If you need a good laugh today, I invite you to read this post from WND about how the Clinton Foundation's financial troubles could bring down PwC. It's a hoot.
A respected Wall Street analyst who has been investigating the Clinton Foundation’s finances alleges the “Big Four” accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers was a willing participant in a scheme by the Clintons and their associates to become personally enriched by the foundation, a crime known as inurement.Charles Ortel, a frequent guest on Bloomberg television and a contributor to the Washington Times and others, says in a draft report that he found “the PWC accounting work product for 2013 is riddled with uncorrected errors and falsehoods” as well as procedural defects so severe he has raised the possibility “the Clinton Foundation might be PWC’s Enron.”
“PWC states that the firm relied upon the work product of BKD for 2012, implying that in preparing the 2013 audited financial statements PWC accepted the BKD financial statements without modification,” Ortel explains.“This is certainly not the case,” Ortel continues, “as can be clearly seen by comparing BKD’s financial statement for the Clinton Foundation for year-end 31 December 2012, with the consolidated balance sheet for the Clinton Foundation that PWC used as a starting point on 1 January 2013 in its 2013 audit.”
This is where the freaking out begins:
Ortel says the adjustments made by PWC to BKD’s audit of the Clinton Foundation’s financials at Dec. 31, 2012, raise several troubling questions:
How did $3.1 million in cash disappear?
It didn't disappear.
Cash is by far the easiest asset to quantify and verify – what did BKD miss in its audit and what explains PWC’s conclusion?
BKD didn't miss anything. Accountants and auditors reach different conclusions all the time.
How loose are the financial controls over the Clinton Foundation’s cash accounts at headquarters and in the many foreign locations in which it operates?
Oh, shut up.
What factors led PWC to place a significantly higher value on the Clinton Foundation’s investments as of Dec. 31, 2012 ($3,449,166 as compared to $1,638,057)?
Sometimes cash is, like, cash cash. You know, the paper that's stuffed into briefcases and handed over to people in parking garages to make murders look like suicides. Other times cash isn't cash because it's not really liquid, so people — auditors, usually — call it investments. Call it a hunch, but PwC figured that some of this "cash" wasn't really "cash" but instead was "investments," so they reclassified (i.e. moved a few things around) it as "investments." Accounting can be tricky!
What entities agreed to lower the stated value of obligations owed to them by the Clinton Foundation as of Dec. 31, 2012, and what were the specific reasons for these downward adjustments?
They probably just paid some bills, bro.
How did the total downward adjustment in liabilities happen to equal precisely the net amount by which the Clinton Foundation’s assets were reduced by PWC as of Dec. 31, 2012?