Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Old 04-20-18, 03:02 PM
  #26  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
JTH182's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,206
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

The only answer is that we obviously need to impeach Hillary ASAP!
JTH182 is offline  
Old 04-21-18, 01:42 AM
  #27  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,142
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by grip View Post
I will take a more reasonable tack.

If any of these very serious and apparently easily provable facts are true, then surely there is some prosecutor within the government (fully run by "republicans") who would be willing to take this up. If there was ANY merit, there would be an indictment, or at least that someone is investigating this further. I mean, the current administration has placed "republican" prosecutors in the DOJ no?

This is a serious crime, and we all should be certainly on the alert for any person who takes advantage of their position to commit something like this.

Perhaps the better question is, who is investigating this? Even if there was a hint of wrongdoing to the presidents "enemy", a person who the administration has made LOCK HER UP a mantra, surely they would be all up on this potentially jailable offense.

Or, perhaps it could be that this is a bunch of hogwash that even the administration will not take the time to investigate.

So, why does it fall to the Democrats, conservatives, or "republicans" for that matter to sound the outrage alarm? This is a justice matter, and perhaps, they have a different perspective.

I dunno......

That's an excellent point. I do wonder why the Republican controlled government has not filed any charges.
grundle is offline  
Old 04-21-18, 02:14 AM
  #28  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,142
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

To those of you who question the credibility of my source, it includes a link to this article from Poltico:

Spoiler:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ks-2016-215774

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.

I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.


So I searched for that other Politico article, and this is it:
Spoiler:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...parties-222670

Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties

The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised.

May 2, 2016

In the days before Hillary Clinton launched an unprecedented big-money fundraising vehicle with state parties last summer, she vowed “to rebuild our party from the ground up,” proclaiming “when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen."

But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.

The venture, the Hillary Victory Fund, is a so-called joint fundraising committee comprised of Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. The setup allows Clinton to solicit checks of $350,000 or more from her super-rich supporters at extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John.

The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.

By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC, which will work closely with Clinton’s campaign if and when she becomes the party’s nominee. And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton’s campaign, including $2.8 million for “salary and overhead” and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion.

The arrangement has sparked concerns among campaign finance watchdogs and allies of Clinton’s Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. They see it as a circumvention of campaign contribution limits by a national party apparatus intent on doing whatever it takes to help Clinton defeat Sanders during the party’s primary, and then win the White House.

But it is perhaps more notable that the arrangement has prompted concerns among some participating state party officials and their allies. They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party.

“It’s a one-sided benefit,” said an official with one participating state party. The official, like those with several other state parties, declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

In fact, the DNC, which has pushed back aggressively on charges that it is boosting Clinton at the expense of other Democrats, has advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told POLITICO.

“The DNC has given us some guidance on what they’re saying, but it’s not clear what we should be saying,” said the official. “I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits.”

Some fundraisers who work for state parties predict that the arrangement could actually hurt participating state parties. They worry that participating states that aren’t presidential battlegrounds and lack competitive Senate races could see very little return investment from the DNC or Clinton’s campaign, and are essentially acting as money laundering conduits for them. And for party committees in contested states, there’s another risk: They might find themselves unable to accept cash from rich donors whose checks to the victory fund counted toward their $10,000 donation limit to the state party in question — even if that party never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC.

Sources working with the Hillary Victory Fund said the committee is sensitive to these concerns and that state parties were asked to submit names of donors they wanted to save for themselves.

Clinton’s campaign and the DNC argue that all Democratic politicians and state parties — even those that aren’t enrolled in the victory fund — will benefit from its fundraising. That’s because the cash will go toward enhancing national voter data, and research and communications efforts that all state parties are entitled to.

And Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for Clinton’s campaign, suggested that a handful of key state parties last month received another $700,000 in transfers from the victory fund, and enjoyed other benefits from it that will be detailed in subsequent FEC reports. (The latest reports cover only through the end of March.)

“About $4.5 million has already been transferred to state parties and there is an additional $9 million on hand that will be distributed over the coming months as state parties ramp up for the general election,” he said in an email. He added that in April, “money raised through the HVF has started to be used to fund Democratic coordinated campaigns across the country, which will help strengthen the party and elect Democrats up and down the ballot.”

But Schwerin did not respond to follow-up questions about how much of the $700,000 in victory fund transfers to the state parties was subsequently transferred to the DNC.

DNC spokesman Mark Paustenbach pointed out that the national party committee “offered to engage in the same joint fundraising efforts with all the major presidential candidates early in the cycle, and we welcome the efforts of the candidates to help raise money for the DNC and state parties now to ensure we can build out the infrastructure to win in November.”

Sanders' campaign late last year signed a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC, but the committee has been largely inactive. Instead, after Sanders was chided by Clinton allies for not helping down-ballot Democrats, he sent out appeals to his vaunted email list that helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a trio of progressive House candidates, who got to keep all the cash.

The Hillary Victory Fund, by contrast, allows the Clinton campaign to maintain tight control over the cash it raises and spends. The fund represents by far the most ambitious use to date of a joint fundraising committee — and arguably one of the most ambitious hard-dollar fundraising efforts in modern presidential politics. Until 2014, the most an individual could have given to such a committee was $123,200. But in April of that year, the Supreme Court, in a case called McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, struck down aggregate limits on total giving to federal campaigns, allowing maximum donations to as many different committees as a donor wanted.

That paved the way for massive joint fundraising committees that could accept ever-larger checks based on the number and type of committees that agreed to participate. In the case of the Hillary Victory Fund, the maximum donation in 2016 is $356,100, based on maximum donations of $2,700 to Hillary for America for the primary election, $33,400 to the DNC and $10,000 to the federal accounts of each of the 32 state parties.

After POLITICO revealed that the victory fund was asking for couples to donate or raise a whopping $353,400 in order to sit at a table with Clinton, Clooney and his wife, attorney Amal Clooney, at a fundraiser last month in San Francisco, Clooney admitted that was "an obscene amount of money." But he justified it by saying "the overwhelming amount of the money that we're raising is not going to Hillary to run for president, it's going to the down-ticket."

According to the agreements signed by the participating committees, which were obtained by POLITICO, the money is required to be distributed, at least initially, based on a formula set forth in joint fundraising agreements signed by the participants. The first $2,700 goes to the Clinton campaign, the next $33,400 goes to the DNC, and any remaining funds are to be distributed among the state parties.

But what happens to the cash after that initial distribution is left almost entirely to the discretion of the Clinton campaign. Its chief operating officer, Beth Jones, is the treasurer of the victory fund. And FEC filings show that within a day of most transfers from the victory fund to the state parties, identical sums were transferred from the state party accounts to the DNC, which Sanders’ supporters have accused of functioning as an adjunct of the Clinton campaign.

For example, the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party received $43,500 from the victory fund on Nov. 2, only to transfer the same amount to the DNC that same day. The pattern repeated itself after the Minnesota party received transfers from the victory fund of $20,600 on Dec. 1 (the party sent the same amount to the DNC the next day) and $150,000 on Jan. 4 (it transferred the same amount to the DNC that day).

That means that Minnesota’s net gain from its participation in the victory fund was precisely $0 through the end of March. Meanwhile, the DNC pocketed an extra $214,100 in cash routed through Minnesota — much of which the DNC wouldn’t have been able to accept directly, since it came from donors who had mostly had already maxed out to the national party committee.

A similar pattern transpired with most of the participating state parties. As of March 31, only eight state parties (most of which were in battleground states such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia) had received more from the victory fund than was transferred from their accounts to the DNC.

But even if state parties aren’t getting to keep the victory fund cash, they benefit from money spent to enhance the DNC’s data, research and design services, said Jeremy Kennedy, the executive director of the Maine Democratic State Committee, which is a victory fund participant.

“In my opinion, strengthening the state parties strengthens the DNC and vice versa,” Kennedy said. “I’d be the first one to tell you if I felt differently.” His party received $59,800 from the victory fund, but transferred that exact amount to the DNC, though Kennedy said he hopes that money will find its way back to benefit the party in Maine.

While state party officials were made aware that Clinton's campaign would control the movement of the funds between participating committees, one operative who has relationships with multiple state parties said that some of their officials have complained that they weren't notified of the transfers into and out of their accounts until after the fact. That's despite their stipulations in the banking documents that their affirmative consent was required before such transfers could be made from their accounts. But the operative said that the state party officials are reluctant to complain to the DNC about the arrangement out of fear of financial retribution.

“Particularly the parties in states that are not competitive, they worry that the DNC won’t let them keep any of the money, but the historical reality is that they wouldn’t have gotten the money anyway,” the operative said.

Asked about whether the victory fund has taken steps to keep the state parties apprised of the transfers, Schwerin said, “We work closely with all parties involved and all transfers occur in accordance with the joint fundraising agreements.”

Amalgamated Bank — the union-run bank that handles the accounts for the victory fund, as well as Clinton’s campaign and the DNC — did not directly address the complaints about money being transferred without consent of the state party committees.

“We do not comment on the account activity of any customers other than to say that all clients enjoy the highest standards of security protocols and safeguards to ensure only listed account owners or their designated agents are able to execute transactions of any kind and, of course, always in full compliance of all banking laws,” said bank spokesman Loren Riegelhaupt.

Another area in which critics contend the Hillary Victory Fund appears to be pushing the bounds of joint fundraising is in its online advertising campaign, which has included many ads urging readers to “Stop Trump” or to support Clinton.

While joint fundraising committees are allowed to pay for ads as part of their fundraising efforts, they are forbidden from funding campaign advertising urging voters to vote for or against specific candidates. Those types of ads qualify as electioneering expenses that are supposed to be paid for directly by the campaign or by party committees.


Schwerin said the “Stop Trump” ads aren’t urging readers to vote against Trump. “All of HVF's activities, including online ads, are for fundraising purposes,” he said.

Most of the victory funds ads were executed by the same firm that does advertising for Clinton’s campaign, Bully Pulpit Interactive, which has been paid $8.6 million by the Hillary Victory Fund for online advertising, and $9.2 million by Hillary for America for online advertising and media buys.

Those victory fund ads, as well as a direct mail campaign funded by the same committee, “appear to benefit only [the Clinton campaign] by generating low-dollar contributions that flow only to HFA, rather than to the DNC or any of the participating state party committees,” charged Sanders’ campaign lawyer in an open letter sent to the DNC in April. It alleged that the victory fund was essentially a pass-through to allow Clinton to benefit from contributions that far exceed the amount that her campaign could legally accept.

In a news release accompanying the letter, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver argued “it is unprecedented for the DNC to allow a joint committee to be exploited to the benefit of one candidate in the midst of a contested nominating contest.”

Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook called the letter a “shameful” and “irresponsible” fundraising ploy, and urged Sanders to “think about what he can do to help the party he is seeking to lead.”

Last edited by grundle; 04-21-18 at 02:27 AM.
grundle is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 12:18 AM
  #29  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,142
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

So the only argument against what I posted was that you didn't like my source. So I showed you the links that were in my source, and now there has been silence for four days!
grundle is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 09:57 AM
  #30  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
joeblow69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Palm Springs
Posts: 8,552
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
So the only argument against what I posted was that you didn't like my source. So I showed you the links that were in my source, and now there has been silence for four days!
It could be that most of us just don't give a shit about hillary anymore. But here, I'll stroke your Hillary boner a little bit ... if she did anything illegal, she should definitely be brought up on charges. There ... now doesn't that feel GOOD?
joeblow69 is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 10:03 AM
  #31  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 30,923
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
So the only argument against what I posted was that you didn't like my source. So I showed you the links that were in my source, and now there has been silence for four days!
What do you want us to do?

