Durham’s Findings Reopen Clinton Foundation Whistleblower Case

In a renewed shakeup of Clinton-related investigations, U.S. Tax Court Judge David Gustafson reinvigorated the whistleblower case against the Clinton Foundation in an order issued Tuesday. Revelations from Special Counsel John Durham directly prompted that ruling. This development comes amid persistent allegations of IRS improprieties linked to the Clinton charity.

In 2017, the whistleblowers, former federal agent John Moynihan and corporate tax compliance expert Larry Doyle alleged that the foundation acted as a foreign lobbyist. They claimed the foundation was receiving international donations to influence U.S. policy. This operation should have mandated registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). “The foundation began acting as an agent of foreign governments early in its life and throughout its existence,” Moynihan stated during a House committee hearing in 2018. However, the foundation, which conceded some compliance issues in past internal audits, has staunchly denied these allegations, asserting that it has always complied with the law.

The IRS has repeatedly attempted to dismiss this case over the past years, all of which have been thwarted by Judge Gustafson. His recent decision was prompted by three precedent-setting court rulings and the significant new allegations from Durham. This intriguing move places the IRS back on the defensive and will likely prolong the case for months.

Durham’s comprehensive 306-page report, released earlier this month, brought to light previously undisclosed investigations by the FBI into the activities of Bill and Hillary Clinton. These investigations, involving the FBI’s field offices in Washington, New York, and Little Rock, Arkansas, were centered around allegations of fraud and corruption associated with the Clinton Foundation. Durham described one of the most serious allegations as a flow of benefits scheme in which substantial monetary contributions were made to a nonprofit, under both direct and indirect control of a federal public official, in exchange for favorable government action.

Surprisingly, all four investigations were terminated as the 2016 presidential election approached. According to Durham, senior FBI and Justice Department officials were involved in the efforts to delay or halt the probes. “Both senior FBI and department officials placed restrictions on how those matters were to be handled such that essentially no investigative activities occurred for months,” Durham noted.

Judge Gustafson’s latest move provides whistleblowers Moynihan and Doyle a fresh opportunity to incorporate Durham’s bombshell allegations into their court filings due next month. The judge also highlighted a recent ruling in the Tax Court case titled Berenblatt vs. IRS Commission, which could be relevant. This ruling decided that IRS whistleblowers may be entitled to the discovery they ordinarily would not be granted if they could show the agency had engaged in earlier bad faith conduct to keep information out of the case.

The latest developments from the Durham report and the reemergence of the whistleblower case against the Clinton Foundation indicate a renewed focus on allegations that have long been a point of contention. As Judge Gustafson’s decision extends the case further, it will undoubtedly keep the eyes of the nation glued on these ongoing proceedings, offering more transparency into the activities of prominent public figures and their associated charitable foundations.