing you say in this forum, according to him, will actually affect any potential claim that you've already submitted. hat's what he told me. if that is indeed the case do you have a problem giving the 6,000 pages submitted to the
minority and the majority of this committee, do you have a problem with that? mr. moynihan: we'll take that under swrad visement. mr. meadows: then you need to go ahead with your counsel right now my patience is running thin. you're here. to provide expert testimony on what you found. and what i'm saying is, is that if you have a legitimate claim we will protect that but if you're not going to share the information with this committee and cut to the chase, my patience is running out. so i'll give you a few seconds to talk to your attorneys and you can come back and decide how you want to proceed, ok?
mr. moynihan: we just spoke to our attorney, we will not provide those materials, we will answer any questions you have. mr. meadows: have you submitted all those documents to the i.r.s.? mr. moynihan: yes. mr. meadows: have you submitted them to the f.b.i.? mr. moynihan: yes. mr. meadows: ok, we will compel you to bring all those documents to this committee then and i can
just tell you, i think you're being poorly advised by your counsel and i'm saying that directly to you, sir. let me just tell you. this is a hearing to get to the truth. what you're saying is you're all about the truth, mr. moynihan, isn't that what you said? if you're about the truth, then why aren't you willing to give us the documents. mr. moynihan: because we're explaining the documents. i don't think we should be sacrificing our potential -- mr. meadows: i said if i could protect your financial claims and get a commitment from the i.r.s. would you be willing to give those documents. mr. moynihan: that's not our only claim with the i.r.s. we have other claims we're going to bring. mr. meadows: so you're going to bring civil claims against the foundation. mr. moynihan: we have opportunities we'll pursue. this is what we do for a living. mr. meadows: you're saying potentially you'll bring a civil lawsuit against the foundation and this public hearing might affect that?
mr. moynihan: no. we didn't say that. what we're saying is that the i.r.s. submission stands on its own merit. the i.r.s. will make their determinations based on what they find. if the i.r.s. finds one way, we'll have one reaction if they find another way, we'll have another reaction. with counsel. mr. meadows: mr. moynihan, do you believe that based on any interviews that you've done with anybody in the clinton foundation that there was criminal activity that might have happened within the clinton foundation? mr. moynihan: we believe there is indicia of that. mr. meadows: based on what? mr. moynihan: interviews. mr. meadows: with whom? mr. moynihan: we interviewed mr. andy kessel. larry can speak to that. we were together. mr. doyle: i had reached out to mr. kessel in 2015. he was a former acquaintance of mine on wall street he called me back on november 9 at 9:45 in the morning. about three, three and a half
weeks after i reached out to him we exchanged pleasantry, i informed mr. kessel about my relationship with mr. moynahan so he was fully aware of who john was. we got together and he was very forthcoming. we stand by every word that was provided. mr. meadows: what does forthcoming mean? what alleged criminal activity do you believe the clinton foundation may have been part of? mr. moynihan: his statements us were very clear and very genuine he told us that mr. clinton on a regular basis mixed and matched his personal business on an ongoing basis with that of the foundation. mr. meadows: is your conversations with mr. kessel indicated that there was co-omingling of funds between the president and the foundation. is that correct? mr. moynihan: yes. expenditure of donating funds. mr. meadows: he would use donated funds to the foundation or personal use, private
inurement is what they call that. mip that was -- mr. moynihan: that was stated us to, yes. choi any -- mr. meadows: any other criminal allegations? mr. moynihan: he stated very specifically and it took us both offguard, i've been doing this a long time but when someone says, i know where all the bodies are buried. mr. meadows: that's hyperbole. what's the other potential criminal activity that may have happened. mr. moynihan: his statements to us about that we have submitted with the i.r.s. it's up to them to make a determination on that. mr. meadows: what are the alleged criminal, other criminal activity that was communicated to you, mr. moynihan from mr. kessel? coip he communicated to us was co-mingling of funds, that's the most specific. mr. meadows: did you have other interview with ms.
