The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Authored by Dan Backer via,

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of my client, Alabama engineer Shaun McCutcheon, in his challenge to the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) outdated "aggregate limits," which effectively limited how many candidates any one donor could support.

Anti-speech liberals railed against McCutcheon's win, arguing it would create supersized "Joint Fundraising Committees" (JFCs). In court, they claimed these JFCs would allow a single donor to cut a multimillion-dollar check, and the JFC would then route funds through dozens of participating state parties, who would then funnel it back to the final recipient.

Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer claimed the Supreme Court's McCutcheon v. FEC ruling would lead to "the system of legalized bribery recreated that existed prior to Watergate." The Supreme Court, in ruling for us, flatly stated such a scheme would still be illegal.

The Democrats' response? Hold my beer.

The Committee to Defend the President has filed an FEC complaint against Hillary Clinton's campaign, Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic state parties and Democratic mega-donors.

As Fox News reported, we documented the Democratic establishment "us[ing] state chapters as straw men to circumvent campaign donation limits and launder(ing) the money back to her campaign." The 101-page complaint focused on the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) — the $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, DNC, and dozens of state parties — which did exactly that the Supreme Court declared would still be illegal.

HVF solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane, and routed them through state parties en route to the Clinton campaign. Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.

Here's what we know. Campaign finance law is incredibly complex and infamous for its lack of clarity. As I've explained before, its complexity is a feature, not a bug. Major political players with the resources to hire the very few attorneys who practice campaign finance law benefit from the complexity that keeps others out. Perhaps HVF's architects thought so too, and assumed that if no one understands what's happening, no one would complain.

Here's what you can do, legally. Per election, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party's main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits — it's legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfers to their national party.

Here's what you can't do, which the Clinton machine appeared to do anyway. As the Supreme Court made clear in McCutcheon v. FEC, the JFC may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through "earmarks" and "straw men" that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions here.

On top of that, six-figure donations either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting by HVF, state parties, and the DNC to the laundry list.

Finally, as Donna Brazile and others admitted, the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign's direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law that ties the conspiracy together.

Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton's campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election — 100 times larger than allowed.

HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums.

Did any of these transfers actually happen? Or were they just paper entries to mask direct transfers to the DNC?

For perspective, conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza was prosecuted and convicted in 2012 for giving a handful of associates money they then contributed to a candidate of his preference — in other words, straw  man contributions. He was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center and five years of probation. How much money was involved? Only $20,000. HVF weighs in at $84 million — more than 4,000 times larger!

So who should be worried? Everyone involved — from the donors themselves to Democratic fundraisers to party officials who filed false reports and, ultimately, to Clinton campaign and HVF officials looking at significant legal jeopardy.

Don't take my word for it. Our complaint is built entirely on the FEC reports filed by Democrats, memos authored by Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and public statements from Donna Brazile and others.

The only question that matters: Was the law broken? If the answer is yes, then the corrupt Clinton machine should be held accountable.


Mr. Kwikky VWAndy Wed, 12/27/2017 - 18:17 Permalink

Watergate and the frazzled ratIt was already known in 1974...Jerome Zeifman indicated that this was only one of three times he ever had to fire someone over the course of his career?—?he was not at all confused?—?he fired her because, “Because she was a liar, she was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

In reply to by VWAndy

macholatte Mr. Kwikky Wed, 12/27/2017 - 18:19 Permalink

 Does this mean Soros & Company go to jail?I really didn’t think so.Maybe I’m just a “Dreamer”.Corruption!It’s what’s for breakfast.– B. SoeteroContrary to what we learn from progressives in education and the media, the history of the Democratic Party well into the twentieth century is a virtually uninterrupted history of thievery, corruption, and bigotry. – Dinesh D'Souza

In reply to by Mr. Kwikky

Publicus_Reanimated Bigly Wed, 12/27/2017 - 20:32 Permalink

I disagree.  She was chosen as their agent by TPTB and promised the commensurate reward and associated protection.  Everybody has a price, and after Hillary's price was paid and she was properly protected she became the murdering psycho cunt we know and love today.  She wouldn't have done it for chump change.

In reply to by Bigly

GUS100CORRINA ffed Wed, 12/27/2017 - 17:59 Permalink

The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering SchemeMy response: Maybe the charge of "MONEY LAUNDERING" is how they will all be brought down. INTERESTING TO SAY THE LEAST!! Remember, Al Capone was brought down by INCOME TAX EVASION, not for all the other crimes he committed. The rallying cry for DOJ convictions will be MONEY LAUNDERING ... OBAMA, HRC and many others all did it!!!

In reply to by ffed

jmack Wed, 12/27/2017 - 18:00 Permalink

That is not including the rebills of credit and debit cards that did "ONE TIME" CONTRIBUTIONS TO hILLARY FOR president, which, when the cardholder complained, the bank refunded the money, essentially the bank  (wells fargo, natch)  was laundering money to the hillary for prez campaign.       And after all those hundreds of millions of dollars, the bitch still lost.  Priceless.

Spetzco Wed, 12/27/2017 - 18:03 Permalink

"...the corrupt Clinton machine should be held accountable.."   BWAAAAAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAAAHAAHA       Sure.    (Sessions is bought and paid for by the deep state).

Avichi Wed, 12/27/2017 - 18:12 Permalink

When will you both CROC - HitLIARy and Slick "DICK" Willie ?- AMERICANS ARE WAITING TO Piss on your GRAVE, frucking you basturds need to be " TORTURED with "Waterboarding" and cut the DICK out of "Slick DICK Willie and "PULL the CLITORIS out of HitLIARy CLITORIS , and hang it as ART Work next to the DICK painting in New YorkWhile you decide on your exit date- Take your Buddy OBUMMER along with you.

NickPeeMe Wed, 12/27/2017 - 18:15 Permalink

This is enough to give a trumptard a partial erection, but Hillary isn't going to jail. Being as dumb as a trumptard must be like being really high, they are forgetting that she lost the election. Typical tards.

Avichi Wed, 12/27/2017 - 18:16 Permalink

When will you both CROC - HitLIARy and Slick "DICK" Willie ?AMERICANS ARE WAITING TO Piss on your GRAVE, frucking you basturds need to be " TORTURED with "Waterboarding" and cut the DICK out of "Slick DICK Willie and "PULL the CLITORIS out of HitLIARy CLITORIS , and hang it as ART Work next to the DICK painting in New York ( While you decide on your exit date- Take your Buddy OBUMMER along with you.