Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[grasswire]

1. it ain't over

I spent six hours reading and watching video last evening on the topic, and most people talking/writing about this believe that the FBI is also focusing on the Clinton Foundation's pay to play money laundering. That facet of her investigation is very, very complex. However, it doesn't all have to be spelled out immediately, if a special independent prosecutor is appointed by Lynch.

But make no mistake. Justice department prosecutors are working with the FBI.

[NWCorona]

3. Not over at all.

The Clinton foundation emails were also on those two servers in the FBI's possession.

[grasswire]

7. yes, many legal beagles say that emails she deleted as "personal"...

...are, in fact, Foundation business (and/or foundation business mingled with SD business). Lucky us. The deleted emails exist. Saved on a cloud by Datto.

[NWCorona]

12. I think that one slip up with them ending up on the cloud will be a huge issue

If it's in the time range of those withheld top secret emails and that gamma level Sid report.

[grasswire]

14. oh! Reminds me!

Some watchdog entity has found line items in HRC campaign spending for destruction of hard drive and documents. Done by a service provider in Nevada. I read about it in the wee hours. I'll have to see if I can find it.

[NWCorona]

15. I seen that report as well. Interesting stuff for sure

[pangaia]

21. We need to get Lisbeth Salandar in on this. :>)))

[panader0]

26. Yep All of the employees got to read classified documents.

[scscholar]

32. But they were personal email so I don't understand your complaint

Of course she wasn't required to share them.

[RobertEarl]

5. FBI is hot on the trail

Let's hope they handle this with due diligence.

H's past is coming out of the closet like skeletons at Halloween. Call it Hilloween if you like.

[NurseJackie]

2. Because it's not true. Because no crime has been committed.

Because Bernie doesn't like the rules.

Because it's one of Bernie's dishonest fundraising gimmicks (a recycled one too) that has already been debunked.

Andrea Mitchell said on the show last night that Larry Noble, who served as the FEC’s general counsel for 13 years, believes the allegations don’t make a lot of sense. Rick Hasen, an elections law expert, added yesterday that Team Sanders seems to have a “weak” case.

Clinton, like Sanders and other presidential candidates, has set up a joint fundraising committee with her political party. The JFC allows you to raise a huge chunk of change (more now than in past campaigns, thanks to the Supreme Court blowing out the aggregate federal limits in the McCutcheon case). A small bit goes to the candidate’s committee under the federal limits (currently $2,700 for the primary and $2,700 for the general). The next bit goes to the DNC, and the rest so state parties in $10,000 chunks. Sanders is accusing the joint committee of raising really big donations, and then having the JFC using some of those really big donations to engage in direct mail and internet targeting of small donors. When those small donors donate small amounts, contributions up to the first $2,700 benefit Clinton under the JFC agreement, and because these are small donors, it means Clinton gets all that small donor money.

The [Sanders campaign’s] letter cites no authority showing that this use of the JFC is not allowed, and it is hard to see what provision of the law it violates when donors give only small amounts that happen to benefit only Clinton. The letter says that maybe this is like an in-kind contribution from the DNC to the Clinton campaign, but I don’t see how it is that if the money is coming from the JFC not from the committee. The letter even says this means that those giving big checks to the DNC might thereby be giving more than the $2,700 to Clinton, which is not literally true – it is what the JFC is doing with the money, over which the donors have no control.

So, the accusations themselves appear difficult to defend, but maybe there’s a political upside to this?

[polly7]

6. Then why are Yemenis, including children suffering and dying d/t war-crimes committed

by recipients of weapons gotten through her Foundation??

Why was Libya destroyed with aid from information from Sid Blumenthal - banned by Obama, yet working for her Foundation?

[Ash_F]

13. That article does not address accusations that came from Democratic State party officials.

[NurseJackie]

17. The party decides where to best use the money and distributes it accordingly.

The accusations were made before disbursement had begun. It's just human nature to want a bigger piece of the pie that one receives, and it's natural to disagree with decisions that are made further up the chain of command. Not everyone gets EVERY thing they want. It really makes no sense to give everyone a debit card and tell them to "spend as much as you want until the well runs dry".

[Ash_F]

18. That doesn't mean the disbursement doesn't deserve scrutiny.

[NurseJackie]

19. Okay, scrutinize it. (Enjoy!)

[Ash_F]

20. No reason to be sarcastic.

[NurseJackie]

22. Of course there is ...

... especially when Bernie's campaign is making accusations of a crime when all they're doing is whining that they don't like the rules they already agreed to and could have also benefited from. Your suggestion that it deserves scrutiny is a veiled way to give legitimacy to his reckless accusations. I have good reason to be sarcastic and dismissive. (Nothing personal.)

[Ash_F]

24. Once again, at least one accusation came from a State party official. Not the Sanders campaign.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/02/state-party-officials-reportedly-displeased-clinton-dnc-laundering-scheme

[NurseJackie]

25. You can't please everyone.

They're unhappy. No crime has been committed.

[panader0]

28. Baloney--crimes have been committed

Whether or not she is indicted remains to be seen, but she definitely broke the law.

[arcane1]

4. The media is the big recipient of campaign cash, through buying ad time.

They can either report on it, or simply count the money coming in.

[grasswire]

10. they will be forced to report on it.

It's going to be a busy summer for America.

[jwirr]

8. Which one - the Foundation one or the 32 State Democratic

Party deal one?

[Ash_F]

9. The Media is not against money in politics

Most of that money goes to the Media!

[Attorney in Texas]

11. Republicans brush it under the rug because they want to save it for the general election. Democrats

brush it under the rug because Hillary's response to all of her own malfeasance is "it's a vast right-wing conspiracy" and I never lie or violate the law no matter what the evidence proves.

[BillZBubb]

30. This is the correct answer!

Bernie is too nice a guy to go there. But other people are not going to be so nice.

The republicans are going to batter Hillary with this stuff.

[TCJ70]

33. This is the correct answer...

...any criticism of Hillary is being categorized as RW propaganda regardless of how true it may be. Good luck with that Hillary gang.

[joshcryer]

38. The evidence had never proved a violation.

After literally decades of fake scandals you'd think people would see through the right wing narrative.

[mooseprime]

16. IOKIYAC n/t

[kevinmc]

27. because it is just another BS story n/t

[Rebkeh]

29. K and R nt

[Tarc]

31. Because it doesn't exist and never actually happened?

A Sanders Camp PR sheet is not damning evidence, bro.

[Gomez163]

34. Well back in the 90s it was rug laundering.

[COLGATE4]

35. Because it didn't happen?

[Lizzie Poppet]

36. Becuse Princess Weathervane's Ostrich Army doesn't give a shit.

She could eat a baby on live TV, wash it down with the blood of kittens, and wipe her mouth on the flag...and they wouldn't give a shit. It's her time, after all...

[joshcryer]

37. Wow.

[doc03]

39. Maybe it is another bullshit story like the 1001 other Clinton so

called scandals. The only thing they ever got on a Clinton was lying about a blowjob and that came out of the bullshit Whitewater probe.

[George II]

40. Perhaps because it IS NOT a "money laundering scheme". Unfortunately the top echelon...

...of Sanders' campaign and many here on DU don't understand campaign finances. How could Sanders, he's never run for office as a member of a party under the laws in place and FEC rules/requirements.

But others? They should know. This isn't small-time local politics, this is the major leagues.

[LuvLoogie]

41. Because it's not a money laundering scheme.