Research uncovers donation 'mules,' unemployed who donated millions to Dems

ferengi

Well-known member

358,000 checks added up to $24 million for Warnock alone​

A new report has revealed research into donation “mules,” those unemployed people across American who donated hundreds of thousands of times, adding up to millions of dollars, to Democrats.

The Gateway Pundit is reporting on the research from engineer Chris Gleason, who launched a project to determine who was most likely “to vote for which candidate and how likely were they to support particular candidates and causes.”

What he and a small group of others determined was that Washington State had a massive network of campaign finance mules. They identified massive numbers of registered voters in Washington State who were making thousands of donations to Democrat party candidates nationwide and progressive PACs. The individual donation amounts were not large. These donations were small and had been intentionally set up to avoid throwing up reg flags,” the report explained.
”These ‘Money Mules’ were not wealthy individuals. They were average Americans, living in an average house in an average neighborhood. Or at least that is how it would appear. The investigative group observed massive patterns and red flags in the data. One of the biggest flags was that all of these campaign finance mules in Washington State had been making donations to Raphael Warnock in Georgia.”

A key finding in the research was that “these very active donors were all unemployed,” the report said.

 
If they had evidence of people making donations through another person, they would be going to law enforcement, not to make right-wing click-bait in social medai, because donations for someone else (so-called "straw donations") to avoid the legal limit for one person are strictly prohibited by Federal law. The fact that they have not done this is proof they have no evidence.
 
If they had evidence of people making donations through another person, they would be going to law enforcement, not to make right-wing click-bait in social medai, because donations for someone else (so-called "straw donations") to avoid the legal limit for one person are strictly prohibited by Federal law. The fact that they have not done this is proof they have no evidence.
Exactly. Dinesh d"Souza (the guy responsible for that RW "documentary" called 2000 mules) was charged and found guilty of making straw donations to political candidates and sentenced to a halfway house followed by probation. Trump pardoned him.
 
Exactly. Dinesh d"Souza (the guy responsible for that RW "documentary" called 2000 mules) was charged and found guilty of making straw donations to political candidates and sentenced to a halfway house followed by probation. Trump pardoned him.
Poisoning the well
 
Your evidence is? Why do you assume law enforcement would do anything?
Why do you assume law enforcement would not do what they normally do, which is to enforce the law? Regardless of what anyone thinks law enforcement might do, the normal thing for people to do when they have evidence of illegal wrongdoing is to bring that evidence to law enforcement. The only reason not to do it is because they have no evidence.
 
Why do you assume law enforcement would not do what they normally do, which is to enforce the law?
Shifting the burden - avoiding the question. Your evidence is? Why do you assume law enforcement would do anything?
Regardless of what anyone thinks law enforcement might do, the normal thing for people to do when they have evidence of illegal wrongdoing is to bring that evidence to law enforcement.
Prove LE would do anything.
The only reason not to do it is because they have no evidence.
Prove it.
 
If they had evidence of people making donations through another person, they would be going to law enforcement, not to make right-wing click-bait in social medai, because donations for someone else (so-called "straw donations") to avoid the legal limit for one person are strictly prohibited by Federal law. The fact that they have not done this is proof they have no evidence.
Umm, the point is to keep small donations within legal limits.

Oh and Washington state individuals often give hundreds of millions to Georgia state elections.

What is happening is even these difficult to find election riggings are being identified and caught.

These things and more are easily seen when one is not a leftists shill, like yourself.
 
Shifting the burden - avoiding the question. Your evidence is?
My evidence is observing what people normally do when they have evidence to illegal activity. They bring their evidence to law enforcement.

Why do you assume law enforcement would do anything?
I don't have to assume anything. I just observe what people normally do.

Prove it.
"Prove it" is a response that is way over-used, and normally indicates that one does not have any rational rejoinder.
 
My evidence is observing what people normally do when they have evidence to illegal activity. They bring their evidence to law enforcement.
Avoiding the question. Your evidence is? Why do you assume law enforcement would do anything?
"Prove it" is a response that is way over-used, and normally indicates that one does not have any rational rejoinder.
Pathetic excuse for your avoidance.
 
Back
Top