fishal? or was there anyone else you interviewed? mr. moynihan: we're not at liberty to give that name. mr. meadows: if you've interviewed someone else as a witness, you're required to answer that or plead the fifth. what do you want to do? mr. moynihan: we made a confidentiality agreement with so we can speak about what she said but can't give her name up. mr. meadows: what was that person's position. mr. moynihan: a very senior position within the clinton health care access program. mr. meadows: all right so within at is i guess referred to as chai. so how many part of the assets would be in the chai part of the
foundation? mr. doyle: approximately $900 million by the analysis we had done. mr. meadows: and what were the allegations she alerted you to? mr. moynihan: she stated very specifically that the funds were used as essentially a piggy bank. you could travel and vacation when you wanted to. that was senior administrators within the fund operating this fund treated this, co-mingled this as personal business, foundation business, for travel and personal expense. mr. meadows: so what you're saying is that they could use the clinton foundation charitable donations for private travel and go on personal trips, is that what you're saying? mr. moynihan: yes, we see that as conversion of foundation property. r. meadows: what else?
mr. moynihan: she also referenced mr. clinton's relationship with one of his largest doe florks bill gates, and she said they were not on to ing terms in reference the fact that in 2009, the health initiative had not received formal approval by the i.r.s. for their activities. mr. meadows: hold on. you're saying the clinton foundation had not received proper approval -- who did not receive proper approval? mr. moynihan: prior to 2010, chai was the acronym for clinton we were led to believe from this interview is mr. gates telling mr. clinton you need to get formal approval
for this activity which went back to 2002. that's the premise of our submission. and it was at that point in time that they actually went and got formal approval for that activity from the i.r.s. and chai became known as clinton health access initiative. mr. meadows: all right. o who approved the 501-c-3 status for the foundation? mr. moynihan: would have been the i.r.s. mr. meadows: do you have the document? mr. moynihan: we have it. we've got the determination letters. mr. meadows: it was approved for what? building a library or -- mr. moynihan: the initial approval was simply for library. mr. meadows: who modified it? mr. moynihan: we saw no modifications to the articles of incorporation. if you want to change status you have to notify the i.r.s. -- mr. meadows: i get that. you said that before. was there any modification?
mr. moynihan: no. mr. meadows: we have a second round, the gentleman from georgia, i'll go to you in a second. mr. moynihan: to your question a very specific misrepresentation that went on with the second chai, i think that's what you want to know. in order to go forward, the application has a schedule g at asks you if this second chai is a successor organization to a previous one. so you have the library. then you have this chai running unapproved. they clearly revised conversations -- clearly were advised, in conversations with mr. gates as we learned. got to get approved. they go to make an application and on the form, schedule g, when it's asked is this a successor, they specifically and affirmatively answer no. that is a misrepresentation because it's the same people doing the same thing, same people doing the same thing.
additionally we asked them about the charity 1/2 gator rating of four stars and said i've worked within charitable organizations at large firm the clinton foundation the furthest thing from a four-star rating. mr. moynihan: that person went on to further state to us that she advised her own friends and multiple businesses where she had worked previous to that to stop donating to the clinton foundation. it was so bad. mr. meadows: gentlemen, i'll yield to the gentleman from georgia. let me say this. it is critically important that we have the documents. we can hear your testimony all day long but it's not fair to ms. norton nor to me for us to have your testimony that we can't verify with these other documents. it's just like you submitting
something and suggesting that it's one way when the i.r. -- with the i.r.s. have you submitted these documents to the f.b.i.? mr. moynihan: yes. mr. meadows: tubal they've opened up an investigation on it based on your conversations? r. meadows: yes. -- mr. moynihan: yes. mr. meadows: so usual there's an investigation out of what field office? mr. moynihan: little rock, arkansas. mr. meadows: so you believe there's an open investigation on the clinton foundation based on information you submitted to the f.b.i. mr. doyle: the agent informed me as to how very, very grateful he was for our documents in the case session in which we presented it. mr. meadows: that is incredibly important. if you're telling me there's an open criminal investigation maybe that makes sense why mr. huber was not here.
because if he couldn't comment on an ongoing investigation perhaps that's why he didn't show up. mr. moynihan: that's why we want you as the committee to come to your own logical conclusions and not have us make conclusions for you. mr. meadows: all right, i recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apoll scries for having to step out. i know some of my concerns and questions have no doubt already been covered. but i do want to bring up a couple of things from my own -- for my own satisfaction and understanding. i will reiterate the necessity of the documents. to be honest with you, i was hesitant coming into this second panel here because i feel like you're using us for your own benefit. and we need the information so that we can do the proper oversight we're responsible for. mr. moynihan: you invited us, we didn't invite ourselves. >> no, but you've not turned over the documents and we need thosing to be yumets to perform.
mr. moynihan: you invited us. e told the staff members -- mr. hice: if you didn't -- i understand. mr. moynihan: if you didn't want us here, disinvite us. mr. hice: i think there's a game going on here. and i understand some of it. but we are here to do oversight and we need cooperation have you been in contact with attorney huber or anyone on his investigative team? mr. moynihan: we sent all of our information an documents to salt lake city, utah, in early april. we provided subsequent information in mid april, late may, and then again in mid to late october. our first communication with the u.s. attorney's office out of salt like was -- salt lake was late november. two weeks ago. mr. hice: so you have been in communication?
mr. doyle: we received two incoming phone calls. mr. hice: can you say with whom, who contacted you? mr. moynihan: one of the assistant u.s. attorneys. mr. hice: when was that? mr. doyle: friday afternoon, whatever, two weeks ago. november 30. mr. hice: so no communication prior to two weeks ago in mr. doyle: no. mr. hice: what was the basic nature of the communication? mr. doyle: we are reviewing materials. mr. hice: so you didn't have a conversation? mr. moynihan: no, just like with the f.b.i., it's a one-way communication, they ask, they don't tell. mr. hice: how do you know they're following up on the information you gave them? mr. moynihan: based on upon their questions. . hice: they didn't tell you they're following up? so you're giving an educated guess?
mr. moynihan: absolutely. mr. hice: what about justice department's michael horwiths have you been in communication with him or anyone on his team? mr. moynihan: we informed the inspector general of our submission and documents via letter. back,ic look the date up, probably somewhere mid year. mr. hice: have you heard back? as there been communication? mr. moynihan: no. mr. hice: in 2011, the clinton foundation hired an outside law firm that came up in the first panel. they were talking about performing a governance review of the organization. are you familiar with that? mr. moynihan: yes. mr. hice: this memo has been widely spread in the media and u're familiar with it,s bied on your investigation do you find any indication that there
s ever a quid pro quo of donations in return for some sort of action by hillary clinton as secretary of state? mr. moynihan: it doesn't come from that memo but from our investigation. mr. hice: from your investigation are you convinced that took place? mr. moynihan: yes. mr. hice: thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. meadows: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton. ms. norton: i want to further clarify because mr. doyle, you indicated how very grateful the .b.i. was for the information. but the f.b.i. never confirms what they're going to do with information or indicate that here would be an ongoing, open criminal investigation. did it? mr. doyle: pardon me?
ms. norton: you didn't hear my question, mr. doyle? it was you said who said how grateful the f.b.i. was to receive information. mr. doyle: yes. ms. norton: i am asking you, whether they in any way confirmed that this information would be used as part of an ongoing criminal investigation? mr. doyle: no, he didn't. ms. norton: i wanted just to clarify that. i also want to clarify because of your own status, because you don't classify yourself as whistleblowers? mr. moynihan: we would be an outside whistleblower, not an inside whistleblower. ms. norton: this is a kitan lawsuit yens the clinton oundation. mr. moynihan: not us. we'll never have a ke nambings n lawsuit involving the clinton.
we have a submission to the i.r.s. we are not adverse to the clinton foundation. if there's action taken, it's taken by the inch r.s. they determine if there's an action to be taken. we are not adverse in our submission to the clinton foundation. we gave them proximate cause, they'll determine. ms. norton: are you seeking any monetary award? mr. moynihan: if the i.r.s. is successful, the statute allows for an award. ms. norton: how much are you seeking? mr. doyle: the whistleblower law payout.% to 30% the ams involved could be $2 million to $2 billion. ms. norton: did you work for the clinton foundation? mr. doyle: no.
