U.S. Universities Underreport Donations from Hostile Regimes by Over $1.5 Billion

Elite colleges received billions in undisclosed donations from China, Qatar, and Russia

 
 
 

Yale University / Twitter screenshot

Chrissy Clark - AUGUST 31, 2020 2:05 PM

New data from the Department of Education show that several top-tier universities, including Yale and Cornell, failed to report more than $3 billion in foreign gifts and funds—many of which come from anti-American regimes such as China and Qatar.

According to a new study from the Clarion Project, American colleges and universities inaccurately disclosed foreign funding to the Department of Education. Between 2014 and 2019, they reported a total of $11 billion in foreign funds. But the Clarion Project's data show that the true number is over $14 billion. Some of the biggest discrepancies involve Cornell University, Texas A&M University, the University of Colorado Boulder, and Yale University.

Cornell initially reported taking $340 million in foreign funding, but the real number is closer to $1.3 billion—over $800 million of which came from Qatar. The University of Colorado Boulder initially reported $55 million in foreign funding, but the real number is closer to $345 million—61 percent of which came from the United Arab Emirates. Yale initially reported $128 million, but the real number is $496 million—almost $42 million of which came from China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia.

Foreign influence is growing on college campuses, and universities seldom disclose their fiscal relationships with foreign actors. A Washington Free Beacon review of federal records found that over 100 U.S. universities have Confucius Institutes, a Chinese government-backed program that often pushes Chinese Communist Party propaganda on American students. The Department of Education has mandated that universities report all foreign money through a new online portal, which has unearthed previously hidden disparities.

In all, unreported contributions from China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE, and Qatar totaled $1.59 billion between 2014 and 2019.

"If it wasn't for a crackdown by the Department of Education, this never would have been known. The universities still wouldn't feel the need to report this, they wouldn't feel under the microscope or any sense of urgency," said Clarion Project research analyst Alex VanNess. "We're seeing billions of dollars—much of which has strings attached—being used to influence U.S. students from countries that want to use a soft power against the United States."

Of the 211 universities that disclosed their foreign funding, only Yale refused to disclose where donations were coming from. A university typically reports whether a donation came in the form of a "monetary gift" or "contract," the gift's country origin, and the gifter's name. Yale disclosed whether the money came in the form of a gift or contract and the money's country of origin, but refused to disclose the gifters' names. The data do indicate that Yale accepted donations from China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia.

VanNess told the Free Beacon that the lack of transparency is concerning. "It's not necessarily nefarious, but the idea that it's not being reported and not being disclosed and we're not being told what the money is paying for and who it's going to, that is a problem," VanNess said.

The Department of Education calls these discrepancies a "black hole" and claims that universities have failed to comply with disclosure laws. A Department of Education spokeswoman told the Free Beacon that universities have always been required to report foreign donations, but that previous department secretaries have been lax about enforcement.

"This is an issue of national security," the spokeswoman said. "Among other concerns, foreign money—from governments, government-run corporations, NGOs, and individuals—may come with ‘strings attached' that compromise academic freedom."

Texas A&M University said that it was investigating the discrepancies. Yale and Cornell did not respond to requests for comment.

Looting of a different stripe

FBI: Chinese researcher caught trying to fly to China with stolen bio-inspired computer code

by Jerry Dunleavy, Justice Department Reporter | 

 

 | August 28, 2020 03:41 PM

The American public are being played by their own intelligence agencies and corporate media with covert agendas that are deeply anti-democratic.

CIA Behind Guccifer & Russiagate – A Plausible Scenario

by Tyler Durden

Sun, 08/16/2020 - 00:00

Print

Via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

William Binney is the former technical director of the U.S. National Security Agency who worked at the agency for 30 years. He is a respected independent critic of how American intelligence services abuse their powers to illegally spy on private communications of U.S. citizens and around the globe. 

Given his expert inside knowledge, it is worth paying attention to what Binney says.

In a media interview this week, he dismissed the so-called Russiagate scandal as a “fabrication” orchestrated by the American Central Intelligence Agency. Many other observers have come to the same conclusion about allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections with the objective of helping Donald Trump get elected.

But what is particularly valuable about Binney’s judgment is that he cites technical analysis disproving the Russiagate narrative. That narrative remains dominant among U.S. intelligence officials, politicians and pundits, especially those affiliated with the Democrat party, as well as large sections of Western media. The premise of the narrative is the allegation that a Russian state-backed cyber operation hacked into the database and emails of the Democrat party back in 2016. The information perceived as damaging to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was subsequently disseminated to the Wikileaks whistleblower site and other U.S. media outlets.

A mysterious cyber persona known as “Guccifer 2.0” claimed to be the alleged hacker. U.S. intelligence and news media have attributed Guccifer as a front for Russian cyber operations.

Notably, however, the Russian government has always categorically denied any involvement in alleged hacking or other interference in the 2016 U.S. election, or elections thereafter.

