AOC’s chief of staff ran $1M slush fund by diverting campaign cash to his own companies

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

According to your logic, why should Trump be responsible for what his people did? Cohen. Manafort. Flynn. You know all the ones convicted of crimes NOT tied to him but since they were employees he should be investigated.

The reason all of this is coming out against AOC.

1. She went against Pelosi and the establishment
2. Her district is pissed and they are already preparing a challenge
3. She preached poor and is fully embracing the DC culture with nice apartments/etc. Many congresspeople sleep on couches or in offices.

Trump should not be responsible for the actions of his associates. The only reason he should be held accountable for those actions is if prosecutors can prove he directed their actions.

With that said, many of these individuals are guilty of lying to the FBI about subjects that would bring scrutiny down on Trump. For example, Papadopoulos was found guilty of lying about meeting with a professor, who worked for the Kremlin, to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. Manafort lied to prosecutors about his contacts with Russians during the campaign. Michael Flynn pleaded guilty for lying about contacts he had with the Russian ambassador. I can keep going but as you can see there is something of a pattern here.

Technically, these crimes are not tied to Trump but the obvious question is, why are all these people lying about the same thing?

I just don't understand how anyone, Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Man, Woman or dog wouldn't want to know why? Why would so many people with connections to our president lie about contacts with Russia?

a reply to: neutronflux

Are you unable to use google?

My google has been busy.

Nothing you list so far is a crime and there are only some trying to claim they have dirty money when in fact it seems that you are ignoring the truth here and going all in on claims and rumors.

It is legal for them to control a pac and pay themselves for services.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Do you need me spell it out for you......

I do. I am not getting your point that they can not spend money. They have to detail there spending better.

If she has stolen monies from someone then i hope she gets prosecuted. If she was not supposed to have access to those pacs then she should be punished.

If that is the case i am officially offering my punishment services.




I am slow sometimes but maybe i am hearing you right now.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

You

I do. I am not getting your point that they can not spend money.

Again

dailycaller.com...
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti obtained majority control of Justice Democrats PAC in December 2017

Where

Chakrabarti's companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used.
www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Then you have this angle

Ocasio-Cortez never disclosed her control over the PAC while it was supporting her primary campaign, an arrangement that could open the Democrat up to massive campaign finance violations. The pair could face prison time if it is found that they intentionally withheld the ties between the campaign and the PAC from the FEC.
www.google.com... o-cortez-campaign-finance-fec-complaint-denies%2F&psig=AOvVaw1EionWUhgapzUGC_LH2v4-&ust=1551980215912920

a reply to: shooterbrody

I should have known you wouldn't be able to respond intelligently.

If you go back and look at every single time I attempt to have a conversation with you, you devolve into a pre-schooler mentality of name calling and asserting your beliefs as fact. Just because you believe something is real, no matter how much you want it to be real, it isn't unless you can prove it.

• I call you out on your failed logic
  
  
  
  • Your response "all irrelevant to the thread"
    
  • But then you also had to take a shot, "funny how far outside you had to go to make that crap up"
    
  
  
• I point out that there is actual evidence in the Stormey Daniels case
  
  
  
  • You attempt to assert your beliefs as facts
    
  • "Cohen copped a plea to get a reduced sentence. Trump paid Cohen, like he did in the past, clearly not a campaign finance violation. "
    
    
    
    • You assert this statement as if just because he made a plea deal means that what he says about Trump isn't the truth.
      
    • Other than your own opinion, what proof do you have that Cohen is lying?
      
    • Especially considering he has documents to back up his claims.
      
    
    
  
  
• Finally, we get more opinions and pre-school logic
  
  
  
  • "So this one was so grievous it led to criminal charges?"
    
    
    
    • Yes, I would definitely consider a case more serious if it resulted in charges over one that doesn't, pretty much everyone would.
      
    
    
  • "Bah, more bs from the spreader."
    
    
    
    • BS? Are you denying that individuals have been charged with felonies in the Stormey Daniel case? Are you denying that Trump is listed as individual one in those felonies? What exactly is BS?
      
    
    
  • "An attempted political hit that failed. Funny how you refuse to admit that."
    
    
    
    • Yet another opinion based on your own beliefs. There is evidence indicating that this is an actual crime perpetrated by Michael Cohen and Donald Trump. Do you have evidence to the contrary? If so you should hand that over to the prosecutors, otherwise you are just regurgitating what you "want" the world to be, not what it actually is.
      
    
    
    

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

You

I do. I am not getting your point that they can not spend money.

Again

dailycaller.com...
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti obtained majority control of Justice Democrats PAC in December 2017

Where

Chakrabarti's companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used.
www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Then you have this angle

Ocasio-Cortez never disclosed her control over the PAC while it was supporting her primary campaign, an arrangement that could open the Democrat up to massive campaign finance violations. The pair could face prison time if it is found that they intentionally withheld the ties between the campaign and the PAC from the FEC.
www.google.com... o-cortez-campaign-finance-fec-complaint-denies%2F&psig=AOvVaw1EionWUhgapzUGC_LH2v4-&ust=1551980215912920

That is alot that will have to be proven it looks like everything is just appearance and questioning of intentions at this point.

I can imagine there may be another side to the story.

Still my punishment services for her are offered and i could save some tax payer monies.

If she had bad intentions and broke laws then she should have to pay it back and face the law for such.

I am sure we will be getting very much more on this soon.

a reply to: neutronflux

Let's just be clear so we know where we all stand. What is your primary assertion?

So far, the evidence is:

• A PAC of which AOC served on the board, "Justice Democrats", appears to have several financial discrepancies
  
• A conservative watchdog group has accused AOC and her chief of staff, Chakrabarti, of funnelling over a million dollars into two of Chakrabarti's businesses.
  
• AOC did not reveal her ties to the PAC
  

Based off that information are you asserting that your belief is a crime occurred and AOC is guilty? Or are you asserting that a crime is possible and more investigations must be completed? Or is it something else?

My opinion at this point is that something definitely appears to be fishy and an investigation needs to be conducted. However, with the evidence we currently have, I don't believe there is enough to definitively declare anyone guilt yet.

Brand New Campaign LLC’ and ‘Brand New Congress LLC

Those are the two companies that received the funds. The max donation amount is 5,000. I do not think there is a max on how much you can pay for services rendered.

They neglected to say what the money was for and simply labeled as payment for consulting.

The law seems to say that you must detail any payments in this case.

Since they are not accepting the listing of consulting they are calling it a donation.

Now that people are looking into this the companies seem to be just made up junk.

a reply to: BlackJackal

True or false,

“Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti obtained majority control of Justice Democrats PAC in December 2017” where the reporting of PAC positions as required by law was not fulfilled, and money was either missing or improperly allocated as required by law.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

What do you not get about “Chakrabarti's companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used.“

AOC’s chief of staff ran $1M slush fund by diverting campaign cash to his own companies
www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Two political action committees founded by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s top aide funneled over $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday.

The cash transfers from the PACs — overseen by Saikat Chakrabarti, the freshman socialist Democrat's chief of staff — run counter to her pledges to increase transparency and reduce the influence of "dark money" in politics.

Chakrabarti's companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used.

The arrangement skirted reporting requirements and may have violated the $5,000 limit on contributions from federal PACs to candidates, according to the complaint filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.

Campaign finance attorneys described the arrangement as “really weird” and an indication "there’s something amiss." They said there was no way of telling where the political donations went — meaning they could have been pocketed or used by the company to pay for off-the-books campaign operations.

May as well get this started NOW...

#FREEOCASIO-CORTEZNOW

a reply to: BlackJackal

I should have known you wouldn't be able to respond intelligently. If you go back and look at every single time I attempt to have a conversation with you, you devolve into a pre-schooler mentality of name calling and asserting your beliefs as fact. Just because you believe something is real, no matter how much you want it to be real, it isn't unless you can prove it.

garbage
spewed similarly each time you are called out
you attempted to compare murder to an fec violation
yep pretty far outside the thread discussion

Cohen is not lying, Trump paid him for taking care of the situation with Stormy Daniels. While of questionable morality, it is in no way a campaign finance violation. Trump paid for it not the campaign, as evidenced by the check Cohen showed the media. This in no way was illegal for Trump to do. Just because YOU do not understand the actual LAW does not mean EVERYONE else does not.
The State of NY chose to charge Cohen without guidance from the FEC. You know the federal agency tasked with determining what is a violation and what is not.
Trump has paid women for silence previously as part of his business/persona. The state of NY would have to prove that was not the case, which won't happen because Cohens case will not go in front of a jury.
This would qualify a normal business expense for Trump, or that is what would be argued in a court of law.
Cohen copping to that plea allows Trump to be smeared with an imaginary crime as this was just a political hit in the first place.

www.politico.com...
The doj has tried this crap before and lost.
I seriously doubt that any charge from paying off women for sex will be filed on Trump.

Your milage may vary.

Still does not change the statement you made about fec violations being dealt with by fine and not charges.
Funny you refuse to attempt to defend that.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

What do you not get about “Chakrabarti's companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used.“

AOC’s chief of staff ran $1M slush fund by diverting campaign cash to his own companies
www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Two political action committees founded by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s top aide funneled over $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday.

The cash transfers from the PACs — overseen by Saikat Chakrabarti, the freshman socialist Democrat's chief of staff — run counter to her pledges to increase transparency and reduce the influence of "dark money" in politics.

Chakrabarti's companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used.

The arrangement skirted reporting requirements and may have violated the $5,000 limit on contributions from federal PACs to candidates, according to the complaint filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.

Campaign finance attorneys described the arrangement as “really weird” and an indication "there’s something amiss." They said there was no way of telling where the political donations went — meaning they could have been pocketed or used by the company to pay for off-the-books campaign operations.

I see it appears that way.

All folks need is suspicion to investigate. Just ask potus.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: xuenchen

Being that she is the Marxist Barbie of the New Democratic party, I'm surprised that it even made the news.

Or is it that you can't get into REAL full-scale crime until you've done your political time?

Be interesting to see how this pans out.

S&F, as always...

It's panned out about as far as it will pan out...Twitter, Youtube and Facebook will start banning any information related to it...

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Are you saying it’s a lie the money is documented going to Chakrabarti's companies? Do you have proof?

Is it a lie once the money was deposited with Chakrabarti’s companies, “They said there was no way of telling where the political donations went”? Do you have proof of a lie?

Do you have proof where the money with Chakrabarti’s companies went?

I wonder why the need for the FEC to investigate?

a reply to: BlackJackal

I read both of your links and neither one state or reference any laws that make it illegal for a candidate to serve on the board of a PAC.

Then you must not have read very closely. The second article I linked has the following:

Harber pleaded guilty on Feb. 12, 2015 to one count of coordinated federal election contributions and one count of making false statements to the FBI.

According to plea documents, Harber was the Campaign Manager and General Political Consultant for a candidate for Congress in the November 2012 general election. At the same time, Harber participated in the creation and operation of a PAC, which was legally allowed to raise and spend money in unlimited amounts from otherwise prohibited sources to influence federal elections so long as it did not coordinate expenditures with a federal campaign.

As for what proves she was coordinating with the Justice Democrats PAC:

Who is running Justice Democrats? Who are the major players?

The current board of Justice Democrats is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Saikat Chakrabarti.

Archive of Justice Democrats/about page

Elsewhere:

Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign and Justice Democrats raised a combined $4.6 million during the 2018 midterm election cycle, FEC records show. There’s a maximum five-year prison sentence for anyone who knowingly and willfully receives a collective $25,000 or more in excessive campaign contributions in a single calendar year.

Justice Democrats raked in far more than $25,000 from individual contributors of over $2,700 after Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti took control, according to FEC records.

Ocasio-Cortez And Her Chief Of Staff ‘Could Be Facing Jail Time’ If Their Control Over PAC Was Intentionally Hidden, Former FEC Commissioner Says

As to the exact statute:

(d) Penalties; defenses; mitigation of offenses
(1)
(A) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this Act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure—
(i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or
(ii) aggregating $2,000 or more (but less than $25,000) during a calendar year shall be fined under such title, or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

52 U.S. Code § 30109 - Enforcement - Cornell Law School

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Are you saying it’s a lie the money is documented going to Chakrabarti's companies? Do you have proof?

Is it a lie once the money was deposited with Chakrabarti’s companies, “They said there was no way of telling where the political donations went”? Do you have proof of a lie?

Do you have proof where the money with Chakrabarti’s companies went?

I wonder why the need for the FEC to investigate?

No i am not saying that at least not meaning that.

I am saying they did not say what the money went for and they have to say that in great detail for the transfer to be legal. I think it is know it went to the two companies and they simply claimed for consulting but they have to be specific and that is what the complaint was about. It is illegal to not specifically list what it was for.

Now the two companies are being questioned for their legitimacy.

They can't just transfer money and be vague about what it is for. That is against the law. Now her entire operation will be investigated caused that opened the door.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

I am saying they did not say what the money went for and they have to say that in great detail for the transfer to be legal.

From quoted article:

sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used.

And

They said there was no way of telling where the political donations went

Is this false? So you have willfully bypassing of laws. The neglecting of reporting. And there is no accountability of where money went. Which is all documented.

Is this false. So laws were broken, and there is money missing with no accountability.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

I am saying they did not say what the money went for and they have to say that in great detail for the transfer to be legal.

From quoted article:

sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used.

And

They said there was no way of telling where the political donations went

Is this false? So you have willfully bypassing of laws. The neglecting of reporting. And there is no accountability of where money went. Which is all documented.

Is this false. So laws were broken, and there is money missing with no accountability.

Some of it is proven fact and some of it is accusations.

It will take an investigation to prove such claims other than they did not properly cite services rendered. If they can not come up with a good excuse then yes all kinds of charges will apply.

Here is what i think may happen. They will ask them what the money was really for and if their answer is not up to par then there will be charges like you mention. They will not be able to say it was for this or that if this or that has already been paid for some other way.

I do not really know if they can be charged with negligence and such. However there are some people out there great at charging folks.

originally posted by: BlackJackal
You have claimed that there is public documentation that shows AOC coordinated her PAC with her campaign. Where are those documents that prove she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar?

She and her COS are 2 of the 3 Board Members of the PAC in question.

If that doesn't equal 'coordination', I'm not sure what does.