Thread by @JewhadiTM

Wake up @JeffSessions

FEC Records Indicate @HillaryCampaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/bom…

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 @DNC and the @HillaryClinton 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 FEC filings confirming the complaint’s allegations that Democrats undertook an extensive scheme to violate federal campaign limits.

The complaint, and an attached exhibit consisting of nearly 20 pages of Excel spreadsheets, detailed the misconduct and provided concrete evidence supporting the allegations. In short, here’s what happened and what the evidence establishes.

HVF reported transferring $19,500 to the MS Democratic Party on November 2, 2015, and the @DNC reported receiving $19,500 from the MS Dem Party on November 2, 2015. But the MS Democratic Party never recorded the receipt or the disbursement of the $19,500.

Without the Mississippi Democratic Party controlling the funds, the HVF’s contribution to the DNC violated campaign finance law.

Over a 13-month period, FEC records show some 30 separate occasions when the HVF transferred contributions totaling more than $10M to the DNC without any corresponding record of the receipt or disbursement from the state parties, thus illegally leap-frogging the state Dem parties

On the other hand, of the contributions state parties reported as received from the HVF, 99% wound up at DNC.

They were transferred immediately or within a day or two, raising questions of whether the state Dem committees truly exercised control over the money—something necessary under campaign finance law to allow a later-legal transfer to @DNC

Again, the evidence is damning.

While state party officials were made aware that Clinton’s campaign would control movement of funds between committees, one operative said some of their officials have complained that they weren’t notified of the transfers in/out of their accounts until after the fact

But the Clinton campaign’s control of the contributions did not end once the funds reached the DNC, as the complaint filed with the FEC detailed.

Public statements by former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile acknowledged that as "Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt, put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its ops"

Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of the Clinton campaign, which operated as Hillary For America “HFA,” out of Brooklyn, New York, likewise stated that the Democratic Party was “fully under the control of the Clinton campaign . . . . "

"The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse.”

By exercising control over the DNC’s funds, including funds transferred from HVF through the state parties, the contributions qualified as donations to Clinton for purposes of federal campaign finance law, and when properly accounted for exceeded the legal contribution limits.

The Supreme Court Made It Clear This Is Illegal

The illegality of this scheme isn’t a matter of debate. The Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC that this exact scenario would violate the law.

Here’s how the court laid it out: “[A] donor gives a $500,000 check to a joint fundraising committee composed of a candidate, a national party committee, and most of the party’s state party committees."

"The committees divide up the money so that each one receives the maximum contribution permissible under the base limits, but then each transfers its allocated portion to the same single committee."

"That committee uses the money for coordinated expenditures on behalf of a particular candidate"

The Supreme Court then declared: “Lest there be any confusion, a joint fundraising committee is simply a mechanism for individual committees to raise funds collectively, not to circumvent base limits or earmarking rules."

Under no circumstances may a contribution to a joint fundraising committee result in an allocation that exceeds the contribution limits applicable to its constituent parts; the committee is in fact required to return any excess funds to the contributor.”

And “the earmarking provision prohibits an individual from directing funds ‘through an intermediary or conduit to a particular candidate.”

This “scenario could not succeed,” the Supreme Court explained, “without assuming that nearly 50 separate party committees would engage in a transparent violation of the earmarking rules (and that they would not be caught if they did).”

But, caught @HillaryClinton was. Yet the FEC failed to act on Backer’s complaint, even though federal law authorizes any person to file “a complaint with the FEC alleging a violation of federal campaign finance law.”

As noted above, the FEC can investigate a complaint only upon a finding of “reason to believe” by four commissioners. But the six-member FEC currently only has four commissioners.

By statute, the commissioners must come from different political parties, and by practice, the Senate confirms newly nominated commissioners in pairs, one Dem and one Republican.

Dems, however, have yet to name a replacement, holding up the confirmation process and leaving in place for the foreseeable future a likely deadlock.

This deadlock, though, might prove fatal to Clinton and the DNC because Congress provided for just such a contingency: “Fire alarms are sometimes housed in boxes labeled ‘Break glass in case of emergency.’

The FEC Act has such a box; the provision that allows complainants to sue respondents directly when the FEC fails to enforce the law itself (52 USC § 30109(a)(8)(C)). In the 44-year history of the FEC, this provision has never been fully utilized. Today, I’m breaking the glass.”

Yet even with the overwhelming evidence of tsunami-level campaign-finance criminality—more than $84M—the media instead chases the cloud cast over President Trump because of the $130K payment his attorney, Michael Cohen, made to Stormy Daniels.

One wonders what it will take to break through the mainstream media blackout. Maybe a few pointed unpresidential tweets from @realdonaldtrump?