Dan Backer just pieced together an epic takedown of Hillary Clinton that’s based on FEC reports, memos by Clinton’s campaign manager, and public statements from people like Donna Brazile and many others who chose to speak out openly. Could this information be the final stake in the heart of Hillary Clinton’s alleged crimes? Let’s analyze the information and see where it takes us.Image may contain: 1 person, sitting, night and text
The information dates back to 2014 when Shaun McCutcheon won favor from the Supreme Court.
As reported by Investors:
“In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of my client, Alabama engineer Shaun McCutcheon, in his challenge to the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) outdated “aggregate limits,” which effectively limited how many candidates any one donor could support.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.”Image may contain: 1 person, sitting, night and text
Then comes the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) which involves $500 million that was funneled in such a way that the Supreme Court had recently said was illegal. Cutting a big check, sending money to various places, then funneling it all back to the place it was initially determined to go after hopping the money over a million hurdles.
Trump’s team has rightfully filed an FEC complaint to investigate the matters with the $500 million.
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 “us[ing] 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.
It’s reported that HVF was taking, or asking for, significant six-figure donations from well-known entities such as clothing companies and celebrities like Seth MacFarlane. If they were given a donation, then the money was taken through different parties, and it seems like the cash eventually made it back to Clinton’s hands.Image may contain: 1 person, sitting, night and text
The smaller number we’re working within this is about $84 million, and that could make it the most massive campaign scandal involving finance in American history.
Backer continues his report:
“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 election, 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 transfers 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.Image may contain: 1 person, sitting, night and text
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 election — 100 times larger than allowed.”
HVF had some shady business going on with significant donations that were mixed up in false FEC reports by multiple entities. Was money being reported as being sent to one place, but indeed appearing in another? Was the cash being reportedly tossed in various locations to make it harder to track?
HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums.
Did any of these transfers actually happen? Or were they just paper entries to mask direct transfers to the DNC?
This sounds like something that everyday Americans only see in well thought out movies, but those movies always seem to end with the perpetrator finally getting caught by an intelligent investigator who finally pieces that puzzle together and solves the crime unmasking someone no one suspected.Image may contain: 1 person, sitting, night and text
Is Hillary Clinton guilty of crimes or is she just the name that will be thrown under the bus by a much bigger force?
Is there more to this than just the money being pushed around in ways that the Supreme Court might find illegal?
If anyone goes down for this, that won’t be the end of it. Under every major crime, there are tons of little mysterious odds and ends, but there could also be a more prominent king of the hill. Is Hillary the king of the mountain in this investigation or is there someone above her calling the shots?
Where does George Soros fit in?
If you like this story please share and leave a comment below!


Popular posts from this blog

Hollywood Actor Bruce Willis: ‘Trump Is The Best US President Ever, Anyone Who Dislikes Him Should Move To…’


New Poll Finds That The Majority Side With Trump… Are You One Of Them?