Forget #Benghazi; forget #Clintonemail stuff; this could be the bomb

Ken Silverstein, long-time proprietor of the Washington Babylon blog and news analysis corner at Harper's, says the Clinton Foundation has less than a month to get its accounting books run through some major clean-up operations, or else start worrying about fraud.

Couldn't happen to a nicer gent, if the Slickster is in trouble. Actually, it could; Silverstein says that long-term Clinton insider Ira Magaziner, the driving force behind 1993's Clintoncare, which (despite the GOP hating it — they first loved it) made Obamacare look actually liberal in some ways, could also get run over by the wheels of justice, too.

And, the IRS ain't Trey Gowdy. If this all comes down the pike, 'twill be fun to listen to Bill spin this.

'Twill be more fun yet to listen to Hillary spin this, since Ira was really in thick with her, and Clintoncare is really, as we all know, Hillarycare.

Actually, the most fun would be to listen to Hillary throwing lamps at Bill, per old Secret Service rumors.

How possible is any of this?

Well, Ken notes that the Clinton Foundation is on Charity Navigator's watch list; notes that a New York attorney, Charles Ortel, formerly of Dillon Read, says that under New York State law, at least, intent doesn't have to be proven.

Most oily in all of this is what got them dinged by Charity Navigator — spending less than 10 cents of the funds raised dollar on AIDS related program. At the center of that oiliness, the man probably more oily than either Clinton: Magaziner.

The foundation is worried enough that, in response to previous comments and reporting by Ortel, it's then-acting CEO promised in April to have made "mistakes" in tax filing and that amended filings would be done by Nov. 16.

So, set your clocks!

Even if the accounting restatements match IRS muster, this will still have impact. It opens the door to new stories about the foundation in general, and per the Charity Navigator watch list bit, opens the door to stories about how little the foundation spends on actual, well, you know, actual charitable work.

We already know, as in her desire to investigate Exxon because the company stopped supporting the foundation, that her (and presumably the Slickster's) hypocrisy knows few bounds.

In turn, that points to one other thing. The Nov. 16 date will lead to new looks at the incestuous relationship between the foundation and Clinton campaigns. It will also give more fuel to the fires on Clinton's left about how regressive many of the foundation's corporate donors are, or have been. Like eXXXon.

It will also bring the more oily of Clinton's connections, like Magaziner and Sid Blumenthal, to the light of day. These moles may scurry back into their dark, shit-laden corners, but the additional exposure can't help her campaign.