Replies

Would it be too early to assert that the reasons for setting up and using the names of these “companies” and those similar to them were not to do a legitimate business, but to hold himself up in political circles as a successful businessman, and establish business bank accounts to be ready as potential channels for laundering money to campaigns through “investments” and “loans” to these businesses?

Setting up business names with very little activity is not proof of illegal intent. He may have intended to do legal business but failed to generate any business activity. If you however combine the other relevant facts: Claiming he had a business called 'Components Ltd' before he actually filed 'Next Components, Inc' in New York demonstrates criminal intent; Incorrect Spelling (Componets Ltd) and Claiming Business Names that never existed (Because) on a Political Donation demonstrates intent to deceive; etc. etc. What we have evidence of is intent to deceive. It will be up to the feds to determine criminality. Obviously using post dated checks as part of a negotiated business exchange which later turned out to bad due to insufficient funds is a crime. Is he was fronting a lot of unregistered company names he would have had problems setting up a lot of bank accounts. He probably had a corporate account for the Next Components Ltd. May have done some DBA names for the fake or front companies. He would have had some problems though. My guess is he either worked with a lot of cash or he had a colluding bank or bank insider that helped him cash checks made out to fake names.

Intent to deceive, yes.
Criminality, to be determined by feds and banks.
Democrats being surprised by all this, either they are easily fooled, they are lieing or they are easily fooled liars.

I think it is a safe bet to state what you want to state. To state what is obvious and what history has taught us about the Crintons.