scheme allowed wealthy Democrats to “make massively excessive
six-figure contributions through straw entities on paper in order
to deliver them to Hillary Clinton’s control.”
UP FOR CONSERVATIVE DAILY POST NEWS ALERTS
32 other state party branches to break election finance laws, by
unlawfully funneling $84 million intoHillary
Clinton’spresidential campaign. The dirty
donations were first wired to state parties, then instantly
transferred straight back toDemocratic
National Committeeheadquarters. Every
cent came back cleaned, starched and neatly pressed, according to
a new lawsuit in the state.
makes this entire money laundering operation a scheme to
circumvent base contribution limits,” attorneyDan
Backernotes. The plotallowedwealthy
Democrats to “make massively excessive six-figure contributions
through straw entities on paper in order todeliverthem
to Hillary Clinton’s control.” That isn’t good. According to
Backer, “It is exceedingly illegal to have done so.”
most recent suit, filed in Maine, goes beyond his earlier efforts,
Elections Commissionentirely to hold theMaine
Democratic Committeedirectly responsible.
The suit is expected to turn up the heat on the FEC at the same
time, through the added public attention.
first made headlines in December by filing a formal complaint with
the FEC outlining the details of what he uncovered. After months
went by without a response, he filed suit against the FEC in a
Washington, D.C. federal court.
is hoping to compel the agency which investigates and enforces
laws related to political fundraising to actually do their jobs
and investigate the Democratic state committees.
an interview withMaine
Public Radioabout the most recent suit,
Backer explained how the Maine Democrats conspired with Hillary’s
campaign “to exploit rules that allow state party committees to
transfer unlimited sums between one another.”
huge wire transfers to and from the national campaign and the
state level branches aren’t scrutinized, the Democrats were able
to “circumvent individual donor limits and funnel the cash back to
Clinton’s principal campaign committee.”
is obvious that the whole thing was a smoke and mirrors magic show
because “the state committees never had custody of the money.”
the 2016 campaign, the joint fundraising committee “Hillary
Victory Fund” went around to big donors asking for big
checks. Under the rules, a donor can bundle up the maximum
allowable contribution, for every possible candidate they can
donate to, in one single check.
the money is meant to benefit all of the candidates the same as if
each donation were made one-by-one. Legally, anyone can contribute
$2,700 to any individual candidate.
only that, they can donate $10,000 all at once to every state
party and another $33,400 to a national party.
involved “should be worried,” Backer warns. “They’re all looking
at significant legal jeopardy.”
held dinners atGeorge
Clooney’shouse, and concerts withElton
John, where Democratic-leaning donors could write one
convenient six-figure check and HVF would handle the details. Some
stars donated more than $400,000.
really happened is that all of it went directly to Hillary
it goes out as fast as it comes in, how could it be “used,” they
quick transfers raise questions about the state committees’
participation in the joint fundraising agreement, which are billed
as arrangements that mutually benefit its participants. Yet little
of the money donated to theMaine
Democratic Partystayed there.”
reporting was backed up by FEC transaction records.
shady transaction showed how $3 million went from the Hillary
Victory Fund to the Maine Democratic Party. Almost immediately,
2.4 million went right back out to the DNC. “It’s unclear how the
leftover money was spent.”
another Maine transaction, “transaction data showed the state
party sent a $15,000 donation to the DNC before it arrived from
the Hillary Victory Fund.”
explains the significance of these exchanges as “the money was
papered to make it look like it passed through state committees.”
the very same day each of these transfers supposedly occurred, or
occasionally the very next day, every single one of those state
parties purportedly contributed all of those funds to the DNC,”
the federal lawsuit alleges.
Paul Ryan and hisCommon
Cause“finance transparency group” has
gone toe-to-toe with Backer in the past but this time agrees that
what the Democrats were up to was wrong.
a lot of smoke here. There may be a fire,” he told local Maine
news media. “There may be some actual violations of federal
campaign finance law.”
a bare minimum,” he insists, “the FEC needs to open an
Ryan agrees there was wrongdoing, he says that focusing on the
transactions misses a bigger infraction. He notes thatDonna
Brazileadmitted publicly in her book that while she was
chairwoman, “the DNC was basically run from Clinton’s campaign
Ryan, that means that Hillary Clinton was controlling the
spending. “For me, that looks like illegal or coordinated
spending,” he declared.
these shenanigans are something that theDepartment
of Justiceshould also be looking at
Becker points out. What the Democrats did is “4,000 times the
magnitude” of theDinesh
D’Souzacase. He was convicted in 2012 for
“a strawman donor scheme.”
WEINSTEIN AND THE CLINTON PROTECTION RACKET
Harvey Weinstein's recent perp walk reminds me of another great
thing about Trump winning the election: Hillary Clinton isn't
A New York Times article on Weinstein's court appearance noted how
the "ground shifted" last year, finally ending the "code of
silence" surrounding powerful men. Why "last year," if this has
been going on for decades?
The article explained that Weinstein's power was enormous, his
connections extensive and his willingness to play dirty without
bounds. Did Harvey lose his money and connections "last year"?
Nope. But "last year" was the first year of Trump's presidency, or
as I like to think of it, the first year of Hillary not being
The liberal protection racket for sexual predators was always
intimately intertwined with the Clintons. The template used to
defend Bill Clinton became a model for all left-wing sexual
predators. They all hired the same lawyers and detectives and
counted on the same cultural elites to mete out punishment to
anyone who stood in the way of their Caligula lifestyles. It was
Total War against the original #MeToo movement.
Even Teddy Kennedy never plotted revenge on reporters or smeared
his sexual conquests as bimbos, trailer park trash and stalkers.
That was the Clinton model.
Showing how incestuous it was, in 2000 -- two years after
Clinton's impeachment -- Weinstein used his publishing company,
Talk/Miramax, overseen by Tina Brown, to take revenge on anyone
involved in Clinton's impeachment.
The publishing house commissioned a book by John Connolly to dig
into the private sex lives of the people who had helped expose
Bill Clinton, e.g., the lawyers behind Paula Jones' lawsuit, Ken
Starr's staff, Linda Tripp lawyer Jim Moody, Matt Drudge, reporter
Michael Isikoff and so on.
Concise summary of the book: All of us were gay, except me,
because I was having an affair with Geraldo Rivera.
We know this because drafts of the book, "The Insane Clown Posse,"
soon began to leak. Talk/Miramax's editor-in-chief Jonathan
Burnham denied that any private eyes had been prying into our
private lives and said he'd kill the book if it were true.
I went on "Rivera Live" and produced a letter given to me by an
ex-boyfriend from a private eye looking for dirt on me:
"My office has been engaged by John C. Connolly, a writer who has
performed work for Spy, New York, Premiere, Vanity Fair and a few
other magazines. The project for which my services were engaged
deals with January 16th, 1998, the day Monica Lewinsky was
corralled by the office of the independent counsel. Mr. Connolly
has described the goal as 'a day in the life of'-type book, and to
that he has directed me to conduct interviews and look into the
background and activities of a few peripheral characters,
including the author of 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors,' one Ann
"Nils B. Grevillius, private investigator"
As a result, the book was killed. But what if my ex hadn't given
me that letter?
No one cared about any of our private lives. The only point was to
humiliate anyone who hadn't endorsed Clinton's treatment of women
as his sexual playthings.
There were plenty who did.
Well into the Monica Lewinsky scandal -- which followed the
Gennifer Flowers scandal, the Paula Jones scandal, the Dolly Kyle
Browning scandal, the Elizabeth Ward Gracen scandal, the Sally
Perdue scandal and the Kathleen Willey scandal -- feminist icon
Gloria Steinem wrote her infamous New York Times op-ed, announcing
the "One Free Grope" rule for progressive men.
"He takes no for an answer," Steinem explained. Whether he was
groping Kathleen Willey in the Oval Office or dropping his pants
for Paula Jones in the Excelsior Hotel, she said, Clinton
Soon thereafter, we found out about Juanita Broaddrick.
As Bob Herbert wrote in The New York Times, the reaction of the
feminists to Clinton's predatory behavior "can most charitably be
described as restrained." (This was when the Times was still an
occasionally serious newspaper.)
Not one Senate Democrat voted to remove Clinton from office for
various felonies related to his sexual assaults.
The message was clear. Liberal men got a pass for any sexual
misconduct, even rape. But woe be to those who accused them. (Even
last year, NBC News was still following the old rule: It fired
Ronan Farrow rather than publish his Weinstein expose.)
Liberal males treated progressive politics like carbon credits for
rape. Last year, MSNBC's Kasie Hunt reported that Democratic
sexual predators on Capitol Hill say, "I can't be sexist; I'm a
Recall that Weinstein's reaction to the accusations against him
was to say: "I've decided that I'm going to give the NRA my full
attention. I hope Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party.
I'm going to do it at the same place I had my Bar Mitzvah."
It's hard to avoid the impression that a big part of the reason
Weinstein was finally exposed is that the Clinton machine is dead.
Trump killed it. Would anyone have called out Weinstein if his
good friend Hillary Clinton were "Madame President"? I doubt it.
The Clinton protection racket would have gone on and on and on.
After years of feminists excusing sexual predators, once the
Clintons were out of the way, the dam broke. There was no reason
to keep humiliating themselves by defending the indefensible.
The Worst Generation has flatlined. There are no more Clintons to
save. But as absolutely intellectually convinced as I am of the
Clintons' demise, I'd feel a lot better if someone would keep a
wooden stake handy.