HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Seeinghope » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:03 PM
Number of posts: 786

Journal Archives

Then you haven't been listening to both candidates closely or you won't hear both candidates closely

Actually they Saif "sufficient evidence" and " laws were wilfully broken"

"FBI officials stated they had yet to procure sufficient evidence that any laws were willfully broken, though the investigation is still ongoing".

In other words they have evidence but not enough. And Laws were broken but cannot prove wilfully... Technicalities so far.

How Hillary Clinton bought the loyalty of 33 state democratic parties


Collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC allowed Hillary Clinton to buy the loyalty of 33 state Democratic parties last summer. Montana was one of those states. It sold itself for $64,100.

The Super Delegates now defying democracy with their insistent refusal to change their votes to Sanders in spite of a handful of overwhelming Clinton primary losses in their own states, were arguably part of that deal.

In August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington.

The idea was to increase how much one could personally donate to Hillary by taking advantage of the Supreme Court ruling 2014, McCutcheon v FEC, that knocked down a cap on aggregate limits as to how much a donor could give to a federal campaign in a year. It thus eliminated the ceiling on amounts spent by a single donor to a presidential candidate.

In other words, a single donor, by giving $10,000 a year to each signatory state could legally give an extra $330,000 a year for two years to the Hillary Victory Fund. For each donor, this raised their individual legal cap on the Presidential campaign to $660,000 if given in both 2015 and 2016. And to one million, three hundred and 20 thousand dollars if an equal amount were also donated in their spouse’s name.

From these large amounts of money being transferred from state coffers to the Hillary Victory Fund in Washington, the Clinton campaign got the first $2,700, the DNC was to get the next $33,400, and the remainder was to be split among the 33 signatory states. With this scheme, the Hillary Victory Fund raised over $26 million for the Clinton Campaign by the end of 2015.

The money was either transferred to the Hillary for America or Forward Hillary PACs and spent directly on the Hillary Clinton Campaign, often paying the salaries and expenses within those groups, or it was moved into the DNC or another Clinton PAC. Some of it was spent towards managing the Hillary merchandise store, where you can buy Hillary T shirts and hats and buttons.

The fund is administered by treasurer Elizabeth Jones, the Clinton Campaign’s chief operating officer. Ms. Jones has the exclusive right to decide when transfers of money to and from the Hillary Victory Fund would be made to the state parties.

One could reasonably infer that the tacit agreement between the signatories was that the state parties and the Hillary Clinton Campaign would act in unity and mutual support. And that the Super Delegates of these various partner states would either pledge loyalty to Clinton, or, at the least, not endorse Senator Sanders. Not only did Hillary’s multi-millionaire and billionaire supporters get to bypass individual campaign donation limits to state parties by using several state parties apparatus, but the Clinton campaign got the added bonus of buying that state’s Super Delegates with the promise of contributions to that Democratic organization’s re-election fund.

If a presidential campaign from either party can convince various state parties to partner with it in such a way as to route around any existing rules on personal donor limits and at the same time promise money to that state’s potential candidates, then the deal can be sold as a way of making large monetary promises to candidates and Super Delegates respectable.

The leadership of a very broke Montana Democratic Party decided in August of 2015 that this was a seductive deal they were willing to make. And by the end of that year scores of $10,000 donations came in from out of state.

Montana’s list of out of state donors to the state campaign reads like a Who’s Who of the Democratic financial elites. The names vary little from the list of high donors to the other 32 states that signed on to the Hillary Victory Fund.


From Miriam Webster

Simple Definition of meeting
: a gathering of people for a particular purpose (such as to talk about business)
: a gathering of people for religious worship

a situation or occasion when two people see and talk to each other

Examples: meeting in a sentence

Full Definition of meeting
: an act or process of coming together: as
a : an assembly for a common purpose (as worship)
b : a session of horse or dog racing
: a permanent organizational unit of the Society of Friends
: intersection, junction
See meeting defined for English-language learners

Examples of meeting in a sentence

The club's monthly meeting will be held next Monday evening.
She was too busy to attend the meeting.
Let's have a meeting to discuss these .

They started dating each other soon after their first meeting.

Their friendship began with a chance meeting at a business convention.

Tonight's game will be their first meeting of the season.
a town at the meeting of two rivers

Now can we stop with the snark and feigned outrage as well as saying Bernie Sanders was untruthful!

Meet vs Greet. REALLY. How ugly and low can you go?

Bernie Sanders had a meeting with Pope Francic. So what! Get over it. He met the Pope, which the way is a big deal, and they exchanged niceties.

I went to Rome and saw Pope John Paul. I went to mass in the Basillica and he was present. I'm not a devout Catholic. I don't even go to church. My husband is Catholic and he does go to church. I am a former Catholic.

It was an experience that I never will forget. It was magical. There is just something there that is indescribable. There are no words to say how deeply moving and how inspiring it is.

The pettiness about Bernie Sanders saying meeting vs. Pope Francis saying greeting is just plain ugly. You people should just be ashamed of yourselves.

A lot of Hilbots need to.........."see a psychiatrist..........Quote taken from Pope Francis

This pope ranting and raving and snarking is incessant! What is the big deal here? See a shrink already, you are looking crazy with jealousy. When something truly doesn't matter you ignore it you don't keep lighting the fire and drawing attention to it.

Doesn't Hillary Clinton have anything newsworthy going on that you can get all excited about? I mean I haven't heard too much bragging and stunning quotations from the debates. No bragging about the things that she said or done since then. Not really. It is just all about Bernie Sanders. It looks like you all are running as scared as Hillary Clinton is right now.

How many Hillary Clinton supporters support fracking?

How many Hillary Clinton supporters want regime change in Syria and military action in Libya?

How many Hillary Clinton supporters want Social Security privatised. Or keep SS the same,

even if it is die to run out of funds? Or do you want raise the cap to $250.000.00?

Hillary Clinton was working hard to make tens of millions or more with Bill for themselves

She held office for only 12 years..

While Bernie was working hard full time for the people just on his and Janes's on his salary

Bernie has held public office for 33 years

The Clintons did not start out as wealthy people but they are now multi millionaires many times over while "working for the people"

The Sanders did not start out as wealthy people and they MAYBE -are worth one million dollars if that.

Who spent more time working for themselves and who spent more time working for the interest of the people?

It is so obvious which candidate was truly focused on their job and which candidate was focused on personal ambition.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »