QResear.ch

#21474979 at 2024-08-24 18:59:49 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #26313: CURES EXIST Edition

Trump whistleblower-turned-Democratic House candidate accused in FEC complaint of violating federal law
Gabe KaminskyAugust 22, 2024

The complaint, filed with the FEC on Wednesday by the Functional Government Initiative, calls for the agency to investigate, the Democrat's campaign, and a political action committee calledVoteVets.

That's because, in the telling of the watchdog group, arecent interaction with the press appears to show that VoteVets, which supports progressive veterans for office such as Vindman,made an "excessive and impermissible" in-kind contribution to Vindman's campaign.

"The public is all too familiar with politicians not acting honorably," said Pete McGinnis, the spokesman for the Functional Government Initiative."We hope the FEC takes these apparent violations by Mr. Vindman seriously."

The complaint against Vindman comes as he prepares to face offin November against Republican former Army Green Beret Derrick Anderson to represent Virginia's 7th Congressional District. The seat leans Democratic and is open due to Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) announcing a run for governor of Virginia. Vindman and his brother, Alexander Vindman, blew the whistle on a 2019 phone call between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and then-President Donald Trump - leading to Trump's first impeachment.

In the Wednesday letter to the FEC's acting general counsel, Lisa J. Stevenson, the Functional Government Initiative cited a report this week in the Washington Free Beacon.The outlet reached out to the Vindman campaign for comment overapparent discrepancies regarding Vindman's military record. Vindman's campaign manager, Jeremy Levinson, replied by saying that "all future questions" could be directed to Travis Tazelaar, the political director for VoteVets. Moreover, Tazelaar provided the outlet a statement on Vindman.

VoteVets is a so-called hybrid PAC, meaning it is supposed tomaintain one bank account for direct contributions in elections and another "non-contribution account" for outside ad spending. VoteVets endorsed Vindman, spent over $400,000 on TV ads boosting Vindman, and donated$10,000 to Vindman's campaign, federal records show.

Federal law holds that super PACs and campaigns may not coordinate, including on communications. That rule would likely extend to hybrid PACs, according to Kendra Arnold, who runs a group called the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, which is also planning to file an FEC complaint against Vindman.

"On its face, Mr. Tazelaar's services to the campaign go beyond those of a typical volunteer," the Functional Government Initiative wrote in its FEC complaint. "Indeed, the record shows that Mr.Tazelaar appears to be acting effectively as the press secretary for the Vindman Campaign. Answering all future questions on any subject is what a press secretary or communications director does. It is not a function typically performed by a volunteer."

VoteVets likely made an "excessive contribution" to Vindmansince the outside group already reached the contribution limit for the 2024 primary and general elections, the watchdog said in the complaint. It was signed by the watchdog's director, Chris Stanley, ex-chief of the Census Bureau's office of congressional affairs and a former longtime GOP Senate staffer.

Levinson, the staffer for Vindman, insisted in a statement to the Washington Examiner that the Vindman campaign is above board.

"The bottom line is that we worked with the coordinated side of the VoteVets organization on the response to the Free Beacon outreach," Levinson said. "The FEC rules are clear that this interaction does not violate its rules and would not constitute an in-kind contribution."

Campaign finance expert dan backer said the Vindman campaign's logic is "flawed and laughable."

"If somebody is providing public relations services from the PAC or at the PAC's direction,it is clearly a commercial service that is being provided," backer, an attorney at the firm Chalmers, Adams, backer, and Kaufman, told the Washington Examiner. "While legal, that in-kind contribution is subject to contribution limits. This is going to have to be reported on both of VoteVets and the campaign's reports."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/3130894/trump-whistleblower-turned-democratic-house-candidate-accused-fec-complaint-violating-federal-law/

#18721052 at 2023-04-19 18:44:59 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #22969: Tesla Numbers: We Got Em Comin and Goin Edition

Marc Elias and the Democrat Party Accused of "Possible Criminal Violations of Both the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and the Federal Criminal Code"

Marc Elias was Hillary Clinton's attorney during her failed run for the Presidency in 2016. He is now being accused of possible criminal violations of both the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and the federal Criminal Code.

Marc Elias was Hillary's attorney in her failed attempt to win the Presidential election in 2016 but he became famous after the 2020 Election. Elias went around the nation and got himself involved in numerous actions and lawsuits in an effort to put in place mail-in ballots and ballot drop boxes. These efforts allowed the Democrat Party to drop off ballots in the election that were not validated for where they came from (i.e. millions of ballots lacked chain of custody documentation) nor were they validated for who they came from (i.e. signature checks were not performed).

This strategy helped the Democrats steal the 2020 Election.

Elias was eventually called out by even Democrats.

Counsel for the Committee to Defeat the President, dan backer, sent a letter last week to the DOJ encouraging them to look into alleged illegal actions committed by Marc Elias and the DCCC.

FOX News reported on the requesting that they look into Marc Elias and the Democrat Party:

"Americans deserve to know the truth about the Democratic Party's shady money laundering schemes, especially when campaign funds are supposed to be spent in one way and they get spent in another," backer said.

"Based on the Committee's robust research, and Elias' own shady past, it seems pretty clear that Elias and other Democrats have engaged in false reporting, and that cannot go unchecked," he continued.

A letter from the FEC obtained by Fox News Digital acknowledged the receipt of the complaint.

In the letter, backer wrote to Heberle about "possible criminal violations of both the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and the federal Criminal Code" allegedly committed by the DCCC and Elias Law Group.

"I hope that you will not allow the Biden Administration's political appointees within the Department of Justice to allow President Biden's close political allies to gain an unfair advantage in the electoral process by violating federal criminal law with impunity," backer wrote.

backer pointed out the "FECA requires each political committee to report to the FEC the purpose of each of its operating expenditures over $200" and that in "a series of FEC filings over the course of 2021 and 2022, the DCCC reported making a total of $5,177,460.62 in payments between October 19, 2021, and July 15, 2022, to Elias Law Group for 'RECOUNT LEGAL [SERVICES].'"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/marc-elias-and-the-democrat-party-accused-possible-criminal-violations-of-both-the-federal-election-campaign-act-feca-and-the-federal-criminal-code/

#18721035 at 2023-04-19 18:40:39 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #22969: Tesla Numbers: We Got Em Comin and Goin Edition

Marc Elias and the Democrat Party Accused of "Possible Criminal Violations of Both the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and the Federal Criminal Code"
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/marc-elias-and-the-democrat-party-accused-possible-criminal-violations-of-both-the-federal-election-campaign-act-feca-and-the-federal-criminal-code/

Marc Elias was Hillary Clinton's attorney during her failed run for the Presidency in 2016. He is now being accused of possible criminal violations of both the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and the federal Criminal Code. Marc Elias was Hillary's attorney in her failed attempt to win the Presidential election in 2016 but he became famous after the 2020 Election. Elias went around the nation and got himself involved in numerous actions and lawsuits in an effort to put in place mail-in ballots and ballot drop boxes. These efforts allowed the Democrat Party to drop off ballots in the election that were not validated for where they came from (i.e. millions of ballots lacked chain of custody documentation) nor were they validated for who they came from (i.e. signature checks were not performed). This strategy helped the Democrats steal the 2020 Election. Elias was eventually called out by even Democrats. Counsel for the Committee to Defeat the President, dan backer, sent a letter last week to the DOJ encouraging them to look into alleged illegal actions committed by Marc Elias and the DCCC. FOX News reported on the requesting that they look into Marc Elias and the Democrat Party: "Americans deserve to know the truth about the Democratic Party's shady money laundering schemes, especially when campaign funds are supposed to be spent in one way and they get spent in another," backer said. "Based on the Committee's robust research, and Elias' own shady past, it seems pretty clear that Elias and other Democrats have engaged in false reporting, and that cannot go unchecked," he continued. A letter from the FEC obtained by Fox News Digital acknowledged the receipt of the complaint. In the letter, backer wrote to Heberle about "possible criminal violations of both the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and the federal Criminal Code" allegedly committed by the DCCC and Elias Law Group. "I hope that you will not allow the Biden Administration's political appointees within the Department of Justice to allow President Biden's close political allies to gain an unfair advantage in the electoral process by violating federal criminal law with impunity," backer wrote. backer pointed out the "FECA requires each political committee to report to the FEC the purpose of each of its operating expenditures over $200" and that in "a series of FEC filings over the course of 2021 and 2022, the DCCC reported making a total of $5,177,460.62 in payments between October 19, 2021, and July 15, 2022, to Elias Law Group for 'RECOUNT LEGAL [SERVICES].'" backer reminds the FEC of Elias's prior history related to elections and the DCCC: backer also alleged that Elias, "the name partner of Elias Law Group, has a history of allowing Democratic political committees to misrepresent the nature of his firm's legal services to shield their activities from public scrutiny," pointing to his former firm, Perkins Coie's work on the debunked Steele dossier. "Elias has also been sanctioned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for lack of candor," backer wrote. "Another federal court accused him of attempting to 'impinge[]' upon 'free, open, rational elections.'" "It is reasonably possible Elias Law Group facilitated the DCCC's false reporting by providing fraudulent billing statements misrepresenting the purpose of the firm's charges, to assist in shielding the true nature of their activities from public scrutiny," backer alleged. backer alleged Elias Law Group and the DCCC "may have violated four federal statutes:" "FECA criminal provisions," the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act," statutes regarding "false statements," and "conspiracy" statutes.

#18378711 at 2023-02-20 01:49:47 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #22529: I wanted somewhere to post, NO FUCKS GIVEN Edition

>>18378672
https://www.chalmersadams.com/attorneys/dan-backer-2/

#18378706 at 2023-02-20 01:48:59 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #22529: I wanted somewhere to post, NO FUCKS GIVEN Edition

>>18378672
https://qresear.ch/?q=dan+backer

#18378672 at 2023-02-20 01:43:11 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #22529: I wanted somewhere to post, NO FUCKS GIVEN Edition

ANON ASKING FOR A DIG. Didn't get any traction. Dig on 'readyforron dot com' and a lawyer named dan backer.

BAKER, please consider for notable

#18378493 at 2023-02-20 01:02:59 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #22529: I wanted somewhere to post, NO FUCKS GIVEN Edition

Re: Is DeSantis running?

Google 'readyforron dot com'. Dig on a lawyer named dan backer. He bought the Republican donor's list. Most likely from Ronna. Maybe paid a couple $million. Who knows?

#18378358 at 2023-02-20 00:34:43 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #22529: I wanted somewhere to post, NO FUCKS GIVEN Edition

>>18377364 lb
>If, or when, DeSantis decides he's running.....

Oh, he's running all right. There has been a PAC formed, Ready For Ron (readyforron.com) in which the organizer lawyer dan backer has committed $3.3 million to spend to get 1 million people to organize 1 million donors who will provide their personal contact data and donate at least $47.00 (47th president, get it) and 'draft' DeSantis to run. They already have the personal contact data of people who have donated to President Trump and other republicans, no matter how little, and mailed letters out. Anon wonders how much Ronna McDonald charged them for the list and how much she pocketed as her commission. It had to be well over a $million, maybe more.) Or maybe dan backer is running a con and will pocket $millions. If DeSantis doesn't condemn this shit immediately then he's in on it.

There are many articles up already on Google. Here's one. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/15/ron-desantis-pac-fec-00057006

#17467559 at 2022-08-31 00:21:09 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #21410: 'Special Agent' Horrible Person, We Found Plenty Even Without Tim Edition

Bernie Sanders Presidential Campaigns Slapped With Fine After Hiring Illegal Aliens

Sen. Bernie Sanders' 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns are being fined thousands after unlawfully hiring illegal aliens for top staffer roles, according to a Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Aug. 11 ruling, which the FEC has not yet made public, concluded both Sanders' campaigns broke federal law after "knowingly" employing three "foreign national" staffers from Mexico and Argentina who participated in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Both campaigns have agreed to pay an FEC penalty of $15,000 combined.

"They were tasked with planning and executing events intended to mobilize the Spanish-speaking and Latino communities to support Sanders and serving as contacts for Latino media outlets," the FEC ruling on the staffers says. "The employees worked to help craft and deliver campaign policy on the issue of immigration and other issues of interest to the Latino community."

The undocumented DACA staffers for both campaigns included former Latino Outreach Organizer Maria B?len Sisa, former National Latino Outreach Strategist Cesar Vargas and former Press Secretary for Latino Outreach Erika Andiola. Andiola and Vargas are from Mexico while Sisa is from Argentina, according to the ruling.

DACA is an Obama-era policy that grants illegal aliens under 16 who came to the U.S. work permits but does not confer citizenship. Sanders has supported the policy and President Joe Biden will codify it as a federal regulation, the Department of Homeland Security announced last Tuesday.

"I find it incredibly ironic and not at all surprising that the same people who were so outraged by the Russia hoax were at the same time violating laws to prevent foreign influence in our elections," dan backer, counsel to the Coolidge Reagan Foundation (CRF), a First Amendment watchdog that filed an ethics complaint in 2019 on Sanders hiring illegals, which initiated the FEC ruling, told the DCNF.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 bars any "foreign national" from contributing directly or indirectly during a federal, state or local election. The act also prohibits foreign nationals from "having involvement in the management of a political committee," the FEC said in its Sanders ruling.

https://dailycaller.com/2022/08/30/bernie-sanders-presidential-campaigns-illegal-aliens-fec/

#16816489 at 2022-07-26 01:03:09 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #21200: Weathering The Frickin' Storm Edition

Charge: Clinton and DNC break pledge to stop lying about Trump dossier
by Paul Bedard, Washington Secrets Columnist | | June 16, 2022 02:00 PM

In a new bid to hide their attorney's efforts regarding the disputed Trump-Russia dossier, the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party have already violated a two-month-old promise to stop lying about their efforts, according to charges filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The complaint shared with Secrets focuses on the move by the DNC and Hillary for America to claim attorney-client privilege in shielding work done by their law firm Perkins Coie and former partner Michael Sussmann from special counsel John Durham.

That appeared to violate a pledge made to the FEC to stop claiming attorney-client privilege regarding the over $1 million they paid the law firm for work done by Fusion GPS on the so-called "Steele Dossier" and to accept the election agency's finding that the work was for opposition research, not "legal advice and services."

In giving that pledge to the FEC, the Clinton campaign and DNC paid a combined $113,000 fine to make the case go away.

But in renewing the claim that their relationship with Perkins Coie is protected by an attorney-client relationship, the campaign and party committee face having the FEC reopen its investigation and level even greater fines.

The new complaint filed with the FEC is the latest by the Coolidge Reagan Foundation to force the 2016 Clinton campaign and DNC to tell the truth about their role in and spending on the dossier, a crude document meant to smear then-candidate Donald Trump as he was rising in the polls in advance of the presidential election he won.

In the FEC deal revealed by Secrets two months ago, the agency said it found probable cause that the Clinton campaign and the DNC misreported the expenses for the Fusion GPS services to Perkins Coie.

The campaign and party said they wouldn't dispute or further fight the case, at least with the FEC. "Solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs, respondent[s] does not concede, but will not further contest the commission's finding of probable cause to proceed" with the probe, they said in the FEC deal.
dan backer, with the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, said that in making the new claim in the case brought by Durham, the campaign and party were contesting the commission's findings - exactly what they promised never to do.

"The FEC found probable cause to believe HFA and the DNC violated federal law by filing false campaign finance disclosure reports with the commission," he said in sizing up the original case for the new complaint. He added, "Specifically, HFA and the DNC falsely claimed payments made to Perkins Coie in connection with Fusion GPS's opposition research and investigations into Trump to prepare the salacious and fraudulent Steele Dossier were for the purpose of legal services. In reality, Fusion GPS's investigation into Trump and preparation of the Steele Dossier were for political purposes and not for the purpose of enabling Perkins Coie to provide legal advice or in connection with litigation."

But in making the case that the Perkins Coie spending was for legal services and should be protected from release to Durham, backer wrote, "HFA's and the DNC's intervention, arguments, and supporting declarations in United States v. Sussmann violate their agreement to 'not further contest the commission's finding of probable cause to believe' Fusion GPS's opposition research into Trump and preparation of the Steele Dossier did not constitute legal services."

In an earlier letter sent to Durham, backer said, "The government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating."

backer just sent his new complaint to the FEC, and it was unlikely that the agency, DNC, or Clinton campaign would have an immediate reaction.
Like the FEC, Durham has been eager to determine if the campaign or party was hiding documents under improper claims of attorney-client privilege.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/charge-clinton-dnc-break-pledge-to-stop-lying-about-trump-dossier

#16489506 at 2022-06-22 18:19:51 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #20861: 21-count indictment against Democrat Andrew Gillum Edition

Charge: Clinton and DNC break pledge to stop lying about Trump dossier
by Paul Bedard, Washington Secrets Columnist | | June 16, 2022 02:00 PM

In a new bid to hide their attorney's efforts regarding the disputed Trump-Russia dossier, the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party have already violated a two-month-old promise to stop lying about their efforts, according to charges filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The complaint shared with Secrets focuses on the move by the DNC and Hillary for America to claim attorney-client privilege in shielding work done by their law firm Perkins Coie and former partner Michael Sussmann from special counsel John Durham.

That appeared to violate a pledge made to the FEC to stop claiming attorney-client privilege regarding the over $1 million they paid the law firm for work done by Fusion GPS on the so-called "Steele Dossier" and to accept the election agency's finding that the work was for opposition research, not "legal advice and services."

In giving that pledge to the FEC, the Clinton campaign and DNC paid a combined $113,000 fine to make the case go away.

But in renewing the claim that their relationship with Perkins Coie is protected by an attorney-client relationship, the campaign and party committee face having the FEC reopen its investigation and level even greater fines.

The new complaint filed with the FEC is the latest by the Coolidge Reagan Foundation to force the 2016 Clinton campaign and DNC to tell the truth about their role in and spending on the dossier, a crude document meant to smear then-candidate Donald Trump as he was rising in the polls in advance of the presidential election he won.

In the FEC deal revealed by Secrets two months ago, the agency said it found probable cause that the Clinton campaign and the DNC misreported the expenses for the Fusion GPS services to Perkins Coie.

The campaign and party said they wouldn't dispute or further fight the case, at least with the FEC. "Solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs, respondent[s] does not concede, but will not further contest the commission's finding of probable cause to proceed" with the probe, they said in the FEC deal.
dan backer, with the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, said that in making the new claim in the case brought by Durham, the campaign and party were contesting the commission's findings - exactly what they promised never to do.

"The FEC found probable cause to believe HFA and the DNC violated federal law by filing false campaign finance disclosure reports with the commission," he said in sizing up the original case for the new complaint. He added, "Specifically, HFA and the DNC falsely claimed payments made to Perkins Coie in connection with Fusion GPS's opposition research and investigations into Trump to prepare the salacious and fraudulent Steele Dossier were for the purpose of legal services. In reality, Fusion GPS's investigation into Trump and preparation of the Steele Dossier were for political purposes and not for the purpose of enabling Perkins Coie to provide legal advice or in connection with litigation."

But in making the case that the Perkins Coie spending was for legal services and should be protected from release to Durham, backer wrote, "HFA's and the DNC's intervention, arguments, and supporting declarations in United States v. Sussmann violate their agreement to 'not further contest the commission's finding of probable cause to believe' Fusion GPS's opposition research into Trump and preparation of the Steele Dossier did not constitute legal services."

In an earlier letter sent to Durham, backer said, "The government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating."

backer just sent his new complaint to the FEC, and it was unlikely that the agency, DNC, or Clinton campaign would have an immediate reaction.
Like the FEC, Durham has been eager to determine if the campaign or party was hiding documents under improper claims of attorney-client privilege.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/charge-clinton-dnc-break-pledge-to-stop-lying-about-trump-dossier

#16194416 at 2022-05-02 13:35:26 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #20484 - bank holiday monday bread

>>16194404
After the DNC and the Clinton campaign filed their motions to intervene in the Sussmann case, the attorney for The Coolidge Reagan Foundation-the organization that had filed the complaints against the DNC and the Clinton campaign with the FEC-dispatched a three-page letter to the special counsel's office. The foundation's letter from its counsel dan backer summarized the key details about the FEC's recent decision, then suggested the DNC and Clinton campaign's agreement not to "further contest the Commission's findings" should prevent them from asserting attorney-client privilege in the Sussmann case.
"The Government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating," the foundation argued, adding that the trial court may find those breaches of the settlement agreement "material in ruling on any privilege claims."
While the special counsel's office made no mention of the FEC's findings in its response to the DNC and the Clinton campaign's filings, the foundation's letter to Durham highlighted a second point that now proves prescient. In his letter, backer noted that although the FEC memoranda "will not be made public for another week," the details uncovered in the FEC investigation will likely be useful to the special counsel in attempting to counter the claims of attorney-client privilege pushed in the Sussmann litigation.
Indeed, the FEC memoranda released last week provide additional evidence countering the DNC and the Clinton campaign's claims of privilege not previously highlighted in the special counsel's briefing.
For instance, the Clinton campaign reported payments of $175,000 to Perkins Coie as payments for "legal services," but the FEC memorandum stressed that the Perkins Coie invoices did not treat all of the charges as related to "legal services." Rather, the invoices reviewed by the FEC showed that in billing the Clinton campaign Perkins Coie distinguished between fees for "legal services rendered" and fees for "professional services - other." The only service billed as "legal services rendered," the FEC noted, related to the $5,000 monthly retainer fee paid to Perkins Coie. Conversely, all of the charges related to Fusion GPS's work charges appeared as "professional services-other."
The FEC memorandum also stressed that the invoices Fusion GPS sent to Perkins Coie for the services rendered on behalf of the Clinton campaign listed "a monthly retainer fee plus additional fees labeled as 'Russia Research' or 'Russian language researcher.'" Those Fusion GPS charges included payments "Fusion made to its sub vendors, Nellie Ohr, Graham Stack, Edward Austin Limited, and Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd." The sub-vendors all conducted opposition research for Fusion GPS related to Trump, the FEC memorandum explained, again countering the proposition that the subcontractor and its vendors were assisting Perkins Coie in providing legal services to the Clinton campaign.
Similarly, the FEC memorandum discussing the charge against the DNC noted that it reported paying Perkins Coie $66,500 on August 16, 2016, for "Research Consulting," while later invoices categorized the payments to Perkins Coie as fees for "legal and compliance consulting." The FEC found the initial category of "research consulting" captured the accurate purpose of the expenditures and indicated the DNC realized "research consulting" represented the more appropriate classification of the expenses
The invoices also showed that Perkins Coie charged the DNC for the entire portion of the fees invoiced by Fusion GPS. This fact suggested Perkins Coie served as simply a pass-through entity for Fusion GPS's opposition research. This concerned the commissioners, as a transcript of the hearing made clear: Merely running bills through a law firm could not convert them into legal expenses, the commissioners stressed.
While the FEC's analysis of the payments to Fusion GPS focused on whether the DNC and the Clinton campaign properly reported the purpose of the expenses, and not on whether an attorney-client relationship existed for purposes of privilege, the evidence discussed provides the special counsel additional ammunition to argue in support of an in camera review of the documents, and their eventual disclosure to prosecutors.
No matter how the court resolves the issue of attorney-client privilege, though, the FEC's memoranda expose the Clinton campaign and the DNC's attempts to hide their funding of the Russia collusion hoax. When the Sussmann trial begins later this month, the country will learn even more details of the breadth and depth of the conspiracy when those behind the Alfa Bank hoax testify-with or without the 38 documents now in dispute.

#16194283 at 2022-05-02 12:50:03 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #20484 - bank holiday monday bread

>>16194279

Part 2 of 2
After the DNC and the Clinton campaign filed their motions to intervene in the Sussmann case, the attorney for The Coolidge Reagan Foundation-the organization that had filed the complaints against the DNC and the Clinton campaign with the FEC-dispatched a three-page letter to the special counsel's office. The foundation's letter from its counsel dan backer summarized the key details about the FEC's recent decision, then suggested the DNC and Clinton campaign's agreement not to "further contest the Commission's findings" should prevent them from asserting attorney-client privilege in the Sussmann case.

"The Government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating," the foundation argued, adding that the trial court may find those breaches of the settlement agreement "material in ruling on any privilege claims."

While the special counsel's office made no mention of the FEC's findings in its response to the DNC and the Clinton campaign's filings, the foundation's letter to Durham highlighted a second point that now proves prescient. In his letter, backer noted that although the FEC memoranda "will not be made public for another week," the details uncovered in the FEC investigation will likely be useful to the special counsel in attempting to counter the claims of attorney-client privilege pushed in the Sussmann litigation.

Indeed, the FEC memoranda released last week provide additional evidence countering the DNC and the Clinton campaign's claims of privilege not previously highlighted in the special counsel's briefing.

For instance, the Clinton campaign reported payments of $175,000 to Perkins Coie as payments for "legal services," but the FEC memorandumstressed that the Perkins Coie invoices did not treat all of the charges as related to "legal services." Rather, the invoices reviewed by the FEC showed that in billing the Clinton campaign Perkins Coie distinguished between fees for "legal services rendered" and fees for "professional services - other." The only service billed as "legal services rendered," the FEC noted, related to the $5,000 monthly retainer fee paid to Perkins Coie. Conversely, all of the charges related to Fusion GPS's work charges appeared as "professional services-other."

The FEC memorandum also stressed that the invoices Fusion GPS sent to Perkins Coie for the services rendered on behalf of the Clinton campaign listed "a monthly retainer fee plus additional fees labeled as 'Russia Research' or 'Russian language researcher.'" Those Fusion GPS charges included payments "Fusion made to its sub vendors, Nellie Ohr, Graham Stack, Edward Austin Limited, and Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd." The sub-vendors all conducted opposition research for Fusion GPS related to Trump, the FEC memorandum explained, again countering the proposition that the subcontractor and its vendors were assisting Perkins Coie in providing legal services to the Clinton campaign.

Similarly, the FEC memorandumdiscussing the charge against the DNC noted that it reported paying Perkins Coie $66,500 on August 16, 2016, for "Research Consulting," while later invoices categorized the payments to Perkins Coie as fees for "legal and compliance consulting." The FEC found the initial category of "research consulting" captured the accurate purpose of the expenditures and indicated the DNC realized "research consulting" represented the more appropriate classification of the expenses

The invoices also showed that Perkins Coie charged the DNC for the entire portion of the fees invoiced by Fusion GPS. This fact suggested Perkins Coie served as simply a pass-through entity for Fusion GPS's opposition research. This concerned the commissioners, as a transcript of the hearing made clear: Merely running bills through a law firm could not convert them into legal expenses, the commissioners stressed.

While the FEC's analysis of the payments to Fusion GPS focused on whether the DNC and the Clinton campaign properly reported the purpose of the expenses, and not on whether an attorney-client relationship existed for purposes of privilege, the evidence discussed provides the special counsel additional ammunition to argue in support of an in camera review of the documents, and their eventual disclosure to prosecutors.

No matter how the court resolves the issue of attorney-client privilege, though, the FEC's memoranda expose the Clinton campaign and the DNC's attempts to hide their funding of the Russia collusion hoax. When the Sussmann trial begins later this month, the country will learn even more details of the breadth and depth of the conspiracy when those behind the Alfa Bank hoax testify-with or without the 38 documents now in dispute.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/02/why-the-hillary-clinton-campaign-cant-hide-38-documents-from-the-special-counsel/

#16151639 at 2022-04-25 19:26:43 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #20429: TRUMP HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT OVER SUBPOENAS IN N.Y. Edition

Letter: No, Hillary Clinton Can't Try To Hide 2016 Oppo Research From The Special Counsel

The Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee's claims of attorney-client privilege in the Michael Sussmann criminal case may constitute a breach of the settlement agreements they entered with the Federal Election Commission, according to a letter sent to Special Counsel John Durham's office on Friday.

That letter, obtained first by The Federalist, followed the flurry of motions to intervene filed in the special counsel's pending false statement case against Sussmann. Hillary for America, the DNC, tech executive Rodney Joffe, Sussmann's former law firm of Perkins and Coie, and the investigative firm Fusion GPS all filed motions last week asking the court for permission to argue against disclosing documents to the special counsel based on their claims of attorney-client privilege.

The special counsel's office had previously filed a motion arguing that the court should review 38 documents withheld in response to grand jury subpoenas to assess whether the secreted material truly qualified as protected by attorney-client privilege. The day after Sussmann responded to that motion, opposing any such in camera review by the judge, his fellow Spygate hoaxers sought to join in Sussmann's efforts to keep the documents concealed.

After the Hillary for America and the DNC's motions to intervene hit the Sussmann docket, The Coolidge Reagan Foundation penned a three-page letter to Durham and Assistant Special Counsel Jonathan Algor. That letter alerted the special counsel's office to key facts about the FEC's recent decision to fine the political groups in relation to a complaint the foundation had filed with the FEC. That complaint charged Hillary for America and the DNC with using the "law firm, Perkins Coie, to hire and funnel over $1 million to 'outside research firms' such as Fusion GPS 'to perform potentially sensitive, controversial, or politically embarrassing' opposition research into Donald Trump."

The FEC complaint, filed in 2018, alleged that "the research was not 'for the purpose of assisting Perkins Coie in providing legal advice,'" but to further the "political and campaign-related goals" of the organizations. The foundation also claimed in its FEC complaint that because the work was not "for the purpose of providing legal advice or assisting with impending or potential litigation, it was not covered by attorney-client, work-product, or other privileges."

Significantly, as the foundation noted in its April 22, 2022 letter to the special counsel's office, the FEC had "found probable cause to believe" the political organizations had misreported the purpose of certain disbursements. The FEC reached that conclusion based on a memorandum prepared by the FEC's Office of General Counsel, but under controlling regulations that memorandum "will not be made public for another week," the letter explained.
Foundation counsel dan backer added that while the memorandum is not yet public, the special counsel's office would likely be able to obtain it directly from the FEC. That memorandum also will provide Durham's team further details on the FEC's investigation and fact-finding that may be useful to the special counsel in the Sussmann litigation, noted the letter.

In Friday's letter, backer also highlighted Hillary for America and the DNC's commitment in their settlement agreement with the FEC to "not further contest the Commission's finding of probable cause to believe" that the political organizations had "falsely reported their payments through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS as being for legal services." In contrast, in the Sussmann case, Hillary for America and the DNC "are nevertheless asserting materials generated by Fusion GPS and provided to Perkins Coie are protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine," the letter stressed.

"The Government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating," the foundation's letter concluded, suggesting the trial court may find those breaches of the settlement agreement "material in ruling on any privilege claims."

https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/25/letter-no-hillary-clinton-cant-try-to-hide-2016-oppo-research-from-the-special-counsel/

https://www.scribd.com/document/571422910/Coolidge-Reagan-Foundation-Letter-to-Special-Counsel-John-Durham

#16149684 at 2022-04-25 13:48:43 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #20426: Florida Sheriff Says “We Prefer” Homeowners to Shoot Burglars Edition

Letter: No, Hillary Can't Try To Hide Her Oppo From The Special Counsel
The Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee's claims of attorney-client privilege in the Michael Sussmann criminal case may constitute a breach of the settlement agreements they entered with the Federal Election Commission, according to a letter sent to Special Counsel John Durham's office on Friday.

That letter, obtained first by The Federalist, followed the flurry of motions to intervene filed in the special counsel's pending false statement case against Sussmann. Hillary for America, the DNC, tech executive Rodney Joffe, Sussmann's former law firm of Perkins and Coie, and the investigative firm Fusion GPS all filed motions last week asking the court for permission to argue against disclosing documents to the special counsel based on their claims of attorney-client privilege.

The special counsel's office had previously filed a motion arguing that the court should review 38 documents withheld in response to grand jury subpoenas to assess whether the secreted material truly qualified as protected by attorney-client privilege. The day after Sussmann responded to that motion, opposing any such in camera review by the judge, his fellow Spygate hoaxers sought to join in Sussmann's efforts to keep the documents concealed.

After the Hillary for America and the DNC's motions to intervene hit the Sussmann docket, The Coolidge Reagan Foundation penned a three-page letter to Durham and Assistant Special Counsel Jonathan Algor. That letter alerted the special counsel's office to key facts about the FEC's recent decision to fine the political groups in relation to a complaint the foundation had filed with the FEC. That complaint charged Hillary for America and the DNC with using the "law firm, Perkins Coie, to hire and funnel over $1 million to 'outside research firms' such as Fusion GPS 'to perform potentially sensitive, controversial, or politically embarrassing' opposition research into Donald Trump."

The FEC complaint, filed in 2018, alleged that "the research was not 'for the purpose of assisting Perkins Coie in providing legal advice,'" but to further the "political and campaign-related goals" of the organizations. The foundation also claimed in its FEC complaint that because the work was not "for the purpose of providing legal advice or assisting with impending or potential litigation, it was not covered by attorney-client, work-product, or other privileges."

Significantly, as the foundation noted in its April 22, 2022 letter to the special counsel's office, the FEC had "found probable cause to believe" the political organizations had misreported the purpose of certain disbursements. The FEC reached that conclusion based on a memorandum prepared by the FEC's Office of General Counsel, but under controlling regulations that memorandum "will not be made public for another week," the letter explained.

Foundation counsel dan backer added that while the memorandum is not yet public, the special counsel's office would likely be able to obtain it directly from the FEC. That memorandum also will provide Durham's team further details on the FEC's investigation and fact-finding that may be useful to the special counsel in the Sussmann litigation, noted the letter.

In Friday's letter, backer also highlighted Hillary for America and the DNC's commitment in their settlement agreement with the FEC to "not further contest the Commission's finding of probable cause to believe" that the political organizations had "falsely reported their payments through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS as being for legal services." In contrast, in the Sussmann case, Hillary for America and the DNC "are nevertheless asserting materials generated by Fusion GPS and provided to Perkins Coie are protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine," the letter stressed.

"The Government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating," the foundation's letter concluded, suggesting the trial court may find those breaches of the settlement agreement "material in ruling on any privilege claims."…

Can someone download the letter here?

https://www.scribd.com/document/571422910/Coolidge-Reagan-Foundation-Letter-to-Special-Counsel-John-Durham


https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/25/letter-no-hillary-clinton-cant-try-to-hide-2016-oppo-research-from-the-special-counsel/

#15978412 at 2022-03-30 20:36:13 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #20207: Ebake to Victory Edition

Scoop: FEC fines DNC and Clinton for Trump dossier hoax
by Paul Bedard, Washington Secrets Columnist |
| March 30, 2022 11:27 AM
The Federal Election Commission has fined the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign for lying about the funding of the infamous, and discredited, Russian "dossier" used in a smear attempt against Donald Trump weeks before he shocked the world with his 2016 presidential victory.

The election agency said that Clinton and the DNC violated strict rules on describing expenditures of payments funneled to the opposition research firm Fusion GPS through their law firm.
A combined $1,024,407.97 was paid by the treasurers of the DNC and Clinton campaign to law firm Perkins Coie for Fusion GPS's information, and the party and campaign hid the reason, claiming it was for legal services, not opposition research.

Instead, the DNC's $849,407.97 and the Clinton campaign's $175,000 covered Fusion GPS's opposition research on the dossier, a basis for the so-called "Russia hoax" that dogged Trump's first term.

The memo said that the Clinton campaign and DNC argued that they were correct in describing their payment as for "legal advice and services" because it was Perkins Coie that hired Fusion GPS. But the agency said the law is clear and was violated.

It added that neither the campaign nor the party conceded to lying but won't contest the finding. "Solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs, respondent[s] does not concede, but will not further contest the commission's finding of probable cause to proceed" with the probe, said the FEC.

The FEC, in a memo to the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, which filed its complaint over three years ago, said it fined Clinton's treasurer $8,000 and the DNC's treasurer $105,000.

The memo, shared with Secrets, is to be made public in a month.

dan backer, who brought the complaint on behalf of the foundation, which focuses on free speech and the First Amendment, told Secrets, "This may well be the first time that Hillary Clinton - one of the most evidently corrupt politicians in American history - has actually been held legally accountable, and I'm proud to have forced the FEC to do their job for once. The Coolidge Reagan Foundation proved that with pluck and grit, Americans who stand with integrity can stand up to the Clinton machine and other corrupt political elites."

Clinton has in the past defended her campaign's spending for the information and the work of her campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, with Fusion GPS, which compiled the dossier and hired former British spy Christopher Steele to dig further on Trump.

Trump has assailed the dossier as full of lies, and the FBI has called it fake, but only after the damage settled in on the president.

Republicans have continued to press for charges against Clinton.

backer, with Washington's Chalmers & Adams law firm, held out hope for further action against the former first lady. He said, "Hillary Clinton and her cronies willfully engaged in the greatest political fraud in history - destroying our nation's faith in the electoral process, and it's high time they were held accountable.I hope this is only the beginning."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fec-fines-dnc-clinton-for-trump-dossier-hoax






https://twitter.com/PapiTrumpo/status/1509217007564058625?s=20&t=Awo0bwWz1B_C71gsrpe-fQ

#14818988 at 2021-10-20 11:23:14 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #18745: Queen Elizabeth without mask in crowded room, What virus? Edition

FEC Complaint Seeks to Force Joe Biden to Officially Confirm He Is Running in 2024
Stacey LennoxOct 19, 2021 9:54 PM

Not that it matters, but something to read
The Committee to Defeat the President, the nation's leading anti-Biden super PAC, has filed an official complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that President Joe Biden broke the law by illegally raising and spending millions in post-election campaign funds. On Monday, the FEC officially opened an investigation into the complaint.

According to the complaint, Biden meets the legal definition of a candidate. In March, he told reporters in his first press conference, "My plan is to run for reelection. That's my expectation." According to the current complaint, Biden also meets the definition of a candidate. The United States Code defines a candidate as an individual who has either received or designated someone to receive more than $5,000 in contributions or made more than $5,000 in expenditures on his behalf.

The law requires campaigns to calculate contributions and expenditures on an election-cycle basis. The current cycle ends on Election Day for the office the candidate is seeking. The new cycle begins the day after. The exception is if the campaign designates contributions and expenditures for another cycle. This situation occurs when a candidate raises funds to pay off campaign debt or needs to pay the remaining expenses.

The United States Code also requires each candidate for federal office to designate in writing a political committee to serve as the principal campaign committee for his candidacy within 15 days of becoming a candidate. The candidate meets this requirement by filling out a "Statement of Candidacy" with the FEC. On or about November 6, 2020, Biden filed an amended Statement of Candidacy stating that he is a candidate for president in the 2020 election, not the 2024 election. It identified the Biden Victory Fund as an authorized committee to raise funds on his behalf.

The Committee to Defeat the President's complaint alleges that Biden or his authorized committees received contributions above the $5,000 threshold by November 2020 and after he was sworn in as president in January 2021. Therefore, he is a candidate for the 2024 cycle and must file a Statement of Candidacy reflecting that fact. It also asserts that if Biden says he is not a candidate for 2024, he impermissibly raised approximately $2 million in contributions through his authorized committee, the Biden Victory Fund.

The filing also asserts that the primary campaign organization, Biden for President, has not met its obligations under the Federal Code of regulations by not updating its Statement Organization filing once Biden met the definition of a candidate. The complaint reads, "The change from being the principal campaign committee for the 2020 presidential election to becoming principal campaign committee for the 2024 presidential election is a significant change that mandates amendment to the Campaign's Statement of Organization." The complainant is making the same demand for an update from the Biden Victory Fund, the joint fundraising representative for Biden.

Making it official would undoubtedly be significant. According to dan backer, counsel for the Committee to Defeat the President, making the appropriate filings is not a commitment written in stone. Candidates file and then drop out of a race all the time. He noted that over 1,500 people filed to run for president in 2020. The vast majority of those campaigns ended well before Election Day.

backer is hopeful the Commission will take prompt action, explaining, "There needs to be clarity about President Biden's intentions so the political process can resume." Candidates for the cycle are beginning to fundraise, and donors need to make decisions. By failing to provide clarity, the process is impeded. When I asked backer if Biden running again is likely, he said it is inevitable. In his estimation, people who can run will run if they are in power. The notable exception he offered was George Washington.

Further, he pointed to the entire organization behind the president. Other members of the administration have a vested interest in Biden staying in power and will work to make that a reality. Despite the speculation about Biden's current approval ratings and speculation about his apparent decline, the FEC may force him to declare his intent formally due to the complaint.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2021/10/19/fec-complaint-seeks-to-force-joe-biden-to-officially-confirm-he-is-running-in-2024-n1525204

#6866236 at 2019-06-28 16:58:16 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #8782 QR AM Bake Edition

Groups claim Clinton campaign broke campaign laws over Fusion GPS and Steele funding
''
Two watchdog groups filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission alleging the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee broke campaign laws by filing reports meant to conceal their hiring of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS and British ex-spy Christopher Steele. And one has now filed a lawsuit in federal court.

The Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit, filed its complaint with the FEC in 2017, alleging that Clinton and the DNC "failed to accurately disclose the purpose and recipient of payments for the dossier of research alleging connections between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia, effectively hiding these payments from public scrutiny, contrary to the requirements of federal law." The Coolidge Reagan Foundation, a conservative nonprofit, filed its complaint with the FEC a year later against Clinton, the DNC, Steele, and the Perkins Coie law firm, which represented Clinton and the DNC in 2016 and was paid $12 million in 2016-2017. Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which then hired Steele.

The foundation alleged the Clinton campaign "conspired" with foreign nationals by hiring Steele, who says he gathered information from sources close to the Kremlin. The FBI used Steele's unverified dossier in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications to surveil Trump campaign associate Carter Page. The foundation filed its lawsuit in D.C. District Court in May, hoping a judge will force the FEC to rule on its complaint.

dan backer, one of the group's founders and a "pro-Trump guy" who runs two pro-Trump political action committees, told the Washington Examiner that the goal of their lawsuit was to get the FEC to act, and, if not, to give the group the ability to investigate. The foundation accuses the Clinton campaign of paying Perkins Coie for legal services to hide its opposition research efforts from the public. "They should've reported a payment to Fusion GPS. They could've called it opposition research. They could've just called it research. But it definitely wasn't just 'legal services,'" backer told the Washington Examiner.

Following remarks from Trump earlier in June that he'd be open to accepting foreign information, FEC Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub released a viral statement on Twitter, saying, "Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation." Brendan Fischer, an FEC expert for the center, told the Washington Examiner that the "payments by the DNC and Clinton campaign for opposition research were legal, but hiding those payments was not." Fischer also said although it was doubtful that Steele's hiring broke the law, "whether Steele's subsequent engagement with Russian sources might run afoul of the law would really depend on the facts." The foundation, however, alleged that while Democratic officials have accused the Trump administration of collusion, "it was the Clinton-backed Democratic machine that conspired with foreigners in violation of both federal campaign finance law and basic decency to manipulate the election."

backer contended Steele attempted to influence the election by spreading his dossier to members of the media and the government. An FEC spokesman told the Washington Examiner the organization could not comment because FEC actions must be kept confidential until the case is resolved. When asked whether the association with Steele or with Russian sources might constitute foreign interference, an FEC spokesman pointed the Washington Examiner to the the FEC website's section on foreign nationals. Fischer, who said that center is still waiting for the FEC to make a ruling, said that while most campaign finance violations only involve a fine, "if the violation is committed knowingly and willfully there could be criminal penalties."

Perkins Coie, Elias, the DNC, and the former Clinton campaign treasurer did not respond to requests seeking comment. A lawyer for Fusion GPS told the Washington Examiner that the firm has complied with the law. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is reviewing alleged FISA abuse, and Attorney General William Barr launched his "investigation of the investigators" earlier this year.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/groups-claim-hillary-clinton-campaign-broke-campaign-laws-over-fusion-gps-and-steele-funding

Coolidge Reagan Foundation v FEC
https://www.scribd.com/document/414636850/Coolidge-Reagan-Foundation-v-FEC#from_embed

#6772503 at 2019-06-17 18:01:10 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #8662: Free Hong Kong! Edition

Poll: AOC disliked, distrusted, unwanted in her own NY district

She's a star on the national political stage, but Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is viewed skeptically back in her Queens and Bronx 14th Congressional District, according to a new door-to-door survey. It found that she has a low 21% favorability rating, that just 11% believe she has their best interests in mind, and that only 13% would vote to reelect her. The survey of registered voters was conducted by the political action committee targeting her with a Federal Election Commission complaint, Stop The AOC PAC.

A previous survey by the group found that residents were upset with the lawmaker's opposition to bringing an Amazon headquarters to the district. In part due to Ocasio-Cortez's complaints, Amazon backed out of moving to her district. The congresswoman and the Stop the AOC PAC have tussled for weeks, especially after the group's founder, Washington attorney dan backer, filed an FEC complaint against her campaign. backer said that he has "a particularly strong dislike" for Ocasio-Cortez's leftist politics and wanted to test the district to see if she is vulnerable to a primary or general election challenge. In 2018, she upset the Democratic establishment by defeating House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley in the primary.

She has since become a media star and leader of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. But in her district the survey conducted by Mobilize the Message for the opposition group found weak support for the congresswoman. The key findings:
42% are unfamiliar with AOC.
51% have an unfavorable view of her.
33% are ready to vote against her, and only 13% would vote for her.

"Facing an electorate more concerned with results than retweets, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has problems in her backyard. Despite her online notoriety and fandom in the national new progressive movement, the citizens of New York District 14 want a representative aligned with their values," said the survey analysis. backer said that he hopes potential opponents act on his survey results and take on Ocasio-Cortez. "She does not have a strong constituency outside her core support group," he said.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/poll-aoc-unliked-untrusted-unwanted-in-her-own-ny-district

https://www.stoptheaoc.com/

aoc
https://www.scribd.com/document/413648842/ACFrOgAqcBucH8mR82u05h2fOTd8oskDVL3jD-MD-DKtxNLTylaH3iD65PtZpmdfjAMughlc49JW3OX-s1BTpxocFfHC2ssAoxsDAelc2o7U5MPjwWmSpITlXcoa5uM#from_embed

#6539746 at 2019-05-20 01:47:09 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #8362: Truth Is Its Own Defense Edition

Crazy Eyes Losing Support, AOC Unpopular

AOC Could Soon Be Back Tending Bars After What Her Constituents Told Pollsters

Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York might have to return to bartending after her first term, at least if recent polling data is any indication.

The Stop The AOC PAC recently surveyed residents in New York's 14th Congressional District, which Ocasio-Cortez represents, about their congresswoman.

"My family came from Russia when I was a baby, and I grew up hearing what they went through. And I have a strong dislike for that ideology," the PAC's founder, dan backer, told The Daily Caller, explaining why he believes it's so important to fight Ocasio-Cortez's policies.

But not everybody was celebrating the loss of jobs - even liberal New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was upset at Ocasio-Cortez for spoiling the Amazon deal.

And Stop The AOC PAC's canvassing data suggests that only 9 percent of voters agree with Ocasio-Cortez's position on Amazon.

Another 36 percent support Amazon, while 55 percent of respondents said they were "unsure."

Moreover, only 20 percent of respondents said they hold a favorable opinion of their democratic socialist congresswoman, compared to 44 percent of voters who have an unfavorable opinion of her.

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/aoc-soon-back-tending-bars-constituents-told-pollsters/

#6293431 at 2019-04-24 05:51:14 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #8048: Shills Are Up Late Tonight

>>6293300 pb
>>6293293 pb
The Stop AOC PAC, started in March by Virginia lawyer dan backer, plans to file its expenditure report Wednesday.
A draft obtained by The Post shows two $5,000 payments to Becki Donatelli, a Virginia-based digital fundraising strategist who consulted on John McCain's two presidential runs.
That money will go to digital ads, backer told The Post.
There's also $7,000 going to a Florida company called Mobilize the Message that will hire a two-person team to go door-to-door in Ocasio-Cortez's Bronx and Queens district next week to deliver thousands of flyers criticizing her for undermining the Amazon deal, costing the city 25,000 jobs.

Sounds kindof sketchy involving people associated with McStain.
Also 7,000 for 2 people to go door to door? seems pricy.
Maybe it's a slush fund like maga coalition.(where they pay themselves generous salaries and consulting fee's and don't really do jack shit)
Money would be better spent with a website( anyone can make one and it costs 10 to 50 bucks a month) Use that to organize grass roots volunteers to help go door to door and pass out flyers.People who live in the city, understand the issues and are passionate about it, and can talk to people about how her stupidity affects them. Not a couple of people from Florida. Need someone who speaks with a new york accent and can relate.

#6109952 at 2019-04-09 18:05:49 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #7814: Or Are They? Edition

==HILLARY'S $84 MILLION DOLLAR CAMPAIGN-MONEY LAUNDERING SCANDAL...AND MEDIA'S BURIAL
2019-04-08BY KEN BERWITZADD==

Did the Hillary Clinton campaign launder, then use, $84 million dollars in illegal campaign contributions during Ms. Clinton's 2016 presidential election bid?

If you read Margot Cleveland's article at thefederalist.com, it would be hard not to think that is a very real likelihood.

Here are its first three paragraphs:

The press continues to feed the dying Russia collusion conspiracy theory, spending Friday's news cycle regurgitating Democrat talking points from the just-filed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia.

Yet the mainstream media took no notice of last week's federal court filing that exposes an $84 million money-laundering conspiracy the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign executed during the 2016 presidential election in violation of federal campaign-finance law.

That lawsuit, filed last week in a DC district court, summarizes the DNC-Clinton conspiracy and provides detailed evidence from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings confirming the complaint's allegations that Democrats undertook an extensive scheme to violate federal campaign limits.

Reading on, we find that dan backer wrote about this well over a year ago - December 26, 2017 to be exact - and mainstream media, ever-faithful to Queen Hillary, gave it a collective burial at don't-see.

Would these same media have buried the story if the alleged money-laundering were by Trump and his people?