William Binney and other independent former U.S. intelligence experts say they can prove the Russiagate narrative is bogus. The proof relies on their forensic analysis of the data released by Guccifer. The analysis of timestamps demonstrates that the download of voluminous data could not have been physically possible based on known standard internet speeds. These independent experts conclude that the data from the Democrat party could not have been hacked, as Guccifer and Russiagaters claim. It could only have been obtained by a leak from inside the party, perhaps by a disgruntled staffer who downloaded the information on to a disc. That is the only feasible way such a huge amount of data could have been released. That means the “Russian hacker” claims are baseless.

Wikileaks, whose founder Julian Assange is currently imprisoned in Britain pending an extradition trial to the U.S. to face espionage charges, has consistently maintained that their source of files was not a hacker, nor did they collude with Russian intelligence. As a matter of principle, Wikileaks does not disclose the identity of its sources, but the organization has indicated it was an insider leak which provided the information on senior Democrat party corruption.

William Binney says forensic analysis of the files released by Guccifer shows that the mystery hacker deliberately inserted digital “fingerprints” in order to give the impression that the files came from Russian sources. It is known from information later disclosed by former NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden that the CIA has a secretive program – Vault 7 – which is dedicated to false incrimination of cyber attacks to other actors. It seems that the purpose of Guccifer was to create the perception of a connection between Wikileaks and Russian intelligence in order to beef up the Russiagate narrative.

“So that suggested [to] us all the evidence was pointing back to CIA as the originator [of] Guccifer 2.0. And that Guccifer 2.0 was inside CIA… I’m pointing to that group as the group that was probably the originator of Guccifer 2.0 and also this fabrication of the entire story of Russiagate,” concludes Binney in his interview with Sputnik news outlet.

This is not the first time that the Russiagate yarn has been debunked. But it is crucially important to make Binney’s expert views more widely appreciated especially as the U.S. presidential election looms on November 3. As that date approaches, U.S. intelligence and media seem to be intensifying claims about Russian interference and cyber operations. Such wild and unsubstantiated “reports” always refer to the alleged 2016 “hack” of the Democrat party by “Guccifer 2.0” as if it were indisputable evidence of Russian interference and the “original sin” of supposed Kremlin malign activity. The unsubstantiated 2016 “hack” is continually cited as the “precedent” and “provenance” of more recent “reports” that purport to claim Russian interference.

Given the torrent of Russiagate derivatives expected in this U.S. election cycle, which is damaging U.S.-Russia bilateral relations and recklessly winding up geopolitical tensions, it is thus of paramount importance to listen to the conclusions of honorable experts like William Binney.

The American public are being played by their own intelligence agencies and corporate media with covert agendas that are deeply anti-democratic.

Jonathan Turley: slammed the mainstream media on Friday for its "willful blindness to mounting evidence of wrongdoing in the Russian investigation."

Liberal law prof shreds media for 'willful blindness' to facts of 'wrongdoing in the Russia investigation'

'None of that seems to matter...'

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

 CHRIS ENLOE

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, a self-described liberal who teaches at George Washington School of Law, slammed the mainstream media on Friday for its "willful blindness to mounting evidence of wrongdoing in the Russian investigation."

What's the background?

On Friday, the Justice Department announced the first indictment resulting from U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation.

The DOJ revealed that former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith will plead guilty to falsifying a document that was used to obtain a surveillance warrant Trump campaign aide Carter Page. Clinesmith is accused of altering an email document to downplay Page's association with the CIA.

What did Turley say?

According to the constitutional lawyer, the DOJ's announcement is more evidence of the media's willful ignorance to the facts surrounding the Russia investigation, with regard to activities conducted by FBI agents and top DOJ officials.

"The implications of this criminal plea is enormous but the media has engaged in a pattern of willful blindness to mounting evidence of wrongdoing in the Russian investigation by FBI and DOJ figures," Turley began.

"Notably, the Flynn plea was widely reported as a major conviction despite the fact that the agents themselves stated that they did not believe Flynn intentionally lied. Pleas by others resulted in less than a month of jail, including Papadopoulos who received only 14 days," he added.

"Those pleas were given endless and breathless discussion in the media. This is a direct and major falsification by a critical figure in the Russian investigation. It follows referrals for criminal charges against other figures like Andrew McCabe. None of that seems to matter," Turley continued. 

Indeed, in the early days of Robert Mueller's investigation, the media widely reported on each new development, suggesting the indictments stemming from Mueller's probe were evidence that Trump's campaign committed wrongdoing in the 2016 election.

However, that changed completely last year when Mueller concluded that Trump's campaign, in fact, did not collude with Russia.

Still, the media has been slow to accept the Mueller investigation's findings, and, as Turley noted, the wrongdoing done by government officials who oversaw and played critical roles in the Trump-Russia investigation.

In an op-ed for The Hill, Turley summarized this investigative double-standard being employed by Democrats.

"So, just to wrap up, we have a collusion investigation that was shown to be based on false or unreliable information. It was launched and maintained by officials who were accused by an inspector general of misconduct, false statements, or procedural errors, and now we have an actual criminal guilty plea. Yet many in Washington continue to insist there is no reason for Durham to keep digging. As Biden says, 'Gosh almighty,'" Turley wrote.

Revelation of Steele’s primary source triggers focus on think tank tied to Clinton, Biden

The Obama team's ties to the Brookings Institution are deep, and so are those of impeachment witness Fiona Hill.

The revelation that Christopher Steele’s primary sub-source for his dossier was an American resident tied to a liberal think tank close to the Obama administration has triggered new investigative interest.

The identification of Igor Danchenko as Steele’s subsource — reported by Real Clear Investigations and then confirmed by Danchenko's lawyer to the New York Times — means Steele’s dossier relied on someone who wasn't based in Russia despite claims to the contrary by the FBI.

In at least two of the applications for its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant targeting Trump adviser Carter Page, the FBI referred to the primary sub-source of the document as "truthful and cooperative" and "Russian-based," according to Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz's report last December.

continue

China-US row: Fugitive researcher 'hiding in San Francisco consulate'

• 2 hours ago

Media captionMen were filmed acting suspiciously at China's consulate in Houston on Tuesday

A Chinese scientist suspected of visa fraud and concealing ties to the military has fled to China's consulate in San Francisco, the US says.

Prosecutors allege that the case is part of a Chinese programme to send undercover army scientists to the US.

On Wednesday the Trump administration ordered the closure of China's mission in Houston, saying it was involved in stealing intellectual property. 

China condemned moves against its scientists and consulates in the US.

Foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin accused the administration of using excuses to limit, harass or crack down on Chinese scholars in the country.

"In response to the US's unreasonable actions, China must make a necessary response and safeguard its legitimate rights," he said at a press conference, describing the US allegations as "malicious slander".

• What's behind Trump's new strategy on China?
• The Hong Kong crisis and the new world order

Following the row over the Houston consulate, President Donald Trump threatened to close down more Chinese missions.

In recent months he has clashed repeatedly with Beijing over trade, the coronavirus pandemic and China's imposition of a controversial new security law on Hong Kong.

What are the allegations about the San Francisco mission?

Court filings by prosecutors in a federal court in San Francisco say the defendant, named as Juan Tang, was a biology researcher at the University of California, Davis.

According to the filings, during an interview with FBI agents last month she said she had not served in the Chinese military.

However, the document says, an open-source investigation uncovered photos of her wearing military uniform and a search of her home found further evidence of her affiliation with China's People's Liberation Army (PLA).

"At some point following the search and interview of Tang on June 20, 2020, Tang went to the Chinese consulate in San Francisco, where the FBI assesses she has remained," the filing, first reported on by the Axios news site, reads.

Image copyrightEPA

Image captionChina foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin called the US allegations "malicious slander"

It adds: "As the Tang case demonstrates, the Chinese consulate in San Francisco provides a potential safe harbor for a PLA official intent on avoiding prosecution in the United States."

Prosecutors say that this is not an isolated case but "appears to be part of a program conducted by the PLA" to send military scientists to the US on false pretences.

The document also highlights the cases of two other researchers arrested in California in recent weeks for lying about their alleged ties to the military.

What is happening at China's consulates?

The Houston consulate came under scrutiny on Tuesday when people overlooking the building's courtyard noticed several bins on fire.

Footage showed people throwing what appeared to be paper into the bins.

Emergency services were called to the building but Houston police say they were not granted access. 

On Wednesday, the administration gave China 72 hours to close the consulate "to protect American intellectual property and Americans' private information".

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Image captionUS Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the US would "take actions that protect the American people"

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said: "We are setting out clear expectations for how the Chinese Communist Party is going to behave. And when they don't, we're going to take actions that protect the American people, protect... our national security, and also protect our economy and jobs."

The consulate is one of five in the US, not counting the embassy in Washington. China described the closure as a "political provocation".

What is stoking tensions between China and the US?

There are a number of flashpoints between Beijing and Washington. Some of the most serious are:

• Coronavirus: President Trump has repeatedly referred to Covid-19 as the "China virus". and alleged it originated from a Chinese laboratory, despite his own intelligence officers saying it "was not manmade". In response, Chinese officials have suggested, without evidence, that Covid-19 might have originated in the US
• Trade: Mr Trump has long accused China of unfair trading practices and intellectual property theft. The US and China have engaged in a tit-for-tat tariff war since 2018 as a result of the dispute
• Hong Kong: China's imposition of a sweeping new national security law in Hong Kong in June led the US to revoke the region's preferential economic treatment. Beijing has accused the US of "gross interference" in its domestic affairs, promising it will retaliate
• South China Sea: The two countries have also clashed over Beijing's pursuit of offshore resources in disputed waters, with Mr Pompeo calling it a "campaign of bullying".