Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Steven Spielberg and Calvin Klein named in money laundering scheme complaint that exposes Hillary Clinton corruption
Lance D Johnson
May 02, 2018
Current campaign finance laws prohibit individuals from contributing more than $2,700 to a single candidate or political action committee during an election. These laws, sustained by the Supreme Court, are meant to preserve fairness, curb corruption, and prevent the richest from controlling and influencing an election.
These federal campaign laws did not stop over one thousand Democrat donors from contributing nearly $400,000 each to Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2016 election. Big name donors including Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, filmmaker Steven Spielberg, and designer Calvin Klein are implicated in a money laundering scheme that deceptively funneled more than $84 million to the Hillary Clinton campaign.
A formal complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in December 2017. It is based on data readily available to the public and draws from FEC reports filed by Democrats, memos authored by Clinton’s campaign manager, and public statements from DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile and other Democrat state and national party officials.
The money laundering scheme was carried out covertly by the cunning operatives who ran the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF). This group found a way to subvert the law by dubbing itself a “joint fundraising committee” that supported the DNC and 32 state party committees. Under this guise, the HVF coordinated extravagant fundraisers that solicited up to $356,100 each from wealthy donors.
Under the HVF, wealthy Democrat donors contributed over 130 times the legal contribution limit allowed by federal law. These staunch Clinton supporters were able to make larger donations to the HVF because the funds were supposedly raised to support multiple Democratic candidates across the board. However, most of the money collected by the HVF through these networks was quickly sent to the Hillary Clinton campaign. The HVF allowed the wealthiest democratic donors a way to maximize their permissible contribution through this money laundering scheme.
After the money was transferred back and forth between different committees, it eventually found its way back to its intended target: the Clinton campaign.
The mainstream media took no notice of a federal court filing that exposes a $84 million money-laundering conspiracy Democrats executed during the 2016 presidential election.
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.”
This legal loophole allows “bundlers” to raise large sums of money from wealthy donors—more than $400,000 at a time—filtering the funds to the national committees. Democrats and Republicans alike exploit this tactic. But once the money reaches the national committees, other limits apply.
Suspecting the DNC had exceeded those limits, a client of Backer’s, the Committee to Defend the President, began reviewing FEC filings to determine whether there was excessive coordination between the DNC and Clinton. What Backer discovered, as he explained in an interview, was much worse. There was “extensive evidence in the Democrats’ own FEC reports, when coupled with their own public statements that demonstrated massive straw man contributions papered through the state parties, to the DNC, and then directly to Clinton’s campaign—in clear violation of federal campaign-finance law.”
On behalf of his clients, on December 15, 2017 Backer filed an 86-page complaint with the FEC, asking the FEC to commence enforcement proceedings against Hillary Clinton, her campaign and its treasurer, the DNC and its treasurer, and the participating state Democratic committees. The complaint, and an attached exhibit consisting of nearly 20 pages of Excel spreadsheets, detailed the misconduct and provided concrete evidence supporting the allegations. In short, here’s what happened and what the evidence establishes.
Think Of It Like A Shell Game With Millions Of Dollars
During the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and participating state Democratic committees established the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) as a joint fundraising committee to accept contributions from large donors, some exceeding $400,000. So far, so good. To comply with campaign finance law, the HVF needed to transfer the donations to the specified recipients, whether the Clinton campaign, down-ticket Democrats, the DNC, or state committees.
FEC records, however, show several large contributions reported as received by the HVF and the same amount on the same day (or occasionally the following day) recorded as received by the DNC from a state Democratic committee, but without the state Democratic committee ever reporting the contribution.
For instance, the HVF reported transferring $19,500 to the Mississippi Democratic Party on November 2, 2015, and the Democratic National Committee reported receiving $19,500 from the Mississippi Democratic Party on November 2, 2015. But the Mississippi Democratic Party never recorded the receipt or the disbursement of the $19,500, and without the Mississippi Democratic Party controlling the funds, the HVF’s contribution to the DNC violated campaign finance law.
Over a 13-month period, FEC records show some 30 separate occasions when the HVF transferred contributions totaling more than $10 million to the DNC without any corresponding record of the receipt or disbursement from the state parties, thus illegally leap-frogging the state Democratic parties.
On the other hand, of the contributions state parties reported as received from the HVF, 99 percent wound up at the DNC. They were transferred immediately or within a day or two, raising questions of whether the state Democratic committees truly exercised control over the money—something necessary under campaign finance law to allow a later-legal transfer to the DNC.
Again, the evidence is damning. According to Politico, “[w]hile 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.”
‘Using The Party As A Fundraising Clearinghouse’
But the Clinton campaign’s control of the contributions did not end once the funds reached the DNC, as the complaint filed with the FEC detailed. Rather, public statements by former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile acknowledged that “[a]s Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”
Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of the Clinton campaign, which operated as Hillary For America “HFA,” out of Brooklyn, New York, likewise stated that the Democratic Party was “fully under the control of the Clinton campaign . . . . The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse.”
By excercising control over the DNC’s funds, including funds transferred from the HVF through the state parties, the contributions qualified as donations to the Clinton campaign for purposes of federal campaign finance law, and when properly accounted for exceeded the legal contribution limits.
The Supreme Court Made It Clear This Is Illegal
The illegality of this scheme isn’t a matter of debate. The Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC that this exact scenario would violate the law. Here’s how the court laid it out: “[A] donor gives a $500,000 check to a joint fundraising committee composed of a candidate, a national party committee, and most of the party’s state party committees. The committees divide up the money so that each one receives the maximum contribution permissible under the base limits, but then each transfers its allocated portion to the same single committee. That committee uses the money for coordinated expenditures on behalf of a particular candidate.”
The Supreme Court then declared: “Lest there be any confusion, a joint fundraising committee is simply a mechanism for individual committees to raise funds collectively, not to circumvent base limits or earmarking rules. Under no circumstances may a contribution to a joint fundraising committee result in an allocation that exceeds the contribution limits applicable to its constituent parts; the committee is in fact required to return any excess funds to the contributor.” And “the earmarking provision prohibits an individual from directing funds ‘through an intermediary or conduit to a particular candidate.”
This “scenario could not succeed,” the Supreme Court explained, “without assuming that nearly 50 separate party committees would engage in a transparent violation of the earmarking rules (and that they would not be caught if they did).” Caught Clinton was. Yet the FEC failed to act on Backer’s complaint, even though federal law authorizes any person to file “a complaint with the FEC alleging a violation of federal campaign finance law.”
FEC Declines To Follow The Law
Upon receipt of Backer’s complaint, the FEC was required to notify those accused of violating federal law of the charges. Then the commissioners were required to determine whether there was “reason to believe” a violation occurred. Following a finding by four FEC commissioners that there was “reason to believe” a violation has occurred, the FEC must investigate the complaint.
An undercover FBI informant embedded in the Russian nuclear industry who was made to sign an “illegal NDA” by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch has finally given his testimony to three Congressional committees.
William D. Campbell became an FBI counterintelligence asset after spending several years as a CIA operative who developed working relationships in the nuclear industry in Kazakhstan and Russia.
“For several years my relationship with the CIA consisted of being debriefed after foreign travel,” Campbell noted in his testimony, which was obtained by this reporter. “Gradually, the relationship evolved into the CIA tasking me to travel to specific countries to obtain specific information. In the 1990’s I developed a working relationship with Kazakhstan and Russia in their nuclear energy industries. When I told the CIA of this development, I was turned over to FBI counterintelligence agents.” –saracarter.com
The FBI embedded Campbell in the Russian nuclear industry for six years, where he gathered extensive evidence of two separate but related “pay for play” schemes related to the United States uranium industry:
First, Campbell discovered that Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm, Transport Logistics International (TLI) in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – which bribed a Russian nuclear official in exchange for a contract transport Russian-mined U.S. uranium, including “yellowcake” uranium secured in the Uranium One deal.
Second, Campbell says that Russian nuclear officials told him of a scheme to route millions of dollars to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) through lobbying firm ARPCO, which was expected to funnel a portion of its annual $3 million lobbying fee to the charity.
“The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months. APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.“ –William Campbell
Campbell told Congressional investigators that the Uranium One deal along with billions in other uranium contracts inside the United States during the Obama administration was part of a “Russian uranium dominance strategy” involving Tenex and its American arm Tenem – both subsidiaries of state-owned Russian energy company Rosatom.
“The emails and documents I intercepted during 2010 made clear that Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One – for both its Kazakh and American assets – was part of Russia’s geopolitical strategy to gain leverage in global energy markets,” he testified. “I obtained documentary proof that Tenex was helping Rosatom win CFIUS approval, including an October 6, 2010 email … asking me specifically to help overcome opposition to the Uranium One deal.”
“Rosatom/Tenex threw a party to celebrate, which was widely attended by American nuclear industry officials. At the request of the FBI, I attended and recorded video footage of Tenam’s new offices,” he added.
Officials with APCO – the lobbying firm accused of funneling the money to the Clinton Global Initiative, told The Hill that its support for CGI and its work for Russia were not connected in any way, and involved different divisions of the firm.
While undercover, the Russians forced Campbell to deliver bribes from Maryland transportation company TLI in $50,000 increments to Russian nuclear official Vadim Mikerin of Tenex. Campbell did so under the direction of the FBI in order to maintain his cover, fronting hundreds of thousands of dollars he says he was never reimbursed for.
As a result of Campbell’s work, TLI co-president Mark Lambert was charged in an 11-count indictment in connection with the scheme, while Vadim Mikerin, who resides in Maryland, was prosecuted in 2015 and is halfway through a four-year sentence.
Beginning at least as early as 2009 and continuing until October 2014, Lambert conspired with others at “Transportation Corporation A” to make corrupt and fraudulent bribery and kickback payments to offshore bank accounts associated with shell companies, at the direction of, and for the benefit of, a Russian official, Vadim Mikerin, in order to secure improper business advantages and obtain and retain business with TENEX. –DOJ
Of note, Rod Rosenstein failed to interview Campbell before prosecuting Vadim Mikerin when Rosenstein was Maryland’s chief federal prosectuor, instead relying on the evidence Campbell had gathered. This backfired after prosecutors insisted on sitting down with Campbell to glean more information – forcing prosecutors to recast their entire case against Mikerin.
Campbell got one debriefing after the criminal charges were filed, but was never brought before the grand jury that indicted the Russian figure in November 2014 even though the informer was portrayed as “Victim One” in that indictment, the officials confirmed
When prosecutors finally interviewed Campbell more extensively in early 2015 and reviewed all of the records he had gathered for the FBI, they learned new information about the sequence of transactions he conducted while under the FBI’s supervision, as well as the extensive nature of his counterintelligence work for the U.S. government that went far beyond the Mikerin case and dated to at least 2006, the officials said. –The Hill
Uranium One approval
An extremely important aspect of Campbell’s timeline is that the Obama FBI, headed by Robert Mueller, knew of the bribery scheme with the transportation company before approving the Uranium One deal which would have utilized TLI for transporting the mined uranium.
“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.” –The Hill
Thus, the Uranium One deal clearly never should have been approved.
Campbell testified that the FBI thanked him for his undercover with a check for $51,000 in 2016 – which, according to a November report, was given to him at a 2016 celebration dinner in Chrystal City, VA according to Campbell’s attorney, (former Regan Justice Department Official and former Chief Counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee), Victoria Toensing.
“My FBI handlers praised my work,” testified Campbell. “They told me on various occasions that details from the undercover probe had been briefed directly to FBI top officials. On two occasions my handlers were particularly excited, claiming that my undercover work had been briefed to President Obama as part of his daily presidential briefing,” he testified
Following reports by John Solomon of The Hill and Sara Carter of Circa News revealing that Campbell had gathered evidence implicating the Clinton charity and the Obama administration, Michael Isikoffof Yahoo News wrote an article slamming Campbell – saying he would be a “disaster” as a witness because some of his claims could not be documented, an anonymous source told Isikoff.
And where have we heard Michael Isikoff’s name recently?
Another Yahoo News article written by Isikoff was used by the FBI as supporting evidence in a FISA warrant application by the FBI against one-time Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. Isikoff used information provided by former UK spy Christopher Steele – who assembled the infamous and unverified anti-Trump dossier which the FISA application was largely based on.
Isikoff says he was “stunned” to learn that his article was cited in the FISA warrant. We “believe” him.
Sessions and Rosenstein were running Interference
And in a move which can only be interpreted as an effort to protect the FBI, the Obama administration and the Clintons, AG Jeff Sessions and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein even tried to suggest the nuclear bribery case uncovered by Campbell is not connected to the Uranium One deal.
“Attorney General Jeff Sessions in testimony last week and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in a letter to the Senate last month tried to suggest there was no connection between Uranium One and the nuclear bribery case. Their argument was that the criminal charges weren’t filed until 2014, while the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) approval of the Uranium One sale occurred in October 2010.”
This rubbed several Congressional GOP the wrong way:
“Attorney General Sessions seemed to say that the bribery, racketeering and money laundering offenses involving Tenex’s Vadim Mikerin occurred after the approval of the Uranium One deal by the Obama administration. But we know that the FBI’s confidential informant was actively compiling incriminating evidence as far back as 2009,” Rep. Ron DeSantis, (R-Fla.) told The Hill, adding “It is hard to fathom how such a transaction could have been approved without the existence of the underlying corruption being disclosed”
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent a similar rebuke to Rosenstein, saying the deputy attorney general’s first response to the committee “largely missed the point” of the congressional investigations.
“Ask your politics”
When Campbell asked the FBI why all of the illegal schemes he uncovered weren’t being prosecuted, he was explicitly told it was political:
“I remember one response I got from an agent when I asked how it was possible CFIUS would approve the Uranium One sale when the FBI could prove Rosatom was engaged in criminal conduct. His answer: ‘Ask your politics,’ ” Campbell said.
Since his undercover work in Russia, Campbell has undergone 35 intensive radiation treatments after being diagnosed with brain cancer and leukemia.
Watch John Solomon and Sara Carter discuss the Campbell evidence last November: