Sunday, May 6, 2018
Media Misses $84 Million Money Laundering Scam By Clinton Campaign
It has become apparent over the past few years how far those in the mainstream media will go to protect fellow liberal Democrats. In fact, a major implication for one of their own happened last week, but it was never covered. A lawsuit was filed in a D.C. district court has now exposed an $84 million money laundering conspiracy by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 2016 presidential election.
Of course, the people who did not report any of this are the same that relished in each other’s joy after the Democratic National Committee’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act lawsuit was filed against the 2016 Donald Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia last week.
According to The Federalist, the lawsuit alleges that the Clinton campaign and the DNC violated federal campaign-finance law.
During an election cycle, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and $33,400 to a national party’s main account. Primaries, runoffs, and general elections are considered separate elections.
Groups can get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits, it being legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. As well, state parties can make unlimited transfers to their national party.
The “legal loophole” allows for wealthy donors to give hundreds of thousands of dollars by filtering the funds to and through national committees.
Dan Backer, a campaign-finance lawyer and attorney-of-record in the lawsuit said he suspected that the DNC had exceeded the aforementioned limits and began reviewing Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings to determine whether there was excessive coordination between the DNC and Clinton.
He found that 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 December 15, 2017, Backer filed an 86-page complaint with the FEC, charging them to, “commence enforcement proceedings against Hillary Clinton, her campaign and its treasurer, the DNC and its treasurer, and the participating state Democratic committees,” according to the report.
The complaint stated, “‘During the 2016 presidential election,’ the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) was established ‘as a joint fund-raising committee to accept contributions from large donors, some exceeding $400,000.'”
To fully comply with campaign-finance law, the HVF must transfer donations to specified recipients, whether it be the Clinton campaign, down-ticket Democrats, the DNC, or subsequent state committees. However, several high-dollar contributions were reported as received by the HVF, “and the same amount on the same day recorded as received by the DNC from a state Democratic committee, but without the state Democratic committee ever reporting the contribution.”
The lawsuit cites 30 separate occasions on...
Berkeley task force blames conservatives for leftist violence
The UC-Berkeley Commission on Free Speech claims that conservative students are to blame for last year's destructive leftist riots because they invited speakers to campus who were "likely to incite a violent reaction."
While the report shied away from suggesting a ban on provocative speakers, it did suggest further restricting the areas of campus open to free expression and training campus police to be a "less intimidating presence."
A university spokesperson, however, insisted that the commission's findings do not necessarily represent the views of the administration, which is currently reviewing the recommendations.
A University of California, Berkeley task force is blaming conservative students for destructive protests on campus, saying that hosting conservative speakers was “likely to incite a violent reaction.”
The report was filed on April 10 by a Commission on Free Speech that Chancellor Carol Christ created last October to “analyze events featuring external speakers” on campus in the wake of a series of disruptive protests against planned appearances by speakers such as Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Ann Coulter.
"Although those speakers had every right to speak and were entitled to protection, they did not need to be on campus to exercise the right of free speech."
“Although those speakers had every right to speak and were entitled to protection, they did not need to be on campus to exercise the right of free speech,” the commission declares, speculating that they were only invited “in order to advance a facile narrative that universities are not tolerant of conservative speech.”
“The Commission was charged with ‘developing a set of recommendations that preserve the campus’s firm commitment to free expression while reducing the likelihood of such expression disrupting the mission of education, research, and public service,’” the report explains, referencing the objectives set by Christ .
According to the document, the commission was formed in October 2017 following a wave of protest against conservative speakers who were invited to lecture at the university. The commission specifically highlights the difference between the polite reception Shapiro received when he visited campus on April 11, 2016 compared to his latest speech on campus in September of last year, which cost the university approximately $600,000 in security.
“Although of course many things changed during the 17 months between Shapiro’s campus engagements, our conclusion is that the rise of ultra-conservative rhetoric, including white supremacist views and protest marches, legitimized by the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath, encouraged far-right and alt-right activists to ‘spike the football’ at Berkeley,” the commission writes.
“This provoked an at-times violent (and condemnable) response from the extreme left, tearing at the campus’s social fabric,” the document adds.
The report goes on to contend that all of the events that sparked protests last year “were sponsored by very small groups of students working closely with outside organizations,” asserting that “at least some of the 2017 events at Berkeley can now be seen to be part of a coordinated campaign to organize appearances on American campuses likely to incite a violent reaction, in order to advance a facile narrative that universities are not tolerant of conservative speech.”
The task force further elaborates that while there is “plausibility” to the claim that Shapiro’s visit was intended to “broaden the political discourse” on campus, many of its members believe that Yiannopoulos and Coulter only came to the university “in pursuit of wealth and fame.”
“We should, of course, be wary of painting with an overly broad brush,” the report explained. “In Shapiro’s case, the claim that his invitation to campus was intended to broaden the political discourse has some plausibility, as his commitment to the issue long predates the polarizing 2016 election.”
“Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter, however, expressed little interest in reasoned discussion of contentious issues or in defending or revising their views through argument,” the commission continued. “Many Commission members are skeptical of these speakers’ commitment to anything other than the pursuit of ...
‘Denied!’ Second judge pushes back on frazzled Mueller in his other evidence-deficient Russian case
Crack..crack..crumble..crumble. Another federal judge pushes back on Mueller Mess. Now, a judge has denied an extension request by Mueller prosecution team. Two federal judges in 24 hrs rule against Mueller. Message here: nobody goes unchecked. God Bless America🇺🇸🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/QfF7x8zKpW— Join Me and Fight Back (@JoinMe21893606) May 6, 2018
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s week just keeps getting worse. First a federal judge chewed his team out Friday for lying about the scope of its investigation and seeking “unfettered power.”
The same afternoon, Mueller’s team practically begged another federal judge to delay court proceedings in its case against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities who allegedly interfered in the 2016 presidential election. That judge basically said, “No!’
In an order issued Saturday, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich specifically denied a request by Mueller’s office to delay its first hearing in the Russian indictment case, offering no reason for her decision, according to Politico.
Report Advertisement
Talk about the hard knock life for poor ol’ Mueller. Sad!
The latest bout of heart-aching pain and misfortune started for the special counsel after he indicted the Russians in February:
The arrogant “witch hunt” leader assumed the affected Russians would simply ignore any future court proceedings since they clearly live outside his jurisdiction. He assumed wrong.
Last month a team of Washington lawyers reportedly appeared out of nowhere and notified the court that they represent Concord Management and Consulting, one of the companies targeted by Mueller.
The move was reportedly designed “to force Mueller’s team to turn over relevant evidence to the Russian firm and perhaps even to bait prosecutors into an embarrassing dismissal in order to avoid disclosing sensitive information.”
And apparently the move worked like a charm, since Mueller’s team quickly filed a delay request in a desperate bid to avoid handing over sensitive documents.
Instead of just admitting the real motivation behind their request, however, Mueller’s hotshots tried to spin a yarn about how they were worried that Concord Management had not yet been served its court papers.
“Until the Court has an opportunity to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea entertained,” his team whined.
“That is especially true in the context of this case, which involves a foreign corporate defendant, controlled by another, individual foreign defendant, that has already demanded production of sensitive intelligence gathering, national security, and foreign affairs information.”
Uh huh …
Well, sorry, Mr. Mueller, but your request has been DENIED.
Brooks on Tax Bill: Seems Like ‘What the Trump People Told Us Would Happen Is Happening’
On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks said that the GOP tax bill is working better than he thought it would and the evidence “seems to be that what the Trump people told us would happen is happening, that companies are reinvesting the money.”
Brooks stated, “I was against the Trump tax cuts. But the early evidence is that they’re working better than I thought. And so, in the first quarter, among S&P companies, capital expenditures are up 39 percent. That’s a seven-year high. That’s far higher than a lot of us thought. Stock buybacks, which is just giving people — to shareholders, that’s only 16 percent. So the evidence from just the first quarter seems to be that what the Trump people told us would happen is happening, that companies are reinvesting the money....
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #248
You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,
from the beautiful to the repugnant,
from the mysterious to the familiar.
If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,
you could be inspired, you could be appalled.
This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.
You have been warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)