Proof of Clinton money laundering/fraud? Hilary Victory Fund

From: Andrew Tobias Date: May 3, 2016 at 2:25:20 PM EDT To: Cc: 'Tracie Pough' Subject: Brad - is the building aware of this? Seems awfully unfair and inaccurate? On May 3, 2016, at 1:44 PM, BernieSanders.com< wrote: [Bernie Sanders for President]

Andy -

I want to share something with you that is probably going to make you angry, but then I am going to give you an opportunity to do something about it. For months, you've heard the Clinton campaign endlessly repeat in interviews and on social media that they have raised millions and millions of dollars for state parties through something called the "Hillary Victory Fund." They've even used it as an attack line to insinuate Bernie wasn't willing to help down-ballot Democrats.

Well, yesterday morning, thanks to a Politico investigation, we found out that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Victory Fund has stayed in state party coffers. And indeed, the majority of the money spent by the Victory Fund has gone to benefit Hillary Clinton's primary campaign against us. The piece said some state party fundraisers believe they are basically acting as "money laundering conduits." There's more, but first let me get to the part where you can take action.

In recent weeks, the Clinton campaign has expressed a lot of interest in what is important to Bernie's supporters. Here's your chance to send a message about our distaste for big-money in politics: Sign our petition calling on the Clinton campaign to stop bending campaign finance rules to their breaking point, and immediately transfer all the money allowable to the state parties participating in the "Hillary Victory Fund."<

Here's how the scheme works for the Clinton campaign: Rich people like Alice Walton of Walmart who have already contributed the maximum amount allowable to the Clinton campaign can contribute an additional $350,000-plus to the Victory Fund.

The first $33,400 of her contribution is supposed to go the DNC, and the rest divided up between participating state parties. But that's not what's been happening. The Victory Fund has mostly been doing one of two things with Ms. Walton's money:

1. Taking that money and spending it on advertisements and small-dollar fundraising solicitations. Then they take all the small-dollar contributions and data reaped from Alice Walton's contribution and transfer it directly to the Clinton campaign. This tactic is basically a way for them to benefit from a contribution much larger than the legal limit from Alice Walton.

2. They take Alice Walton's money and transfer it to state parties, who then immediately transfer it to the DNC. Often times they do it without the state party even knowing because the Clinton campaign controls many of the bank accounts involved. So at the end of the day, most of the state parties have received exactly $0 from their Victory Fund arrangement.

So, now that we know the Clinton campaign is taking advantage of state parties to skirt fundraising limits on her presidential campaign, it's time for her to do the right thing and let the state parties keep their fair share of the cash.

It's unfortunate that Hillary Clinton has benefited from tens of millions of dollars in cash transfers and advertising to campaign against us in the primary. But it's not too late for her campaign to do the right thing by the state parties we're going to need to win elections up and down the ticket this November. I'm sure if you sign our petition, that is something they will notice.

In solidarity, Jeff Weaver Campaign Manager Bernie 2016

---

The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.

By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC, which will work closely with Clinton’s campaign if and when she becomes the party’s nominee. And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton’s campaign, including $2.8 million for “salary and overhead” and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion.

...

Meanwhile, the DNC pocketed an extra $214,100 in cash routed through Minnesota — much of which the DNC wouldn’t have been able to accept directly, since it came from donors who had mostly had already maxed out to the national party committee. A similar pattern transpired with most of the participating state parties, with only eight state parties (most of which were in battleground states such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia) receiving more from the victory fund than they transferred to the DNC.

Source

I am speechless.

I can't link the source of the email... but you can search for it.

14238

Wheres the petition ?

a reply to: thesungod

So in other words, its a way around the system...

and it isnt at all illegal or against the rules, its a strategy played within the confines of the game.

Man, people hate Hillary so much they are grasping for anything

a reply to: Sakrateri

No idea. I think it may have died with the Sanders campaign and/or is an internal Democrat thing.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

So you support obvious avoidance of the law? Gotcha.

a reply to: thesungod

I support finding loopholes to get goals accomplished yes

a reply to: Lucidparadox

Goals such as money laundering? Nice.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: thesungod

I support finding loopholes to get goals accomplished yes

Now we know. Thanks for "enlightening" us all.
Hillary , is that you ?

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: thesungod

I support finding loopholes to get goals accomplished yes

As do I, but I'm not running for president and neither rare you.

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to attempt to poke holes in whatever they can find. I'm less interested in the loopholes and more interested in how Hillary will find a way to lie about it (even though she has no reason to, she will anyway as it is in her nature to lie about anything) or not bother to address it at all (probably best not to stimulate a conversation about who controls her with their check book)

a reply to: lightedhype

These same people will probably scream about Trump filing bankruptcy and gaming the system.

