Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

DNC Chair Just Accused Hillary Of Stealing Money To Fund Her Campaign – They Found It All

Source: DNC Chair Just Accused Hillary Of Stealing Money To Fund Her Campaign – They Found It All

As more time passes since the 2016 Presidential election, the more shenanigans are revealed on the part of the Democratic National Committee in an effort to rig the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Former interim DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile continues to drop bombshells in an effort to put as much distance between herself and the Clintons as possible. Perhaps it is merely an “insurance policy” of sorts to prevent herself from being added to the Clinton body count or perhaps she has finally had an attack of conscience. Maybe she is attempting to deflect blame from herself for her own poor decisions, either way, the revelations are truly astounding!

Brazile began sounding the alarm last year on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, claiming Hillary took money from state parties to fund her second failed presidential campaign. Brazile revealed in an op-ed published in Politico Magazine that the DNC was broke and in serious debt all courtesy of former President Barack Obama.

Brazile wrote in her op-ed – “Obama left the party $24 million in debt — $15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign — and had been paying that off very slowly.”

Brazile then revealed that Hillary’s campaign fund known as Hillary for America, as well as the Hillary Victory Fund, a fundraising organization that worked hand in hand with the DNC had “taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.”

According to Brazile’s own testimony, she states – “The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”

That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience, she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.

On the phone, Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. 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. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

“What’s the burn rate, Gary?” I asked. “How much money do we need every month to fund the party?”

The burn rate was $3.5 million to $4 million a month, he said.

[WD_Button id=30779]

Opinion | House conservatives demand an investigation — of Hillary Clinton

Trump’s allies showcase their greatest hits.

Source: Opinion | House conservatives demand an investigation — of Hillary Clinton

Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation has won indictments against President Trump’s former campaign chairman and 16 others and has secured guilty pleas from five people, including Trump’s former national security adviser and two campaign advisers.

This can mean only one thing: It is time to reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Federal agents raided the properties of Trump’s personal attorney, who was paid by corporations seeking to influence Trump and who was reimbursed by Trump for paying hush money to a porn actress.

As a natural consequence of this, it is imperative to probe the dealings of the Clinton Foundation.

Voluminous evidence has emerged showing that Russians and other foreign nationals met with the Trump campaign with offers to help him win the election.

And this leads inevitably to the conclusion that federal prosecutors must look into the Uranium One sale during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

This, at any rate, is the peculiar view expressed by a group of House conservatives Tuesday as they introduced a 12-page resolution demanding that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate various allegations against Clinton, the vanquished Democratic presidential nominee. They also want this new special prosecutor to look into the circumstances that started the Russia probe, though here, too, they blame Clinton, and to probe the conduct of Mueller and top officials at the Justice Department and FBI, who, as these lawmakers see it, are all hopelessly biased against Trump.

“We need a special prosecutor to investigate the special prosecutor,” asserted Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.).

Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.), joining his fellow conservatives, alleged “an orchestrated campaign against a duly elected government” — namely, Trump’s. “That’s why there’s nothing short of treason for those that actually participated,” he added.

The group of them — 10 men and one woman — tossed in their greatest hits from the Obama years: The “Fast and Furious” gun-running scheme, Anthony Weiner, political targeting at the IRS, Bill Clinton’s tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe’s wife getting Clinton-connected money. It’s a wonder they didn’t bring up Benghazi or Monica Lewinsky.

“It’s the scandal of our time, the scandal perhaps of our lifetime,” judged Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.).

There are just a couple of problems with this reprise of 2016’s “lock her up” mania: Clinton is no longer a candidate or an officeholder. Besides, if the FBI and Justice Department tipped the vote toward anybody in ’16, it was toward Trump, when FBI Director James B. Comey announced shortly before the election that he had reopened the email investigation. Mueller, the other focus of the conservatives’ ire, is a Republican appointed by another Republican, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who was appointed by Trump.

 

But such nuance was not on the minds of those demanding a new independent counsel to probe Mueller, Rosenstein, Clinton and, presumably, anybody Trump feels is out to get him — a persecutor prosecutor, if you will.

NBC’s Kasie Hunt offered the conservatives an observation: “I’ve spoken to the more moderate members of your caucus, one of whom used the word ‘crazy’ to describe all of you and this effort.”

“You want to give us the name?” inquired Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.). He explained why the effort was not crazy: “I can assure you there’s a there there.”

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), who wrote the anti-Clinton resolution, argued that “what’s crazy about all of this is the fact that every single thing in that resolution is accurate. That’s crazy.”

No, what’s crazy is that Zeldin believes his allegations are somehow relevant.

Democrats would like nothing more than for Republicans to attack Clinton again; that would further rile the base. This, presumably, is why GOP leaders want nothing to do with the Zeldin resolution. But the conservatives, who tend to come from districts that voted heavily for Trump, don’t care what anybody else thinks.

Thus did Zeldin, reading from his resolution Tuesday morning, sound as if a time warp had taken him back to 2016, or to an alternate reality in which Clinton won.

“With regards to Secretary Clinton, federal law and State Department rules, regulations and protocol were violated with her use of a private email server in her Chappaqua, New York, home,” began the young legislator, reciting the whole well-known tale.

[WD_Button id=30779]

 

Watchdog report to fault FBI for Clinton probe delay

Source: Watchdog report to fault FBI for Clinton probe delay

WASHINGTON (AP) — An upcoming report from the Justice Department’s internal watchdog is expected to criticize senior FBI leaders for not moving quickly enough to review a trove of Hillary Clinton emails discovered late in the 2016 campaign, according to people familiar with the findings.

The FBI’s timing has been a sore point for Clinton supporters, who say then-director James Comey’s announcement of the new review less than two weeks before the Nov. 8, 2016, election contributed to her loss. The agency’s findings affirming its decision not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton were disclosed two days before the vote — too late, her supporters say, to undo the damage.

Some FBI officials knew in September 2016 of the emails on former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s laptop but the bureau did not obtain a warrant to review them until the following month. Clinton allies say the candidate’s name could have been cleared much faster if the FBI acted on the emails as soon as they knew of their existence.

An inspector general report examining a broad range of FBI actions during the Clinton email investigation will criticize officials, including Comey, for not moving fast enough to examine the email trove and for a weekslong delay in getting a warrant, according to people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to discuss it publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press.

A lawyer for Comey and spokespeople for the inspector general and the FBI all declined to comment Monday.

The report will likely revive scrutiny of the FBI’s handling of the Clinton case and the extent to which it helped shape the outcome of the presidential election. Its conclusions may cut against President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions that the FBI was working against him during the campaign and instead revive allegations that the bureau broke from protocol in ways that ultimately harmed Clinton.

The nonpolitical watchdog has been repeatedly pulled into the partisan arena amid demands to investigate FBI actions in the early stages of its probe of possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign.

On Sunday, the Justice Department asked the inspector general, Michael Horowitz, to expand his existing investigation to look into whether Trump associates were improperly monitored during the campaign for political reasons.

The report dealing with the Clinton emails arises from a wide-ranging investigation launched in January 2017. It has been examining actions including Comey’s decision to announce his recommendation against criminal charges at an FBI headquarters news conference and his decision months later to alert Congress that the probe had been reopened because of the discovery of email messages on Weiner’s laptop.

The report is also expected to criticize two FBI officials who exchanged derogatory text messages about Trump during the course of the Clinton investigation.

A draft of the report has been completed, and officials whose actions are scrutinized in it have been permitted with their lawyers to review it and respond to the findings. The final version is expected out next month.

A separate inspector general report from last month faulted former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for misleading investigators about his role in a 2016 news media disclosure about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

McCabe, who has denied wrongdoing, was fired because of those findings, and the inspector general has referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington for possible criminal prosecution.

Weiner is the former husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. His laptop was being analyzed by FBI investigators as part of a separate sexting investigation involving a teenage girl. Weiner, a former Democratic congressman from New York, is serving a 21-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to sending obscene material to a 15-year-old girl.

In his book released last month, “A Higher Loyalty,” Comey writes that he learned in early October — probably from McCabe — that Weiner’s laptop might hold a connection to the Clinton email investigation. He said he did not recall the conversation clearly and that it seemed like a “passing comment and the notion that Anthony Weiner’s computer might connect to … Hillary Clinton made no sense to me.”

Comey said it wasn’t until the morning of Oct. 27 when FBI officials asked his permission to seek a warrant for the Clinton emails, having determined that “hundreds of thousands of emails” from Clinton’s personal email domain existed on the computer and that there was no way Weiner would consent to a search of his entire laptop given the legal trouble he was in.

Some of the emails on the laptop had been forwarded by Abedin to Weiner to be printed out while others had been stored there after being backed up from personal electronic devices.

The FBI subsequently obtained a warrant, and though Comey said he was told there was no chance the email review would be done before the election, he announced on Nov. 6 that, “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.”

Anthony Weiner’s Laptop Names US Attorney = Human Trafficking Pedogate

Judicial Watch Gets Podesta Documents – Linking To Hillary & Obama

 

DOJ inspector general completes long-awaited review of Hillary Clinton probe

DOJ inspector general completes long-awaited review of Hillary Clinton probe

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/17/doj-inspector-general-completes-long-awaited-review-hillary-clinton-probe.html

Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at http://www.foxnews.com/apps-products/index.html.

BREAKING: Congress Just Called for CRIMINAL Investigation, They Found Everything!

Source: https://rwnofficial.com

The feud that has been simmering on a low boil for months between Congress and the Justice Department, has finally boiled over, erupting into a full-fledged cage match this week. Many people believe this could be the House Intelligence Committee is closing in and the noose is ever tightening.

Most recently, 11 members of Congress are now yet again sending a signed a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, FBI Director Chris Wray, and U.S. Attorney John Huber asking them, yet again to conduct a criminal investigation into multiple members of the Obama administration. The letter specifically demands a criminal investigation be launched into the conduct and actions of former FBI Director James Comey, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and anti-Trump FBI officials Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page.

Lawmakers wrote in a letter released by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) –

“In doing so, we are especially mindful of the dissimilar degrees of zealousness that has marked the investigations into Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Those in positions of high authority should be treated the same as every other American.” the lawmakers stated while also insisting that any violations of law need to be “vetted appropriately.”

The lawmakers argue that Comey mishandled the criminal investigation into Hillary over her use of a private email server, claiming that the investigation was “motivated by a political agenda.”

Subpoenas and various demands for information continue to go back and forth and until this week, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and his subordinates at the department fought the continued Congressional demands for information with the tools of banal bureaucracy – resist, delay, ignore, negotiate.

Yet Rosenstein decided to kick it up a notch by recently accusing House Republicans of “threats,” extortion and wanting to “rummage” through department documents.

Meanwhile, the New York Times is dropping stories with the usual “anonymous sources” with new accusations claiming “Mr. Rosenstein and top FBI officials have come to suspect that some lawmakers were using their oversight authority to gain intelligence about [Special Counsel Bob Mueller’s ] investigation so that it could be shared with the White House.”

Yet clearly Rosenstein is not worried in the slightest about “rummaging” he is simply diverting attention from the Bureau’s concern with the exact opposite conversation in that the FBI is being required to comply with very specific and revealing, along with potentially damaging demands.

Justice Department was recently delivered first a classified House Intelligence Committee letter and then a subpoena demanding documents related to a new line of inquiry about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Trump investigation. The deadline for complying with the subpoena was Thursday afternoon, and the Justice Department flouted it.

As the White House is undoubtedly monitoring any new congressional demands for information, it is likely that President Trump’s tweet Wednesday ripping the department for not turning over documents was in part a reference to this latest demand.

Memos from May 2017,  show Rosenstein throwing Comey under the bus slamming Comey for making “serious mistakes” throughout the course of the investigation.

“Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives,” Rosenstein wrote. “The way (Comey) handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong.”

Yet Comey has thrown former President Obama and his Attorney General Loretta Lynch under the bus, claiming they “jeopardized” the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

In his book, A Higher Loyalty, Comey defends the FBI investigators who were charged with investigating Hillary’s private email server and her mishandling of classified information.

“I never heard anyone on our team — not one — take a position that seemed driven by their personal political motivations. And more than that: I never heard an argument or observation I thought came from a political bias. Never,” Comey writes in his book. “Instead we debated, argued, listened, reflected, agonized, played devil’s advocate, and even found opportunities to laugh as we hashed out major decisions.”

 

“Contributing to this problem, regrettably, was President Obama. He had jeopardized the Department of Justice’s credibility in the investigation by saying in a 60 Minutes interview on Oct. 11, 2015, that Clinton’s email use was “a mistake” that had not endangered national security. Then on Fox  News on April 10, 2016, he said that Clinton may have been careless but did not do anything to intentionally harm national security, suggesting that the case involved overclassification of material in the government.

President Obama is a very smart man who understands the law very well. To this day, I don’t know why he spoke about the case publicly and seemed to absolve her before a final determination was made. If the president had already decided the matter, an outside observer could reasonably wonder, how on earth could his Department of Justice do anything other than follow his lead.”

[WD_Button id=5940]

Hillary Clinton Has Temper Tantrum On Live TV! Complains of Russians and Putin!

Published on Jun 4, 2017

Hillary Clinton continues to act like a sore loser. One week ago she went on a live television program where she complained about the Russians hacking the 2016 presidential election. It’s very funny how out of touch she is with the average American voter.

 

Delusional Hillary Stumbles Out In Public Insisting She’s President, Then Everyone Sees What’s In

Delusional Hillary Stumbles Out In Public Insisting She’s President, Then Everyone Sees What’s In Her Coat!

Source: https://daily-vine.com

Once again Hillary Clinton is trying to run a scam on the American people. But this time the scam is really outrageous to the point that clearly shows just how delusional this failed presidential candidate really is.

On top of cleverly trying to conceal the fact that she once again fell and had her hand in a cast hidden by her coat, the former Secretary of State spoke at the women’s club The Wing located in Manhattan yesterday. And as most of you can probably already guess, she wasn’t there to speak kindly of President Donald Trump. She attacked him on everything she could manage to think of from Putin to Fox News.

“I don’t think we’ve seen the bottom yet, I think it’s very unfortunate to contemplate but more can happen that would put our rights at risk, our freedom at risk, our values, our fundamental views about what it means to be Americans,” said Clinton.

 “When he can’t think of anything to say, Trump starts chanting it and you sit there and you think ‘does he think I was elected?’” she said. “I said something publicly a few months ago, Fox News is always trying to impeach me so someone needs to tell them that it doesn’t apply to a private citizen.”

She actually said that “The U.S. is in a very bad spot and we haven’t seen the bottom” yet when it comes to having Trump as our president. And that he still breaks into chants at his rally’s saying “Lock her up.” like he wants to “Impeach” her.

First of all, where was she when we had Obama as our president and for the first time in history a president wasn’t able to give us a GDP of over 3% in the 8 years in office. And second, you can only impeach some elected officials, which means this woman actually, in her own mind, believes she was elected president.

There really comes a time in everyone’s life when the family must have an intervention and confront that person to tell them it’s time to pack it up and retire. Maybe it would even be a good idea if they put her in a home since she can’t seem to be able to stay on her feet and always seems to be falling. But what really proves this woman needs help is the fact she is going around saying President Trump wants to impeach her, which he has never said, because she is not the president.

Here is a list of things Hillary has blamed since losing the 2016 Election via the DailyMail

“EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING HILLARY CLINTON HAS BLAMED FOR LOSING THE ELECTION – 43 AND COUNTING

JAMES COMEY

Clinton is furious that Comey, then the FBI director, publicly revealed the re-opening of the secret email server investigation just before election day – and has said so time after time after time.

THE FBI

Comey’s entire organization does not escape her wrath.

‘The FBI wasn’t the Federal Bureau of Ifs or Innuendoes. Its job was to find out the facts,’ she writes in What Happened.

VLADIMIR PUTIN

‘There’s no doubt in my mind that Putin wanted me to lose and wanted Trump to win,’ she told USA Today in September last year while promoting What Happened.

It was hardly a new theme. As early as December the New York Times obtained audio in which she told her donors: ‘Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people, and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election.’

THE RUSSIANS

Putin’s entire apparatus gets a name-check. In May she told the Codecon convention how ‘1,000 Russian agents’ had filled Facebook with ‘fake news’.

She told NPR ‘my path toward November was being disrupted with Russians’.

WIKILEAKS

The ‘transparency website’ is consistently ranked along with Comey by Clinton at the top of her blame list.

She told NPR : ‘Unfortunately the Comey letter, aided to great measure by the Russian WikiLeaks, raised all those doubts again.’

And she writes of its founder Julian Assange in What Happened: ‘In my view, Assange is a hypocrite who deserves to be held accountable for his actions.’

LOW INFORMATION VOTERS

‘You put yourself in the position of a low information voter, and all of a sudden your Facebook feed, your Twitter account is saying, “Oh my gosh, Hillary Clinton is running a child trafficking operation in Washington with John Podesta.”,’ she told the Codecon convention in May.

‘Well you don’t believe it but this has been such an unbelievable election, you kind of go, ‘Oh maybe I better look into that.”

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

‘We have an electoral college problem. It’s an anachronism,’ she told Vox.

ANTI-AMERICAN FORCES

‘I think it’s important that we learn the real lessons from this last campaign because the forces that we are up against are not just interested in influencing our elections and our politics, they’re going after our economy and they’re going after our unity as a nation,’ she told Codecon in May.

‘What is hard for people to really accept – although now after the election there’s greater understanding – is that there are forces in our country – put the Russians to one side – who have been fighting rear guard actions for as long as I’ve been alive because my life coincided with the Civil Rights movement, with the women’s rights movement, with anti-war protesting, with the impeachment.

EVERYONE WHO ASSUMED SHE WOULD WIN

‘I was the victim of a very broad assumption that I was going to win,’ she told the Codecon convention.

BAD POLLING NUMBERS

Clinton says polls in key states did not serve her.

‘I think polling is going to have to undergo some revisions in how they actually measure people,’ she told the Codecon convention.

‘How they reach people. The best assessments as of right now are that the polling was not that inaccurate, but it was predominantly national polling and I won nationally.’

BARACK OBAMA

Clinton has two beefs with Obama: one of them being that he won two terms. Clinton says that succeeding an incumbent is almost impossible for a Democrat.

‘No non-incumbent Democrat had run successfully to succeed another two-termer since Vice President Martin Van Buren won in 1836,’ she writes in What Happened.

But she also says his response to the Russian campaign of interference wasn’t enough.

‘I do wonder sometimes about what would have happened if President Obama had made a televised address to the nation in the fall of 2016 warning that our democracy was under attack,’ she writes in What Happened.

WHITE WOMEN

‘I believe absent Comey, I might’ve picked up 1 or 2 points among white women,’ she told Vox in September.

‘White woman… are really quite politically dependent on their view of their own security and their own position in society what works and doesn’t work for them.’

‘What happened in my election is I was on the way to winning white women until former director of the FBI Jim Comey dropped that very ill-advised letter on Oct. the 28th and my numbers just went down,’ she said in a March 2018 speech in India.

‘All of a sudden white women who were going to vote for me, and frankly standing up to the men in their lives and the men in their work places were being told, “She’s going to jail, you don’t want to vote for her. It’s going to be terrible you can’t vote for that.” It stopped my momentum and it decreased my vote enough. Because I was ahead and I was winning and I thought I had fought my way back. ‘ (MORE)

Clinton Campaign Laundered 84 Million

Source: http://thefederalist.com

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.Image result for Clinton Campaign Laundered 84 Million

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.

Image result for Clinton Campaign Laundered 84 MillionSuspecting 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. (more)

Hillary and DNC Are Now Facing MASSIVE Lawsuit

EXCLUSIVE: The Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee allegedly used state chapters as strawman to launder as much as $84 million in an effort to circumvent campaign donation limits, and the Federal Election Commission ignored complaints exposing the practice, a lawsuit filed Monday claims.

The Committee to Defend the President (CDP), a political action committee formally known as Stop Hillary PAC, filed its complaint with the FEC in December 2017 with the claims that the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) solicited cash from big-name donors, and allegedly sent that money through state chapters and back to the DNC before ending up with the Clinton campaign.

As first reported by Fox News at the time, the CDP alleges in its complaint that about $84 million was funneled illegally from the DNC through state party chapters and back into the war chest of the Clinton campaign. The political action committee claims that even though the FEC acknowledged receipt of the complaint and claimed that an investigation would be conducted, the needle has barely moved.

“The Clinton machine has escaped accountability for its illegal practices for far too long,” Ted Harvey, CDP chairman, said to Fox News. “After months of review, the FEC has refused to address the Clintons’ $84 million money laundering scheme that violated several campaign finance laws.”

On Monday, the CDP filed a lawsuit against the FEC with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They claim that the commission failed to act, calling the inaction “arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and an abuse of discretion.”

Image result for Hillary and DNC Are Now Facing MASSIVE LawsuitA copy of the suit obtained by Fox News urges the court to exercise its statutory authority under the Federal Election Campaign Act and take action against what they say is an unprecedented scheme to circumvent federal campaign finance law.

“We urge the Court to step in and demand action from the FEC,” Harvey said. “The American people demand that our most corrupt political figures answer for their transgressions.”

In its original complaint, the CDP alleges that about $84 million was funneled illegally from the DNC through state party chapters and back into the war chest of the Clinton campaign.

“Based on publicly available FEC records, repeatedly throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, HVF would purportedly transfer funds to its constituent political committees, which included between 34 and 40 state parties,” reads a passage from a copy of the complaint. “On the very same day each of these transfers supposedly occurred, or occasionally the very next day, every single one of those state parties purportedly contributed all of those funds to the DNC.”

______________________________________________________________________

Source: truthfeednews.com

Hillary and DNC Are Now Facing MASSIVE Lawsuit Over 2016 Money Laundering Scheme

Surprise, surprise, Hillary is embroiled in yet another scandal!

On Monday a lawsuit was filed against the Federal Election Commission, claiming that the government institution turned a blind eye to allegations that Hillary’s campaign and the DNC funneled money through state parties to avoid campaign finance laws.

From Fox News

EXCLUSIVE: The Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee allegedly used state chapters as strawmen to launder as much as $84 million in an effort to circumvent campaign donation limits, and the Federal Election Commission ignored complaints exposing the practice, a lawsuit filed Monday claims.

The Committee to Defend the President (CDP), a political action committee formally known as Stop Hillary PAC, filed its complaint with the FEC in December 2017 with the claims that the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) solicited cash from big-name donors, and allegedly sent that money through state chapters and back to the DNC before ending up with the Clinton campaign.

As first reported by Fox News at the time, the CDP alleges in its complaint that about $84 million was funneled illegally from the DNC through state party chapters and back into the war chest of the Clinton campaign. The political action committee claims that even though the FEC acknowledged receipt of the complaint and claimed that an investigation would be conducted, the needle has barely moved.

“The Clinton machine has escaped accountability for its illegal practices for far too long,” Ted Harvey, CDP chairman, said to Fox News. “After months of review, the FEC has refused to address the Clintons’ $84 million money laundering scheme that violated several campaign finance laws.”

On Monday, the CDP filed a lawsuit against the FEC with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They claim that the commission failed to act, calling the inaction “arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and an abuse of discretion.”

A copy of the suit obtained by Fox News urges the court to exercise its statutory authority under the Federal Election Campaign Act and take action against what they say is an unprecedented scheme to circumvent federal campaign finance law.

“We urge the Court to step in and demand action from the FEC,” Harvey said. “The American people demand that our most corrupt political figures answer for their transgressions.”

In its original complaint, the CDP alleges that about $84 million was funneled illegally from the DNC through state party chapters and back into the war chest of the Clinton campaign.

“Based on publicly available FEC records, repeatedly throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, HVF would purportedly transfer funds to its constituent political committees, which included between 34 and 40 state parties,” reads a passage from a copy of the complaint. “On the very same day each of these transfers supposedly occurred, or occasionally the very next day, every single one of those state parties purportedly contributed all of those funds to the DNC.”

The complaint filed against the FEC said previous reports showed a series of transactions in which the HVF disbursed contributions to its state party committee members — and they would receive the funds on the same day. The HVF would also allegedly disburse funds to up to 40 state parties at the same time, and those parties would send the money back within 24 hours.

 The CDP received a letter of acknowledgment from the FEC in the days after their December 15 filing.“You will be notified as soon as the Federal Election Commission takes final action on your complaint,” reads the letter, a copy of which was provided to Fox News. “Should you receive any additional information on this matter, please forward it to the Office of the General Counsel.”

Officials for the FEC declined to comment when reached for comment, citing an open investigation.

“A provision of federal campaign finance law requires that any Commission action on an enforcement matter be kept strictly confidential until the case is resolved,” reads an FEC statement provided to Fox News. “To comply with this legal commitment and to protect the interests of those involved, we have a policy of not commenting on matters that are before the agency.”

Image result for Hillary and DNC Are Now Facing MASSIVE Lawsuit

Pedogate Arrests, Hillary, Loretta & Bill Deal, Tarmac, Illegal Funds Ended By DOJ & Q

 

Source: natashanewsnow

What Hillary did that made the NY cops so ill – she skinned a child alive w/ Huma and drank the blood,  OMG  First I heard of this

I knew is was bad, but this is too much to take,  I will not be able to watch this

What happened: Did Russian troll farm’s fake Hillary Clinton sex tape swing the election? – twitchy.com

What happened: Did Russian troll farm’s fake Hillary Clinton sex tape swing the election? – twitchy.com
— Read on twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/04/10/what-happened-did-russian-troll-farms-fake-hillary-clinton-sex-tape-swing-the-election/

What happened: Did Russian troll farm’s fake Hillary Clinton sex tape swing the election? – twitchy.com

What happened: Did Russian troll farm’s fake Hillary Clinton sex tape swing the election? – twitchy.com
— Read on twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/04/10/what-happened-did-russian-troll-farms-fake-hillary-clinton-sex-tape-swing-the-election/

Hillary on Ivanka Being President: ‘We Don’t Want Any More Inexperienced Trumps in the White House’ | Breitbart

Last week on Dutch public broadcasting’s KRO-NCRV, Hillary Clinton shot down the notion of Ivanka Trump becoming the first female president of the United States. Partial transcript as follows: HOST EVA JINEK: Apparently Ivanka Trump wants to be the first female President of the United States. HILLARY CLINTON: That’s – Hillary | Breitbart TV

Source: Hillary on Ivanka Being President: ‘We Don’t Want Any More Inexperienced Trumps in the White House’ | Breitbart

Last week on Dutch public broadcasting’s KRO-NCRV, Hillary Clinton shot down the notion of Ivanka Trump becoming the first female president of the United States.

Partial transcript as follows:

HOST EVA JINEK: Apparently Ivanka Trump wants to be the first female President of the United States.

HILLARY CLINTON: That’s not going to happen.

JINEK: No?

CLINTON: No.

JINEK: How come?

CLINTON: No, we don’t want any more inexperienced Trumps in the White House. [btnsx id=”5955″]

Hillary Clinton criticized by fellow Dems for trashing female Trump voters

Democrats who typically fall into the Clinton camp are trashing the two-time failed presidential candidate for singling out white female Trump voters, blaming their ballots cast in 2016 on “pressure” from male figures in their lives.

Source: Hillary Clinton criticized by fellow Dems for trashing female Trump voters

From Democratic senators to even her former campaign manager, there is a seeming consensus across the board that even “sugarcoating” her comments this week don’t make them any easier to swallow.

During former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s appearance in India over the weekend, she claimed she lost the 2016 presidential race in part because white women didn’t stand up to the men in their lives pressuring them to vote for Donald Trump.

“We do not do well with white men and we don’t do well with married, white women,” Clinton said. “And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

HILLARY CLINTON BLAMES ‘PRESSURE’ FROM MEN FOR WHY WHITE WOMEN VOTED FOR TRUMP 

She added: “”I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, ‘Make America Great Again,’ was looking backwards.”

Clinton’s former 2008 presidential campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle didn’t defend her remarks.

“Look this was bad. I can’t sugarcoat it,” Solis Doyle said on HLN this week. “She was wrong and clearly it’s not helpful to Democrats going into the midterms and certainly not going into 2020.”

Solis Doyle added: “She’s put herself in a position where Democrats are going to have to distance themselves from these remarks and distance themselves from her, particularly those Democrats that are running in the states that Donald Trump won.”

Like Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who is up for re-election, come the midterms in November, in a state Trump won by 19 points.

“Those are kind of fighting words for me, because I’m partial to Missouri voters,” McCaskill told The Washington Post. “I think they were expressing their frustration with the status quo.”

December 6, 2011: Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., right, accompanied by Sen. Susan Collins R-Maine, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., slammed Clinton’s remarks, saying they were “fighting words.” (AP)

McCaskill added, defending voters in her state, “I may not have agreed with their choice, but I certainly respect them. And I don’t think that’s the way you should talk about any voter, especially ones in my state.”

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who is up for re-election in a state Trump won, also slammed Clinton. [btnsx id=”5955″]