Busted: Hillary Caught in Fraud Scheme – Literally Stealing From…
A new report shows that Hillary Clinton’s campaign is making unauthorized charges to their poorest donor’s bank accounts, to the point where one of the country’s biggest banks is receiving over 100 calls per day complaining abut the charges.
Not only are they repeatedly making charges to their low-income donors, but they’re doing so at a low enough rate to intentionally avoid any investigative actions by the banks.
The source for the report reveals that the Clinton’s campaign does this is to inflate the numbers they appear to be receiving from small donors.
Via the Observer :
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.
The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.
“We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department told the Observer. The source claims that the Clinton campaign has been pulling this stunt since Spring of this year. The Hillary for America campaign will overcharge small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. However, the Clinton campaign strategically doesn’t overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud.
The fraud specialist says that each complaint follows the same pattern – a donor believes they are making a small, one-time donation to the campaign, only to discover that they’ve been charged several times. These charges never amount to over $100 in total, avoiding extra scrutiny form the banks.
He charged, “she’s (Clinton) stealing from her poorest supporters.”
The bank specialist said similar tactics are used by porn companies.
This isn’t a misunderstanding either.
During Clinton’s 2007 campaign for president, the New York Times reported that Hillary’s camp “had to subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars from its first-quarter total because of a variety of problems, including donors whose credit cards were mistakenly charged twice.”
In 2008, it was revealed that Team Clinton had to refund a staggering $2.8 million to donors, leading the far-left Daily Kos to ask “Is the Clinton campaign gaming the system, running up lots of debt, then double dipping people’s credit cards, waiting until more donations come to cover the refunds on those credit cards, taking advantage of the FEC inaction?”
Following the rules is a hard thing for the Clintons. Why would this race be any different?
Tags
Who is online
36 visitors
Literallly stealing from supporters. How low can they go?
Holy shit. If that is true, it's outright theft.
Of course if it's up to the DOJ to act on it, they would find every excuse to deal with it after the election. You Americans are so naive, so apt to be bamboozled. Who was it who said "There's a sucker born every minute."
wasn't to hard to investigate buzz, simply went to the original observer article , that had links to the NYT articles that explained how and why it happened back in 07 . that is if the NYT is still considered a reputable news source.......I know how that's come into question lately.
No surprise that Kushner would support his father-in-law.
Even though I've lost any respect I used to have for the NYT due to the direction of its bias on many matters, I don't think it would flirt with libel actions like the National Enquirer and publish something that isn't true, as long as you can see through the bias.
I can understand that buzz, but to me after reading the times report from 07/08 , the money 2.8 million , had to be returned later as a readjustment , so technically they took an unauthorized sum as a loan with no interest, and padded their numbers of donors to the FEC , I'm no lawyer but isn't that Usery? even though its paid back? and now its being reported its happening again? I say go ahead and attack the sources , but address the content allegations .
"usury" would not be applicable here. It deals with unconscionable interest charged by a lender. The "lenders" in this case were the account holders who were cheated by the borrower.
"I say go ahead and attack the sources , but address the content allegations ."
If you aimed that comment at me and it was not just an agreement on your part to do what you suggest by it, then I think I didn't attack the sources and did comment on the allegations.
no buzz it wasn't aimed at you . but it was aimed at john , he has a habit of attacking sources to try to mitigate the accusations .
Sorry Mark. Your comment started by addressing me directly so I was unaware that you had aimed that sentence elsewhere. No problem.
he has a habit of attacking sources to try to mitigate the accusations .
Jared Kushner, the publisher of the seeded article source, works for the Donald Trump campaign (and is married to Trump's closest advisor.) If that is not a conflict of interest for this story than nothing ever is.
What facts are incorrect?
How would you know? Have you heard the other side of the story? How many campaigns double bill online donators? Does Trump do it? Do other campaigns? What is the campaign's explanation?
The source has a bias against Clinton. The publisher is married to trump's daughter for christs sake. The publisher is a senior advisor to the Trump campaign.
You have to be kidding saying this story should just be accepted as 100% accurate.
I never said it was 100% accurate. I asked you what facts were not accurate?
Yet again you think that to attack the source is the way to declare that facts contained therein are false. Some may be, which is why I asked you to point out which ones were inaccurate since you are disputing the article, basing your opinion only on bias. If I were so gullible, I would believe everything you have to say.
John and I feel that conflict of interest is negated to a degree because of the links in the seeded article , to the NYT that ran the stories back in 07/08, and its the NYT article that points out that the amounts charged without authorization , stay just under the mandated reporting and investigation by the banks limits, which is still theft even if its claimed to be an error , and paid back at a later date. so if the article is accurate ( both ) which I seem to think they are , even though the money is eventually paid back , it still has an air of something " crooked" about it to coin a phrase.
Via the Observer :
--
Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.
I wonder what type of stories the Observer has about Hillary Clinton
A Very Bad Poll for Hillary Clinton
It’s Been a Very Bad Week for Hillary
Mainstream Media: Defeat Trump by Attacking His Supporters
New ABC/Washington Post Poll: Clinton as Disliked as Trump
The Six Clinton Foundation Scandals Everyone Needs to Know
Entire Media Freaks Out After Trump Over-Performance in Forum
Media Amnesia on Candidate Health
As Mark said Buzz, "Hhheeeerrrreeeesssss Johnny". Can always rely on him to attack your source or author. 'Course he forgets he uses his favorite "Mother Jones" and gets miffed if you mention that to him.
I think most of us are aware of his style by now, and pay little attention to his attacks on source. We are smart enough to separate the facts from the opinion and bias, but John refuses to acknowledge facts and thinks that we pay attention to his incorrect inflated accusations. (For example we could be critical of a terrorist action committed by a Muslim and he would accuse us of hating all Muslims.) I was once one of the Directors of a Mood Disorders Association and am quite familiar with obsessive-compulsive behaviour.
Gee the Clinton's are still pulling scams with the slush fund ...I mean "charity" who would have guessed?/s Did anyone really think anything was going to change when she said she would have Bill step down and Kelsey will run it? Are her constituents really that stupid? Or is it that they just don't care she is a criminal?
"“We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department told the Observer."
Oh, the irony!
I know I read that and went "really?" then LMAO.