Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Lawsuit Claims FEC Ignored Complaints of Hillary Campaign, DNC Money Laundering Scheme

Lawsuit Claims FEC Ignored Complaints of Hillary Campaign, DNC Money Laundering Scheme

The PAC filed its complaint to the FEC in December 2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tteLMfFDCb4

The Committee to Defend the President (CDP), a pro-Trump PAC, has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for allegedly ignoring complaints of a supposed money laundering scheme used by failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC.

CDP alleges that the campaign and DNC “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.”

From Fox News:

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.

CDP first launched the accusations on December 15, 2017. A few days later the group received an acknowledgement from the FEC that the commission would send them a notification when the FEC “takes final action” on the complaint.

The group’s complaint to the FEC claimed that the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) reached out to big name donors like Calvin Klein for money and allegedly sent that money “through state chapters and back to the DNC before ending up with the Clinton campaign.”

The complaint stated that FEC records available to the the public show that throughout the 2016 campaign, “HVF would purportedly transfer funds to its constituent political committees, which included between 34 and 40 state parties” and then either on that same day or the next, “every single one of those state parties purportedly contributed all of those funds to the DNC.”

Don’t forget that former DNC Donna Brazile talked about money moved around in the DNC:

“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 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC,” reads a passage from the book. “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 [Clinton campaign headquarters in] Brooklyn.”

Brazile took issue with this, saying that it signified the victory fund was going to Clinton before she received the nomination.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

What is the difference between this complaint claiming the DNC and the Hillary Campaign laundered campaign money and the criminal complaint filed against Tom Delay that was later set aside and reversed?

Don’t club me like a baby seal, I think it’s a legitimate question.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Redneck Law. | April 16, 2018 at 5:55 pm

    DeLay’s was Fake wasn’t it?

      Delay’s actions were certainly real and he was certainly convicted in a Texas court, so it hardly qualifies as fake. The fact that the conviction was set aside on appeal goes to the legitimacy of the money ‘transfers.’

      I asked this questions because we, as conservatives, need to be sharp enough to point out the differences in cases where what Democrats do and often accuse Republicans of doing, are not the same thing as what Republicans are doing. For the most part, this thread has accomplished my point.

        Milhouse in reply to Redneck Law. | April 17, 2018 at 11:06 pm

        The conviction was reversed because what he did was not against Texas law. Which was always the issue; there was little dispute over the facts, just over the law. Earles invented a crime where there was none. The question now is whether doing the reverse is against US law.

    OleDirtyBarrister in reply to Redneck Law. | April 16, 2018 at 6:29 pm

    I am struggling to find any similarity between the federal civil action against the FEC, a federal agency, and state criminal indictments and subsequent proceedings against Tom DeLay and Rick Perry.

    The DeLay and Perry matters were attack dog criminal actions against prominent Republicans by [liberal political activist] Travis County district attorneys under a Texas law that placed statewide “public corruption” prosecution authority with that body. Texas changed that law due to the clear abuse in Travis County and its questionable constitutionality.

    A federal civil action against an agency for alleged violations of the Admin. Procedures Act and whatever else is not like the Texas criminal proceedings.

      The similarity is that in both cases, campaign contributions, in excess of what an individual person or corporation could make directly, were sent to another entity to be used in support of said candidate, without the limitation of maximum contributions.

      I’m speaking to the premise, and not the jurisdiction (state or federal) that ultimately decides the legalities of the contributions.

    Michael Johnson in reply to Redneck Law. | April 16, 2018 at 8:08 pm

    I agree. Both parties have been sending larger donations to the national party, and generally the party sends it back for whomever they wish to; frequently to the recipient desired by the donor.

    That has been the practice. Since DeLay’s case was thrown out on appeal, I presume the practice is also legal.

    Milhouse in reply to Redneck Law. | April 17, 2018 at 4:34 am

    The main difference seems to be that DeLay was charged with violating Texas law by sending to the RNC what would otherwise have been illegal donations to state candidates. The TX courts ultimately ruled this was not illegal.

    Clinton is accused of violating federal law by sending to state parties what would otherwise have been illegal donations to her campaign. Whether this is illegal remains to be seen.

    The Hillary Victory Fund money was set to go:

    Victory Fund –> State committees –> National Committee –> Hillary’s Campaign

    This got around Federal individual campaign donation limits.

    If you read Brazile’s book, you’ll also find out that the position of DNC communications director and all of the DNC finances were controlled by Hillary’s campaign staff as part of a debt coverage scheme that Debbie W-S signed when she was DNC chair. So the only point where the money wasn’t under Hillary’s staff’s control was when it hit the State level coffers. But the State committees were dependent on money sent from the DNC, and those payouts were controlled by Hillary’s campaign staff. So the non-battleground states really couldn’t hold onto the funneled donations without fear of retribution.

    Compare this to the Delay case where money was doing this.

    Corporate donations to State level Republican PAC –> RNC –> Other activities in other states.

    While the RNC reciprocated with:

    Individual donations to RNC -> State level Republican PAC –> State Level races.

    The money levels were supposedly equal to each other, which makes it seem like this was getting around Texas state law disallowing corporate donations for state level races. I don’t know how much control Delay had over the PAC, but it is likely “none” (the same level of arms-length control politicians have over any other “independent” PAC.)

      You also have to take into account that the “normal” use of a Victory fund is for the extra money to go to the State and National Committees to be spent however the State and National Committee deem appropriate. Some or even most of it may trickle back to the candidate, but it is spent on Get Out the Vote drives and local and state level races. Ideally, this is to drive up ground level support for the Party and the lower level candidates and to ride the coattails of a popular National candidate.

      Hillary’s team short circuited this process, sucking money out of states that they didn’t consider battleground, like Michigan and Wisconsin. Again, in Brazile’s book, she writes about fielding complaints from the State Committees whom had no money for GOTV activities or drive up enthusiasm for the party’s ticket.

      Milhouse in reply to Xmas. | April 17, 2018 at 11:12 pm

      Good description. But money is fungible, so if the RNC’s donations to the state PAC were consciously matched to the state PAC’s donations to the RNC the difference between the two schemes evaporates, leaving the only real difference the direction in which it worked, and therefore the law to which it would be subject.

      Gunstar1 in reply to Xmas. | April 18, 2018 at 4:30 pm

      In the complaint the quote a politico piece which says
      “While 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.”

      If the Victory fund had direct control of funds into and out of the state committee accounts is true, then it technically was never in the state committee’s control (transfers in and out mostly took place the same day) in the first place. They didn’t even get a choice of whether to give it all to the DNC. The Victory fund did it on their behalf.

      If what Brazile claim that Hillary’s campaign controlled the DNC is true, then you in effect do have a direct contribution from the Victory Fund to Hillary’s Campaign.

      Victory Fund moves money into and back out of state accounts -> Committee controlled by Hillary’s Campaign

If she had won and it was certain that she would according to all the experts then the members of the FEC had a high level chance of being arkancided. it was much safer to look away from her criminality.

Hey, we all know Hillary and Bill are pure as the wind driven snow, they would never break the law… without getting away with it. They are above the law, they have a D next to their name so that gives them immunity in our currently corrupt “justice” system.

So next week Herr Mueller will refer the case to the “proper” FBI branch and they will raid Hillary Cinton’s attorneys’ offices, houses and hotel rooms.
Sit down and wait, but whatever you do, don’t hold your breath.

    Mac45 in reply to Exiliado. | April 16, 2018 at 10:31 pm

    Please you have to get this all straight. Mueller did not send the Cohen complaint to the FBI. Mueller sent it to Rosenberg, who sent it to the office of the USA of the SDNY and then recused the USA there. This is ALL the work of the DOJ. Some FBI agents may be involved, but, in the Cohen case, the agents would have to serve the search warrant if directed to.

    This is just further evidence that the federal government is corrupt and the upper levels of the bureaucracy are totally controlled by the Establishment.

Subotai Bahadur | April 16, 2018 at 7:49 pm

No Democrat who breaks the specific provisions of any statute can be investigated or charged with a crime. It is covered by the “Connected Persons Clause” of the UniParty Constitution.

Henry Hawkins | April 16, 2018 at 11:01 pm

Mel Brooks: “It’s good to be the king.” (the allure of tyranny).

Why are Hillary’s eyes always looking in different directions?

What is the basis of this complaint? Since when does the FEC have to act on all complaints? On the contrary, the FEC is deliberately designed not to act on most complaints, since Rs and Ds are equally represented but a majority is needed to take any action. So where’s the breach of law here? Presumably the R commissioners voted to take action, the Ds voted against, so the result is no action. How does any court have jurisdiction over it?

Also, how does the complainant have standing?

Near as I can figure in my head this deserves 650 Democrat lawyer office raids.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend