Many report overcharges after donating to Clinton Campaign
The New York Observer has broken a story about donors to the Clinton campaign being systematically overcharged.
A source from the Wells Fargo Fraud Department revealed that their bank typically refunds between $700 and $1200 a day in Clinton campaign overcharges. He also described the pattern of overcharging as being identical to that used by seedy porn sites that keep overcharges to below $100, because that's the cut off line below which the bank doesn't have to investigate.
Without an obligation to investigate the fraud, banks seem to be less than eager to assist the refunds. US Bank customer, 81 year old Carol Mahre got taken for a total of $94, just under the $100 threshold, and she asked her son, an attorney, to help. He told the Observer that he called the Clinton campaign "40 t 50" times in an effort to resolve the issue. Eventually he spoke to someone to assured him they would stop the charges and refund the errors.
Incredibly, the very next day, Carol’s card was charged yet again and the campaign had never reversed the initial fraudulent charges. “I was told they would stop charging my mother’s card but they never stopped.” He added that he knows his mother did not sign up for recurring payments. “She’s very good with the Internet so I know she only made a one-time payment.” Roger also pointed out that even if his mother mistakenly signed up for recurring monthly payments then she should’ve been charged for the same amount of money each month, not multiple charges for varying amounts on the same day or in the same month. Furthermore, Roger said that after the campaign was made aware of this situation, the charges should’ve stopped but they never did. [emphasis added]
It wasn't until they contacted the Minnesota Attorney General's office and a local news station that they were offered a refund, the very next day. But when they went to follow up with the AG's office, they were told it had been forwarded to the FEC, but a spokeswoman there said they don't have the case. Poof!
These don't seem to be innocent mistakes. In 2008, Clinton's campaign returned a total of $2.8 million in overcharges - triple that which Obama refunded. So far, Trump has not issued a single overcharge refund. One interesting point is that the charge backs will not be reflected in any FEC paperwork until after the election, so if you thought her small donor numbers against Bernie were bullshit, they probably were.
Comments
...grrrr....
Can't the Clintons be ethical about anything?
Sure they can.
If the ethical thing benefits the Clintons financially or personally, they will certainly do it.
Holy hell! This is blatant fraud
And since she did it in 2008 and got away with it, I guess she decided to do it again because of course no one held her accountable.
Carol who worked for the campaign in 08 was charged $3,000 and racked up $400 in overdraft fees. She couldn't get her money back until she threatened to sue them but didn't get the $400 in overdraft fees back.
The campaign can invest the money for the time it takes them to reimburse the donors.
This has got to be one of the most sleaziest things I have heard about the Clintons. Is nothing below them doing?
This needs to go viral.
Another example of Hillary standing up for women.
I feel like I need a bath.
And this is how I feel about the Clintons
And don't forget that Bill used to fly on Jeff Epstein's plane to his private island and it was known that there were sex parties happening there and that there were not only underaged girls on the island for Epstein's friends, he had a bedroom on his plane and underaged girls were on that plane.
Bill would ditch his SS detailsyto fly with Epstein to the island.
Statutory rape can be punished up to 20 years in prison. Guess how much Epstein got? 13 months! Why? Because he made a plea agreement not to mention who else flew on the plane or went to the island.
Even if Bill didn't take part in the sex with the underaged girls, he knew about it and didn't turn Epstein into the authorities.
I don't want them near the WH again.
And here I thought that plea deals were generally for
turning on your accomplishes, not covering them up!
With the Clintons, shouldn't cash be in canvass bags?
Why be reportable? Just stuff hundred dollar bills in a bag and hand it off to them. That's how the mob does it, and it works out just fine for them.
Be a Friend of the Earth, cherish it and protect it.
If you click on the links in the Observer article
you'll find that two of them take you to diaries at TOP, where they were all in high dudgeon over the same issue with HRH's campaign in 2008.
Wonder what would happen if I posted this there with links to those old diaries? Hmm...
"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained." - Mark Twain
Post what you have: knowledge is a good thing /nt
Be a Friend of the Earth, cherish it and protect it.
I donated to Stein's campaign
You know what? They didn't overcharge me anything!!!
Not that it's really news or anything . . . just sayin'.
I hate to bring this up but this site is owned by:
The Observer is owned by real estate scion Jared Kushner, who married Ivanka Trump in 2009, making enthusiastic Romney supporter Donald Trump his father-in-law.Oct 16, 2012
***
This is from the 'author' of the article on The Silent Majority PAC Facebook page.
Liz Crokin to The Silent Majority PAC
July 11 ·
As a Trump supporter and someone who works in the media and has known Trump for years, I've been so sickened by the lies and attacks launched at him since he's announced his run for president. This inspired me to write a column about him shedding light on his true character with examples of the many acts of kindness he's committed his entire life. I've had the privilege to meet him and cover him for years, and I couldn't sit back and listen to the lies perpetuated about him in the media any longer without taking a stand. If you care to know the truth about him, please read and share. Here's the Donald Trump I know!
https://www.facebook.com/thesilentmajoritypac/posts/10157110326275092
***
That's why I didn't post the story earlier, I tried to check out its bona fides before I did. I don't know how true it is or not. I do not being in a position of defending the Clinton creature but I just don't know about this one.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Can the story be corroborated?
Or is it completely made-up?
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
If I could have I would have posted it. Right after reading your
post I went looking again to see if it could be 'verified' and again nothing. There are other right-wing sites that are printing about it now (and even TOP is whining about it), but ALL the damn stories use The Observer as their 'source'. I googled "Hillary Clinton overcharging donors" and got a boatload of crap back, but all used the Observer as the source. (It was an'Exclusive' after all.) Here's the link I went through to find an independent report not citing The Observer.
https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS695US695&espv=2&b...
Not saying it's not true. Just saying it's Trump's son-in-law's site and the 'reporter' of the story is highly suspicious. Not to mention the reporter that broke the 'Exclusive' is a Trump PAC member.
(Included in that link is the link to the TOP article. I didn't read it though.)
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Carol Mahre is real
Carol Mahre is real, first reported by the twin cities' City Pages
http://www.citypages.com/news/sweet-old-woman-asks-hillary-clinton-campa...
They link to the TV segment.
Funny thing: Snopes has chimed in. "Unproven"
They called Wells Fargo and got a "No comment," "this has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign." But they didn't do a lick of research on the easily verifiable Carol Mahre.
Shills.
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
Snopes also said the Wiki
Snopes also said the Wiki leak story of Jane Sanders being physically threatened by the Clinton campaign was unproven...well, how can it be proven when Wiki or Putin have yet to release the e-mails? And Snopes has somehow gone inside their data and they KNOW its not there and thus unproven? In other words, I no longer trust Snoopes when they say something is unproven!
Thats really biting the hand that feeds you.
OMG
Have they no shame. Please note that similar things happened in her first presidential campaign and were not exclusively reported through Trumpist sources.
RCP this morning shows, in a 4 way poll, Clinton at 41 and change percent and Trump at 40% and change. I think we are going to see a lot more dirt being rolled out on both sides. Also note the article at DWT, a formerly excellent site which has lately climbed into bed with Clinton, about Trump's overseas business connections.
Mary Bennett
Hmmm
Warren Buffett is one of her advisors.
Warren Buffett owns Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo does the exact same type of fraud with clients.
Coincidence?
What I Did To Prevent This
Rather than expose my everyday credit card to "accidents" like this, I bought single-use gift cards. They cost me $4 and up to use, but that is a small price to pay to protect against being overcharged. Only in one instance was it refused, so I donated the sum to another candidate and left no more donations for the refusee.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
That is a great idea! n/t
These clintons, grifters who will never change
that is who they are.
"Why Don't They Trust Her": A Look At One Of Hillary Clinton's Early Scandals
Tyler Durden's picture
by Tyler Durden
Sep 17, 2016 7:40 PM
60
SHARES
Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
In recent months the mainstream media has worked itself into a frenzy trying to defend Hillary from the various scandals surrounding her campaign. There is seemingly no end to the "plumes of smoke" emanating from the Clinton camp including questions over Benghazi, missing emails, pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, strange "medical episodes", etc, etc, etc. All the while, the press simply can't bring themselves to understand why voters never quite view her as a trustworthy candidate.
The problem, says Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal, is that the Clinton's have been embroiled in so many scandals dating all the way back to the 1970's that their name has been branded into the American psyche as being synonymous with the word "scandal" itself. While millennial voters are most familiar with the recent scandals (and we all know how well that is playing out for her, see: "Hillary's Growing "Millennial Problem" Forces A Reset"), older voters have been hearing about the Clinton escapades for over a quarter century since they first entered public life on the national level in the early 90's.
As such, the Wall Street Journal took a walk down memory lane by recounting one of Hillary's early scandals that emerged shortly after she entered the White House and came to be known afterward as "Travelgate." It was out of this first scandal that Hillary's critics said she first "revealed the soul of an East German border guard."
Then she—not he—messed it up. It was the first big case in which she showed poor judgment, a cool willingness to mislead, and a level of political aggression that gave even those around her pause. It was after this mess that her critics said she’d revealed the soul of an East German border guard.
It all started less than four months after the Clinton's moved to D.C. when 7 men working in the White House travel office were suddenly fired. The same people had been running the White House travel office for 30 years and had successfully served multiple Presidents of both parties along the way.
Hillary
Needless to say, the press at the time was very surprised by the move to brutally fire non-political, career White House staff so early into Bill's term. Under pressure to answer for the firings, the White House initially offered up multiple stories that seemed to evolve daily. Per the Wall Street Journal:
Under criticism the White House changed its story. They said that they were just trying to cut unneeded staff and save money. Then they said they were trying to impose a competitive bidding process. They tried a new explanation—the travel office shake-up was connected to Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review. (Almost immediately Mr. Gore said that was not true.) The White House then said it was connected to a campaign pledge to cut the White House staff by 25%. Finally they claimed the workers hadn’t been fired at all but placed on indefinite “administrative leave.”
Sound familiar? It's just a cough...no, it's just allergies...no, it's heat and dehydration...no, it's pneumonia...
Hillary even alleged that Bill Dale, a 30-year veteran of the
travel office, was embezzling funds and called into the FBI to
investigate. While the FBI initially balked at the case due a
lack of any evidence, they eventually relented and indicted Dale on
embezzlement charges. The trial lasted two weeks but it only took the jury two hours to acquit Dale of all charges.
Then, suddenly new details emerged from the notes of a White House staffer that suggested Hillary's plan all along was to privatize the White House travel office and put it out for "competitive bid" to private companies. And, as it turns out, Hillary had already identified the perfect winner of the "competitive" bidding process as none other than Harry Thomason, who just happened to be a long-time friend and fundraiser for the Clintons and had provided travel services for their 1992 campaign.
It emerged in contemporaneous notes of a high White House staffer that the travel-office workers were removed because Mrs. Clinton wanted to give their jobs—their “slots,” as she put it, according to the notes of director of administration David Watkins—to political operatives who’d worked for Mr. Clinton’s campaign. And she wanted to give the travel office business itself to loyalists. There was a travel company based in Arkansas with long ties to the Clintons. There was a charter travel company founded by Harry Thomason, a longtime friend and fundraiser, which had provided services in the 1992 campaign. If the travel office were privatized and put to bid, he could get the business.
As the scandal grew, Hillary repeatedly denied any knowledge of the the firings, claiming under oath that she had “no role in the decision to terminate the employees” and that she did not “direct that any action be taken by anyone.” Unsurprisingly, Hillary also had a difficult time remembering the specifics of her conversations with various staffers connected to the scandal. Perhaps she fell and bumped her head back in the early 90's as well?
Of course, after 3 years passed an investigation by the GAO found that, in fact, Hillary did play a direct role in the firing of the 7 travel office employees. Moreover, a memo originally written by White House Chief of Staff, David Watkins, surfaced which directly connected Hillary to the event saying “there would be hell to pay” if staffers did not conform “to the first lady’s wishes.”
But, of course, by that time, the scandal had passed, the press had moved on and Hillary was able to simply dismiss any new questions as a futile effort of right-wing conspiracy nuts to raise doubts about a scandal that had been put to bed long ago. A plan that the Wall Street Journal dubbed the "Clinton Scandal Ritual":
"Clinton Scandal Ritual: lie, deny, revise, claim not to remember specifics, stall for time. When it passes, call the story “old news” full of questions that have already been answered. 'As I’ve repeatedly said . . .'"
Seemingly not much has changed over the past 25 years....
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley