Lobbyists have raised $7 million for Hillary Clinton. For Trump? Zero

a reply to: reldra

ETA: No Investigation has been opened.
According to Snopes this is false.

www.snopes.com...

So a complaint has been filed....

Maybe they will find the solicitations came from a spam bot?

That is the most likely scenario.

NO funds sent or recieved.

And again, not tied to lobbying.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: reldra

Your missing the point, even if Donald will use those funds,
they are not lobbyists.

Educational link -
What is a lobbyist:
dc.about.com...

Then there are Lobbyist Bundlers.

FEC-Faq on Lobbyist Bundling

originally posted by: reldra
Then there are Lobbyist Bundlers.

FEC-Faq on Lobbyist Bundling

Yes, that is the point. Hillary has lobbyist bundlers seeking
State Banks in Russia, Islamic Cleric from Turkey, a scandal
of appointing a non qualified person to a Nuclear Advisory Board,
and more.

Trump has to date -------> ZERO.

Zip, zero nada reported.

a reply to: reldra

All nice and official looking isn't it.

But nothing on the FEC site, and no copy of the FEC "Notice to Respondent".

FEC

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: reldra

All nice and official looking isn't it.

But nothing on the FEC site, and no copy of the FEC "Notice to Respondent".

FEC

It is not fake. I am not sure how ling it takes for the FEC to post it and any notice. I do know that it will take until just past the election to rule on.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: reldra
Then there are Lobbyist Bundlers.

FEC-Faq on Lobbyist Bundling

Yes, that is the point. Hillary has lobbyist bundlers seeking
State Banks in Russia, Islamic Cleric from Turkey, a scandal
of appointing a non qualified person to a Nuclear Advisory Board,
and more.

Trump has to date -------> ZERO.

Zip, zero nada reported.

I have given the article with the list of Trump bundlers, one being the former Iranian Ambassador to the US. These are lobbyists that are bundlers.

a reply to: reldra

But the supposed "filers" and "complainers" would certainly prove the confirmation of a real complaint.

I say this whole thing was just a smear attempt by the Clinton/DNC campaign.

This was a hoax.

It was clever, but it failed.

Voters will take note.

originally posted by: xuenchen

This was a hoax.

It was clever, but it failed.

Voters will take note.

Looks like one, I wonder who really sent those emails?

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: xuenchen

This was a hoax.

It was clever, but it failed.

Voters will take note.

Looks like one, I wonder who really sent those emails?

I'm not convinced the "emails" were even real to begin with.

I think it was just a weak attempt to link "email" scandals to Trump because everybody knows about the proven Hillary email scandals.

a reply to: xuenchen

Makes sense about the email thing and Hill
and since there is no investigation...

a reply to: burntheships

For starters isn't it misleading to ask who are Clinton's bundlers and then answer for one a Russia controlled bank in Crimea?
The truth in that article is that someone who lobbied for her is now lobbying for a Russian controlled bank in Crimea.
He took a new job.
How disingenuous.


Why don't we ask why lobbyists won't work for Trump. Why Trump can't get donations from anywhere?

Those are the hard questions .

I don't care how much Clinton raises, she is ineligible to hold public office!

UNITED STATES CODE, Title 18, Part1, Chapter 101, Section 2071

§2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

uscode.house.gov...(title:18 section:2071 edition:prelim) OR (granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section2071)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true

She can afford a custom made orange jumpsuit and gold plated shackles.

a reply to: Nikola014

Stop. Hillary is not funded by Saudi Arabia. That slimply is nothing but a lie.

A lie that gets told almost every day here.

But it's still a lie.
The Clinton foundation does not donate to Hillary. It's against the law.
Hillary doesn't need the Clinton foundation to donate to her. She has millions and more coming in every day from donors and Superpacs.

So unless you can prove that, please don't make the claim.

a reply to: Sillyolme

The truth is, lobbyists work for someone, and they want something
from Clinton. It is disingenuous to suggest there is no connection.

And two months ago, his lobbying firm, Manatos & Manatos, signed a contract to lobby for VTB Group bank regarding its placement on the list of Russian financial institutions sanctioned by the U.S. government (PDF). The bank was penalized as part of a round of sanctions the U.S. and European Union implemented in July 2014 targeting top Russian power brokers after the takeover of Crimea. As a result of the sanctions, it’s taken a massive financial hit.
www.thedailybeast.com...

Gee, I wonder huh? Please!

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I don't care how much Clinton raises, she is ineligible to hold public office!

UNITED STATES CODE, Title 18, Part1, Chapter 101, Section 2071

She was given special treatment, otherwise she would have
been in jail a long time ago.

She is utterly disqualified from the Presidency!

a reply to: xuenchen

Please it was all over the news. Donalds campaign was soliciting funds from Great Britain and Australian citizens. There were even threads or at least mention in threads.

www.redstate.com...

www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com... nd

blogs.wsj.com...

I found these easily enough.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I think Hillary and the Foundation are in kahootz because they appear to be "funding" with Human "talent" instead of cash.


It goes something like this.......
New Hillary Scandal Checks All the Boxes on the Clinton Controversy Bingo Card


Hidden but exposed later ......

Thanks to a newly released batch of State Department emails, ABC News was able to revisit the story of Rajiv Fernando, a wealthy securities trader who gave heavily to both Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation—and who just so happened to land himself a plum spot on a sensitive government intelligence advisory panel after Hillary became secretary of state.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Again no proof any complaint was ever filed with the FEC.

Hoax.

All clever BS innuendo.

Well it seems she taken some big donations in the past too.
However I can't seem to find where there were any kind of benefit or return for the donors. No big favors or anything. And she doesn't write law anymore. So ???
She gets donations because shes the best candidate. She gets donations because she knows what she's doing. No donation has ever resulted in her doing a favor.

Please show if you know differently.

a reply to: thinline

There aren't any foreign donors.