Grip already had the best response:

Originally Posted by grip
If any of these very serious and apparently easily provable facts are true, then surely there is some prosecutor within the government (fully run by "republicans") who would be willing to take this up. If there was ANY merit, there would be an indictment, or at least that someone is investigating this further. I mean, the current administration has placed "republican" prosecutors in the DOJ no?
Draven is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 10:17 AM
  #32  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,302
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by joeblow69 View Post
It could be that most of us just don't give a shit about hillary anymore. But here, I'll stroke your Hillary boner a little bit ... if she did anything illegal, she should definitely be brought up on charges. There ... now doesn't that feel GOOD?
Why do you liberals defend her?
VinVega is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 10:21 AM
  #33  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Kurt D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,503
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

I used to work at a place where a 'Squatcher would come in and regale me with stories of his close encounters with Bigfoot (mostly weird feelings and noises during the middle of the night). He'd pop in the door of this establishment and if I wasn't looking he'd hoot like a sasquatch as a greeting. I'd listen for a while and then just tune him out.
Kurt D is online now  
Old 04-25-18, 10:22 AM
  #34  
DVD Talk Legend
 
cungar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,838
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by joeblow69 View Post
It could be that most of us just don't give a shit about hillary anymore. But here, I'll stroke your Hillary boner a little bit ... if she did anything illegal, she should definitely be brought up on charges. There ... now doesn't that feel GOOD?
Oh yes say it again, I'm almost there...
cungar is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 10:26 AM
  #35  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
gryffinmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ancient City
Posts: 6,535
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
Grip already had the best response:
Yep, that poster has a pretty good grip on the situation.
gryffinmaster is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 10:42 AM
  #36  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Inhumans99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 2,997
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by gryffinmaster View Post
Yep, that poster has a pretty good grip on the situation.

Inhumans99 is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 11:09 AM
  #37  
DVD Talk Legend
 
cultshock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: True North Strong & Free
Posts: 11,952
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by joeblow69 View Post
It could be that most of us just don't give a shit about hillary anymore.
This. Time to move on.
cultshock is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 11:29 AM
  #38  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,144
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
So the only argument against what I posted was that you didn't like my source. So I showed you the links that were in my source, and now there has been silence for four days!
Reviewing the sources from Politico, I still did not read ANYTHING that rises to the alarmist accusation from the original OPINION PIECE.

It is a fact, a well known and hurtful fact, that the DNC fucked up big by actively seeking to hurt one of their own candidates. As a lifelong Democrat, I am appalled, I am outraged and I demanded answers and a solution to this horrific breach of party protocol.

But, to say that this is "money-laundering" is a very large jump from the two supporting articles to the opinion piece originally cited. Using campaign funds to basically purchase the nomination for one candidate while scuttling another is what seemed to have gone on here. Certainly an act I'm ashamed for my party to have done.


I have seen crazy conspiracy theories from both extremes of our political landscape. What was unreal previously is moving closer and closer to ..... plausible. But I return to my belief that there are those in the justice departments, from the local police officers all the way to the SCOTUS, who actively review actual EVIDENCE especially for something potentially HUGE like this. If there is wrongdoing, then someone (hopefully a person who is non-partisan like a longtime democrat) would take this information and do some investigating, gather real evidence, show good cause to a judge, gather more evidence, interview and study the parties involved and provide a clearly worded indictment. I would give credibility to this and watch intently as the persons involved defend themselves, or geet indicted and plead guilty themselves.

Kinda like what the process has been ongoing with regard to our president and his group.
grip is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 11:37 AM
  #39  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 30,923
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by cultshock View Post
This. Time to move on.
99% of what I see about Hillary comes from conservative sources. There's a Clinton-related story on the front page of Fox News right now.

I never see or hear liberals talk about her anymore.
Draven is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 11:43 AM
  #40  
DVD Talk Hero
 
davidh777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Home of 2013 NFL champion Seahawks
Posts: 41,069
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by grip View Post
I will take a more reasonable tack.

If any of these very serious and apparently easily provable facts are true, then surely there is some prosecutor within the government (fully run by "republicans") who would be willing to take this up. If there was ANY merit, there would be an indictment, or at least that someone is investigating this further. I mean, the current administration has placed "republican" prosecutors in the DOJ no?

This is a serious crime, and we all should be certainly on the alert for any person who takes advantage of their position to commit something like this.

Perhaps the better question is, who is investigating this? Even if there was a hint of wrongdoing to the presidents "enemy", a person who the administration has made LOCK HER UP a mantra, surely they would be all up on this potentially jailable offense.

Or, perhaps it could be that this is a bunch of hogwash that even the administration will not take the time to investigate.

So, why does it fall to the Democrats, conservatives, or "republicans" for that matter to sound the outrage alarm? This is a justice matter, and perhaps, they have a different perspective.

I dunno......
Originally Posted by grundle View Post
That's an excellent point. I do wonder why the Republican controlled government has not filed any charges.
I like how grundle boils that long response down to "It's obviously true so why haven't there been any charges?"
davidh777 is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 11:46 AM
  #41  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Į\_(ツ)_/Į
Posts: 19,570
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by davidh777 View Post
I like how grundle boils that long response down to "It's obviously true so why haven't there been any charges?"
yup!
Dan is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 11:52 AM
  #42  
DVD Talk Hero
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 46,295
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
That's an excellent point. I do wonder why the Republican controlled government has not filed any charges.
Because Obama's shadow government is running the show.
inri222 is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 12:20 PM
  #43  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,302
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
I never see or hear liberals talk about her anymore.
Because she paid them off with the laundered money.
VinVega is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 12:44 PM
  #44  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 16,898
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
99% of what I see about Hillary comes from conservative sources. There's a Clinton-related story on the front page of Fox News right now.

I never see or hear liberals talk about her anymore.
No one likes to talk about a loser.

It’s like I don’t talk about Mitt Romney.
Mabuse is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 12:50 PM
  #45  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Į\_(ツ)_/Į
Posts: 19,570
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Mittens! I miss that cuddly little kitty.
Dan is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 12:59 PM
  #46  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 30,923
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by Mabuse View Post
No one likes to talk about a loser.

It’s like I don’t talk about Mitt Romney.
Yeah, no one talks about Mitt Romney's loss on either side. Conservatives are still talking about "loser" Hillary. Why are conservatives so obsessed with her?

Again - Fox News right now has a Clinton story up on their front page. How is that "no one likes to talk about a loser"?
Draven is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 01:08 PM
  #47  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 16,898
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

No one likes to talk about their loser. The winners love to talk about the losers.

In all seriousness it’s called being a bad winner, and it’s not right. I don’t teach my kids to do that shit.

Also to be completely honest, I did talk a lot of shit about Mitt because at that time it felt like it was his to lose and he blew it.
Mabuse is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 08:27 PM
  #48  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: DVDTalk's Surgeon General
Posts: 5,508
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by Mabuse View Post
No one likes to talk about their loser. The winners love to talk about the losers.

In all seriousness itís called being a bad winner, and itís not right. I donít teach my kids to do that shit.

Also to be completely honest, I did talk a lot of shit about Mitt because at that time it felt like it was his to lose and he blew it.
That isnít really true either. We didnít talk much abou McCain after (Palin because she was insane) and I donít remember much talk about Kerry.

But when you spend decades demonizing a politician and you assume you would have another 4 years to run against her so you didnít create another boogeyman, it is hard to let it go.
shadowhawk2020 is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 08:48 PM
  #49  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 30,923
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Originally Posted by shadowhawk2020 View Post
That isn’t really true either. We didn’t talk much abou McCain after (Palin because she was insane) and I don’t remember much talk about Kerry.

But when you spend decades demonizing a politician and you assume you would have another 4 years to run against her so you didn’t create another boogeyman, it is hard to let it go.
True. And then your own guy turns out to be even worse than your boogeyman and you’re like “oh fuck”.
Draven is offline  
Old 04-25-18, 08:50 PM
  #50  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 4,335
Re: The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Guys. Can you imagine what it'd be like if Hillary was still a sitting senator?
Paff is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.