• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits...[W:76]

Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

NonoBadDog said:
Google it. I know you can do that much.


You figure it out.

Nobody cares what you give it.
Click to expand...



Why do you seem so frustrated?
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

OpportunityCost said:
Anyone besides me notice the contents of the article aren't even being addressed? Its all shoot the messenger and no content.

It seems plausible with the set up involved that he could be taking multiple cuts out of political and charitable donations. The problem I have with that is, if he were he would be richer than he is now. So I don't know, that seems to be the hole in the story.
Click to expand...

It's all the Liberals have.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

OpportunityCost said:
Anyone besides me notice the contents of the article aren't even being addressed? Its all shoot the messenger and no content.

It seems plausible with the set up involved that he could be taking multiple cuts out of political and charitable donations. The problem I have with that is, if he were he would be richer than he is now. So I don't know, that seems to be the hole in the story.
Click to expand...

Actually the content was discussed. The claim was “money laundering” and it was pointed out the “editorial” was lying. “laundered money” doesn’t have a tax form paper trail. The “editorial” relies not only on your ignorance of what “money laundering” is but also your obedient need to hate Hillary. And the “editorial” accomplished its goal of putting “money laundering” and “Clinton” in the title.

And in addition to the discussion that showed the “editorial” was lying, the agenda and integrity of the site was discussed. When a former writer for the site tells you its agenda, you just don’t get to pretend not to know the site is just another RW conspiracy blog. Remember when you just knew that President Obama was born in Kenya, his BC a forgery, he wanted to kill old people, the stimulus would cause “hyper inflation, dollar collapse, market to zero”. The conservative media wont stop lying to you until you stop listening.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Grim17 said:
The person at the center of this money laundering scheme shouldn't surprize anyone...
Click to expand...
The lack of credibility of Zero Hedge shouldn't surprise anyone either
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Visbek said:
The lack of credibility of Zero Hedge shouldn't surprise anyone either
Click to expand...

It's a good thing they didn't write it then... Now that that is settled, do you have any comment on the story?


.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Vern said:
Actually the content was discussed. The claim was “money laundering” and it was pointed out the “editorial” was lying. “laundered money” doesn’t have a tax form paper trail. The “editorial” relies not only on your ignorance of what “money laundering” is but also your obedient need to hate Hillary. And the “editorial” accomplished its goal of putting “money laundering” and “Clinton” in the title.

And in addition to the discussion that showed the “editorial” was lying, the agenda and integrity of the site was discussed. When a former writer for the site tells you its agenda, you just don’t get to pretend not to know the site is just another RW conspiracy blog. Remember when you just knew that President Obama was born in Kenya, his BC a forgery, he wanted to kill old people, the stimulus would cause “hyper inflation, dollar collapse, market to zero”. The conservative media wont stop lying to you until you stop listening.
Click to expand...

Interesting you reach for stories I don't believe and attribute to me that I do believe them to attack the messenger yet again. Lame.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

OpportunityCost said:
Interesting you reach for stories I don't believe and attribute to me that I do believe them to attack the messenger yet again. Lame.
Click to expand...

attack the messenger? could you be any more whiny or deluded? You said the content was not discussed. I pointed out the content absolutely was discussed. As it was so easily proven to be a lie, you might have missed it. You then whined they "attacked the messenger". I pointed out the veracity of the "messenger" was discussed. I also reminded you of the lying conservative narratives you and yours obediently believed.

And for future reference. When a conservative posts the usual empty factless rhetoric of "nuh uh, he's a liar" that is "attacking the messenger". when someone posts legitimate reasons to question the veracity of a site, its not "attacking the messenger", its bringing information into the discussion.

And in case you've already forgot, I responded directly to your false statement that the content of the article was not discussed.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Vern said:
attack the messenger? could you be any more whiny or deluded? You said the content was not discussed. I pointed out the content absolutely was discussed. As it was so easily proven to be a lie, you might have missed it. You then whined they "attacked the messenger". I pointed out the veracity of the "messenger" was discussed. I also reminded you of the lying conservative narratives you and yours obediently believed.

And for future reference. When a conservative posts the usual empty factless rhetoric of "nuh uh, he's a liar" that is "attacking the messenger". when someone posts legitimate reasons to question the veracity of a site, its not "attacking the messenger", its bringing information into the discussion.

And in case you've already forgot, I responded directly to your false statement that the content of the article was not discussed.
Click to expand...

But you still haven't discussed it. Typical. You responded to not discussing it by not discussing it more.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Grim17 said:
The person at the center of this money laundering scheme shouldn't surprize anyone... It's none other that Mr. Media Matters himself, partisan blow-hard David Brock.

Anyone want to bet that the big 3 will ignore this, just as they ignored Hillary's IT guy attempting to hide Hillary's emails?
Click to expand...

