Ex-charity exec who helped expose $500G Clinton Foundation donation faces legal threats

EXCLUSIVE: A former charity executive who helped expose a questionable $500,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation is now being threatened by her old bosses with a lawsuit seeking tens of thousands of dollars, FoxNews.com has learned.
Sue Veres Royal, former executive director at the Happy Hearts Fund, was initially quoted in a May 29 New York Times article that said the charity lured Bill Clinton to a 2014 gala only after offering a $500,000 donation to The Clinton Foundation. His office previously had turned down the charity's invitations, but this time he accepted; the accompanying donation amounted to almost a quarter of the gala's net proceeds.
Veres Royal, who spoke to FoxNews.com about the fallout from that report, is now embroiled in a legal battle with the charity. She filed a formal complaint June 4 with the New York attorney general's Charities Bureau, as the charity itself threatened her with legal action for allegedly breaking her confidentiality agreement.
The Times report gave several behind-the-scenes details, including that founder Petra Nemcova explicitly told Veres Royal to offer the $500,000 "honorarium."
The Happy Hearts Fund’s legal team fired off a cease-and-desist order to Veres Royal the same day the Times report was published. The charity claimed she had breached a confidentiality agreement and gave “numerous falsehoods, inaccuracies and disparaging statements” about the organization to the Times. The letter demanded she no longer speak to the media or else they would seek damages.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Former Happy Hearts Fund Executive Director Sue Veres Royal (Sue Veres Royal)

A Happy Hearts Fund spokesman said they are unable to discuss the situation concerning Veres Royal as they, too, are bound by a confidentiality agreement, but defended the 2014 award to Clinton.
"Because we know the strong impact of working together and because the Happy Hearts Fund and the Clinton Foundation have a shared goal of providing meaningful help to Haiti, we proposed a joint educational project with the Clinton Foundation. Any suggestion that this joint project is some kind of ‘honorarium’ or ‘fee’ is unequivocally false," the spokesman told FoxNews.com in a statement. According to the group, such partnerships have allowed the charity to build 113 schools since 2006 in nine different countries, with more opening this month.
However, Veres Royal said she was appalled not only by the 2014 Clinton donation but by details she had not known before the Times report was published -- most notably that the $500,000, which was supposed to go to causes in the ravaged country of Haiti, still had not been earmarked for any particular project by The Clinton Foundation.
“It’s disgusting to me that this organization is being used in this way,” Veres Royal said. “I have been to Haiti three times. I’ve seen how desperate the need is, and it’s disgusting to me that people are trying to do good while they’re sitting on half-a-million dollars. I think that’s a disservice to those people who have donated the money, and to the people of Haiti.”
The threat of legal action comes as the Happy Hearts Fund tries to limit the damage already caused to the organization's reputation after the revelations. Veres Royal said two conservative-leaning board members already have resigned after finding out about the exorbitant donation which, to Veres Royal’s knowledge, was never voted on by the board.

'It’s disgusting to me that people are trying to do good while they’re sitting on half-a-million dollars.'
- Sue Veres Royal

Veres Royal responded to the Happy Hearts Fund legal demand by claiming she was not in breach of her confidentiality agreement. She says she was not the source of the report, but was merely quoted on what she called a matter of public interest. It was at that point she then filed the formal complaint about HHF’s actions with the New York attorney general.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE COMPLAINT.
In the complaint, Veres Royal alleges the gala was used to shore up the rocky political fortunes of Haitian President Michel Martelly, a close ally and friend of Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe, who was then dating Nemcova, a Czech model.
Martelly was at that time dealing with a number of corruption allegations, specifically over the location of education funds, Veres Royal said.
The complaint claims that Nemcova, who was an ambassador at-large for Haiti, “specifically instructed Veres Royal to ‘find a reason’” to honor Martelly and then pushed to get Clinton’s staff to agree for Martelly to be honored as well. Consequently, she claims, a “totally concocted” award -- for “Leadership in Education” -- was also presented to Martelly at the Clinton gala.
Bill and Hillary Clinton -- now a Democratic presidential candidate -- have been heavily involved in the reconstruction of Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, though their role in the country’s recovery has come under scrutiny amid accusations of running a pay-to-play operation with Haitian reconstruction.

The Clinton Foundation did not respond to FoxNews.com’s request for comment.
Veres Royal’s complaint also alleges improper financial oversight and gross misrepresentation to the public about fundraising.
After she filed the complaint, HHF sent an email, seen by FoxNews.com, arguing again that Veres Royal was breaching a confidentiality agreement, and that HHF was entitled to over $30,000 in payments Veres Royal received as part of the agreement, as well as unspecified “injunctive relief and monetary damages."
Despite being under fire, and not having an attorney of her own, Veres Royal says she is going to keep pursuing her complaint, and will not back down under the threat of legal action:
“Although it’s been nerve-wracking to me, I feel it’s my ethical responsibility to do so.”

Democrat Cartoon

Supreme Court: Texas can refuse to issue Confederate flag license plate

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld Texas' refusal to issue a license plate bearing the Confederate battle flag, rejecting a free-speech challenge.
The court said in a 5-4 ruling that Texas can limit the content of license plates because they are state property and not the equivalent of bumper stickers.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans had sought a Texas plate bearing its logo with the battle flag. A state board rejected it over concerns that the license plate would offend many Texans.
Justice Stephen Breyer said the state's decision to reject the group's plate did not violate its free speech rights. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas and the court's other three liberal justices joined Breyer's opinion.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that states can't force drivers to display license plates that contain messages with which the drivers disagree, Breyer said. "And just as Texas cannot require SCV (the Sons of Confederate Veterans) to convey `the state's ideological message,"' Breyer said, quoting from that earlier ruling, "SCV cannot force Texas to include a Confederate battle flag on its specialty license plates."
The state can prohibit some messages even though there are now nearly 450 specialty plates to choose from, he said. Those plates include "Choose Life" to the Boy Scouts and hamburger chains.
The Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans sued over the state's decision not to authorize its proposed license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy and by the state of Maryland.
A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that the board's decision violated the group's First Amendment rights. "We understand that some members of the public find the Confederate flag offensive. But that fact does not justify the board's decision," Judge Edward Prado of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans wrote.
Texas' main argument to the Supreme Court is that the license plate is not like a bumper sticker slapped on the car by its driver. Instead, the state said, license plates are government property, and so what appears on them is not private individuals' speech but the government's. The First Amendment applies when governments try to regulate the speech of others, but not when governments are doing the talking.
Justice Samuel Alito said in dissent that the decision "threatens private speech that the government finds displeasing."
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia also dissented.

Spokane votes to remove Rachel Dolezal from police commission

The Spokane City Council has voted to remove Rachel Dolezal, the former Spokane NAACP president, from the city's volunteer police ombudsman commission.
The 6-0 vote came Thursday afternoon, KREM-TV reported.
On Wednesday, Mayor David Condon and Spokane Council President Ben Stuckart called for Dolezal and two others to step down from the five-member commission after an independent investigation found the three commissioners acted improperly and violated government rules.
The evidence and interviews confirmed workplace harassment allegations and "a pattern of misconduct" by Dolezal, the chairwoman, and two other commissioners, the report said. The council accepted the resignation of one of those commissioners and voted to give the other more time to respond.
Dolezal, 37, resigned as head of the NAACP's Spokane chapter this week after her parents said she was a white woman pretending to be black.
In May, the city hired lawyers to investigate whistleblower complaints filed by an unidentified city employee who staffed the police commission. The report said Dolezal abused her authority by trying to supervise the Office of Police Ombudsman personnel and she exhibited bias against law enforcement, despite rules requiring fairness and impartiality.
Dolezal's duties as commissioner and as NAACP president were in conflict because she actively engaged in protests of officer-involved shootings, the report also said.
In a statement Wednesday, Dolezal said she and the other two commissioners did nothing wrong and had reviewed their actions with lawyers.
Dolezal resigned her NAACP leadership post after her parents accused her of posing as black despite her Czech, German and Swedish ancestry. When asked by NBC's Matt Lauer earlier this week if she is an "an African-American woman," Dolezal said: "I identify as black."