Which is also technically legal via loopholes, but also illegal at the basic level.

Loopholes are for criminals.

originally posted by: thesungod
a reply to: lightedhype

These same people will probably scream about Trump filing bankruptcy and gaming the system.

Which is also technically legal via loopholes, but also illegal at the basic level.

Loopholes are for criminals.

Quite the opposite..

Loopholes are for people who want to get what they want, without technically being a criminal.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

I see you lack good morals and have never been taught ethics or choose to ignore them.

Much like the people you are defending.

I'm done with you.

originally posted by: thesungod
a reply to: lightedhype

These same people will probably scream about Trump filing bankruptcy and gaming the system.

Which is also technically legal via loopholes, but also illegal at the basic level.

Loopholes are for criminals.

I am not sure if I read your post as you intend it to be read, but let me clarify something:

Of course you can find misuse, but bankruptcy laws are not loopholes. They actually exists to protect the investors/creditors, not the business in question - that is why it often is the investors themselves that calls for bankruptcy to be filed for.

In TV/movies you often hear about someone " filing for chapter 11" that to some degree protects the business, but most commonly it is chapter 7 that is being invoked. When chapter 7 has been invoked a trustee is put in charge and his/her job is to see that as many creditors as possible avoid losses.

If you decide to cease operations and liquidate the company, filing for bankruptcy can actually be a quite responsible way to go about it. The notion that any business that files for bankruptcy has been irresponsibly run into the ground is just wrong.

As far as I know, the Trump cases are actually perfect examples of bankruptcy laws being put to good use, and as a result investors involved, who of course knew the risk beforehand, is to this day still willing to back Trump projects.

Just saying.

a reply to: DupontDeux

New Jersey farmland law lets presidential candidate save tens of thousands in property taxes on golf courses

Source

If that isn't getting one over on the system... I don't know what is.

Technically legal, but not a farm a golf course getting a tax break for a farm.

there is something called the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, people who won`t abide by the spirit of a law lack integrity,honesty,honor,morals,ethics,.....in this case the intention of the law is obvious,they chose to subvert the intention of the law for personal gain.
she doesn`t have the strength of character to do the right thing unless the letter of the law forces her to, that`s not the kind of person who should be the president of the united states,we deserve better.

originally posted by: thesungod
a reply to: lightedhype

These same people will probably scream about Trump filing bankruptcy and gaming the system.

Which is also technically legal via loopholes, but also illegal at the basic level.

Loopholes are for criminals.

trump has no political history, he has only a business history....if his real estate businesses went bankrupt 4 different times leaving investors with huge losses, his trump university cheated "students" out of their money without delivering the promised results, and his Trump Airlines business went under, then his claim of business expertise most definitely should be questioned, for this is what he said will be his strength as POTUS.

a reply to: thesungod

I read through the HVF money-laundering emails. I don't claim to understand it all, but the DNC coordinated with the Hillary campaign to respond to these allegations.

From what I discern, and I could have it wrong, they responded by claiming that the money was allowed to go to further fundraising/advertising efforts and that the state parties' allocation was designated and still available but not distributed yet.

The DNC pointed to an article on a law blog that said Bernie's legal argument was "weak."

As I said, I am not pretending to understand it all, but I do know the DNC (in collusion..err..cooperation with the Hillary campaign) had a response to the allegations, so the portion you have posted is just one side of the story.

I cannot comment, however, on the validity of the DNC's & Hillary's response or Bernie's allegations. It is crappy that they coordinated their response though.

ETA: Also, as you pointed out, Politico did do a story on this (as did other outlets), at the time, and the DNC's response was included in some of that press. I don't recall the kerfluffle myself, but I haven't been paying too much attention to the details of Hillary & Bernie's battle, until now that is.

a reply to: jimmyx

Six... and while not solely to blame still not right in a couple cases.

We rated a similarly worded claim from Trump’s former primary rival Carly Fiorina Mostly True, because it’s not accurate to say Trump is solely to blame. (For the record, Trump doesn’t deny the charge and instead argues it was a smart business decision.) At the time, we found four bankruptcies, but since then, we’ve found two more for a total of six. So Clinton was right that Trump bankrupted companies four times, and she could have offered a higher count as well.

Source

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: thesungod

I support finding loopholes to get goals accomplished yes

Hmm , Do you Work for Goldman Sacks Group Inc . ? It would Explain a lot....