ms. norton: you have not had access to internal files or anything of the like? mr. doyle: no. mr. moynihan: no. ms. norton: in your written testimony you stated you sent your submission to the i.r.s. on august 11, 2017, correct? you also conceded and i quote, this is important, recently rewe seve -- we received a letter of preliminary denial of our claim. mr. moynihan: correct. ms. norton: we ms. norton: we asked you for a copy of ta letter from the i.r.s., why won't you give us a copy since you did receive a letter of preliminary denial? mr. moynihan: we're in appeals status right now. ms. norton: you're appealing the denial. mr. moynihan: they say in the letter, they ask, submit an appeal as if we're wrong. so what we did is we sent our appeal in with a foe coe --
photo copy of the f.b.i. and i.r.s. removing boxes from the clinton foundation after they brought a 757 down and taken the materials out of the clinton foundation in little rocking arkansas. we sent that to demonstrate that your letter coming from atlanta doesn't recondition sile with what's going on in little rock. ms. norton: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. meadows: the chair recognizes himself. i want to do a little followup here. your conversations with the special agents in little rock, arkansas,, mr. doyle, was that you in mr. doyle: that was me. mr. meadows: your conversations with them, they acknowledged they had received your submission and the pages of document, is that correct? mr. doyle: that's correct. mr. meadows: did they acknowledge any work they're doing with that, either directly or indirectly?
mr. doyle: they did not comment? it was a cordial, professional conversation. i can't comment. thank you very much. we were very, very fwritful for your efforts. mr. meadows: what makes you believe there's a criminal investigation out of little rock then? if that's the extent of it? mr. doyle: i spoke to him twice. i spoke to him in august and again in october. mr. meadows: so what would make you think there's a criminal investigation, mr. doyle? if it was just cordial then why would you believe that there's -- mr. doyle: in the august conversation, he said this is an open and ongoing situation. mr. meadows: so he said this is ?n open and ongoing situation information or situation? or matter? mr. doyle: i ale apologize, investigation.
mr. meadows: it was an open and ongoing investigation he couldn't comment on. that would end deed indicate there's an investigation. mr. moynihan: chairman, look, i worked for the d.e.a. i to work all over the world in these cases still. the fact that they followed up with a second inquiry, not just a thanks, don't let the door hit you on the way out, then follow up again. that's not a sign of a closed investigation. mr. meadows: i get that,kyn't take your experience as the d.e.a., i appreciate the thought but the other part of that is, mr. doyle if they said there was an open and ongoing investigation that's what you reis all that they said? mr. doyle: that's what i recall to the best of my memory. mr. meadows: if there's an open and ongoing investigation and you've given the information to them why would the i.r.s. not iew that as substantial?
did they know there was an open and ongoing investigation? mr. moynihan: we sent a picture -- mr. meadows: i heard that. mr. moynihan: so they know. mr. doyle: and to that point, congressman, the i.r.s. individual was -- i would say more than mildly surprised at our interaction with the f.b.i. mr. meadows: all right. why do you think mr. huber waited until november 30 to call you about four letters that you had sent prior. you had sent one on the 14th, 18th, 29th, were in april, the 29th of may, as i recall, and october 10 or 12. why did they wait until november 30 to give you a call? mr. moynihan: we don't know. mr. meadows: do you think it might have had to do with the fact that you're coming here to testify? mr. moynihan: i mean that --
this testimony invitation just came recently. mr. meadows: they were fully aware, we asked them to come and be a witness at this particular hearing and then all of a sudden you get a phone call from, what, mr. huber's second in command? mr. moynihan: i don't know if he's the second. he was clearly an assistant u.s. attorney dealing with mr. huber. mr. meadows: i find it coincidental thaten onovember 30, a few days before the hear, after they've been noticed that we wanted them to come and testify, all of a sudden they would start following up. so mr. doyle, what did they say about the document that you had provided them? did they have them all? mr. doyle: congressman you said we are reviewing the material, i asked him if he could comment if -- further beyond that if this was open and ongoing, he said, we are reviewing your material. he called me back a few hours later. asked specifically about one exhibit.
and then asked further if you could, do you have these on a disk, i said i have them on a thumb drive. would you like them. please resend them, i resent the thumb drive that afternoon. mr. meadows: was that the first time mr. huber and his team got the documents from you? mr. doyle: that was the third time. mr. meadows: so you're telling me on november 30, they called you back and they couldn't find the first two submissions that you had made to the department of justice and mr. huber? they wanted you to send them again? that's what you're telling me? mr. doyle: we're concluding that ourselves. that's what we concluded. mr. meadows: what i've been tolded by d.o.j. which i do not believe, to be frank, was that this was the normal process of following up on recent correspondence. what was the most recent correspondence you had with the dotcht justice? mr. doyle: that one. mr. meadows: october 10?
mr. doyle: the correspondence -- prior to the phone call what was the most recent correspondence you had with the department of justice, mr. huber? mr. doyle: we sent materials -- mr. meadows: october 10 of 201? delivered by fedex on october 12 of 2018? i think i got a copy of the fedex delivery. so they didn't respond to your april 4 letter. they didn't respond to the letter later in april. they didn't respond to the may 29 letter. they finally responded to your october 10 letter a few days before a hearing that was coming up. mr. doyle: correct. mr. moynihan: that's correct. mr. meadows: do you think that that shows the level of interest that a special prosecutor would show? mr. moynihan: we don't know his case load. frankly we're disappointed that three years level of effort goes into this. we are not paparazzi, we're not the media, we don't want anybody
to know who we are and the work we do we're financial investors, that's what we do. we get paid do this for a living. we don't get paid by anybody else. it's disappointing that it took that long to hear from them. mr. doyle: we shared our materials not only with the attorney office in salt lake but also in little rock, but other u.s. attorneys' offices as well that had been indicated as providing support or working on clinton-related matters. we also shared materials with the u.s. postal inspection service. so various jurisdictions that we felt would be interested both at the state and federal level. mr. meadows: you've shared those documents with all those entities but don't believe you should share it with congress and the american people? answer that one for me, mr. moynihan, i want to hear this.
because quite frankly -- mr. moynihan: are you going to prosecute the clintons, are you going to bring an action against the clintons that would yield us economic consortium. mr. meadows: i thought, hold on to your testimony, don't get cute with me irk promise you, i thought ayou said you were all the rule of law. all about justice and truth. mr. moynihan: that's why we're presented to law enforcement agencies which you're not. mr. meadows: mr. moynahan led -- let me say this. we have oversight responsibility. i can assure you when you come in here, it is incumbent upon you to be open and transparent and we can make criminal referrals just like anybody else. we cannot prosecute, you're exactly right. but what i can tell you is this. when you come before us and you've shared it with all kinds f entities and to not actually listen to my good friend to my
right here and say, you deserve to see the same evidence that we shared with others, i don't find how that actually provides a good foundation for truth and transparency. mr. moynihan: it's just, i think we're looking at this from completely different perspectives. we are financial investigators, we present evidence to those jurisdictions , in this case the i.r.s. that would bring a case. that's not what you do. so that's why we parened it to them and not to you. mr. meadows: i can assure you that we do have something here that will compel us to get the information either from you or the agencies. and i can assure you that we will. so that my good friend to my right and the entire committee can review thesing to be yumes and make their own claim. mr. moynihan: we welcome that from you. mr. meadows: final question.
mr. doyle you said from $400 belion to $2.5 billion might subject to taxation. so you're saying worst case is in your opinion $400 million were improperly used in a charitable foundation named the clinton foundation, is that correct? mr. doyle: that's correct. mr. meadows: and it could be all of it? mr. doyle: it would be all of it. mr. meadows: if there's no further business before the committee, the committee stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> funding for the froth expires december 21 unless congress passes a spending bill before them. there'll be a partial government shutdown that will include the state department, homeland security, justice department, the environmental protection agency, and other parts of the federal government. some agencies have already been funded and will remain open. next week both the house and the senate are expected to consider government spending bills. you can watch the debate live with the house here on c-span, and the senate on our companion network c-span2. when tew