House OKs Obama trade agenda on 2nd try, bill heads to Senate

The House on Thursday approved a key plank of President Obama's trade agenda after the push nearly imploded amid Democratic resistance last week, sending the bill to the Senate where it still faces an uncertain fate.
The 218-208 vote nevertheless marked a significant victory for Obama and his pro-trade supporters in both parties. The vote came after Obama huddled Wednesday evening with congressional allies to try to craft a way forward.
The bill would specifically give the president so-called "fast-track" authority to approve trade deals, which Obama wants to seal a 12-nation pact involving Japan and 11 other countries bordering the Pacific Ocean.
The mechanics of the vote are some of the most complicated in recent memory, in a legislative body notorious for esoteric procedural maneuvers. The vote failed in the House last week because another measure it was attached to was defeated by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans.
It was labor-aligned Democrats, in particular, who caused the biggest headaches for the White House. Democrats have fought the measure for months, for fear it would lead to the loss of U.S. jobs overseas. "Let's kill this donkey once and for all," Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., said before the latest vote.
On Thursday, House leaders moved to vote only on the "fast-track" measure, known as Trade Promotion Authority. The measure on the House floor would give Obama authority to negotiate global trade deals that Congress can approve or reject, but not change. Other recent presidents have had the same prerogative Obama seeks.
With the bill's approval, it heads back to the Senate where lawmakers would have to approve it in tact in order to send it to Obama's desk.
The issue has led to unusual alliances and factions on Capitol Hill, with some Tea Party-aligned Republicans and labor-aligned Democrats joining forces to resist it -- while pro-trade Democrats and GOP congressional leaders side with the White House.
The House debate and vote Thursday marked the beginning of an extraordinary rescue operation that the White House and GOP leaders in Congress hope will result in passage of both bills by the end of next week. The other bill, not addressed on Thursday, would renew an expiring program of aid for workers who lose their jobs because of imports.
"We are committed to ensuring both ... get votes in the House and Senate and are sent to the president for signature," House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a joint statement issued Wednesday in an attempt to reassure pro-trade Democrats whose votes will be needed.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi had no comment on the day's events. The California Democrat joined the revolt last week in which her party's rank-and-file lawmakers helped vote down the aid package that they customarily support, calculating their actions would prevent the entire trade package from reaching Obama's desk.
Supporters of the president's agenda argue that the United States must stay involved in international trade, in part because otherwise, countries like China will write the rules to their own advantage. The administration's immediate negotiating objective is a round of talks involving 12 countries in Asia, North America and South America.
Organized labor and other opponents of international trade deals say they cost thousands of American workers their jobs by shifting employment to foreign countries with low wages, poor working conditions and lax environmental standards.
Officials in Congress said Boehner and McConnell hope to have both the trade and the aid legislation to the president by the time lawmakers begin a scheduled vacation at the end of next week.

Sources: Clinton confidant who sent Libya memos paid $200G by Brock network

The Clinton confidant under scrutiny on Capitol Hill over detailed Libya memos he sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers earlier this week he has been pulling in $200,000 a year from Clinton ally David Brock's media operation, congressional sources tell FoxNews.com.
The figure is far higher than initially reported.
While the payments to Sidney Blumenthal may not reflect any apparent conflict of interest, his work with Brock's liberal advocacy and media groups was a focus of his high-profile deposition on Tuesday before the House Benghazi committee. Republicans' rationale for the questioning was that his financial and political interests are important context, at a time when he was sending high-level guidance to Clinton.
Politico.com first reported that Republicans grilled Blumenthal on his work for Brock's groups. But while the report said Blumenthal was making more than $10,000 a month, congressional sources say he acknowledged during the deposition he actually had a $200,000-a-year contract.
The money was in addition to the $10,000 a month he was getting for work with the Clinton Foundation.
"He was getting, from Clinton, Inc., $320,000 a year," one source told FoxNews.com.
The Brock-founded groups are not actually part of the Clinton empire, though Brock is a Clinton ally. The source said Blumenthal has been working with Media Matters, American Bridge and Correct the Record. Another congressional source, though, told FoxNews.com the contract was specifically with Media Matters.
Though it's unclear exactly what Blumenthal was paid to do, Politico reported his work entailed giving high-level strategy and messaging guidance, and the Benghazi debate was likely part of that. The groups above have busily defended then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from GOP broadsides.
Emails related to this work surfaced in the package of documents delivered to the Benghazi committee ahead of Tuesday's session -- emails that weren't part of the initial package of documents handed over by the State Department.
One of those emails to Clinton linked several Media Matters posts on Benghazi, essentially defending the State Department.
FoxNews.com is told one of them read: "Got all this done, complete refutation on Libya smear." The email said, "Philippe can circulate these links." Philippe Reines was a senior adviser to Clinton.
Asked for comment on the deposition, and on Blumenthal's payments, Brock blasted the committee's latest inquiry.
"Despite the fact that the conclusions of nine congressional committee reports and the findings from an independent review board don't support his political agenda, Chairman [Trey] Gowdy keeps doubling down and expanding his taxpayer funded fishing expedition in the hopes of undermining Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign," Brock told FoxNews.com in an email. "This week's spectacle is the latest proof that he is failing."
FoxNews.com has reached out to Blumenthal's attorney for comment.
Blumenthal's deposition lasted most of the day on Tuesday. FoxNews.com is told the Brock work "came up," though the committee did not spend hours grilling him about it.
The committee sought to interview Blumenthal over his role sending detailed memos on Libya to Clinton in 2011 and 2012.   
The New York Times first reported on Blumenthal's memos and said the information was coming from "business associates" Blumenthal was advising, including former CIA official Tyler Drumheller.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the committee, told Fox News earlier this week that the memos themselves were actually sent by Drumheller. He said Blumenthal didn't write them, and was just passing on the "unvetted, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated intelligence."
After the deposition on Tuesday, Blumenthal said he answered every question over the course of nine hours. He said the emails were mostly "old news" and hopes he cleared up "misconceptions."
He said he wasn't involved in any of the administration's decision-making, and attributed his appearance before the committee to "politics."
Democrats were fuming over Tuesday's session and have called on Gowdy to release the transcript of the deposition. Further, they say the latest documents reveal no "smoking gun" about the Benghazi attacks, which killed four Americans.
[I]n fact, they hardly relate to Benghazi at all," Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement.
FoxNews.com is told Blumenthal only disclosed his payments from Brock's groups on Tuesday after he was specifically asked about them -- and that he didn't initially disclose them when asked about his sources of income.

