• 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

Moderator's Warning:
It is not up to you to decide who is and isn't trolling. That is up to the Mods. If you think a post is trolling then simply report it. Do not comment on any possible trolling. Doing so is in itself considered trolling and can net you an infraction.

OpportunityCost said:
No, actually Im trying to get you to discuss the topic, instead of trolling. But hey, being that Democratic water carrier is hard work. It requires you to ignore any evidence of anything improper by using the word lie in every single post multiple times to try to avoid discussing the content of the allegation.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

ludin said:
Which could be the case. I agree c4's have a huge issue in my book if they do not have to post their donor lists.
If There is some shaky legal stuff going on then a full audit could indeed come about.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of "if" - (c)(4)'s do not have to disclose their donors, so they're all exactly as likely to have foreign donors as the Brock entities as far as we know, which is not much because we can't see any of their donor lists.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Harry Guerrilla said:
I said I don't know if it's true.
Zero hedge and the other site are sketchy in terms of truthiness.
Click to expand...

But my point was I don't see "embezzlement" even being alleged here, since the person heading the orgs isn't benefiting from the allegedly excessive commissions. Who is doing the embezzling? That was the word you used....
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

JasperL said:
But my point was I don't see "embezzlement" even being alleged here, since the person heading the orgs isn't benefiting from the allegedly excessive commissions. Who is doing the embezzling? That was the word you used....
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed something.
I thought he was showing that the intermediary was the crux of the issue.
It isn't, to me, money laundering, but something like embezzlement.

I'm not supremely knowledgeable about this stuff though.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Mycroft said:
Just some comments...

1. To those who dismiss this story just because it hasn't been reported by those "other" media outlets, let's face it...those "other" outlets are just as...or even more...shady than all of the non-mainstream outlets. We've gotten way past the point of dismissing stories because of "bias", since we've seen the explosion of bias coming from the mainstream side of the street.

2. I agree this scheme shouldn't be called "money laundering". It SHOULD be called fraud...as in deliberately defrauding the donors who provided all that money in the first place. On the other hand, maybe it isn't even fraud if the donors are in on the scheme.

3. At this point, I don't see any connection to Clinton. Of course, that doesn't mean there ISN'T one...just that I don't see it. But given other shenanigans the Clintons have been involved in, being connected to this mess wouldn't surprise me one bit.

4. I'm not all that knowledgeable about this donation/transfer/payment/etc stuff, but I can't help but wonder what the IRS would think if I did something similar...though on a smaller scale, of course. You know...setting up a bunch of non-profits and end up with a lot of money in my own pocket.
Click to expand...

Goodness, everyone is assuming Brock is charging excess commissions and somehow benefiting personally, but that isn't even alleged in the articles. The fees are going to a third party and there is no evidence or even allegation that Brock is somehow sharing in those commissions.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Harry Guerrilla said:
Maybe I missed something.
I thought he was showing that the intermediary was the crux of the issue.
It isn't, to me, money laundering, but something like embezzlement.

I'm not supremely knowledgeable about this stuff though.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Brock controls the entities, and the entities are paying allegedly excessive fees to (as far as we know) an unrelated third party entity, the Bonner group. So who is or could be embezzling anything? If Brock is directing his entities to pay excessive fees to a third party, how is he benefiting from the deal? Seems that's a minimum showing before a charge of embezzling can even be contemplated.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

JasperL said:
Yes, but Brock controls the entities, and the entities are paying allegedly excessive fees to (as far as we know) an unrelated third party entity, the Bonner group. So who is or could be embezzling anything? If Brock is directing his entities to pay excessive fees to a third party, how is he benefiting from the deal? Seems that's a minimum showing before a charge of embezzling can even be contemplated.
Click to expand...

Apparently the Bonner group is his likely the third party of who collects for him.
You'd have to show the connection (with money transfers, etc.) for that to be true though.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Harry Guerrilla said:
Apparently the Bonner group is his likely the third party of who collects for him.
You'd have to show the connection (with money transfers, etc.) for that to be true though.
Click to expand...

Right, but there is literally no evidence for that and it's not even hinted at in the story. The point is the scandal as alleged in the OP simply doesn't exist based on the evidence in the linked article - it's wholly made up both as to any evidence of money laundering, or if you prefer embezzling, and to the number of entities involved. The article in the OP admits they "assume" the other entities all also pay the same commissions on money transfers, and the article doesn't even document similar type money transfers happened, much less commissions on them.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

JasperL said:
Right, but there is literally no evidence for that and it's not even hinted at in the story. The point is the scandal as alleged in the OP simply doesn't exist based on the evidence in the linked article - it's wholly made up both as to any evidence of money laundering, or if you prefer embezzling, and to the number of entities involved. The article in the OP admits they "assume" the other entities all also pay the same commissions on money transfers, and the article doesn't even document similar type money transfers happened, much less commissions on them.
Click to expand...

I understand, that's why I call the credibility of the accusations into question.
It would have to come from a more reliable source, for me to take them seriously.

