FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million
- Thread starter Danbones
- Start date
Tons and now that she can't shelter the senior IRS folks, well, they are sitting ducks and are likely scared sh!tless about them being involved in any investigation related to IRS wrong doings and what not
I hope that you're ok with lots of screaming and crying
It ain't gonna be pretty if trump decides to unleash his fury
Tell it to the judge.
prostitution is a crime innit?
In Canada, selling sex isn't a crime, but laundering is... by definition.
So… is prostitution in Canada legal or not?
Selling your own body for sex is legal. Buying sex is illegal. Therefore the transaction as a whole is legal on the part of the seller and illegal on the part of the buyer.
In the circumstances, although I know of no case law on this, it would appear that any contract for prostitution would be void for illegality.
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/19225/so-is-prostitution-in-canada-legal-or-not
Do you see how the money just got laundered there? Now, all that needs to b done is to pay tax on it or go to jail
Selling your own body for sex is legal. Buying sex is illegal. Therefore the transaction as a whole is legal on the part of the seller and illegal on the part of the buyer.
In the circumstances, although I know of no case law on this, it would appear that any contract for prostitution would be void for illegality.
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/19225/so-is-prostitution-in-canada-legal-or-not
Do you see how the money just got laundered there? Now, all that needs to b done is to pay tax on it or go to jail
You don't learn that one until gr. 12. But yes it is possible to legally(more or less) launder money.
Bombshell: FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million
The mainstream media took no notice of a federal court filing that exposes a $84 million money-laundering conspiracy Democrats executed during the 2016 presidential election.
APRIL 24, 2018
The press continues to feed the dying Russia collusion conspiracy theory, spending Friday’s news cycle regurgitating Democrat talking points from the just-filed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia.
Yet the mainstream media took no notice of last week’s federal court filing that exposes an $84 million money-laundering conspiracy the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign executed during the 2016 presidential election in violation of federal campaign-finance law.
That lawsuit, filed last week in a DC district court, summarizes the DNC-Clinton conspiracy and provides detailed evidence from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings confirming the complaint’s allegations that Democrats undertook an extensive scheme to violate federal campaign limits.
From Bundling To Money Laundering
Dan Backer, a campaign-finance lawyer and attorney-of-record in the lawsuit, explained the underlying law in an article for Investor’s Business Daily: Under federal law, “an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party’s main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits—it’s legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfer to their national party.”
This legal loophole allows “bundlers” to raise large sums of money from wealthy donors—more than $400,000 at a time—filtering the funds to the national committees. Democrats and Republicans alike exploit this tactic. But once the money reaches the national committees, other limits apply.
Suspecting the DNC had exceeded those limits, a client of Backer’s, the Committee to Defend the President, began reviewing FEC filings to determine whether there was excessive coordination between the DNC and Clinton. What Backer discovered, as he explained in an interview, was much worse. There was “extensive evidence in the Democrats’ own FEC reports, when coupled with their own public statements that demonstrated massive straw man contributions papered through the state parties, to the DNC, and then directly to Clinton’s campaign—in clear violation of federal campaign-finance law.”
On behalf of his clients, on December 15, 2017 Backer filed an 86-page complaint with the FEC, asking the FEC to commence enforcement proceedings against Hillary Clinton, her campaign and its treasurer, the DNC and its treasurer, and the participating state Democratic committees. The complaint, and an attached exhibit consisting of nearly 20 pages of Excel spreadsheets, detailed the misconduct and provided concrete evidence supporting the allegations. In short, here’s what happened and what the evidence establishes.
Think Of It Like A Shell Game With Millions Of Dollars
During the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and participating state Democratic committees established the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) as a joint fundraising committee to accept contributions from large donors, some exceeding $400,000. So far, so good. To comply with campaign finance law, the HVF needed to transfer the donations to the specified recipients, whether the Clinton campaign, down-ticket Democrats, the DNC, or state committees.
FEC records, however, show several large contributions reported as received by the HVF and the same amount on the same day (or occasionally the following day) recorded as received by the DNC from a state Democratic committee, but without the state Democratic committee ever reporting the contribution.
For instance, the HVF reported transferring $19,500 to the Mississippi Democratic Party on November 2, 2015, and the Democratic National Committee reported receiving $19,500 from the Mississippi Democratic Party on November 2, 2015. But the Mississippi Democratic Party never recorded the receipt or the disbursement of the $19,500, and without the Mississippi Democratic Party controlling the funds, the HVF’s contribution to the DNC violated campaign finance law.
Over a 13-month period, FEC records show some 30 separate occasions when the HVF transferred contributions totaling more than $10 million to the DNC without any corresponding record of the receipt or disbursement from the state parties, thus illegally leap-frogging the state Democratic parties.
On the other hand, of the contributions state parties reported as received from the HVF, 99 percent wound up at the DNC. They were transferred immediately or within a day or two, raising questions of whether the state Democratic committees truly exercised control over the money—something necessary under campaign finance law to allow a later-legal transfer to the DNC.
Again, the evidence is damning. According to Politico, “[w]hile state party officials were made aware that Clinton’s campaign would control the movement of the funds between participating committees, one operative who has relationships with multiple state parties said that some of their officials have complained that they weren’t notified of the transfers into and out of their accounts until after the fact.”
