Posted on 07/31/2016 12:11:48 AM PDT by Anti-Hillary
The DNC was trying to hide the details of the fundraising deal they struck with Hillary Clinton; Clinton would do joint fundraising gigs with state democratic parties across the country and allow states to keep only a tiny fraction of the money raised. David Pakman discusses this.
I plan on living long enough to water some graves.
You sure got to give Bernie credit for towing the party line, though! He took it like a real be-yotch.
Why at that age, with a grandkid, and all that money, do you still need to be so sinister? So Evil? Just why?
Evil is the strongest addiction there is, and ever has been.
Power for its own sake.
Evil for its own sake.
If there are any moonbats out there who feel that Sanders was “betrayed” by the DNC, I have to assume you are stupid enough to believe there is honor between thieves.
No, I take that back. I don’t assume that.
btt
Bernie knew full well the purpose of the Democrat National Committee allowing him to run. His disciples probably did not, but Bernie knew. The entire purpose and sole goal of the Democrat Party since 2008 was to get Hillary Clinton nominated as its candidate for the 2016 election. To accomplish this, they had to go through the pretense of having a Primary or primaries runoff election. This is where Bernie and the others came in. Bernie’s disciples were, like all other Democrat supporters were screwed like a cheap whore and cast aside. Their feelings and hurt don’t mean squat to the DNC
Couldn’t get passed the host.
Have you seen this clip - we will have to change our deep seated religious beliefs, according to her highness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29g0B0C8fGI
Do you think the RNC will do anything?
No. The RNC is a rather neutered organization. Trump might make some noise about this and could say he will investigate it, but again, she is “too big to jail.”
This appears to be a blatant violation of campaign finance laws and money laundering. It would be equivalent to me donating 100k to the RNC, lumping them for state, local, and national campaigns to get around the donation limits, either knowing or not knowing that they have a scheme to give 99k of it to Trump. It is a scheme that allows me to donate far more to Trump as an individual than the law allows. These might be the emails Assange references?
In this instance it would meet the definition of money laundering, because it is a scheme designed to violate the legal reporting requirements and the law governing individual donations to a single candidate -
18 U.S. Code § 1956 - Laundering of monetary instruments
(a)
(1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity—
(A)
(i) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or
(ii) with intent to engage in conduct constituting a violation of section 7201 or 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part—
(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
(ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,
shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. For purposes of this paragraph, a financial transaction shall be considered to be one involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activity if it is part of a set of parallel or dependent transactions, any one of which involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, and all of which are part of a single plan or arrangement.
This is another slap in the face of Bernie and his supporters, but we already know the favoritism existed in the DNC for Hillary. It would not surprise me if the Clinton Foundation was involved in this as well.
In short, you can read this stuff yourself and make up your own mind, but I doubt anything will happen. The email case was pretty darned clear and we saw the results (to include the highly unusual non-disclosure agreement the agents and attorneys had to sign). I am curious how they selected the agents to investigate this as well - that might be telling (i.e. - nobody eligible to retire and spill the beans?).
Some banks are too big to fail. Some people are too big to jail. Welcome to 1984 comrades. Objectively - compare the email investigation and scandal to the Scooter Libby - Valarie Plame fiasco and look at the results.
From wiki - In October 2005, Libby was indicted by a federal grand jury concerning the investigation of the leak of the covert identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame Wilson.[4][5][6] Plame’s position at the CIA was considered classified information.[4] Libby was indicted on five counts relating to the Plame affair: Two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to federal investigators, and one count of obstruction of justice. Libby resigned all three government positions immediately after the indictment was announced.[7]
In the subsequent federal trial, United States v. Libby, the jury convicted Libby on four of the five counts in the indictment (one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of making false statements) and acquitted on the second count of making false statements
FWIW - I hope D’Souza is making his next film about the email case. There are plenty of facts known to us and plenty of prior cases with which to compare the known facts and the “decision”. Scooter Libby would be a very interesting comparison because I remember the quotes from democrats about “how damaging and serious this was” even though there was ample evidence that Plame and her husband both told people including journalists the same thing.
After hearing the late Father Malachi Martin discuss the subject on Art Bell’s show many years ago, I sincerely believe there are many people in power that have willingly allowed themselves to be demonically possessed. Selling their souls for fame, fortune, power, you name it. Hillary is one that has. Zero is another.
Interesting idea. I think too many people have a movie image of demonic possession when the absence of God means one has given themselves over to a demon - i.e. - drug addiction, sex, power, selfishness, money, fame, etc. I have met many drug addicts that have turned their addiction into a personal demon. Literal or figurative possession - I don’t know. I do believe when they place themselves above God they serve another master so you are probably correct.
Matthew 6:24 (NIV)
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Thank you, though I’ve badly got to update the page from top to bottom.
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.