"It is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston (at the height of the British Empire. 1922)
Here's how it works:
1. You create a separate foreign "charity." In this case one in Canada.
2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity (over 1,000 did).
3. The Canadian charity then bundles donations into a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.
4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.
5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Experts believe this is on the order of 10%.
6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these "clerical errors" and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.
7. Net result: foreign money, much of it from other countries, goes into the Clinton's pockets tax free and untraceable to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering. The Canadian "charity" includes as a principal Frank Giustra (he was central to the formation of Uranium One), the Canadian company that acquired massive U.S. uranium interests and then re-sold them to an organization controlled by Russia. This transaction required U.S. State Department approval and Hillary approved the deal.
Why did these foreign interests funnel money through a Canadian charity? Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation? Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations and countries in need?
This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling. Now you know why Hillary's destruction of 30,000 e-mails was a risk she was willing to take. Bill and Hillary are devious, unprincipled and dishonest at best. Comes from this article: