Posted on 11/02/2017 11:56:11 AM PDT by TigerClaws
Donna writes that the money gave Hillary control over the party. Ten percent went to the DNC to pay off their Obama debt. The rest was quickly sent to Hillary’s campaign to do with what they wanted.
That’s a money laundering operation.
A PAC operates (legally required) independent of a political campaign and runs ads, get out the vote efforts, etc. these may help the candidate of choice, but legally it’s required to be a separate operation and it’s actually a violation for the candidate or campaign to directly control the PAC.
What happened here was worse than that. The DNC basically washed the money and sent it on to Hillary. Pure circumvention of federal law.
Donna found out about it after. Accessory after the fact. Never seen an autobio admit openly to prosecutable criminal activity before.
Trump agrees apparently... posted this today about donna’s revelations:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
....This is real collusion and dishonesty. Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering - where is our Justice Department?
The op-ed page of today’s issue of The Wall Street Journal has an article entitled,
Hillary Clinton, the DNC and the Law which covers this issue. I’ll check to see if anyone else has posted it, and if not maybe I will excerpt it.
It didn’t put Hillary's evasion of donation limits in the context of Dinesh D’Souza’s incarceration, tho - and that is a most excellent point! Hillary is never going to be jailed for anything like the full extent of the crimes - flagrant disregard of the rules regarding classified info alone - which Comey catalogued even as he downplayed them - should put her in the slammer for a long time. Never mind evading the FOIA laws with her clandestine use of a personal server.
But I gotta say, D’Souza’s experience does put a human face on the seriousness with which Democrats take the law when a Republican is charged with an infraction. This is a case, like D’Souza’s in which the law they both broke is IMHO unconstitutional, SCOTUS’s McConnell v. FEC ruling to the contrary notwithstanding. Unfortunately D’Souza didn’t try to make that case, tho from a personal standpoint I can understand it. It would be a condign result if Hillary were put in the dock the way D’Souza was, and she were convicted and appealed to SCOTUS. After all her braying about Citizens United, if she wasn’t jailed only because SCOTUS overturn McCain-Feingold root and branch would be ironic indeed.
And, given the absence of Sandra Day O’Connor from the bench, SCOTUS would likely reverse it’s 5-4 McConnell v. FEC decision. But it would be a tasty irony to see that done for the sake of a Democrat. The President Trump could pardon D’Souza with a huge smile on his face.
Understand, I don’t oppose McCain-Feingold because I like huge donors controlling our elections. I don’t oppose McCain-Feingold because huge donors inevitably do have large voices. The AP and its membership - a.k.a., “the media,” does a fine job of that, thank you very much - and exclusively against patriotic Americans.
IMHO the Federal Elections Commission has jurisdiction of the case.This isn’t just the case of a donor breaking the law, it is a case of the candidate systematically and clandestinely creating a system for accepting illegal donations - donations nominally to the DNC but de facto to the Hillary campaign.
Why else does the FEC exist, if not to police that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.