‘Using The Party As A Fundraising Clearinghouse’
But the Clinton campaign’s control of the contributions did not end once the funds reached the DNC, as the complaint filed with the FEC detailed. Rather, public statements by former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile acknowledged that “[a]s Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”
Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of the Clinton campaign, which operated as Hillary For America “HFA,” out of Brooklyn, New York, likewise stated that the Democratic Party was “fully under the control of the Clinton campaign . . . . The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse.”
By excercising control over the DNC’s funds, including funds transferred from the HVF through the state parties, the contributions qualified as donations to the Clinton campaign for purposes of federal campaign finance law, and when properly accounted for exceeded the legal contribution limits.
The Supreme Court Made It Clear This Is Illegal
FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million
Reap the whirlwind!
If it wasn't on Facebook it didn't happen.
You are trying to look at it logically. Don't. It is all about tax revenue as far as the government is concerned. Once tax is paid it has to become legal or the government would be guilty of a criminal offense as well for accepting the tax revenue.
I know, eh? It's such a big story that five whole kooky conspiracy theorists on an open ended forum are talking about it.
THEY KNOW!
Hillary for President Campaign laundered $85 million says Bernie's Campaign, FEC law suit
https://brassballs.blog/home/hillar...illion-says-bernies-campaign-and-fcc-law-suit
The same complaint was made by the Bernie Sanders Campaign for President in a letter dated April 18th, 2016 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bernie-2016-Letter-to-DNC-1.pdf
DNC sought to hide details of Clinton funding deal
Leaked emails show officials tried to obscure fact that Clinton allowed states to keep only a tiny fraction of proceeds from joint fundraising.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191
The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme
The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme
12/26/2017
In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of my client, Alabama engineer Shaun McCutcheon, in his challenge to the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) outdated "aggregate limits," which effectively limited how many candidates any one donor could support.
Anti-speech liberals railed against McCutcheon's win, arguing it would create supersized "Joint Fundraising Committees" (JFCs). In court, they claimed these JFCs would allow a single donor to cut a multimillion-dollar check, and the JFC would then route funds through dozens of participating state parties, who would then funnel it back to the final recipient.
Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer claimed the Supreme Court's McCutcheon v. FEC ruling would lead to "the system of legalized bribery recreated that existed prior to Watergate." The Supreme Court, in ruling for us, flatly stated such a scheme would still be illegal.
The Democrats' response? Hold my beer.
The Committee to Defend the President has filed an FEC complaint against Hillary Clinton's campaign, Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic state parties and Democratic mega-donors.
As Fox News reported, we documented the Democratic establishment "us[ing] state chapters as straw men to circumvent campaign donation limits and launder(ing) the money back to her campaign." The 101-page complaint focused on the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) — the $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, DNC, and dozens of state parties — which did exactly that the Supreme Court declared would still be illegal.
HVF solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane, and routed them through state parties en route to the Clinton campaign. Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.
Here's what we know. Campaign finance law is incredibly complex and infamous for its lack of clarity. As I've explained before, its complexity is a feature, not a bug. Major political players with the resources to hire the very few attorneys who practice campaign finance law benefit from the complexity that keeps others out. Perhaps HVF's architects thought so too, and assumed that if no one understands what's happening, no one would complain.
https://www.investors.com/politics/...-clintons-84-million-money-laundering-scheme/
HANG MAN IS COMING...
https://brassballs.blog/home/hillar...illion-says-bernies-campaign-and-fcc-law-suit
The same complaint was made by the Bernie Sanders Campaign for President in a letter dated April 18th, 2016 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bernie-2016-Letter-to-DNC-1.pdf
DNC sought to hide details of Clinton funding deal
Leaked emails show officials tried to obscure fact that Clinton allowed states to keep only a tiny fraction of proceeds from joint fundraising.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191
The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme
The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme
12/26/2017
In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of my client, Alabama engineer Shaun McCutcheon, in his challenge to the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) outdated "aggregate limits," which effectively limited how many candidates any one donor could support.
Anti-speech liberals railed against McCutcheon's win, arguing it would create supersized "Joint Fundraising Committees" (JFCs). In court, they claimed these JFCs would allow a single donor to cut a multimillion-dollar check, and the JFC would then route funds through dozens of participating state parties, who would then funnel it back to the final recipient.
Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer claimed the Supreme Court's McCutcheon v. FEC ruling would lead to "the system of legalized bribery recreated that existed prior to Watergate." The Supreme Court, in ruling for us, flatly stated such a scheme would still be illegal.
The Democrats' response? Hold my beer.
The Committee to Defend the President has filed an FEC complaint against Hillary Clinton's campaign, Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic state parties and Democratic mega-donors.
As Fox News reported, we documented the Democratic establishment "us[ing] state chapters as straw men to circumvent campaign donation limits and launder(ing) the money back to her campaign." The 101-page complaint focused on the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) — the $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, DNC, and dozens of state parties — which did exactly that the Supreme Court declared would still be illegal.
HVF solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane, and routed them through state parties en route to the Clinton campaign. Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.
Here's what we know. Campaign finance law is incredibly complex and infamous for its lack of clarity. As I've explained before, its complexity is a feature, not a bug. Major political players with the resources to hire the very few attorneys who practice campaign finance law benefit from the complexity that keeps others out. Perhaps HVF's architects thought so too, and assumed that if no one understands what's happening, no one would complain.
https://www.investors.com/politics/...-clintons-84-million-money-laundering-scheme/
HANG MAN IS COMING...
A bit of both really
If this is a mistake, she'll have her chance to defend these actions, but it's yugely ironic that the Democrats are hollering long and loud about campaign rigging and misdeeds when this possibility exists with their Presidential candidate