That's even with me loathing Correct the Record spam bots.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Harry Guerrilla said:
I understand, that's why I call the credibility of the accusations into question.
It would have to come from a more reliable source, for me to take them seriously.

That's even with me loathing Correct the Record spam bots.
Click to expand...

I think we agree, but the point is the so-called accusations in the article don't lead to a conclusion of money laundering or embezzlement, even if they are all true.

FWIW, Brock is a slime ball IMO and I have no doubt he's profiting handsomely from his political activism, but that's just par for the course for these vermin from what I can see. I think it's a big part why we don't see any real effort to clean up the system - literally $billions will be spent this cycle and there are parasites like Brock at every turn raking off their cut, and the big networks and the big newspapers get a HUGE cut of that money through political ads.

Part of what motivates me is my mother in law is staying with us for a while and so her mail is forwarded to us, and somewhere along the line she gave money to some kind of GOP entity, and I'll bet she's getting two pieces of mail per day now from c4s and other political types, almost none of them I've heard of, looking for a contribution. They're slick and expensive pieces of direct mail, and even if she contributes nothing, some many people are making a nice living creating and mailing those pieces.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

JasperL said:
I think we agree, but the point is the so-called accusations in the article don't lead to a conclusion of money laundering or embezzlement, even if they are all true.

FWIW, Brock is a slime ball IMO and I have no doubt he's profiting handsomely from his political activism, but that's just par for the course for these vermin from what I can see. I think it's a big part why we don't see any real effort to clean up the system - literally $billions will be spent this cycle and there are parasites like Brock at every turn raking off their cut, and the big networks and the big newspapers get a HUGE cut of that money through political ads.

Part of what motivates me is my mother in law is staying with us for a while and so her mail is forwarded to us, and somewhere along the line she gave money to some kind of GOP entity, and I'll bet she's getting two pieces of mail per day now from c4s and other political types, almost none of them I've heard of, looking for a contribution. They're slick and expensive pieces of direct mail, and even if she contributes nothing, some many people are making a nice living creating and mailing those pieces.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
I used to get NRA and AARP stuff, nearly daily, because someone out there has a similar name and lived in the near same location.
I found out that they were about 30 years older than I.
This happened for years and years.

All they want is money.
 
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...

Typical, anyone that is not willing to simply believe anything attacking someone you hate is automatically a supporter of that person. Me thinks there might be a problem with your analytical skills that should be addressed before making any more ludicrous claims.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

JasperL said:
Goodness, everyone is assuming Brock is charging excess commissions and somehow benefiting personally, but that isn't even alleged in the articles. The fees are going to a third party and there is no evidence or even allegation that Brock is somehow sharing in those commissions.
Click to expand...

shrug...

My name isn't "everyone" and I've said nothing about "excess commissions".

As far as Brock benefiting personally, we don't know...but we do know there is a personal connection between Brock and the president of Bonner. In my opinion...and, it appears, in other people's opinion including Brock's ex-boyfriend, there is enough suspicion to warrant further investigation. If that happens, maybe then we'll find out how he benefits.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

ludin said:
There is no lie yet until an investigation is done and shown that money isn't coming from outside sources.
I know what I said you don't and have to make things up why do you have to be dishonest about people's posts?

No where did I defend anything I stated a simple fact that you evidently can't handle.
Click to expand...

Ludin, you seem to have some "narrative" that "foreign money" makes it "money laundering". Since you were afraid to google it, I'll explain it for you. Money laundering is trying to make money made from criminal activity look legitimate. Donating to a non profit doesn't do that. I can only assume you have that "belief" because it helped you believe the other lying conservative narrative that the Clinton Foundation is a "money laundering op".

Now you somehow seem to think I've dishonestly "misparaphrased" your post in some fashion. Please be specific. What did you post and how did I "misparaphrase" it. I don't think that's asking too much.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Mycroft said:
Just some comments...

1. To those who dismiss this story just because it hasn't been reported by those "other" media outlets, let's face it...those "other" outlets are just as...or even more...shady than all of the non-mainstream outlets. We've gotten way past the point of dismissing stories because of "bias", since we've seen the explosion of bias coming from the mainstream side of the street.
Click to expand...
Well, we have to check the big list of "Things that are meanie heads and are biased against conservatives"

Things that are meanie heads and are biased against conservatives:
1. Government in general
2. Public Education
3. Private Education
4. Sex Ed (Daring to teach kids about condoms)
5. MSNBC
6. CNN
7. Fox News also! They're too establishment!
8. PBS. **** Big Bird!
9. ABC
10. NBC
11. CBS
12. Numerous news websites.
13. The newspapers! Even those evil newspapers that have endorsed republicans for the last 50 years but are now endorsing Hillary!
14. Facebook
15. Twitter
16. Polling Companies
17. Snopes
18. Politifact
19. Factcheck.org
20 WAPO FactCheckers
21. Wikipedia


Yep, you're absolutely right. Mainstream media is definately worse than non-mainstream outlets. We shouldn't be allowed to dismiss stories due to bias, unless of course they are on the big list of meanie heads that are biased against conservatives.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Mycroft said:
shrug...

My name isn't "everyone" and I've said nothing about "excess commissions".
Click to expand...

You definitely implied he benefited, and excess fees on the transfers from entity to entity is what was alleged in the article, so I assume you accepted that is the mechanism for the problem if one exists. Call it excess commissions or excess fees, whatever.

As far as Brock benefiting personally, we don't know...but we do know there is a personal connection between Brock and the president of Bonner. In my opinion...and, it appears, in other people's opinion including Brock's ex-boyfriend, there is enough suspicion to warrant further investigation. If that happens, maybe then we'll find out how he benefits.
Click to expand...

If someone wants to investigate, fine, but in the meantime the article was garbage, drawing conclusions that are at this point mere speculation.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

roughdraft274 said:
Well, we have to check the big list of "Things that are meanie heads and are biased against conservatives"

Things that are meanie heads and are biased against conservatives:
1. Government in general
2. Public Education
3. Private Education
4. Sex Ed (Daring to teach kids about condoms)
5. MSNBC
6. CNN
7. Fox News also! They're too establishment!
8. PBS. **** Big Bird!
9. ABC
10. NBC
11. CBS
12. Numerous news websites.
13. The newspapers! Even those evil newspapers that have endorsed republicans for the last 50 years but are now endorsing Hillary!
14. Facebook
15. Twitter
16. Polling Companies
17. Snopes
18. Politifact
19. Factcheck.org
20 WAPO FactCheckers
21. Wikipedia


Yep, you're absolutely right. Mainstream media is definately worse than non-mainstream outlets. We shouldn't be allowed to dismiss stories due to bias, unless of course they are on the big list of meanie heads that are biased against conservatives.
Click to expand...

Your whole post...as well as your point...is wasted because I said nothing about mainstream media being "worse" than non-mainstream media.

But hey...you go right on ahead with your snarky apologist tactics. I know how you won't face facts.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

JasperL said:
You definitely implied he benefited, and excess fees on the transfers from entity to entity is what was alleged in the article, so I assume you accepted that is the mechanism for the problem if one exists. Call it excess commissions or excess fees, whatever.
Click to expand...

shrug...(again)

I only presented my comments. You should realize that if I have any other comments, I'll present them. Until then, you would do well not to look foolish by making assumptions.

If someone wants to investigate, fine, but in the meantime the article was garbage, drawing conclusions that are at this point mere speculation.
Click to expand...

I agree...and I've said as much...we don't know the whole story. However, that doesn't mean the article is garbage...though you are free, of course, to have your own opinion.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Mycroft said:
shrug...(again)

I only presented my comments. You should realize that if I have any other comments, I'll present them. Until then, you would do well not to look foolish by making assumptions.
Click to expand...

And maybe if you don't want to be called out on your nonsensical comments, don't make them? That works too.


I agree...and I've said as much...we don't know the whole story. However, that doesn't mean the article is garbage...though you are free, of course, to have your own opinion.
Click to expand...

OK, but I generally don't think much of articles that come to baseless conclusions and flat out lie in the headline. YMMV of course!
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

JasperL said:
And maybe if you don't want to be called out on your nonsensical comments, don't make them? That works too.




OK, but I generally don't think much of articles that come to baseless conclusions and flat out lie in the headline. YMMV of course!
Click to expand...

You haven't said anything about my comments. You've only made assumption based on what you read. It's not my fault your assumptions are nonsensical. Like I said...you would do well not to look foolish by making them..
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

ludin said:
There is no lie yet until an investigation is done and shown that money isn't coming from outside sources.
I know what I said you don't and have to make things up why do you have to be dishonest about people's posts?

No where did I defend anything I stated a simple fact that you evidently can't handle.
Click to expand...

Ludin, you somehow seem to think I've dishonestly "misparaphrased" your post in some fashion. Please be specific. What did you post and how did I "misparaphrase" it. I don't think that's asking too much. You made the "claim" several times. and again, this is a debate forum, its not too much to ask. Just cut and paste what you said and where you think I 'misparaphrased' it.

I should ask OppurtunityCost is Ludin is "attacking the messenger".
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

Vern said:
Ludin, you somehow seem to think I've dishonestly "misparaphrased" your post in some fashion. Please be specific. What did you post and how did I "misparaphrase" it. I don't think that's asking too much. You made the "claim" several times. and again, this is a debate forum, its not too much to ask. Just cut and paste what you said and where you think I 'misparaphrased' it.

I should ask OppurtunityCost is Ludin is "attacking the messenger".
Click to expand...

I should ask you to spell my handle correctly, make your own arguments, and don't direct things at me without quoting me directly.
 
Re: Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicat

OpportunityCost said:
I should ask you to spell my handle correctly, make your own arguments, and don't direct things at me without quoting me directly.
Click to expand...

wah wah wah. OC, feigning umbrage is not debate. But since you're back and have been repeatedly avoiding my posts, how about responding to my responses to you

Did you address the fact that you falsely stated the content wasn't discussed?
Did you address that you said I was "attacking the messenger" for pointing out the content was discussed?
did you address the fact that the editorial was lying?
did you address that the thread was based on that lie?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom