How many times has an elected official been caught omitting information or filing a false report and then allowed to re-file as if the deception was not intended? Or excused from the consequences of their actions by there peers who have similar “issues?”

With all of the money flowing through the Clinton Foundation and their access to the top professionals – lawyers and accountants – why are they refilling five years of tax returns, and will those amended returns be the ONLY ones presented to the country as proof of Hillary’s openness and transparency? Another deception and cover-up in the works?

Exclusive: Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audit for other errors

Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.

The foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny in recent weeks. Republican critics say the foundation makes Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, vulnerable to undue influence. Her campaign team calls these claims "absurd conspiracy theories."

The charities' errors generally take the form of under-reporting or over-reporting, by millions of dollars, donations from foreign governments, or in other instances omitting to break out government donations entirely when reporting revenue, the charities confirmed to Reuters.

The errors, which have not been previously reported, appear on the form 990s that all non-profit organizations must file annually with the Internal Revenue Service to maintain their tax-exempt status. A charity must show copies of the forms to anyone who wants to see them to understand how the charity raises and spends money.

Read more at: Exclusive: Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audit for other errors | Reuters

And, how is it that the State Department “negotiated” all of those “special” waivers and deals with the Clintons and their top-level cronies?

State Department IG Investigating Huma Abedin’s Job Under Hillary Clinton

The State Department Inspector General is now investigating the arrangement between Huma Abedin and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Inspector Steve Linick is looking into the program that allowed Clinton to hire Abedin for government work even though she was employed by a private firm.

In May 2013, the New York Times reported that Abedin never disclosed her earnings and the private consulting that she was conducting outside of the State Department while continuing to serve as Clinton’s top adviser.

Abedin worked for Teneo, which was founded by Doug Band, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton. The corporate client list for Teneo has included Coca-Cola and MF Global, the since-folded brokerage firm run by Jon S. Corzine.

While consulting for Teneo and serving as Clinton’s top adviser, Abedin served as a consultant for the Clinton Foundation. During Clinton’s transition from senator to Secretary of State, Abedin worked as her personal assistant. <Source>

And about the 30,000 deleted e-mails …

Both Clinton and Abedin used a private email server and personal email addresses to communicate and conduct official business. Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) also raised a potential conflict of interest that both Clinton and Abedin had used a private email server. <Source>

Pattern and Practice of Corruption …

There is no doubt that the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, have a pattern and practice of corruption, falsehoods, perjury, and extreme cronyism … even to the extent that one of their trusted advisors would steal classified documents from the National Archives to protect the Clintons.

At President Clinton's request, he [Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger] reviewed highly confidential material during four visits to the Archives over four months. Only Mr. Berger knows what transpired on his first two visits, when he reviewed collections of confidential memos, e-mails, and handwritten notes, including materials taken from counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke's office - all of which were not catalogued at the individual item level.

On Mr. Berger's third visit Archives employees became suspicious that he might be removing classified material. Rather than directly confront a former Cabinet-level official, Archives officials simply took steps to identify further theft on succeeding visits. That is how Mr. Berger's thefts on his fourth and last visit were documented.

We don't know what Mr. Berger might have removed from the uncatalogued materials reviewed in his earlier visits, but we know his last visit focused on a memorandum called the Millennium Alert After Action Report (MAAAR). Copies of this report were made available to the 9/11 Commission, but the information in those copies undoubtedly is not what interested Berger most. Berger took five copies of the report and later destroyed three of them.

What was on the copies he destroyed? Handwritten notes from Berger, the President, or some other official? Observations that would be embarrassing to them, evidence they missed an important threat or considered or recommended actions - or decisions not to act - they wouldn't want to defend in public? Evidence, perhaps, that would have supported the Bush Administration? We don't know, and no one who does is saying, but the evidence must have been terribly damning for Berger to take the risks he did. <Source>

Acting with impunity: the Presidential Pardon, the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card …

It remains to be seen if President Obama will issue blanket pardons to those who committed felonious acts during his Administration.

Bottom line …

Foundations have become the newest wealth-building, influence peddling machine for insulating politicians from directly being charged with bribery and other illegal acts. And, how can one claim openness and transparency where their filings are massively wrong and multiple years must be corrected and re-filed?

Certainly the pattern and practices of the Clintons, including perjury, destruction of government property, obstruction of justice, and other crimes rise to a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act investigation and prosecution.

Can we allow any political party to put up a President candidate that is so thoroughly corrupt and untrustworthy that they pose a clear and present danger to the United States of America? And, can we trust the progressive mainstream media to provide accurate information regarding political candidates whose political ideology they support?

I say NO! No to corrupt candidates. No to a corrupt press.

-- steve