Before you answer, think about two years of breathless reporting on "collusion" - which not only turns out to have been BS all along, but almost certainly wouldn't have been illegal even if it were true (have you ever seen any of this bunch quote the laws Trump would have broken if he got dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian? You haven't have you?)

Margot Cleveland gives us a lengthy, chapter-and-verse explanation of the laws governing campaign funding and how Hillary Clinton & Co. apparently broke them early and often.

You might agree or disagree with Ms. Cleveland's conclusions. But is there any doubt that it is a newsworthy story? Very newsworthy?

So where, other than her article, will you be seeing any mention of it? On the network news? In the major dailies?

Well, I just googled "Hillary Clinton $84 million money laundering" and looked at the first three pages. The one and only reference I can find from any major media venue is a Washington Post article from December 27, 2017, by Democrat partisan David Weigel, which - at the end - grudgingly concedes there might be something to look at.

But, you might say, why are you so quick to attack media for burying Ms. Cleveland's article? Can't you be fair and give them at least a few days, maybe even a week or more, to research this court filing and provide their own version of the story?

In answer: please note that Margot Cleveland's article, the one we are talking about here, was not published Today. Or yesterday. Or last week.

It was published on April 24, 2018. A full year ago.

But not to worry: our media are fiercely neutral when it comes to politics in general and Hillary Clinton in particular.

Just ask them.

#6041888 at 2019-04-04 05:02:00 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #7727: The Epic Meme Warfare Edition

BREAKING: Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Campaign Manager Chakrabarti Implicated in "Brazen Dark Money Scheme"

'''On Wednesday, The Coolidge Reagan Foundation -a First Amendment watchdog- filed another complaint against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), this time targeting Ocasio-Cortez and her campaign manager, Saikat Chakrabarti.
Spanning nearly 50 pages and levying more than 20 counts against Ocasio-Cortez, Chakrabarti, and the entities they created to carry out an unlawful, "dark money" scheme, the complaint provides the most in-depth analysis of Ocasio-Cortez's various campaign finance violations to date.'''

According to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Committee (FEC) in March, two PACs founded by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's top aide, Saikat Chakrabarti funneled over $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, reported the Washington Examiner.

Today The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed more charges.
In the complaint's words:

"[Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti] engaged in a brazen scheme involving multiple political and commercial entities under their control to violate federal election law, circumvent federal contribution limits and reporting requirements, and execute an unlawful subsidy scheme. This scheme allowed Ocasio-Cortez to gain an unfair advantage by receiving illegally excessive contributions and illegally subsidized campaign services."

You can read the complaint here.

Foundation counsel dan backer, who authored the complaint, sent The Gateway Pundit this statement:

"The subsidy scheme carried out by AOC and her campaign manager involve some of the most egregious campaign finance violations ever recorded. Perhaps even more egregious is AOC's hypocrisy on the matter, as she continues to portray herself as a campaign finance reformer. It's time for the Federal Election Commission-and all Americans-to hold AOC accountable, and say no to her self-serving brand of socialism."

According to the Daily Caller Foundation AOC and her Chief of Staff may face serious JAIL TIME!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/04/breaking-rep-ocasio-cortez-and-campaign-manager-chakrabarti-implicated-in-brazen-scheme/

#6039403 at 2019-04-04 01:28:24 (UTC+1)
Q Research #7724: Protect Our Borders Edition

what's that saying, oh yeah, the chickens always come home to roost

'Mediocre cocktail slinger' Ocasio-Cortez faces THIRD election ethics complaint as pro-Trump PAC's lawyer claims her chief of staff's firm illegally did cheap political work for AOC and a dozen other Democrats


Conservative lawyer's FEC complaint says Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff engineered an illegal campaign funding scheme in 2018
She and Saikat Chakrabarti used his company, according to attorney dan backer, to work for her campaign and 12 others at far below-market prices
Campaign laws consider the discount to be an 'in-kind' contribution that's subject to reporting and legal limits
backer and his organization, the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, say the company intentionally ran at a loss and used PAC money to make up its shortfalls
The PACs were only allowed to give $5,000 to each campaign during the general election, but poured $867,000 into Chakrabarti's firm for its work
Ocasio-Cortez ran her campaign, sits on the board of one of the PACs and helped Chakrabarti run his company, according to the complaint
backer actually wants campaign donation limits eliminated
Complains that 'a mediocre cocktail slinger who flunked history can run for Congress' but insists it should be possible without an illegal 'subsidy scheme'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6882513/Ocasio-Cortez-faces-election-ethics-complaint-lawyer-calls-mediocre-cocktail-slinger.html

#6030818 at 2019-04-03 13:52:21 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #7713: Great leader Trump has a server Edition

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hit with FEC complaint for alleged 'subsidy scheme'
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has been hit with another Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint, this one alleging she and her campaign manager operated a "subsidy scheme" that ran afoul of campaign finance laws. The crux of the complaint, which was given exclusively to Fox News in advance of its filing Wednesday, accused Ocasio-Cortez and her campaign manager, Saikat Chakrabarti, of overseeing a "shadowy web" of political action committees (PACs) that allowed them to raise more cash than they could have legally. It also alleged that a limited liability company (LLC) was created to avoid federal expenditure requirements by offering Ocasio-Cortez and other Democratic candidates political consulting services at a price so low that the company apparently shut down before the election was even over.
The complaint named Ocasio-Cortez, Chakrabarti (now her chief of staff), the Justice Democrats PAC, the Brand New Congress PAC and Brand New Congress LLC as the overlapping entities that aimed to "subsidize cheap assistance for Ocasio-Cortez and other candidates at rates far below market value."

Neither Ocasio-Cortez's office nor Chakrabarti could be reached for comment. At the center of the complaint is Brand New Congress LLC, a now-defunct company owned by Chakrabarti that aimed to recruit up to 400 candidates for national office and "fully run all of their campaigns," according to a post on the Justice Democrats PAC website.
Chakrabarti was trying to create the Uber for politics," said dan backer, the conservative attorney behind the complaint. "Uber functions because of a massive subsidy from venture capital. Here, it's subsidized by these PACs to deliver a valuable service that people need and want, but can't be delivered at the real cost of it."

The Virginia-based attorney has made political hay with recent complaints against Ocasio-Cortez. This is backer's second FEC complaint against her in less than a month. He used the first as somewhat of a springboard to launch the Stop the AOC PAC, which he said has raised a few thousand dollars and conducted polling in her New York City district.
backer's Stop the AOC PAC isn't his first political action committee. In recent years, he's registered organizations such as the Stop Hillary PAC, the pro-Donald Trump Great America PAC, and the Stop Pelosi PAC.
backer said Brand New Congress LLC was guilty of providing campaign contributions known as "in-kind" expenditures by only charging candidates for a portion of the total cost of the service. Essentially, backer claimed the company operated at a loss to provide its approved candidates with campaign services on the cheap. This was a problem, he said, because of a series of 1990s-era FEC Advisory Opinions which essentially explained that goods and services provided to political campaigns must be paid for at fair market value - otherwise they could be considered in-kind contributions. It was unclear what Chakrabarti and Brand New Congress charged for their services – and backer said this was another part of the problem. He said the private company wouldn't be subject to the same disclosure and transparency laws that PACs are.

In a May 2018 blog post, the Justice Democrats PAC admitted it was offering services at a rate that would never turn a profit, and that was exactly the point.
"[The] goal of creating the LLC was not to make a profit," the post read, "and as such, we made our prices as low as possible while still satisfying the FEC's requirement that we are charging something reasonable because, again, if we weren't we would essentially be doing heavily discounted work for candidates and that is illegal and immoral since fighting dark money is literally what we want to do."
Also driving the complaint were the overlapping leadership roles of Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti on the implicated organizations. Ocasio-Cortez was in charge of her campaign while simultaneously serving as a board member of the Justice Democrats PAC.

Her dual role isn't unusual, according to Brendan Quinn, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. He said it hasn't been out of the ordinary for members of Congress to sit on boards of multiple PACs, nor is it illegal or improper.
backer said Chakrabarti, however, "was on all sides of the scheme." He owned Brand New Congress LLC, sat on the board of the Justice Democrats PAC and co-founded the Brand New Congress PAC-all while serving as Ocasio-Cortez's campaign manager.
Coming to a conclusion in the complaint may be a lengthy process, though.
cont: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-hit-with-fec-complaint-for-alleged-subsidy-scheme

#3330140 at 2018-10-04 17:04:58 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #4219: TRUTH Wins American Hearts Edition

State-level Dems funneled $84M to Clinton's campaign, lawsuit alleges
June 9th, 2018

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-level-dems-funneled-84m-to-clintons-campaign-lawsuit-alleges

As many as 40 state-level Democratic parties may have been involved in a scheme to funnel as much as $84 million to Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, a campaign finance lawyer contends.

dan backer, an attorney based in Virginia, has filed a lawsuit alleging that a plan was in place to circumvent campaign contribution limits set by the federal government, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

"You had individuals giving $300,000," backer told the newspaper Friday. "They're not doing it because they care about Nevada's or Arkansas' state party. They're doing it to curry favor with and buy influence with Hillary Clinton."

"You had individuals giving $300,000. They're not doing it because they care about Nevada's or Arkansas' state party. They're doing it to curry favor with and buy influence with Hillary Clinton."
- dan backer, campaign finance attorney

Nevada's Democratic Party may become the latest pulled into a federal lawsuit that backer has filed, the paper reported. backer represents the Committee to Defend the President, a pro-Donald Trump political action committee that initially lodged a complaint in December with the Federal Election Commission, the report says.

backer told the paper he filed his lawsuit because the FEC failed to meet a deadline for taking action.

He said the Hillary Victory Fund reported transferring more than $1.7 million to the Nevada Democratic Party between December 2015 and November 2016. But the party reported receiving only $146,200, which it transferred to the DNC.

The remaining $1.6 million was sent by the Hillary Victory Fund to the Nevada party and received by the DNC and never appeared on the Nevada party's reports, backer contends.

But Nevada's Democratic Party disputed backer's claims.

"This is nothing more than a bogus political stunt feebly designed to distract from vulnerable Republicans' disastrous agenda," Helen Kalla, a spokeswoman for the Nevada Democratic Party, told the Review Journal.

In Idaho, Democrats allegedly contributed $1.6 million to the plan in a series of 13 transactions, the Idaho Statesman reported.

But local party officials might have been unaware of how the money was being handled, the paper reported.

More at Link!


I wonder how this lawsuit is going…

#2593154 at 2018-08-14 07:28:53 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #3272: The What Came First Edition

Feds Make Hillary Rodham Clinton Announcement - THIS IS IT(from May 2018)

https://mixpolitics.com/feds-make-hillary-rodham-clinton-announcement-this-is-it/

Right Wing News reported that dan backer, a campaign-finance lawyer and attorney-of-record in the lawsuit, found that there was "extensive evidence in the Democrats' own FEC reports, when coupled with their own public statements that demonstrated massive straw man contributions papered through the state parties, to the DNC, and then directly to Clinton's campaign-in clear violation of federal campaign-finance law."

He filed an 86-page complaint with the FEC against Clinton, her campaign and its treasurer, the DNC and its treasurer, and the participating state Democratic committees.

The documents show that Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) created the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) so they could accept large donations exceeding $400,000. The FEC documents show many large contributions as received by the HVF and the same amount on the same day (or occasionally the following day) recorded as received by the DNC from a state Democratic committee, but without the state Democratic committee ever reporting the contribution.

On at least 30 different occasions, the HVF transferred contributions totaling more than $10 million to the DNC without any corresponding record of the receipt or disbursement from the state parties. Essentially, this means that they broke the law by jumping right over the state Democratic parties.

#1693214 at 2018-06-11 02:03:09 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #2129: "Sarah H. Sanders Appreciation" Edition

Trust Kansas ya'll. Here it comes, BOOM!

Kansas Democratic Party can't account for $900,000 from Clinton campaign fund


Federal campaign finance reports of the Kansas Democratic Party for the 2016 election cycle don't account for $900,000 of the $2.4 million transferred from Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's fundraising operation to the state party before funneled to the Democratic National Committee.

Documents submitted to the Federal Elections Commission by the Hillary Victory Fund recorded 10 transactions from August to November 2016 that resulted in deposits of $2.46 million into accounts of the Kansas Democratic Party. State Democratic Party reports showed receipt of $1.56 million and recorded transfers of that amount to the DNC.

An attorney with a pro-Donald Trump organization challenging legality of the Clinton cash transfers to 32 state Democratic parties said the Victory Fund's reporting indicated $900,000 was shifted to the state party on Oct. 6, 2016. The state party didn't report receiving that amount nor transferring it to the DNC, yet the DNC acknowledged accepting $900,000 from the Kansas Democratic Party on Oct. 6, 2016.

Ethan Corson, executive director of the state Democratic Party, said he wasn't certain why the party's filing with the FEC didn't match accounting of the Hillary Victory Fund.

He said the state party would complete an audit of its finances during the 2016 election cycle and file amendments with the FEC if necessary.

"We've been trying to diligently go back," said Corson, the party's executive director since August. "We were in this process anyway when the Hillary Victory Fund came up."

The discrepancy emerged after the Committee to Defend the President, a super PAC supportive of President Trump, asked the FEC to determine whether the Clinton campaign improperly used the Hillary Victory Fund to raise money from large donors through collaboration with dozens of state Democratic Party organizations and the DNC.

dan backer, an attorney with the Committee to Defend the President, which was formerly called the Stop Hillary PAC, filed the FEC complaint in December 2017 alleging an "unprecedented, massive, nationwide multimillion-dollar conspiracy."



backer alleged in an interview that 32 state Democratic parties didn't have meaningful custody of the money channeled through those state organizations by the Clinton Victory Fund. He asserted the state organizations served to paper the funds back to the DNC, where it was invested in the Clinton campaign. The tactic enabled wealthy donors to circumvent individual contribution limits in support of Clinton's campaign, backer said.

"This is just wrong," backer said. "It's an $84 million money laundering scandal."

He filed a lawsuit against the FEC in Washington, D.C., to compel the election agency to investigate Clinton's fundraising activities.

While backer described as illegal the Clinton campaign's transactions with state party organizations and the DNC, he expressed no opinion about the Trump campaign doing business in the same manner but with fewer state parties than Clinton.

backer played a key role in placing the McCutcheon v. FEC case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case produced a 5-4 decision in 2014 holding that limits on contributions by an individual over a two-year period to a national party or federal candidate committee were unconstitutional. The decision expanded loopholes in campaign law and opened the door wider to layered fundraising operations by presidential candidates.

Corson said the Kansas Democratic Party and other state parties participated in the joint fundraising agreement with the Hillary Victory Fund "because it helped strengthen our state party apparatus, along with that of the Democratic National Committee."

In May, an official for the Maine Democratic Party offered Maine Public Radio a statement that used the exact same wording. FEC documents indicated the Hillary Victory Fund sent $3 million to the Maine Democratic Party.

"Such agreements are legally required under campaign finance law as a way to ensure transparency if any committees want to raise money jointly," Corson said.

http://www.cjonline.com/news/20180609/kansas-democratic-party-cant-account-for-900000-from-clinton-campaign-fund

#1676427 at 2018-06-09 06:49:08 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #2109 Shills,Shills& More Shills Edfition

State-level Dems funneled $84M to Clinton's campaign, lawsuit alleges

As many as 40 state-level Democratic parties may have been involved in a scheme to funnel as much as $84 million to Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, a campaign finance lawyer contends.

dan backer, an attorney based in Virginia, has filed a lawsuit alleging that a plan was in place to circumvent campaign contribution limits set by the federal government, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

"You had individuals giving $300,000," backer told the newspaper Friday. "They're not doing it because they care about Nevada's or Arkansas' state party. They're doing it to curry favor with and buy influence with Hillary Clinton."

Nevada's Democratic Party may become the latest pulled into a federal lawsuit that backer has filed, the paper reported. backer represents the Committee to Defend the President, a pro-Donald Trump political action committee that initially lodged a complaint in December with the Federal Election Commission, the report says.

backer told the paper he filed his lawsuit because the FEC failed to meet a deadline for taking action.

He said the Hillary Victory Fund reported transferring more than $1.7 million to the Nevada Democratic Party between December 2015 and November 2016. But the party reported receiving only $146,200, which it transferred to the DNC.

The remaining $1.6 million was sent by the Hillary Victory Fund to the Nevada party and received by the DNC and never appeared on the Nevada party's reports, backer contends.

But Nevada's Democratic Party disputed backer's claims.

"This is nothing more than a bogus political stunt feebly designed to distract from vulnerable Republicans' disastrous agenda," Helen Kalla, a spokeswoman for the Nevada Democratic Party, told the Review Journal.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/09/state-level-dems-funneled-84m-to-clintons-campaign-lawsuit-alleges.html