Cartoon

Southern Baptists urged to reject any laws legalizing gay marriage

Prepare for civil disobedience.
That’s the message one prominent pastor is sending to some 16 million members of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Texas, said American Christians should be prepared for massive fallout if the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex unions.
“We want to stay in the system,” Graham told me in a telephone interview. “We want to work in the system. We want to support our government. We want to obey its laws.”
But.
“But there’s a coming a day, I believe, that many Christians personally and churches corporately will need to practice civil disobedience on this issue.”
The foundation for such a possibility was laid Wednesday morning in Columbus, Ohio where the current and former presidents of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination sent a strong message to the country.

What would it look like if 16 million Southern Baptists engaged in civil disobedience?

“We strongly encourage all Southern Baptist pastors, leaders, educators and churches to openly reject any mandated legal definition of marriage and to use their influence to affirm God’s design for life and relationships,” the statement declared.
While affirming their love for all people – regardless of sexual orientation, the former Southern Baptist presidents said the “cannot and will not affirm the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior or any behavior that deviates from God’s design for marriage.”
“Our first duty is to love and obey God, not man,” they emphatically stated.
Click here to join Todd on Facebook for conservative news and conversation!
Graham, who was elected president in 2003 and 2004, was among those signing the statement. In all – some 35 years of Southern Baptist leadership was represented.
He told me Christians must be prepared for the aftermath of a court decision that legalizes gay marriage.
“Many people must be willing to count the cost on this,” he said.
So what would it look like if 16 million Southern Baptists engaged in civil disobedience?
“I hope we never live to find out what that looks like,” Graham told me. “There are many Christians today who are preparing if necessary to go to jail.”
I’ve known Pastor Graham for years and I’ve never known him to use hyperbole. His words and his predictions are sobering. And he hopes the Supreme Court and Washington, D.C. hear what Southern Baptists are saying.
“We want them to know our voices will be heard,” he declared.
The issue of same-sex marriage has already been addressed by attendees at the denomination’s annual meeting. Delegates, known as messengers, approved a resolution opposing gay marriage and Southern Baptist Convention President Ronnie Floyd delivering a fiery sermon vowing not to obey the court’s decision.
Graham said they are calling on Southern Baptist business owners and public sector workers to stand together as well – knowing full well they could lose their jobs and careers.
“We are concerned about Southern Baptist Christians in the marketplace – in the media and corporate world,” he said.
He related the story of a deacon in his church who politely declined participation in his company’s “diversity day.”
“He’s already been sent to human resources and he received a semi-threatening letter from the CEO,” Graham said. “It’s already happening – the punishment – the discrimination.”
Denominational leaders are warning churches and Christian schools to be prepared for potential lawsuits from LGBT activists as well as the threat of losing tax exempt status.
“The punch that is most deadly is the one you don’t see coming,” Graham said. “You need to see this coming. It’s coming your way. It’s coming to a town, a city, a university, a college, a church near you,” he said.

California budget deal to make state first in nation to offer health care to undocumented kids

 A budget deal between Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders would make California the first in the nation to offer state-subsidized health care to children who are in the country illegally.
The $115.4 billion agreement announced Tuesday is expected to win easy approval from the Senate and Assembly before the fiscal year begins July 1, and its immigrant health care provisions were touted by its backers as a necessity in the face of federal inaction.
"While Washington dithers because they can't get things done, we need immigration reform," Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles. "The reality is many of these children, and they are children, require some kind of health care and they receive it in the emergency room.
The cost to taxpayers would be $40 million in the new fiscal year and grow to $132 million a year once fully implemented, numbers that had Republicans objecting and warning that it won't help immigrants get access to doctors because of the shortage of providers who accept Medi-Cal, the state's health program for the poor.
Anti-immigration advocates said it was yet another move from Brown — like a bill providing driver's licenses that took effect this year — that is "extremely generous" toward people who enter the country illegally.
"Gov. Brown continues to sign laws that incentivize more illegal immigration," said Joe Guzzardi, spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization. "I can't really see what reason there would be not to come to California. I can get a job, I can get tuition, I can now get medical care for my children."
But the California Immigrant Policy Center called the move a "ray of hope" for many in the state.
"California will take a key first step toward recognizing that health care truly is a human right," the group's Executive Director Reshma Shamasunder said in a statement.
The budget deal also sends billions of dollars more to public schools and universities, adds spaces for state-funded child care and preschool, and creates the state's first income tax credit for the working poor.
The revised spending plan is far closer to Brown's $115 billion proposal in May than the $117.5 billion version approved a day earlier by the Democratic-controlled Legislature. It adds $61 million in spending above his May plan.
"All in all, I think the people of California can be proud of the work that's been done," Brown said.
Brown also announced he is calling two special sessions to address how California pays for roads, highways and other infrastructure and Medi-Cal. There is a $5.7 billion annual backlog in road repairs, the administration said.
But Republicans warned that the special sessions could result in new taxes on gasoline, cigarettes and health care. "Given the $14 billion of unanticipated tax revenues the state has just received, it is difficult to understand why their starting point is to impose billions of dollars in additional taxes on hard-working Californians," said Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar.
Legislative Democrats had sought to restore spending on a host of social welfare programs that were cut during the recession, and they pushed to expand support for the neediest in California as the state enjoys a surplus. Their proposed budget added $749 million in new spending.
Under the compromise announced Tuesday, Brown agreed to keep some of those programs such as boosting the number of state-subsidized child care slots, giving in-home support workers a raise, and expanding health coverage to children regardless of their legal status.
The governor said he was able to fund those programs without adding to state spending by finding savings in a variety of other programs, including fixing an accounting error in health spending.
Still, advocates who had pressured the Democratic governor to expand programs were disappointed. Brown rejected proposals to allow child care workers to unionize, kept a cap on welfare payments meant to discourage low-income women from having additional children, and rejected Medi-Cal payment increases to doctors and dentists.
"This budget doesn't do anything to stop punishing poor children," said Mike Herald, legislative advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Donald Trump campaign fires back: We paid to use Neil Young's song

Neil Young isn't too happy with Donald Trump. 
The New York real estate mogul arrived on stage at his campaign kickoff announcement Tuesday as the sounds of Young's "Rockin' In The Free World" blared through the atrium at Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan.
The only problem? Young blasted the Republican candidate following his announcement, with the rocker claiming Trump didn't have permission to use the music.
"Donald Trump was not authorized to use 'Rockin' In The Free World' in his presidential candidacy announcement," a statement from Young's team released late Tuesday read. "Neil Young, a Canadian citizen, is a supporter of Bernie Sanders for President of the United States of America."
However, when FOX411 reached Trump's campaign manager for comment, he sang a very different tune.
“Through a licensing agreement with ASCAP, Mr. Trump’s campaign paid for and obtained the legal right to use Neil Young’s recording of ‘Rockin' In The Free World,'" Trump's Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski told us. "Nevertheless, there are plenty of other songs to choose from. Despite Neil’s differing political views, Mr. Trump likes him very much.”
It's not the first time -- or even the first time this year -- a candidate has been chastised by a musician for use of a tune. When Marco Rubio played the electronic hit "Something New" at a rally, the duo behind the song spoke out almost immediately, declaring Rubio hadn't obtained permission to use the song and they "don't want to be affiliated with a particular party during the upcoming presidential race."
Similarly, back in 2012, when Mitt Romney played Silversun Pickups' "Panic Switch," the band sent the Republican candidate a cease and desist letter and guitarist Brian Aubert declared, "We don't like people going behind our backs, using our music without asking, and we don't like the Romney campaign."
Plus, there can be a big cost associated with using a hit song to promote a campaign.
John McCain said in 2008, though he was a huge ABBA fan, he gave up on using one of their tunes at his campaign events.
"It's more difficult to play 'Let's Take A Chance On Me' than I thought," McCain said at the time, according to Reuters. "It gets expensive in a big hurry and if you're not careful you can alienate some Swedes."