Jim’s Mailbox

Posted at 10:27 AM (CST) by & filed under Jim's Mailbox.

Please remember the October 11th date is in request of Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests.


Bombshell: FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million
April 24, 2018

The press continues to feed the dying Russia collusion conspiracy theory, spending Friday’s news cycle regurgitating Democrat talking points from the just-filed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia.

Yet the mainstream media took no notice of last week’s federal court filing that exposes an $84 million money-laundering conspiracy the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign executed during the 2016 presidential election in violation of federal campaign-finance law.

That lawsuit, filed last week in a DC district court, summarizes the DNC-Clinton conspiracy and provides detailed evidence from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings confirming the complaint’s allegations that Democrats undertook an extensive scheme to violate federal campaign limits.

From Bundling To Money Laundering

Dan Backer, a campaign-finance lawyer and attorney-of-record in the lawsuit, explained the underlying law in an article for Investor’s Business Daily: Under federal law, “an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party’s main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits—it’s legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfer to their national party.”



Courtesy of Dave.


The American Scream
August 23, 2018

By Finian Cunningham

“Information Clearing House” – Just like when the medieval executioners tortured their prisoners to scream out for “mercy”, so today two former aides of US President Donald Trump are put being on the rack to extract a begging response. If they finger the president, then maybe mercy will be shown to the prisoners.

Trump’s former lawyer and his campaign manager are facing lengthy prison sentences for financial fraud and political campaign irregularities. Michael Cohen could get five years in jail, while Paul Manafort faces a soul-crushing 80 years behind bars. A de facto death sentence, given his age.

The set-up here is so obvious and pathetic. Both men are being dangled by the feet ahead of their sentencing, with the blatant purpose of forcing them to incriminate Trump, and in that way, Trump’s political enemies finally get their long-held objective of impeaching the president.

This is how the “American Dream” really operates. It’s dirty, grim, and brutal, and has very little to do with democracy or rule of law. Forget the emblems of supposed American civility, the white-picket fences, apple pie in bourgeois comfort, old glory fluttering down at the courthouse, and all those other imaginary democratic virtues.



Of course she does. Top of the Top Clearance, I would imagine. At least up to last week. Courtesy of JB.


Does Hillary Clinton Have A Security Clearance? Those Who Know Won’t Say
August 23, 2018

President Trump revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan last week after ordering a review of 10 people — one current and nine former officials — who he considers political adversaries.

One name not on the publicly announced list: former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic candidate whose campaign was plagued by an FBI investigation into her mishandling of classified information.

Many former officials retain security clearances, but the status of Clinton’s clearance is not publicly known, despite being subject to intense debate, including bicameral legislation seeking to revoke her access.

The State Department told the Washington Examiner that it could not release information about Clinton’s clearance, citing her privacy, and Clinton’s attorneys would not comment.

“Due to privacy considerations, the department does not release information on former employees,” said Anne Carey, a spokesman for the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton scoffed at the response, saying “there is no privacy interest.”