One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Ahhhhh Hell just another One pleading guilty
Aug 21, 2018 20:58:03   #
Airforceone
 
Well nobody cares about this crime infested campaign of Trumps. It’s just another day in the Trump corporation of crime.
Cohen pleads guilty

Reply
Aug 21, 2018 20:59:19   #
Carol Kelly
 
Airforceone wrote:
Well nobody cares about this crime infested campaign of Trumps. It’s just another day in the Trump corporation of crime.
Cohen pleads guilty


M'

Reply
Aug 21, 2018 21:03:23   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Airforceone wrote:
Well nobody cares about this crime infested campaign of Trumps. It’s just another day in the Trump corporation of crime.
Cohen pleads guilty

The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of my client, Alabama engineer Shaun McCutcheon, in his challenge to the Federal E******n Commission's (FEC) outdated "aggregate limits," which effectively limited how many candidates any one donor could support.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 "using 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.

Here's what you can do, legally. Per e******n, 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 t***sfers to their national party.

Here's what you can't do, which the Clinton machine appeared to do anyway. As the Supreme Court made clear in McCutcheon v. FEC, the JFC may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through "earmarks" and "straw men" that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions here.

On top of that, six-figure donations either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting by HVF, state parties, and the DNC to the laundry list.

Finally, as Donna Brazile and others admitted, the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign's direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law that ties the conspiracy together.

Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton's campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the e******n — 100 times larger than allowed.

HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported t***sferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as t***sferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or t***sferring those sums.

Did any of these t***sfers actually happen? Or were they just paper entries to mask direct t***sfers to the DNC?

For perspective, conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza was prosecuted and convicted in 2012 for giving a handful of associates money they then contributed to a candidate of his preference — in other words, straw man contributions. He was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center and five years of probation. How much money was involved? Only $20,000. HVF weighs in at $84 million — more than 4,000 times larger!

So who should be worried? Everyone involved — from the donors themselves to Democratic fundraisers to party officials who filed false reports and, ultimately, to Clinton campaign and HVF officials looking at significant legal jeopardy.

Don't take my word for it. Our complaint is built entirely on the FEC reports filed by Democrats, memos authored by Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and public statements from Donna Brazile and others.

The only question that matters: Was the law broken? If the answer is yes, then the corrupt Clinton machine should be held accountable.

Reply
 
 
Aug 21, 2018 21:23:10   #
Airforceone
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of my client, Alabama engineer Shaun McCutcheon, in his challenge to the Federal E******n 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 "using 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.

Here's what you can do, legally. Per e******n, 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 t***sfers to their national party.

Here's what you can't do, which the Clinton machine appeared to do anyway. As the Supreme Court made clear in McCutcheon v. FEC, the JFC may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through "earmarks" and "straw men" that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions here.

On top of that, six-figure donations either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting by HVF, state parties, and the DNC to the laundry list.

Finally, as Donna Brazile and others admitted, the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign's direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law that ties the conspiracy together.

Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton's campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the e******n — 100 times larger than allowed.

HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported t***sferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as t***sferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or t***sferring those sums.

Did any of these t***sfers actually happen? Or were they just paper entries to mask direct t***sfers to the DNC?

For perspective, conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza was prosecuted and convicted in 2012 for giving a handful of associates money they then contributed to a candidate of his preference — in other words, straw man contributions. He was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center and five years of probation. How much money was involved? Only $20,000. HVF weighs in at $84 million — more than 4,000 times larger!

So who should be worried? Everyone involved — from the donors themselves to Democratic fundraisers to party officials who filed false reports and, ultimately, to Clinton campaign and HVF officials looking at significant legal jeopardy.

Don't take my word for it. Our complaint is built entirely on the FEC reports filed by Democrats, memos authored by Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and public statements from Donna Brazile and others.

The only question that matters: Was the law broken? If the answer is yes, then the corrupt Clinton machine should be held accountable.
b The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Mo... (show quote)


Did anybody go to jail.

Reply
Aug 21, 2018 21:38:33   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Airforceone wrote:
Did anybody go to jail.
Not yet.

Reply
Aug 21, 2018 22:53:16   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
Airforceone wrote:
Well nobody cares about this crime infested campaign of Trumps. It’s just another day in the Trump corporation of crime.
Cohen pleads guilty


Nope...we don't care...except we will make Dems and Establishment types regret the day they sided with global special interests and the KKKK in their futile and doomed attempt to usurp this e******n.

Reply
Aug 21, 2018 22:56:56   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
Airforceone wrote:
Did anybody go to jail.


When they're prosecuted they will; and they will be prosecuted, one at a time with no fishing. Brennan is already a walking dead man. So's Ohr, So's McCabe, so's Comey and when Huber is done so will the hag.

Reply
 
 
Aug 22, 2018 00:31:00   #
Radiance3
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of my client, Alabama engineer Shaun McCutcheon, in his challenge to the Federal E******n 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 "using 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.

Here's what you can do, legally. Per e******n, 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 t***sfers to their national party.

Here's what you can't do, which the Clinton machine appeared to do anyway. As the Supreme Court made clear in McCutcheon v. FEC, the JFC may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through "earmarks" and "straw men" that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions here.

On top of that, six-figure donations either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting by HVF, state parties, and the DNC to the laundry list.

Finally, as Donna Brazile and others admitted, the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign's direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law that ties the conspiracy together.

Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton's campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the e******n — 100 times larger than allowed.

HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported t***sferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as t***sferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or t***sferring those sums.

Did any of these t***sfers actually happen? Or were they just paper entries to mask direct t***sfers to the DNC?

For perspective, conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza was prosecuted and convicted in 2012 for giving a handful of associates money they then contributed to a candidate of his preference — in other words, straw man contributions. He was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center and five years of probation. How much money was involved? Only $20,000. HVF weighs in at $84 million — more than 4,000 times larger!

So who should be worried? Everyone involved — from the donors themselves to Democratic fundraisers to party officials who filed false reports and, ultimately, to Clinton campaign and HVF officials looking at significant legal jeopardy.

Don't take my word for it. Our complaint is built entirely on the FEC reports filed by Democrats, memos authored by Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and public statements from Donna Brazile and others.

The only question that matters: Was the law broken? If the answer is yes, then the corrupt Clinton machine should be held accountable.
b The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Mo... (show quote)

==============
We have a two tiered Justice System. Democrats-liberals are free of all sorts of massive crimes. Not one is being investigated, and convicted. They abused the system.

While the Republicans and those supporters of president Trump, all of them are on a witch hunt even for several years back. The worst part of it is the investigators are the criminals themselves.

How long will this last? I can't take it anymore.

Reply
Aug 22, 2018 00:48:55   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
Radiance3 wrote:
==============
We have a two tiered Justice System. Democrats-liberals are free of all sorts of massive crimes. Not one is being investigated, and convicted. They abused the system.

While the Republicans and those supporters of president Trump, all of them are on a witch hunt even for several years back. The worst part of it is the investigators are the criminals themselves.

How long will this last? I can't take it anymore.


This is a partial list of the high-ups that Trump has already removed from authority.

No prosecutions of the criminals and t*****rs who tried to usurp this e******n would be possible with the criminals still in position.

It may not being trumpeted by the conspiring media...which I'm sure has had the unredacted FISA application since Wolfe texted it to his media girlfriend.

Trump will declassify some really interesting stuff before the mid-terms but this hydra has many heads and it's very dangerous. If we don't do this right they will grow back and there will be more of them. It seems as if nothing is happening, but in fact, a LOT is going on and it isn't good for the Deep State.

There are 27 separate leak investigations going on and the leakers are already busted...they just haven't been charged yet.

Huber is quietly doing his thing in Salt Lake City...FBI field offices in Arkansas and Texas are working on real investigations.

A lot of folks in the FBI and DOJ are helping. All is not lost but justice will unfold slowly. God is dismantling these corrupt institutions but He's on His own time schedule.



Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.