LawNewz: A pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC is accused of accepting illegal donations from a company that holds contracts with the federal government. That’s a big no-no under federal law. LawNewz.com reviewed the Center for Response Politics online federal database and found the Massachusetts-based Suffolk Construction donated at least $200,000 to the pro-Hillary group, Priorities USA, in July and December of 2015. As The Hill first reported, at the time of making the contributions, Suffolk Construction also held multiple contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense worth nearly $1 million. LawNewz confirmed that report through a search on usaspending.gov. more here
6 Comments on Largest Pro-Hillary Clinton Group Accused of Taking Illegal Donations
Comments are closed.
Hey, let’s have another house investigation hearing. That should conclude in 4 years, maybe. Another report and FBI investigation that goes nowhere.
The federal election commission will find no irregularities, the Clinton Pac will reimburse the Construction company. No harm, no foul.
Same old deal, clinton corruption.
That’s nothing compared to the voter fraud we’ve experienced for the past 8 years … and this coming Nov. should be a duesy.
izlamo delenda est …
The H-Bag is bought and paid for by the world’s highest bidders.
She will gladly sell herself to whomever throws the most money at her.
That makes her the biggest fukin Whore in the country… maybe even the planet!
IN terms of importance, or being susceptible to undue influence, I’m pretty far down the tottam pole in my job out here in California… Thank God.
But I can’t allow a member of the public to buy me even a cup of coffee, black, without my being required to fill out a form about it. HRC et al either knew and decided to violate the law or they didn’t think about it in which case they are incompetent. WIth them it could be both.
@All Too Much
Apparently you know your position in life, I’m sure the liberal elitists will sleep well tonight.
And these illegal donations surprises. . . who? . . . .anyone?. . . Beuler?. . . Beuler?