Clash Quiz: How Many Millions Did The FEC Say Hillary’s Campaign Illegally Laundered? – $9M? $41M? $84M?

This is unbelievable. How is it that the Media (D) is still silent on this?

But don’t forget, kiddies, don’t attack journalists with your ‘hate speech’ about bias.

In a lengthy article in the Federalist, Margot Cleveland explains the ‘shell game’ that Democrats played with millions of dollars in donations.

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.

Dan Backer, a campaign finance lawyer explains the underlying law to Business Insider:

…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.
Source: Business Insider

This loophole allows ‘bundlers’ to raise money from wealthy donors in large amounts — in excess of $400,000 at a time and funnel them legally to the national committees. Both Democrats and Republicans utilize the loophole, but there are other restrictions that apply.

Backer found that the DNC had violated the restrictions and he filed an 86-page complaint with the FEC which included 20 pages of Excel documents detailing the misconduct and the allegations against the campaign.

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.”

There are specific examples of how this worked.

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.

Donna Brazile, disgraced interim DNC chair, had revealed in her tell-all book that Barack had cleaned out the funds from the DNC and Hillary deliberately kept it on an ‘anemic diet’ to keep it dependant on her. This was a big factor in how the primaries were rigged for Hillary.

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.”

The Supreme Court is clear that this is against the law.

The illegality of this scheme isn’t a matter of debate. The Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC that this exact scenario would violate the law. Here’s how the court laid it out: “[A] donor gives a $500,000 check to a joint fundraising committee composed of a candidate, a national party committee, and most of the party’s state party committees. The committees divide up the money so that each one receives the maximum contribution permissible under the base limits, but then each transfers its allocated portion to the same single committee. That committee uses the money for coordinated expenditures on behalf of a particular candidate.”

But despite the clear illegality of the money laundering, the FEC did nothing.

Upon receipt of Backer’s complaint, the FEC was required to notify those accused of violating federal law of the charges. Then the commissioners were required to determine whether there was “reason to believe” a violation occurred. Following a finding by four FEC commissioners that there was “reason to believe” a violation has occurred, the FEC must investigate the complaint.

Last week Backer turned to federal court, seeking to force the FEC to fulfill its statutory duty.
But in this case, the FEC did nothing, other than presumably notify the DNC and Clinton of the charges. Accordingly, last week Backer turned to federal court, seeking to force the FEC to fulfill its statutory duty, as provided by federal law.
Source: The Federalist


Media (D)?

Anyone home?

Perhaps, as Margot Cleveland suggests at the end of her article, a couple of Presidential tweets will shame the Media (D) into covering it.

Maybe reporting on the corruption of Hillary that many of us suspected would be a little more relevant than obsessing over Trump-Russia ‘collusion’, James Comey’s new ‘tell nothing’ book, or extending the 15-minutes of fame of a porn star that’s profiting from salacious allegations of a one-night-stand 12 years ago with the President.

But hey, what do I know.

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.