Laundering money from what? What's tthe story here? You obviously think something criminal is going on, what is it?
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

OpportunityCost said:
But you still haven't discussed it. Typical. You responded to not discussing it by not discussing it more.
Click to expand...

er uh OC, your point was not "Vern didn't discuss it. " Your point was "the content was not discussed". The content was discussed thus proving your point false (as usual). And fyi, when I say "and it was pointed out the “editorial” was lying. “laundered money” doesn’t have a tax form paper trail" that's me discussing the content. There's just not much to discuss when the conservatives lies are that obvious.

so you can deflect all you want, your point was proven false.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Grim17 said:
I am very aware of that, and it doesn't surprise me in the least. It's what I've come to expect from the people who support Hillary.
Click to expand...

er uh Grim, the content of the "editorial" you posted was discussed. It was shown quite easily that "money laundering" was simply another conservative lie. Please respond to the posters who showed the editorial was a lie and not the posters who are obediently agreeing with you. Heres a good one you seemed to miss

Objective Voice said:
mon·ey laun·der·ing
noun
"the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money, typically by means of transfers involving foreign banks or legitimate businesses."
Click to expand...

No foreign banks involved, no concealment of funds attempted.

If anything, this would come closer to fraud:



Show the "deception...personal gain...unjustifiable claim" and you have a story. Until then...:coffeepap
Click to expand...
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

eohrnberger said:
So then you must also be equally upset about all the same level of crap being toss around which impunes Trump. How Trump is being treated unfairly. Right?

Oh. That's right. You think all the anti-Trump crap to be fully justified.

Well then, your unsuccessful attempt to raise yourself above the fray, to put yourself above the crap pushers, has just failed. Same as your 'redefined' 'conservative' lean. How about some honesty from you for a change?
Click to expand...

eohrn, if it was the "same level of crap" it would be easily proven false like this "editorial" was. You just don't get to pretend legitimate criticism of trump is the same as this lying "editorial".
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Grim17 said:
Translated:

View attachment 67207564
Click to expand...

WRONG. I've actually had a discussion with him before and he's like me - he despises both Trump AND Clinton. Just because you can see through the bull**** of one doesn't mean you can't see through the bull**** of another, quintessential case of a non-sequitur.

All this thread is is more red-herring and muddying of the waters, and those who actually REALLY want to expose the Clintons with somewhat of a notable IQ will see this for what it really is: barking up the wrong tree.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Vern said:
er uh OC, your point was not "Vern didn't discuss it. " Your point was "the content was not discussed". The content was discussed thus proving your point false (as usual). And fyi, when I say "and it was pointed out the “editorial” was lying. “laundered money” doesn’t have a tax form paper trail" that's me discussing the content. There's just not much to discuss when the conservatives lies are that obvious.

so you can deflect all you want, your point was proven false.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course, he has multiple pass throughs for donations, and takes a cut from each one. He may not be money laundering but he has a large scheme by which he can tear money away from donations at multiple levels.

The filings and flow charts point this up. Although you seem hung up on the money laundering, that doesn't seem to be the main thing shown. You don't prove malfeasance false by proving he didn't launder money. Care to discuss that?
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

OpportunityCost said:
Yes, of course, he has multiple pass throughs for donations, and takes a cut from each one. He may not be money laundering but he has a large scheme by which he can tear money away from donations at multiple levels.
Click to expand...
mmmm, your initial attempts (attempts, plural) to deflect from your false claim that the content wasn't discussed failed so now you want to discuss the content. Good job. Now that you finally acknowledge the editorial was lying, what's more to discuss? Oh, you want to discuss your new and improved narrative "fraud". Another poster clearly stated "it looks more like fraud" and he posted

Objective Voice said:
Show the "deception...personal gain...unjustifiable claim" and you have a story. Until then...:coffeepap
Click to expand...

And you pretended not to see it. And my point was you pretended not to see it. what? there’s more?

The filings and flow charts point this up. Although you seem hung up on the money laundering, that doesn't seem to be the main thing shown. You don't prove malfeasance false by proving he didn't launder money. Care to discuss that?
Click to expand...
You’re absolutely right, I didn’t prove “prove malfeasance false by proving he didn't launder money”. Other posters simply proved the “editorial” was lying. Blatantly so. How how how do you post “that doesn't seem to be the main thing shown “ when it was the main thing claimed? Read that again slowly: It was the main thing claimed. it’s the whole point of the thread (that you had trouble actually reading).

so to be clear, I’m not “hung up on the money laundering”. It’s the whole point of the thread and it’s the whole point of the lying “editorial” the thread is based on. You seem hung up on not having an honest and intelligent conversation.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Vern said:
mmmm, your initial attempts (attempts, plural) to deflect from your false claim that the content wasn't discussed failed so now you want to discuss the content. Good job. Now that you finally acknowledge the editorial was lying, what's more to discuss? Oh, you want to discuss your new and improved narrative "fraud". Another poster clearly stated "it looks more like fraud" and he posted



And you pretended not to see it. And my point was you pretended not to see it. what? there’s more?


You’re absolutely right, I didn’t prove “prove malfeasance false by proving he didn't launder money”. Other posters simply proved the “editorial” was lying. Blatantly so. How how how do you post “that doesn't seem to be the main thing shown “ when it was the main thing claimed? Read that again slowly: It was the main thing claimed. it’s the whole point of the thread (that you had trouble actually reading).

so to be clear, I’m not “hung up on the money laundering”. It’s the whole point of the thread and it’s the whole point of the lying “editorial” the thread is based on. You seem hung up on not having an honest and intelligent conversation.
Click to expand...

Of course not. I don't know why I bothered. Blanket denial to avoid ANY of the content is a pathetic argument, Vern.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

OpportunityCost said:
Of course not. I don't know why I bothered. Blanket denial to avoid ANY of the content is a pathetic argument, Vern.
Click to expand...

OC, you've not responded to anything I've posted. I've responded directly to what you posted. But you are correct again, your "Blanket denial to avoid ANY of the content is a pathetic argument". Lets review

You falsely claimed the content was not discussed
You failed to acknowledge your claim was false
You seemed to have 'admitted' the thread and the editorial its based on is a lie
You definitely admitted "Blanket denial to avoid ANY of the content is a pathetic argument"
You seem to think something is required from me for you support your "new and improved" backup narrative

All you've done is perfectly demonstrate the five D's of conservatism: Dodge Deny Deflect Deceive Dodge. Let me give you some advice OC, the lying editorial's only purpose was to put "money laundering" and "Clinton" in the title. When a conservative editorial has to make such bogus claim, it probably means your "new and improved" backup narrative isn't true either. Which is why it went for the very "conservative friendly" narrative. But OC, nothing and nobody is stopping from discussing your "new and improved" backup narrative.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Grim17 said:
The person at the center of this money laundering scheme shouldn't surprize anyone... It's none other that Mr. Media Matters himself, partisan blow-hard David Brock.

Anyone want to bet that the big 3 will ignore this, just as they ignored Hillary's IT guy attempting to hide Hillary's emails?
Click to expand...



Have you heard about how much self-dealing Trump's campaign has engaged in? Is that the kind of thing "zerohedge" would report about?
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Mr Person said:
Have you heard about how much self-dealing Trump's campaign has engaged in? Is that the kind of thing "zerohedge" would report about?
Click to expand...

Maybe you should start a thread on it?
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Why would one of Hillary's cronies, knowing they are beyond the reach of the FBI, try something so amateurish and get caught?
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Harry Guerrilla said:
Zero hedge is a sketchy source.
If they have someone else, more reputable confirm this, I could believe it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps off topic, but fundraisers for political campaigns, do charge a substantial percentage of monies raised. That is what I recall.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Vern said:
OC, you've not responded to anything I've posted. I've responded directly to what you posted. But you are correct again, your "Blanket denial to avoid ANY of the content is a pathetic argument". Lets review

You falsely claimed the content was not discussed
You failed to acknowledge your claim was false
You seemed to have 'admitted' the thread and the editorial its based on is a lie
You definitely admitted "Blanket denial to avoid ANY of the content is a pathetic argument"
You seem to think something is required from me for you support your "new and improved" backup narrative

All you've done is perfectly demonstrate the five D's of conservatism: Dodge Deny Deflect Deceive Dodge. Let me give you some advice OC, the lying editorial's only purpose was to put "money laundering" and "Clinton" in the title. When a conservative editorial has to make such bogus claim, it probably means your "new and improved" backup narrative isn't true either. Which is why it went for the very "conservative friendly" narrative. But OC, nothing and nobody is stopping from discussing your "new and improved" backup narrative.
Click to expand...

Vern, the guy at the center of this is the head of Media Matters, don't you find it suspicious he has the ability to pass donations through as many organizations as he wants and skim money from those donations as much as he wants? That's the center of this scandal, your inability to address that is apparent.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Mr Person said:
Have you heard about how much self-dealing Trump's campaign has engaged in? Is that the kind of thing "zerohedge" would report about?
Click to expand...

Have you heard he isn't the topic of the thread? Trying to run that train off the tracks?
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

JANFU said:
Perhaps off topic, but fundraisers for political campaigns, do charge a substantial percentage of monies raised. That is what I recall.
Click to expand...

The larger question would be can they funnel them through multiple companies and skim a cut on each transfer?
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

OpportunityCost said:
The larger question would be can they funnel them through multiple companies and skim a cut on each transfer?
Click to expand...

IRC SCOTUS opened the doors for just about anything. That and providing Corps with 1A rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom