More Shadiness From the Campaign Trail

1. 86

   Valeantposted 6 years ago

   This will not turn out well for the left when it gains traction during midterm season, and it does help to back up reasons to not have voted for Hillary.  Another reason why I hope they investigate her foundation, so obvious how shady she's always been with fundraising.
   http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/bom … 4-million/

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      This IS where ,as usual, those on the left of the aisle will say ," That's in the past  and you just can't let it go "........Good ole Clinton owned DNC corruption .

      replyreport
   2. 89

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      This sounds like big news Valeant, but looking for details, (and the article itself), illustrated another point.
      
      If you check out the Google search for the issue - it seems only Right-leaning sources are found. I checked CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, ABC, and none had a single search hit for this story. If this FEC lawsuit story has merit, then that lack of coverage points out another very serious issue.
      
      Even if the story was "fake" news, I would have expected to at least hear that from those sources. Instead, as popularly used; *crickets*
      
      I would not be surprised to find the Republicans also did this, but even so, the lack of coverage is telling.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Well said, GA. You are exactly right.
         
         "The Federalist" is a conservative political organization. Dan Backer, the man who filed the lawsuit, is a founder of a Trump group called the "Committee to Defend the President".
         
         Not surprising that responsible media would ignore it. Even highly conservative newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, Dallas Morning-News and Chicago Tribune would cover it if it were true.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I think you might have misinterpreted my point promisem.
            
            First, I do not know if the lawsuit has merit, but my perception - from past readings, is that post-2012, Hillary's campaign did in fact, essentially control the DNC. I believe you could also find sufficient support for that perception - if it interested you. So, with that foundation, and regardless of who initiated the lawsuit, if the articles technical description of the "bundling" and "disbursement" rules are correct, then I am inclined to believe there might be some merit to the suit. But that's just an opinion.
            
            As you noted, of course The Federalist is a Right-leaning source, and as I noted, so were almost all of the reporting sources Google came up with. But my point was, even if the other sources I cited, (CNN etc.), didn't believe there was any merit to the story, I would have at least expected them to debunk it. Especially CNN.
            
            Maybe it's too soon for Snopes to have debunked it, but I am sure there are plenty of other Left-leaning "fact-checkers" that would have jumped on the story by now.
            
            I also mentioned that even though the initial complaint and charges, are leveled against Hillary and the Democrats, (DNC), I hold no doubt that if the Dems were doing it, then the Republicans were too.
            
            As you can see, my point was not about the credibility of the source, but the obvious inference made by its lack of coverage in MSM. Hell, even Alex Jones made MSM headlines, so is it really just a case of it being too much of a nutjob story for the MSM to even acknowledge?
            
            Now don't get too worked-up. These are just 'first-thought' wonderings. I wasn't even familiar with the story before Valeant posted the link. Maybe it is an "Alex Jones-type" piece. But I don't think so.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 0

               promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I'll just say that in my experience the media doesn't have the time or resources to debunk the massive amount of propaganda that is flooding this country.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I think you're right.  The obvious answer is not to print (report) until they CAN verify, but of course that would mean they don't carry the story first or that their "exclusive" disappears. 
                  
                  It's all about money, and if reporting false propaganda earns readership (and money) then that is what they will do.

                  replyreport
               2. 89

                  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  You could be right promisem. We can come back to this story after it percolates for a while.The first indicator might be whether the court dismisses or accepts the suit.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
   3. 78

      Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It appears this report may be substantiated by Donna Barzile in her book "Hacks". She went into good detail how the scam went down. " Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC,” reads a passage from the book. “The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to [Clinton campaign headquarters in] Brooklyn.”   Also I found an article that was posted by  Website "The Center For Public Integrity".  Reference - Hacks Author Donna Brazile. .
      
      The Committee to Defend the President, a political action committee filed the complaint with the FEC, in Dec 2017. I have not been able to obtain any information on the investigation into the claim.  I would imagine Donna Brazile could be sued for defamation by the DNC as well as Hillary Clinton if the report is untrue?  It may be sitting in a file to die at FEC? 
      
      https://www.publicintegrity.org/2017/09 … legal-cash

      replyreport
2. 61

   Live to Learnposted 6 years ago

   Clinton is dirty. Who knew? For everything negative I could think of about Trump (and, it was a long laundry list) this is indicative of why I could not cast a vote for Hillary.
   
   It's one thing to be without character, and new to the political arena. It's another to be without character and already politically powerful. I felt the amount of damage she could inflict outweighed the amount of damage he could do; considering her unwieldy power and influence,coupled with a lack of respect for laws governing her behavior.
   
   Hopefully, Democratic eyes will open. I don't hold much faith in that happening.

   replyreport
3. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 6 years ago

   Hillary Clinton was the only candidate Trump ever could have beaten.  The hatred for her has raged for a generation, mostly people who couldn't stand the idea of "an uppity woman."  It also helped that we have a system where a candidate can win by three million votes but still not get elected.  We might look into that before some crazy person ends up in the Oval Office.  Ooops!  Too late.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      As an 'uppity' woman who hates Hillary I can assure you it was much more than that.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      ".......Uppity woman..........."  I thought uppity was Carly Firorina in a way although I would have voted her in in a minute  , using that term for those who dislike everything about Hillary would be like calling  Lenin just a friendly little Ruskie  .

      replyreport
4. 86

   Valeantposted 6 years ago

   GA, this showed up in my liberal leaning news services.  I didn't go to the Federalist to find it.  So not entirely crickets.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Gotcha. And I understand your point. As I mentioned to promisem, my first exposure to this was your OP. My only effort to understand it was a Google search - which I described. (and a reading of your link and its link to the actual suit of course)
      
      The charges of the article seem probable to me - based on my perceptions from past readings, so I didn't automatically reject them as fake news. Which means either I am wrong, and this issue is just a partisan wind, or I am right in wondering why none of the MSM outlets I mentioned had any stories about it. By that I mean a search-term search of their sites returned no hits.
      
      Where did your feed come from, maybe my search was too shallow and I missed something?
      
      GA

      replyreport
5. 86

   Valeantposted 5 years ago

   

   replyreport