FEC Records Indicate Hillary Clinton Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million

[MCgrease08]

Is this the thing that finally lands Hillary Clinton in jail?

Admittedly I don't know a lot about campaign finance law, but according to the reporting, what her campaign was doing with bundled money during the 2016 election was pretty blatantly illegal.

Of course the mainstream media hasn't made a peep about this yet.

FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million

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.

 

[CampingJosh]

Perhaps someone will go to prison over this, but it won't be anyone near the top. Certainly not Hillary.

 

[cbhausen]

She’s “too ‘big’ to fail”...

 

[jedi]

it is trumps fault

 

[T.Lex]

First, if true, it looks like a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. So yes, someone should be prosecuted for it.

Second, I have no idea what the USian political landscape will look like in 5 years. This is the first time in my lifetime I can remember that being the case. Some of you who were around in the late 60s may have some insight on any parallels.

 

[KLB]

First, if true, it looks like a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. So yes, someone should be prosecuted for it.

Second, I have no idea what the USian political landscape will look like in 5 years. This is the first time in my lifetime I can remember that being the case. Some of you who were around in the late 60s may have some insight on any parallels.

You're saying we are going to get another Nixon?

 

[T.Lex]

You're saying we are going to get another Nixon?

haha

I dunno, but I guess we're about due, right?

 

[Mikey1911]

“NIXON’S THE ONE!”
(Would that make Trump “the Other”?)

 

[churchmouse]

First, if true, it looks like a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. So yes, someone should be prosecuted for it.

Second, I have no idea what the USian political landscape will look like in 5 years. This is the first time in my lifetime I can remember that being the case. Some of you who were around in the late 60s may have some insight on any parallels.

Well, yes I was around but no "Clear" recollections of the political landscape of the times beyond the peace movement kicking in. I was more concerned about a 1 way ticket to the Nam.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, yes I was around but no "Clear" recollections of the political landscape of the times beyond the peace movement kicking in. I was more concerned about a 1 way ticket to the Nam.

Fair.

As I reflected on that a bit, I'm curious about whether that time actually solidified some political divides, rather than blurring them. That is, it seems like the Democrats were more clearly perceived as anti-war/pro-freedom, so many people were drawn to them.

Right now, I only see clarity on the 2 extremes of the political spectrum, with a YUGE amount of ambiguity in the middle.

 

[Cameramonkey]

They'll pay a fine most likely. Obama was caught doing it and just paid a fine. (notice nobody in media was screaming for his impeachment over it)

And if somebody goes to jail, it most certainly wont be her.

The calls for Trump's impeachment is only because NOBODY in the mainstream, old guard political machine wants him there. If he was part of the machine (e.g. any of the other 20-odd candidates) this wouldnt be such a big deal.

 

[churchmouse]

Fair.

As I reflected on that a bit, I'm curious about whether that time actually solidified some political divides, rather than blurring them. That is, it seems like the Democrats were more clearly perceived as anti-war/pro-freedom, so many people were drawn to them.

Right now, I only see clarity on the 2 extremes of the political spectrum, with a YUGE amount of ambiguity in the middle.

You are correct in this. Th thing many are missing her is that many of those who carried signs and protested are now in the seats of power. I s that time as the real birth of big brother gov.

 

[T.Lex]

They'll pay a fine most likely. Obama was caught doing it and just paid a fine. (notice nobody in media was screaming for his impeachment over it)

I keep seeing this - is there a cite/site for that?

I read a pretty in-depth article about it recently (WSJ or Business Insider maybe - can't remember) that explained the "but Obama" thing. When I mentioned the byzantine set of rules, especially at the federal level, some of them timing of the donations, maximum individual donations, and timing of reporting. With sophisticated donors, they often want to time the donations to maximize how much they can give, as quickly as they can. And, if a campaign has thousands of "small" donors, the reporting can be time consuming and expensive. So, mistakes are made.

Those kinds of things are very "technical." Does it really matter if a donation that came in on Monday should have been reported by Tuesday instead of Wednesday? Probably not. But, it violates the rules.

If that delay means that the donor gave too much in the cycle to which the donation is applied, then it is another violation and the campaign has to return the overage. Another fine.

That is the kind of thing that all... and I'm pretty sure ALL... of the major campaigns have done. At a certain level, it is treated as a cost of doing business. The criminal parts of the law aren't implicated in that.

Now, using what was alleged in the OP, it looks like intentional and fraudulent attribution of donations in a way that makes "legal" what would otherwise be illegal. And some big money involved, too.

The fraud - attributing it to a state committee that doesn't have the corresponding receipt of the funds - should be YUGE. That's a total f'up by the state committee, if the money did go through it. And if it didn't... well... that's fraud. At least.

ETA:
This isn't what I read, but it covers the same territory.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...n-finance-violation-experts-say-cohen-n902921

 

[hoosierdoc]

Second, I have no idea what the USian political landscape will look like in 5 years. This is the first time in my lifetime I can remember that being the case. Some of you who were around in the late 60s may have some insight on any parallels.

I don't fit the age requirement, but it took a Carter to get us a Reagan. And now it took an Obama to get us a Trump.

Difference now is if the left loses a presidential election they go full bore assault mode for the entirety of the presidency. It doesn't matter how much of it is lies, merely the "seriousness of the charge" requires a full investigation! But the crap Obama did, nah. That's all cool. No investigations needed. Not even a scandal in 8 years! Simply amazing.

 

[Leadeye]

I remember the mid to late 60s, lots of people unhappy about lots of things, but most of the ire was unified around the Vietnam war. It was scary because like T.Lex says, you didn't have a feeling about where the country would be in 5 years, especially after 1968. The televised mess of the democratic convention and other urban riots made ordinary agricultural families like my own scared of traveling to cities. By 1972, much of this was gone, and I don't know if you could attribute it to Nixon or people were just finally fed up with the 60s. The 70s while relatively peaceful seemed like a decade of decline after a decade of turbulence, starting with Nixon's resignation and ending with Regan's inauguration. Not putting a partisan spin on it as the administrations of President's Ford and Carter were less than inspirational.

 

[HoughMade]

I remember the mid to late 60s, lots of people unhappy about lots of things, but most of the ire was unified around the Vietnam war. It was scary because like T.Lex says, you didn't have a feeling about where the country would be in 5 years, especially after 1968. The televised mess of the democratic convention and other urban riots made ordinary agricultural families like my own scared of traveling to cities. By 1972, much of this was gone, and I don't know if you could attribute it to Nixon or people were just finally fed up with the 60s. The 70s while relatively peaceful seemed like a decade of decline after a decade of turbulence, starting with Nixon's resignation and ending with Regan's inauguration. Not putting a partisan spin on it as the administrations of President's Ford and Carter were less than inspirational.

 

[MCgrease08]

One thing that stands out about this whole thing, is how the Clinton campaign was able to essentially position itself to have near total control over the DNC. The DNC was dependant on Clinton campaign cash just to function.

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.”

Based on this, it's no wonder DNC officials conspired against Bernie Sanders to ensure Clinton won the nomination.

 

[Leadeye]

 

[KellyinAvon]

I think the question is, "Only $84 Million??"

 

[Dead Duck]

I predict an unexpected rash of suicides or robberies gone bad in 3.... 2.... 1......



....and the bodies keep piling up around her.