Undercover Video: Trump SuperPAC Laundering Foriegn Donations

Exclusive investigation: Donald Trump faces foreign donor fundraising scandal

Great America PAC

Senior figures involved with the Great America PAC, one of the leading "independent" groups organising television advertisements and grassroots support for the Republican nominee, sought to channel $2 million from a Chinese donor into the campaign to elect the billionaire despite laws prohibiting donations from foreigners.

In return, undercover reporters purporting to represent the fictitious donor were assured that he would obtain “influence” if Mr Trump made it to the White House.

Last week Eric Beach, the PAC’s co-chairman, confirmed to the reporters at an event in Las Vegas that their client's support would be "remembered" if Mr Trump became president.

Undercover reporters posing as consultants acting for a Chinese benefactor approached specific pro-Trump and pro-Clinton fundraisers and groups after receiving information that individuals were involved in hiding foreign donations.

Sources also said PACs, “independent” organisations that can raise unlimited sums of money to lobby for or against particular candidates, were being used to circumvent rules.

The pro-Clinton organisations did not respond to initial approaches. But earlier this month an undercover reporter spoke by telephone to Eric Beach, co-chairman of the pro-Trump Great America PAC, which has the backing of Rudy Giuliani, one of Mr Trump’s most senior advisers, as well as the billionaire's son Eric.

Here we see the route by which Trump SuperPacs laundry foreign donations from foreign donors and promise influence.

The confidence by which these men explain how to laundry the foreign donations in trade for influence leads me to believe that this is not a one time transgression.

Have at boys...and flame away...

Snark, anger, rage and posts discussing Clinton have nothing to do with the evidence...but go for it.

a reply to: Indigo5

Is this the same super PAC trump disavowed back in April?

According to the Washington Post, that appears to be the case.

a reply to: Indigo5

Leaked Memo: Hillary Wants Clinton Foundation To Keep Accepting Foreign Donations

The Clinton Foundation has been accepting foreign donations against the Obama administration agreement

Pro-Hillary group takes $200K in banned donations

"'What difference, at this point, does it make?" - Quote

a reply to: Indigo5

But...but...only Hillary can be corrupt, right? I mean they even call her "crooked Hillary" for God's sake!!! How can this be???? Must be a lie. I will stick my fingers in my ears while saying lalalalalalala crooked Hillary lalalalalalalaaaaaa and shut my eyes at the same time because Satan in the Flesh Beelzebub Rodham Clinton is no doubt currently bathing in baby blood WHILE WE SPEAK and must be stopped at all costs.... Whew! I succeeded in making Hillary worse in my mind so that I can support...

Oh who am I kidding. I can't continue even with sarcasm.

My heart hurts.

Indigo - good thread. Sorry to go off on a tangent. It must be the concussion I have from banging my head against the wall...

I wonder how they will explain this? "Um. Yeah. So we said we'd take the money, but we were just BS'ing about the influence part, you know, to make it SOUND like we'd do that, then we'd screw them over and laugh and laugh..." ??

Is it illegal to accept foreign donations for a dark-money super pac?

AB

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Hmmm... why would he have a Chinese donor when he's consistently saying we need to stop importing from China?

Oh, wait. It was a fake donation just to call the campaign out on taking "foreign donations".

This isn't news , campaigns love taking donations. They don't give a rat's @ss where it comes from. This happens every election. Whether it's donations disguised as being from the Klan or terrorists or from one of America's rival countries. The truth is, political campaigns love money. They love donations. It's free money. They don't care if it came from the Martians who are about to vaporize the planet earth.

These fake donations made for investigative purposes don't prove anything new. The real donations are something to worry about, and happen all the time, on both sides of the aisle.

Plus, it is obviously edited.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

Is this the same super PAC trump disavowed back in April?

According to the Washington Post, that appears to be the case.

That was back when Trump was still claiming self-funding and the Super Pac ran counter to his message.

After that he embraced all of his Super Pacs as evidenced by Great America Pac's continued fundraising on his behalf, over 16M this year alone.

as your link explains

The campaign has not, however, ruled out using super PACs to fund a general election fight, which could be exorbitantly expensive.

So you are confusing Primaries with General Election..And "Self Funding" with Trumps current embrace of SuperPacs.

Primaries vs. General Election..

a reply to: Indigo5

It's most certainly interesting news but judging from all your posts you have zero balance when it comes to this election..It is clear you are on the side of Hillary...

All I ask from ATS members to focus on both parties...

a reply to: Indigo5

but this kind of investigation is riddled with lies and criminals manipulating evidence. Or is that just when it's against the DNC?

desperate attempts are, well, desperate.

a reply to: Indigo5

That's convenient. I'm the one confusing things. I merely stated this is the superPAC Trump disavowed back in April. The balancing beam of mental gymnastics is yours to deal with.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

That's convenient. I'm the one confusing things. I merely stated this is the superPAC Trump disavowed back in April.

Yes...In April, because he was claiming during the primaries not to use SuperPacs and their existence was contrary to his story.

Les...are you denying that Trump has now embraced his SuperPacs in the General Election?
Or are you claiming that April is November? Or that a Primary is not different from General election?

Curious as to how much you intend to molest reality here in your defense?

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: Indigo5

It's most certainly interesting news but judging from all your posts you have zero balance when it comes to this election..It is clear you are on the side of Hillary...

All I ask from ATS members to focus on both parties...

Wow...

So we can discard all OPs and evidence from anyone that is Pro-Trump and Anti-Hillary on ATS?

You might want to avoid the political boards...

Strange that no one has actually discussed the evidence here?

a reply to: Indigo5

No you may want to avoid pushing your Hillary Agenda...I will keep commenting on trolls such as yourself because you add nothing to the conversation..I may as well listen to MSNBC if I'm going to read your posts...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

That's convenient. I'm the one confusing things. I merely stated this is the superPAC Trump disavowed back in April. The balancing beam of mental gymnastics is yours to deal with.

Not sure why you want to let the OP off the hook when you have already debunked the thread in its first response... You are being nice I think.

Indigo,
You seem to be making up facts about LesMisanthropes source that he linked.
Please read it again. Closer.

Trump clearly disavowed the Great American PAC completely. Then there is a hinted supposition that Trump may need to rely on super PACs during his presidential bid.

Tell me first how does that equate to "embracing all Super PACS...", but more importantly how does this demonstrate a negation of his previous position on the GA PAC specifically as referenced in your OP?

Wait.... Don't just say it. Show me a link where Trump is documented as reversing his opinion on Great American PAC. Because that is the only one relevent to you OP...
A link would suffice.

Thanks.

Super PAC's cannot have any oversight from candidates but act independently. So, this is not Trump but someone he already disavowed a while ago. Nice try though.

a reply to: Indigo5

Yes...In April, because he was claiming during the primaries not to use SuperPacs and their existence was contrary to his story.

Les...are you denying that Trump has now embraced his SuperPacs in the General Election?
Or are you claiming that April is November? Or that a Primary is not different from General election?

Curious as to how much you intend to molest reality here in your defense?

Neither. I'm claiming that Trump disavowed that particular superPAC back in April, which is obvious by reading what I wrote.

I never said anything about primary or general election; never said anything about November; never said anything about whether this superPAC is laundering foreign donations; I never said anything about embracing or not embracing superPACS; and never said anything about Clinton, nor do I need to. I merely helped out your OP by sharing pertinent information that you were perhaps ignorant to, or actively suppressing, given that it was in the article you furiously copy and pasted from.

Asked if Mr Trump's campaign was aware of the scheme suggested by Mr Benton, his spokeswoman said: " We publicly disavowed this group back in April. This is public via Federal Election Commission filings.

a reply to: defuntion

It's not quite debunking the claims by the OP. This group may or may not be guilty of laundering foreign donations. But I think we all know the guilt by association being attempted here.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Indigo5

but this kind of investigation is riddled with lies and criminals manipulating evidence. Or is that just when it's against the DNC?

desperate attempts are, well, desperate.

I find it sooo ironic that some people are demanding better evidence here, but when some Podesta emails mention pizza, its "oh my god that's proof they are pedophiles!"

You guys are hilarious.