Finding Corruption Involving Hillary Clinton Is Like Finding Sand at the Beach: Lois Lane and the $64,100 Question
We have fascinated over the Donna Brazile hubbub, with the DNC’s ex-temporary-chairperson adopting Ayn Rand’s “Virtue of Selfishness,” hawking her book shamelessly by disclosing that the Democrat National Committee sold whatever tidbits of soul it may have had to Hillary Clinton before the 2016 presidential primaries even got rolling. Yet the story was all there, hidden in plain sight at least a year and a half ago, back in Brazile’s pro-Hillary days when La Donna è Mobile — the (exceptionally) fickle Donna — still was polluting the political climate by unethically passing along confidential debate questions from CNN anchors to the Hillary Clinton camp. Somehow, so many among us — and all the Clinton-bought mainstream media — overlooked or refused to follow the earlier reporting published by Lois Lane, crack journalist for The Daily Planet, a great metropolitan newspaper, laying out the full dimensions of the way that Hillary Clinton and her team had corrupted the electoral process by which one major political party would select its presidential candidate.
Well, it was not exactly Lois Lane. Rather, it was actress Margot Kidder, who once played Ms. Lane’s character to Christopher Reeves’s Superman. In a retrospectively startling piece that Ms. Kidder, a naturalized American from Canada who evolved into a left-wing activist in Montana, published a year and a half ago in Counterpunch, the anti-Clinton Democrat purist broke the full story of the depraved sell-out by thirty-three separate Democrat State Committees all over the country, who each agreed to participate in a surreptitious nationwide money-cleansing scheme coordinated by the Hillary Clinton campaign. As Ms. Kidder wrote: “Corruption is corruption is corruption no matter how many laws there are allowing it.”
Or, to put it otherwise: finding deceit, dishonesty, lies, and corruption involving Hillary Clinton is like finding sand at the beach. It is everywhere the eye can see.
The challenge faced by the Corrupt Clinton Cronies was that, even with Citizens United, political donations to presidential candidates are limited by federal law. No matter how rich the donor, nor how much she wishes to give, the law prohibits such gifts exceeding $2,700. When Democrat hypocrites, led by the Clintons, bemoan the Supreme Court’s Citizens United opinion and pledge “campaign finance reform,” know that their meaning is to reduce avenues for Republicans to raise and give money. Don’t believe for a moment that the ethics deviants who run the Democrat fund-raising machines intend to reform their own fundraising apparati. So here is what Lois Lane exposed:
Under federal law, an individual may donate up to $10,000 annually to a “political committee established and maintained by a State committee of a political party.” 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(D). Accordingly, thirty-three separate State Democrat Committees throughout the land agreed, one by one, to manipulate furtively with Hillary by accepting $10,000 hand-offs passed to them from outside donors — and then dutifully to shift the loot to Hillary’s campaign. For example, the Montana Democrat Committee received $64,100 in donations from people who have no connection to Montana. The Utah Democrat Party likewise received $64,100 in donations from people who have no connection to Utah. Same amount, same story with the Alaska Democrat Party. And the Mississippi one. And Oregon and South Carolina and Tennessee and Massachusetts — all $64,100 a piece. And Georgia and Idaho and Michigan and Minnesota and Missouri and Rhode Island and West Virginia and Wyoming. All the same exact $64,100. Texas — being Texas — took in an extra five grand — $69,100. Evoking images from any scary meeting with a loan shark — a few came in $100 short: North Carolina, Louisiana, and Indiana forked took in only an even 64K. Arkansas fell yet a grand shorter than that. (Proving that the correct answer to the question “What did Tenne… ssee?” may not be “The exact same that Arkan… sas.”)
So, if the “Sixty-Four Thousand [and One Hundred] Dollar Question” is: What in the world was going on? — here is the answer, as reported in April 2016 by Lois Lane:
Under the Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Court divided 5-4 in holding that, while no one may contribute more than $2,700 to a candidate’s campaign, donors otherwise are not limited in the aggregate amount of political giving they may do in federal elections. Thus, if a $2,700 donor to Hillary wants to give $10,000 respectively to each of 33 separate Democrat State Committees, he or she may infuse $330,000 more into the political pot. And then — wink, wink — if each of those state committees thereupon write $10,000 checks to their Corrupt Clinton Cronies — well, where does it say that you can’t do that? And if the donor does that in both Year 2015, as the primaries start taking shape, and again in presidential election year 2016, that moves $660,000 into the pot. And if the donor sets it up that, hey, the hubby is giving $660,000 and the wifey is giving $660,000 — well, now that donor has passed $1,320,000 (One Million and Three Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars) to Hillary… and, oh yeah, also a $2,700 “federal maximum gift” plus one from the spouse. In this way, Hillary’s own basketful of deplorables passed along $26 million to her in 2015. And along the way, scores of critical outcome-changing Hillary Clinton “Super Delegates” were bought and paid for well in advance of the primaries, faster than Bernie Sanders could mutter that “the American people are sick and tired about hearing about your damn emails.”
No wonder all those prostituted Democrat “Super Delegates” were wearing buttons saying “I’m with her”! She bought their state committees. And the Clintons was clamoring for campaign finance reform? Great Caesar’s ghost!
Ms. Kidder noted an additional aspect of Clinton-Democrat Party corruption: “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 apparat[i], 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.” In reviewing and listing names of several prominent out-of-state billionaire hedgefund managers and real estate moguls who each converged to donate $10,000 a pop to the Montana State Democrat Committee, she observed wryly: “One doubts that most of these one percenters adore fly fishing. Or care much about mountain climbing, or skiing, or collecting morel mushrooms along the edges of the Yellowstone river in the fall. We can safely assume that they will not be raising buffalo for meat in the near future, or buying an organic farm next to Senator Jon Tester’s. In fact we can probably assume that most of them have never been to Montana.”
And, oh how perspicaciously she observed: “Any collusion by a Montana national candidate with the Hillary Clinton campaign before a primary was held, and the votes counted, could potentially be politically suicidal.” In sum, she complained:
Our state party leadership signed a deal with a woman who out here, on our turf, possibly wouldn’t last a week. They signed away our unobstructed right to choose which Democratic candidate we supported for President. Given that we have 15 pledged delegates and seven Super Delegates, we have lost our absolute right to have Super Delegate endorsements proportional to the wishes of the primary voters.
For what? Sixty-four thousand and one hundred dollars? Which we had to give back? That’s a pretty poor excuse for selling out our right to our own choice.
Yes indeed, Lois.
So the only question with which we are left is: Why did the official Democrats all play along with the money scheme back then, back in the days of Hillary, Bill, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz — and why now, acting shocked and outraged by Donna Brazile’s tattling, are they all racing to line up to condemn the money laundering, in which they directly participated, that gave Hillary control of so many state “super delegates” and state committees before the primaries even began?
The reason is that we now are witnessing the end of the Clinton Era. Not the beginning of the end, but the actual precise moment of the end. Quick: if you still have them, pull out your eclipse glasses.
There is always that moment when, as we look back in time, we say: “Now looking back, that was the day when it was over. No one knew it back then, but we now realize that was the day it ended.” So let us grasp this moment. Donna Brazile may be fickle, but she is a vain narcissist who covets and lives by the limelight and proximity to power. We saw the way she carried herself on CNN panels. The kitschy guest appearances on television’s The Good Wife. She lives for that stuff — sort of a political variant on Zsa Zsa or Kardashian: famous for being accepted by Democrats who are famous. Such a person never-in-a-million-years would risk her access to glory if she thought the Clintons could get back at her or even commanded a reservoir of power within the Democrat machine. Thus, she is the canary amid the soot of the Democrat coal mine, signaling that the Clintons are politically impotent. She publicly is not afraid of them. She is so fearless that she now boasts that she even was ready to do a Vladimir Putin herself and, Frank Underwood style, simply “replace” Hillary. No fear of reprisal by mouthing such contempt. The canary knows that the Clintons are out of oxygen. Our signal that the Clintons finally are cooked, perhaps soon even to be baked in yellow cake.
And if Margot Kidder was Lois Lane, then La Donna è Mobile is the kryptonite.