Ace of Spades HQ

October 07, 2012

Rumor: Major Donor Scandal About To Rock White House
— JohnE.

So, this started to trickle out Thursday night when the Washington Examiner published a story questioning whether Obama's poor debate performance might be related to a soon-to-be broken donor scandal story.

President Obama's reelection campaign, rattled by his Wednesday night debate performance, could be in for even worse news. According to knowledgeable sources, a national magazine and a national web site are preparing a blockbuster donor scandal story.
Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday.
According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.

Drudge picked it up that night and teased it as a top-of-the-column story, but it had disappeared by Friday.

Next, the Obama campaign shocked everyone by announcing they had raised an unbelievable $181 million in September. Rather curiously, only 2% of the total amount raised was reportable.

The campaign said that just over 1.8 million people made donations to the campaign last month. According to the campaign, over 500k of these were brand-new donors, having neither given in 2008 nor 2012. 98% of contributions were under the reporting threshold of $250. Of these, the average contribution was $53.

This "national magazine and web site" is believed to be Newsweek/Daily Beast. This might seem impossible, but they did publish this thorough take-down of Obama in August and Eli Lake has been a one man wrecking crew in his Libya investigation.

Next week, same magazine will expose Obama campaign's illegal donor scandal. twitter.com/guypbenson/staÂ…
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) October 5, 2012

Moe Lane is sold as well. We shall see. I'll have more on this later. I poked around Thursday night and noticed some hastily-made odd changes to Obama's site (teaser: donate.barackobama.com now forwards to contribute.barackobama.com, a change made recently).

Update: Katie Pavlich at Townhall says the story could break as early as tonight.

Posted by: JohnE. at 03:26 PM | Comments (187)
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Pretty sure this happened in 2008 as well, but God Forbid an interruption of History Being Made. Somebody has to reverse the rising sea levels, after all.

Posted by: amirite at October 07, 2012 09:21 AM (3ziXJ)

2 I don't see where this matters, the Obama campaign has cheated for years and no one in authority even wagged their finger. Barry's going down over his failed policies.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at October 07, 2012 09:22 AM (QupBk)

It Did happen in 08.. not a word from media. Can we expect the same this time?

Posted by: jewells45 says Romney wins in a landslide at October 07, 2012 09:23 AM (UljOc)

4 Wouldn't that be a kick in the head.

Posted by: huerfano at October 07, 2012 09:23 AM (bAGA/)

5 Chicago politics will rule, and block the publication. Nice income tax return you got there, it would be a shame if you were audited

Posted by: museisluse at October 07, 2012 09:24 AM (k3sO2)

6 I'm more interested in seeing the Romney administration throwing people in jail wholesale.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at October 07, 2012 09:25 AM (QupBk)

7 I REALLY hope someone figured out a way to trace some of those cards.

It would be really interesting if those cards came from oh, I don't know, Libya!!

Posted by: Miss Marple at October 07, 2012 09:26 AM (GoIUi)

8 I will not click on any MSM story about this now. They had their chance in 2008. They deserve to go broke (broker?) for not figuring this out and reporting on it then.

Posted by: Mama AJ at October 07, 2012 09:26 AM (SUKHu)

9 Barrack Obama is only two letters away from....Backroom Obama. (With a bit of juxtaposition) .

Posted by: rich evil republican bastard at October 07, 2012 09:27 AM (KG4V3)

10 I just got home. Who fixed the blog?

Posted by: Ed Anger at October 07, 2012 09:28 AM (tOkJB)

11 Newsweek apparently may decide to make some actual money in the free market by doing some real journalism? Strange, these days. Fast and Furious and Libya just hanging out there for curious media. Enough angles on Libya to write for months.

Posted by: Beagle at October 07, 2012 09:29 AM (sOtz/)

12 It happened before '08, folks. Billy Jeff got all kinds of illegal money from China and Indonesia.

Posted by: mediumheadboy at October 07, 2012 09:29 AM (aHR5E)

I think it's real. But who is going to go after him? Holder's Justice Dept? LOL.

Obama is above the law and his blind faith supporters do not care how corrupt and hypocritical Obama is.

Of course Obama is getting illegal donations from the Russian Mafia and the Chi-coms. Duh.

Posted by: Fresh at October 07, 2012 09:29 AM (O7ksG)

14 Mitt will raise taxes! Mitt will lower the millionaire/billionaire tax rate!

Posted by: Stephanie Cutter at October 07, 2012 09:29 AM (wIgpo)

15 The new attorney general need only unleash the CPA's then let the tuncoats take a number for their plea deals. It won't take long. And don't forget the non-publish condition so they can savor their freedom withou too much splendor.

Posted by: DM at October 07, 2012 09:29 AM (svdpV)

16 It would be nice for our side to have an October Suprise, FOR ONCE!

Posted by: LGoPs at October 07, 2012 09:30 AM (PAGFp)

17 I suspect the media will give this the "we already covered this in 2008 and found nothing (because we didn't look and just published the Obama campaign's press release)" treatment.

Posted by: RoyalOil at October 07, 2012 09:30 AM (zJTi7)

18 from breitbart http://shar.es/5l1P6

Posted by: phoenixgirl what did huma abedin know? team dagny at October 07, 2012 09:30 AM (Ho2rs)

19 Oops: turncoats and without. Thanks!

Posted by: DM at October 07, 2012 09:31 AM (svdpV)

If only they hadn't put John Kerry in charge of the debate prep AND the donation web site.

Posted by: Mama AJ at October 07, 2012 09:31 AM (SUKHu)

21 Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have asked not to be disturbed until retirement, so knock it off with the "breaking law" melodrama.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows that poor people don't know how to show up for work at October 07, 2012 09:32 AM (AZGON)

22 Remarkable! Stupendous! That Obama MUST have Irish roots cuz the Luck O'The Irish is smilin' on him JUST when he needed it most! Imagine! Final month of the campaign and: Unemployment drops below 8% & Record month for campaign donations! Makes me want to rub my Powerball ticket on his head!

Posted by: Reality Bites at October 07, 2012 09:33 AM (AzwZn)

23 I dunno. I think it's just a rumor. Don't hang your hat on it coming out.

Posted by: Victoria at October 07, 2012 09:34 AM (tV5ow)

24 Unless a high-level Obama campaign official is arrested this week, this scandal, no matter how real, will have no effect on the election. Can anyone imagine Eric Holder ordering such an arrest? Don't see it, unless the FBI is more disgruntled than we've been led to believe.

Posted by: JewishOdysseus at October 07, 2012 09:35 AM (WCzJ6)

25 We all knew it was going on in 2008. And every bit of information said that you had to intentionally turn off the credit card verification system. There could be no "oops it was an accident."

Posted by: buzzion - Free Kratos at October 07, 2012 09:36 AM (GULKT)

26 Romney can call him on it at the remaining debates.

Posted by: Othered at October 07, 2012 09:36 AM (EuW9O)

27 This won't matter because the awesome jobs report from Friday is making my boyfriend surge in the polls

Posted by: gerg at October 07, 2012 09:38 AM (wwsoB)

28 Can't imagine the "mainstream" media will cover this at all. The real takeaway is that if/when we take the Senate and retain the House, tightening up laws regarding online contributions needs to be a high priority. Seems like the kind of shit you can tack on to a bigger bill to get it through without Senate Dems filibustering it (I'm sure it's somehow "racist" to require credit card addresses to be verified or something).

Posted by: Buzz at October 07, 2012 09:39 AM (3cM9S)

...And every bit of information said that you had to intentionally turn off the credit card verification system. There could be no "oops it was an accident."

I do not understand why this is not criminal? The only explanation I can think of is that there is a codicile in the law that says that it's only criminal if Republicans do it.

Fuck.

Posted by: LGoPs at October 07, 2012 09:39 AM (PAGFp)

30 27 Romney can call him on it at the remaining debates.

Posted by: Othered at October 07, 2012 01:36 PM (EuW9O)

"And speaking of math, Mr, President...."

Posted by: Craig Poe at October 07, 2012 09:39 AM (BVkEs)

31 If it is indeed Newsweek that I think there is a better than even chance the story will be shelved. I think that Obama takedown story was cover (no pun intended.) They new the rest of their coverage would be glowing and the "The Democrat's Reagan" was coming. What's one cover story criticizing Obama? I feel less confident this will see the light of day. It was going on in 2008, everyone knew it was going on, and the media ignored it then as well. I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by: Tommy V at October 07, 2012 09:39 AM (ZYlKz)

32 OT, but only slightly: The administration removed a 16-man SOF security team and a 6-man State Dept security force from Libya in August. Lt. Col Andy Wood, who commanded the larger group, is scheduled to testify before Congress this week. Gateway Pundit: http://goo.gl/HpZL2 Heads should roll.

Posted by: Scobface at October 07, 2012 09:40 AM (IoNBC)

33 The scandal is important because it moves more Independents away from Ebola and toward Mitt. It also cements in place the ones that have done so already. The fact it will lead to no arrests, prosecutions, convictions, resignations, or firings is irrelevant.

Posted by: eman at October 07, 2012 09:40 AM (Wp4rQ)

34 Meh. Remember, election laws only apply to Republicans. Republicans themselves assent to this. Democrats proudly cheat and win, happy to let Republicans tell themselves they are better people for being losers playing a rigged game.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows that poor people don't know how to show up for work at October 07, 2012 09:40 AM (AZGON)

35 LGoPs - You are right. Only repubs get called on the carpet. This Clintons were and are notorious for this shit.

Posted by: Infidel at October 07, 2012 09:40 AM (CVAqO)

36 Paging James O'Keefe! Paging James O'Keefe!....

Posted by: Craig Poe at October 07, 2012 09:42 AM (BVkEs)

37 Heads should roll. At MSNBC the only things rolling are eyes.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows that poor people don't know how to show up for work at October 07, 2012 09:42 AM (AZGON)

38 I remember Pamela over at Atlas Shrugs had a bunch of articles during the 2008 election about Obama's shady fundraising/getting illegal donations from overseas.

His donation sites had turned off some sort of standard credit card fraud check, making donations untraceable or something? I'm not really sure. That and some articles about middle easterners raising funds for him using that method... ?

I remember at the time thinking she had made a pretty good case for someone to at least check into her allegations, but then it's Pamela at Atlas Shrugs, and to my mind even when she has a good point, she always struck me as over the top.

In any case, does anyone else remember her allegations? Is this similar to that, and since it's someone besides her making a case perhaps this time someone might actually check into it?

Posted by: FezasTwin at October 07, 2012 09:44 AM (l9sLm)

39 I remember at the time thinking she had made a pretty good case for someone to at least check into her allegations, but then it's Pamela at Atlas Shrugs, and to my mind even when she has a good point, she always struck me as over the top.

In any case, does anyone else remember her allegations? Is this similar to that, and since it's someone besides her making a case perhaps this time someone might actually check into it?

Posted by: FezasTwin at October 07, 2012 01:44 PM (l9sLm)

Its been mentioned many times already in the comments here. It was also covered here in 2008.

Posted by: buzzion - Free Kratos at October 07, 2012 09:49 AM (GULKT)

40 I remember at the time thinking she had made a pretty good case for someone to at least check into her allegations, but then it's Pamela at Atlas Shrugs, and to my mind even when she has a good point, she always struck me as over the top.

Posted by: FezasTwin at October 07, 2012 01:44 PM

Over the top?!!??? Stop staring at my TOP !!!!!!

Posted by: Pamela Geller at October 07, 2012 09:49 AM (wwsoB)

41 What's funny is that most if not all credit card processors would have the ability to provide the transaction history and sort it by CC bin (country where the card originated). So if they ever wanted to investigate it, Congress should just subpoena the processor for their statements. But that would be too much work for Congress.

Posted by: Brenden at October 07, 2012 09:52 AM (sxMJi)

42 This happened in 2008 too. But the Left media held their cartel together and left the story to the blogs, which were "conspiracy-minded" "desperate" "wingnuts" for thinking it.

This time the cartel is broken, so the reporters are free to run scoops again.

Posted by: Boulder Hobo at October 07, 2012 09:53 AM (QTHTd)

"That might be a violation of federal election laws."

See that "might", wingnuts?

I got this covered...

Posted by: Eric GunHolder at October 07, 2012 09:54 AM (1Y+hH)

44 But that would be too much work for Congress. Posted by: Brenden at October 07, 2012 01:52 PM (sxMJi) Congress has very little interest in diving deep into scandals. No one in the higher levels of government wants the true scope of scandalous behavior revealed.

Posted by: eman at October 07, 2012 09:55 AM (Wp4rQ)

45 If Republicans do take power after this election, they need to change the campaign laws to where EVERY penny of a donation to a campaign has to have 100% transparency. You give $1, your name address, employer etc. needs to be public information.

I don't really see this being a Left vs Right issue, and the fact that only 2% of Obama's fundraising this month has to be disclosed legally is absolutely jaw dropping.

I could easily see a foreign power buying influence by bundling small donations.

Posted by: Jeepers at October 07, 2012 09:56 AM (XDRsa)

46 The Teflon President will most likely survive even this.
Posted by: Soap MacTavish

Survive until election day, sure. But this is just another stone, and a big one, on the pile pressing down on Barack Obama. And he's no Giles Corey.

Posted by: pep at October 07, 2012 09:56 AM (6TB1Z)

47 AVS = Address Verification System

And the GOP better go after this shit in February instead of letting it slide like they did for Clinton and the Chinese.

Posted by: andycanuck at October 07, 2012 09:57 AM (vDl/w)

48 ...and see the sock links.

Posted by: andycanuck at October 07, 2012 09:57 AM (vDl/w)

49 NO ONE will ever get me to believe that there wasn't a reason the Blago investigation was stopped when it was.....could you imagine getting both Jesse Jackson Jr and THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT! Would only prove what a racist country we are!!!!

Posted by: BigBoy at October 07, 2012 09:58 AM (EgHYq)

50 Peter Schweizer , the guy who exposed the congress inside trading works for Newsweek/Daily beast.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at October 07, 2012 09:59 AM (AWmfW)

51 They will probably find some GOP guys who did it too, so it will be a net loser.

However, every little blow counts. It adds up. He's on the ropes after the debate, so keep it coming.

Posted by: PJ at October 07, 2012 10:00 AM (DQHjw)

52 47 If Republicans do take power after this election, they need to change the campaign laws to where EVERY penny of a donation to a campaign has to have 100% transparency. You give $1, your name address, employer etc. needs to be public information.

I don't really see this being a Left vs Right issue, and the fact that only 2% of Obama's fundraising this month has to be disclosed legally is absolutely jaw dropping.

I could easily see a foreign power buying influence by bundling small donations.

Posted by: Jeepers at October 07, 2012 01:56 PM (XDRsa)

Thats creates a huge problem with the left wing mob rule. It will give them names to attack.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at October 07, 2012 10:02 AM (AWmfW)

53 Newsweek is allowed to spank Obama now that Obama is certainly going to lose. The debate was their last hope. Now they are just struggling to stay afloat. The Cult of the Left will abandon Obama if it helps their cause. Obama-bots will weep, but the Cult does not care.

Posted by: eman at October 07, 2012 10:05 AM (Wp4rQ)

54 Freeze all of Obama's campaign funds until the legal contributions can be separated from the illegal contributions. Of course, that will take a bit of time. I expect the analysis to complete sometime in November (just like the Benghazi report).

Posted by: zippy at October 07, 2012 10:05 AM (nR8Ca)

55 "As the fall has turned crisper, a second term for Barack Obama has gotten likelier."

Posted by: RAWMUSLGLUTES, 24 September at October 07, 2012 10:07 AM (QTHTd)

56 Post updated: Katie Pavlich says the story could break tonight.

Posted by: JohnE. at October 07, 2012 10:08 AM (nRTou)

57 Greggums/Romneylosebiig/AL/Wolf hardest hit

Posted by: Evilpens at October 07, 2012 10:09 AM (ck76k)

58 How much ya wanna bet these "overseas donations" are coming from the same nations that Obama gave aide money to?

Posted by: gastorgrab at October 07, 2012 10:10 AM (FX38i)

59 OT. F...ing Cundiff

Posted by: Spypeach at October 07, 2012 10:13 AM (pwTow)

60 60 How much ya wanna bet these "overseas donations" are coming from the same nations that Obama gave aide money to?

Posted by: gastorgrab at October 07, 2012 02:10 PM (FX38i)

His Mexican cartel friends probably gave some too.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at October 07, 2012 10:14 AM (AWmfW)

61 Having a donor scandal is but the smallest scandal on could hope for but that is just the tip of all the scandals that this administration will have. That is if he loses, if he wins this and all other even the ones where hundreds have died are nothing but footnotes that the people in 60 years can teach the kids in the bunker by candle light on how to take back the country.

Posted by: Trevor (@TJexcite) at October 07, 2012 10:18 AM (PNDql)

62 Nothing will come of it even if there's dozens of dead bodies, and a truck full of blow involved.

ERIC. FUCKING. HOLDER.

Posted by: @PurpAv at October 07, 2012 10:20 AM (rbbWZ)

63 Nothing legal will come of it, but something political surely can.

Posted by: eman at October 07, 2012 10:22 AM (Wp4rQ)

64 Posted by: @PurpAv at October 07, 2012 02:20 PM (rbbWZ)

Media wont push this , but Romney might force them.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at October 07, 2012 10:22 AM (AWmfW)

65 I call bullshit on this.

Me and Minnie and Goofy should be able to donate $49 as often as we want.

Posted by: Mickey Mouse at October 07, 2012 10:37 AM (Qxdfp)

66 The story is just going to get buried deep inside Norah O'Donnell's twat.

Posted by: Mr Wonderful at October 07, 2012 10:38 AM (6/bOE)

This smells very fishy considering the Newsweak connection

Oabam is their boyfriend.

Probably be turned into a trumped-up Romney scandal somehow.

Posted by: Mr Wonderful at October 07, 2012 10:49 AM (6/bOE)

68 See? This is why we need to continue funding PBS. Because they break important stories like this that highlight the corruption of the administration. It's a valuable check on power that helps to protect our republic.

Wait, they didn't break this?

Oh.

Well, Big Bird is pretty funny.

Posted by: Warden at October 07, 2012 11:05 AM (0DlnM)

69 It really is sad that there is this, "so what?" "Obama always cheats and gets away with it," and "the media will cover for him" attitude. It's mostly true, but we need to press the evilness of this. Romney should take him to the mat on this, too. I suspect he will if it's loaded. Finally, let's hope there is something so ugly in this, that the MSM cannot ignore it. And, something that stays with you comes out of it. Something absolutely unforgivable and unforgettable. I'm so sick of the Democrats getting away with being so very very dirty.

Posted by: Donald Trump at October 07, 2012 11:05 AM (LpQbZ)

70 @71 Man, when Donald Trump thinks you're dirty, you're really dirty.

Posted by: JDTAY at October 07, 2012 11:14 AM (a0nis)

71 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at October 07, 2012 11:21 AM (6o4Fb)

72 Man, when Donald Trump thinks you're dirty, you're really dirty. Posted by: JDTAY at October 07, 2012 03:14 PM (a0nis) socker punch ouch

Posted by: well played at October 07, 2012 11:40 AM (LpQbZ)

73 Who knows? Maybe the failing Newsweek operation decided to attempt actual journalism in order to save itself.

Posted by: packsoldier at October 07, 2012 12:04 PM (H33g1)

74 For everyone chanting: "Eric Holder": Eric Holder isn't going to be there after January 20th. TFG knows it, too.

Posted by: Mung the Merciless at October 07, 2012 12:05 PM (t6UH3)

75 @69 Mr wonderful Or the MSM will play it that both candidates are guilty of the same thing. (Yes I know there is some juvenile joke I should have about 69 next to Mr wonderful)

Posted by: long island at October 07, 2012 12:13 PM (kzp9t)

76 @ComradeArthur "Obama's campaign acknowledged .a misconfiguration of their web software allowed some donations ..."

I tweeted back on what a lucky break this "misconfiguration failure" allowed the money to go through.

Posted by: lowandslow at October 07, 2012 12:21 PM (GZitp)

77 According to the rumor ... knowledge of this scandal is why Obama did such a shitty job at the debate. If TFG really had knowledge of this scandal why make such a big deal about all the donations you just brought in.

Posted by: long island at October 07, 2012 12:21 PM (kzp9t)

78 Could it be that the media is caving in to their desire to take down a politician even if its the savior Lord Barack. Maybe they have been on a slow burn over the last couple of years with his complete lack of respect for the media and his assuming they would always come to his rescue when he need its. And he sure has needed it a lot the last month with Libya and now the debate performance. And now the temptation is just too much for them and its payback time. We can only hope...

Posted by: Bruce at October 07, 2012 12:29 PM (4M8H2)

79 There's no way Newsweek would go down this path unless........ they were pretty sure Obama was going to lose, and thus be powerless to retaliate.

Posted by: Reluctant Rouse at October 07, 2012 12:36 PM (soZKf)

80 IIRC, in 2008 McCain even voluntarily reported the names of his small donors. Of course Obama refused to. That, plus turning off the verification system made it pretty obvious what was going on. Don't even get me started on Ibama lying to McCain about taking public financing. I hope President Romney can get the requirements changed.

Posted by: stace at October 07, 2012 12:41 PM (ugBjy)

81 Because I feel rather uncomfortable about praying for the result of an election ( I never have) I keep praying that the truth about Obama will come put before the election. ALL of it won't come out or not for years, but if even some did in a bigger way than cons have known about for years it might help bring Obama down.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at October 07, 2012 12:45 PM (0nogT)

82 It would be interesting to know how much of the money he "loaned" to energy startups has come back in donations too.

It's like union dues deductions: the Dems know it's coming back. It's a conveyor belt.

Posted by: PJ at October 07, 2012 12:53 PM (DQHjw)

83 tweeted back on what a lucky break this "misconfiguration failure" allowed the money to go through. Posted by: lowandslow at October 07, 2012 04:21 PM (GZitp) ============== I have images of purple shirts in a Vegas desert warehouse, sweating and typing, sweating and typing...

Posted by: SEIU will cont to march forward at October 07, 2012 12:58 PM (LpQbZ)

84 The outfit that set up Obama's campaign contribution website is called Blue State Digital. The company is run by Thomas Gensemer, Jascha Franklin-Hodge, and Joe Rospars. The latter is the Chief Digital Strategist for Obama For America 2012.

I wonder if Newsweek or whoever got hold of Rospars or other insider and got the scoop on why the Obama for America website doesn't enforce AVS or CVV2.

Even better would be if they chased down the merchant bank behind Obama for America and asked them if they waived the huge penalties for not enforcing AVS or CVV2 and if that constitutes an illegal payment-in-kind to the Obama campaign.

Posted by: Huusker at October 07, 2012 01:03 PM (PaKLC)

85 Here's ace's original thread on this crime from 2008: http://tinyurl.com/5to2b6 Here's the old Hotair thread back from the 2008 elections - taken from ace (for a change!): http://tinyurl.com/657hfr The hotair thread includes commenters donating for tests in odd names. For example (http://tinyurl.com/8oue83u): have a credit card issued by a bank in Hong Kong. IÂ’ve just made 5 donations of $5 each using the card. I listed fake addresses in North Korea, Iran, Gaza, Venezuela and Kenya. The names and addresses were made up, each was different, I listed real Yahoo email addresses that forward to me. Fake Name Not A. Realperson Finance Violation Fraudulent Charge Over Donation Limit All 5 went through without a problem. IÂ’m already being solicited for more money. Bombast on October 23, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at October 07, 2012 01:04 PM (X3lox)

86 In 2008 the Obama campaign claimed that they didn't enforce AVS because they verified addresses manually. Given 100,000+ small contributions a month? Plus the fact that they don't have to report these small contributions individually to the FEC?

Posted by: Huusker at October 07, 2012 01:10 PM (PaKLC)

87 Giving credit where credit is certainly due, this is Pam Geller's original breaking of the story (Wednesday, October 22, 2008, which should have sunk the Malevolent Retard right then and there): http://tinyurl.com/6s7jmr

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at October 07, 2012 01:16 PM (X3lox)

88 If a card taker (merchant) doesn't enforce AVS or CVV2 the credit card transaction is called "non-compliant". Non-complaint transactions typically have a much higher discount rate than compliant transactions. A typical discount rate for compliant transactions is around 2.4-2.9%. If the card is from overseas it is called "international non-compliant" and it goes even higher; the discount rate can shoot up to 7-10% per transaction.

It's a good question is whether Obama's merchant bank is actually billing them for that 7-10%, or if there is a 'special agreement' in the contract, possibly in violation of PCI regulations laid out by Visa/MC/Amex. Violating PCI isn't breaking the law (its contractual), but an argument could be made that failing to enforce the non-compliant discount rate is an illegal payment-in-kind to the Obama campaign from the card merchant bank.

The identity of the Obama's card merchant bank is a closely held secret. If I was a reporter I'd try to find out which bank is doing it. And then I'd ask the bank a lot of uncomfortable questions.

Posted by: Huusker at October 07, 2012 01:22 PM (PaKLC)

89 Bump.

Posted by: eman at October 07, 2012 03:28 PM (Wp4rQ)

90 Obama? Never.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at October 07, 2012 03:29 PM (boomF)

91 Democrats? Never. If the Shoo(sp?) fits...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at October 07, 2012 03:30 PM (boomF)

92 JEF is never held to account for anything, believe it when I see it

Posted by: Jose/ningrim at October 07, 2012 03:32 PM (srIqv)

93 This will at least be biggr than the video "scandal".

Posted by: Hobojerky at October 07, 2012 03:32 PM (NzPlh)

94 Yeah eman, (#91) that's a bumped post. Why a bump? Does Ace know something. Has he been fed something that would behoove a bump. Is... wait for it... shit about to get real?

Posted by: Lee (in KY) at October 07, 2012 03:32 PM (jgXna)

95 Obama don't care. Every day we don't talk about the econkmy is a good day for Obama.

Posted by: soothsayer at October 07, 2012 03:33 PM (i8yDd)

96 Obama's poor debate performance is probably related to the fact that Obama's IQ is probably not much more than one standard deviation to the right of the (Nonblack) mean, which means he just isn't smart enough to be able to defend Leftism or his record properly (tasks which would be extremely difficult for someone even much more intelligent than him.)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at October 07, 2012 03:33 PM (boomF)

97 The Palace Guard media made sure no one knew the name "Doodad Pro" in 2008.

Doubt it will work any differently in 2012.

Be delighted to be proven wrong, though.

Posted by: torquewrench at October 07, 2012 03:33 PM (ymG7s)

98 This John E. poster has a similar writing style to Ace.

Posted by: Serious Cat at October 07, 2012 03:33 PM (zrpqj)

99 Do you really think I'd do something illegal?

Posted by: Barky Hussein Obumbles at October 07, 2012 03:35 PM (/YJYi)

100 Is this story breaking now? Is that why the thread was moved up?

Posted by: mama winger in paul ryan's district at October 07, 2012 03:36 PM (P6QsQ)

101 Drudge has headline Chavez going down as per exit poll. It may get bad there either way. The whole world is boiling .. it seems like.

Posted by: osu at October 07, 2012 03:36 PM (vgMWF)

102 None of it is true. F you all. Now let's ask why Romney won't denounce this dishonesty?

Posted by: Axelrod at October 07, 2012 03:36 PM (66rv5)

103 102 Foreign governments pursuing their interests...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at October 07, 2012 03:37 PM (boomF)

104 But what you said probably took place too...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at October 07, 2012 03:37 PM (boomF)

105 It looks like the shit shoe is about to drop.

Posted by: Jim Lahey at October 07, 2012 03:37 PM (V/U0X)

106 I feel like I'm on a snipe hunt.

Posted by: Othered at October 07, 2012 03:38 PM (EuW9O)

107 Have you ever checked any of TFG's twitter followers? You don't have to click far to see his virtual following.

Somehow, I expect this to be the source of his most recent campaign fund surge.

Posted by: sTevo at October 07, 2012 03:38 PM (VMcEw)

108 103 Is this story breaking now? Is that why the thread was moved up? This. Nothing on the Daily Beast or Newsweek at this time. Why the bump?

Posted by: Jprs at October 07, 2012 03:38 PM (DGnMA)

109 Anyone remember the name of the Chinese national involved with Hillary a while back? Some variant of Shoe...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at October 07, 2012 03:38 PM (boomF)

110 I always figured that the real scandal was that Stimulus money was sent off to cronies to be bundled and sent to the unions and kicked back to the Obama campaign via pre-paid credit cards. It makes more sense. That's why the Stimulus money went to the bundlers. Why would tens or hundreds of thousands of foreigners want to or even think to contribute tiny amounts of money to his campaign? It doesn't make sense. Posted by: runninrebel at October 07, 2012 07:35 PM (N/1Dm) Maybe that has been found and that is the heart of the story. If so, it is a stink you can't hide.

Posted by: eman at October 07, 2012 03:39 PM (Wp4rQ)

111 I don't want to get my hopes up, but a scandal like this could be the final straw that brings Obama down. And the Romney campaign is simply not going to allow the MSM to sweep it under the rug, they can make it a major part of the campaign.

If the gist of the story is true, imagine Romney challenging Obama to disclose who is donors are, and Obama refusing. Watch Obama's personal likability plummet.

My own sense of why Obama has hung in there is he's never been exposed as the dirty Chicago politician he really is.

Posted by: Jeepers at October 07, 2012 03:39 PM (XDRsa)

112 113 Never underestimate the power of Squirrels!

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at October 07, 2012 03:41 PM (boomF)

113 OT but holy shit the Chiefs were robbed of a TD on defense. So much for the "real" officials.

Posted by: logprof at October 07, 2012 03:41 PM (V/U0X)

114 Charlie Tree, I think.

Posted by: soothsayer at October 07, 2012 03:41 PM (Fely/)

115 Weren't there massive numbers of foreign donors in the last election and he skated on that? Right?

Posted by: HtP at October 07, 2012 03:42 PM (jx2j9)

116
Why would tens or hundreds of thousands of foreigners want to or even think to contribute tiny amounts of money to his campaign?

It doesn't make sense.

Posted by: runninrebel at October 07, 2012 07:35 PM (N/1Dm)

Yeah , those are proxies, but I think there's many sources for the money .

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at October 07, 2012 03:42 PM (AWmfW)

117 maybe youre thinking of a shoe-tree or moo goo gai pan

Posted by: soothsayer at October 07, 2012 03:42 PM (vzLhi)

118 I definitely remember this coming up in 2008. Nothing came of it then, and the Eeyore in me says nothing will be done about it now. I really hope I'm wrong.

Posted by: Theresa 4 Romney/Ryan at October 07, 2012 03:42 PM (FDErx)

119 Charlie Ticket Oak

Posted by: USS Diversity at October 07, 2012 03:42 PM (0CiTm)

120 Who knows? Maybe the failing Newsweek operation decided to attempt actual journalism in order to save itself.
Posted by: packsoldier at October 07, 2012 04:04 PM

More likely Newsweek (if it is the "publication" involved) is floating rumors about the story in order to get an offer of some fine green from Choom Boy's stash.

Some of that unspent stimulus money could make an ailing media member feel aaaaaaaalllll better, y'know.

Yes, I know the anticipated reaction from the campaign would also be criminal, but what's one more crime for them? Right now, the Anointed One should be up for everything from fraud and perjury to Accessory to Murder One.

Posted by: MrScribbler at October 07, 2012 03:42 PM (ZgX/g)

121 The thing is every politician could be tainted with laundered stimulus money. Don't expect anyone in Congress to go anywhere near this. Mitt is the only one who can and will use this scandal.

Posted by: eman at October 07, 2012 03:42 PM (Wp4rQ)

122 118 Weren't there massive numbers of foreign donors in the last election and he skated on that? Right? Posted by: HtP at October 07, 2012 07:42 PM (jx2j9) *YAWN*

Posted by: John McCain at October 07, 2012 03:43 PM (V/U0X)

123 YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF RACISTS LOVERS OF JOOOS!

OBAMA IS A CITIZEN OF THE WORLD!

WHY SHOULDN'T ME AND MY BROTHERS ALI, DOODAD, AND MAHMOOD BE ABLE TO DONATE TO THE CAMPAIGN OF THE ONE WHO WILL NOT LET THOSE DIRTY AMERICANS INSULT THE PROPHET OF ISLAM?

YOU ARE ALL INFIDELS AND WILL BURN IN HELL AFTER WE FUCK YOU IN THE ASS AND BEHEAD YOU!

SIGNED

UNDISCLOSED MIDDLE EASTERN DONOR WITH MANY MANY PREPAID CREDIT CARDS USING THE ALIAS MICKEY MOUSE.

ALLAH AKBAR!

Posted by: jeremiah Gosh Darn Amerikkka wright sock puppet at October 07, 2012 03:43 PM (ovpNn)

124 If you sit next to me on the Amtrack to Wilmington, we can put on of those little blankets across both of our laps ...

Posted by: Joe Biden at October 07, 2012 03:43 PM (+rajA)

125

Fast & Furious, The Libyan murders, Obama's past statements about socialism, his tie to the Weather Underground, Chicago politics, video of him talking like a Southern brother, etc.

Will this scandal really shake up the adminstration now? The MSM let him get away with everything.

Obama needs to go. This is the only way to stop the bleeding.

Posted by: Mo the Girl at October 07, 2012 03:44 PM (O/Mo3)

126 Hopin for this to be juicy/

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at October 07, 2012 03:44 PM (hlUJY)

127 Weren't there massive numbers of foreign donors in the last election and he skated on that? Right? Posted by: HtP at October 07, 2012 07:42 PM (jx2j9) I posted links for the original threads from 2008 above at #87. Here's the link to ace's thread on this from October 2008: http://tinyurl.com/5to2b6

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at October 07, 2012 03:44 PM (X3lox)

128 120 It was Shue or something...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at October 07, 2012 03:44 PM (boomF)

129 Hope it's true. Let's hope (D) is a toxic label to voters. Pick up a bunch of senate seats.

Posted by: Spike at October 07, 2012 03:44 PM (I4NNt)

130

Obama raised $181 million bucks last month, but only 2% is classified as 'traceable'.

Meh. Romney put a Mormon spell on the President at the debate. That's the big story this week.

Posted by: Beloved Media at October 07, 2012 03:45 PM (1Y+hH)

131 The donations from "Al Kida" are the most troubling.

Posted by: eman at October 07, 2012 03:45 PM (Wp4rQ)

132 It was Shue or something... Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at October 07, 2012 07:44 PM (boomF) --No, that was the chick from Cocktail.

Posted by: logprof at October 07, 2012 03:45 PM (V/U0X)

133 I actually can't wait to give O'Bumbles $0.02 in November.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at October 07, 2012 03:45 PM (ndlFj)

134 The good news? It's breaking. The incredible news? It's breaking on Newsweek. The bad news? No one reads Newsweek.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 07, 2012 03:46 PM (+tqYo)

135 Nixo

DEAN: That's right. That's right. Well, we are really talking about technical violations that were referred over also.

SEPTEMBER 15, 1972 FROM 5:27 TO 6:17 P.M. 12

PRESIDENT: Sure. Sure. What about, uh, uh, watching the McGovern contributors and all that sort of thing?

DEAN: We've got a, we've got a hawk's eye on that.

PRESIDENT: Yeah.

DEAN: And, uh, uh, he is, he is not in full compliance.

PRESIDENT: He isn't?

DEAN: No.

PRESIDENT: Well, now, he has his three hundred committees; have they all reported yet? Have we -- we reported ours.

DEAN: Yes we -- Well, we have a couple of delinquent state committees out, uh --

PRESIDENT: Right, but it's done now.

DEAN: If they --

PRESIDENT: (Unintelligible) Have the paper committees all reported, the three hundred or so committees he's supposed to have.

DEAN: We -- no, they have not.

PRESIDENT: Can we say something about that, or have we?

DEAN: Well, one of the things that he has not done, is he has never disclosed the fact that he's got some three hundred committees. This has been a Wall Street Journal piece that picked it up and carried it and, uh --

PRESIDENT: Oh, he has never admitted that publicly?

SEPTEMBER 15, 1972 FROM 5:27 TO 6:17 P.M. 13

DEAN: No, he hasn't. And it's quite -- it's a tax sham that he set it up for. And -- It is hard to comprehend why he set up three hundred committees, frankly. Uh, he doesn't need that many, he doesn't have that sort of large contributors, where they have to disburse small (unintelligible)

HALDEMAN: Unless someone's giving nine hundred thousand dollars.

DEAN: That's right.

PRESIDENT: Which could be very possible.

HALDEMAN: He may be getting nine hundred thousand dollars from somebody.

PRESIDENT: From two or three people. He may have some big angels. I don't think he is getting a hell of a lot of small money. I don't think so. I don't believe this crap. I mean if he -- Have you had your Post Office check yet?

HALDEMAN: That John was going to do. I don't know. (Pause)

PRESIDENT: That's an interesting thing to check.

40 years later and we are expected to believe that Obama is raising by a magnitude or 200x that he is getting "small money"?

Posted by: Ghost of Dick Nixon at October 07, 2012 03:46 PM (WnjLc)

136 136 If you say so...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at October 07, 2012 03:46 PM (boomF)

137 Y'all think we're the only ones reading about this? The MFM have already written their spin and the first videos are already in the can.

Posted by: Soona at October 07, 2012 03:47 PM (zmkPt)

138 OT: Although I really like the dinner table ad, why the fuck doesn't Team Romney run some ads with his debate performance? Press home the attack! Sheesh.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 07, 2012 03:47 PM (+tqYo)

139 Wasn't Ace all over this 4 years ago. Didn't he have a sort of techie post about how Obama's campaign had to manually override the record keeping function on online donations?

Posted by: USA at October 07, 2012 03:47 PM (RIg+t)

140 maybe Obama wouldn't have done this again if the "let's let bygones be bygones" Republicans investigated it after the 08 election

Posted by: soothsayer at October 07, 2012 03:47 PM (Ba6aP)

141 I think this falls under "foreign affairs" and can certainly be discussed at the next debate. Perhaps Paul Ryan can quiz Biden on it this week.

Posted by: The littl shyning man at October 07, 2012 03:48 PM (PH+2B)

142 This is not 2008. The spell has been broken. The Emperor has been shown to be nekkid. There will be no more sweeping under the rug. Romney has 2 more debates. Do you really think he would not use this? He's not John McCain.

Posted by: mama winger in paul ryan's district at October 07, 2012 03:51 PM (P6QsQ)

143 i remember a Tree

Posted by: soothsayer at October 07, 2012 03:51 PM (1WM2H)

144 Let's do a bit of work with the numbers here. 98% of $181 million is $177.4 million. At an average donation of $53 for that $177.4 million, 3,350,000 or so people donated. Is that believable? I don't know. I'm just asking the question.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at October 07, 2012 03:51 PM (N+9a4)

145 147 Ok, well, find a link.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at October 07, 2012 03:52 PM (boomF)

146 Putin and Chavez have both publically endorsed Bumblefuque, maybe the donations are from Russians and Venezuelans.

Posted by: HtP at October 07, 2012 03:52 PM (jx2j9)

147 I do hope Romney calls Obama out for this loudly and publicly if this is real. Seems the least he could do since the new rules allow for stating your opponent is a "potential felon" (without any supporting basis) and allowing your surrogate to make baseless allegations that your opponent committed tax evasion for a decade. Nothing wrong with hitting the sitting POTUS when he's down, when you're hitting him with the truth. Elections are choices. Those making the choice should be informed of the truth, even when inconvenient.

Posted by: LP at October 07, 2012 03:52 PM (pR8WM)

148 Maybe Boner will bring it to the floor.

Posted by: USS Diversity at October 07, 2012 03:54 PM (0CiTm)

149 i remember a Tree

Posted by: soothsayer at October 07, 2012 07:51 PM (1WM2H)

----------------------------------------

Wasn't Charlie Tree associated with Billy Boy Clinton?

Posted by: Soona at October 07, 2012 03:54 PM (zmkPt)

150 I think we can all agree that the dem campaign fund raises like Obama debates.

Posted by: HtP at October 07, 2012 03:55 PM (jx2j9)

151 148 That's a donation every 3/4 of a second

Posted by: Beto at October 07, 2012 03:55 PM (BAnPT)

152 I do hope Romney calls Obama out for this loudly and publicly if this is real. Seems the least he could do since the new rules allow for stating your opponent is a "potential felon" (without any supporting basis) and allowing your surrogate to make baseless allegations that your opponent committed tax evasion for a decade.

Nothing wrong with hitting the sitting POTUS when he's down, when you're hitting him with the truth. Elections are choices. Those making the choice should be informed of the truth, even when inconvenient.

Posted by: LP at October 07, 2012 07:52 PM (pR8WM)

If you can't hit someone when they are down, you don't deserve to hit them....whack, whack

Posted by: The Jackhole at October 07, 2012 03:56 PM (DU15A)

153 I'll believe it when I see it- Newsweek and the MSM will never hurt Obama now that this is a real race.

Posted by: jjshaka at October 07, 2012 03:57 PM (qsrhg)

154 148 Let's do a bit of work with the numbers here. 98% of $181 million is $177.4 million. At an average donation of $53 for that $177.4 million, 3,350,000 or so people donated. Is that believable? I don't know. I'm just asking the question. That's what came up with, but that is not the number of donors that the campaign is reporting. Think they are reporting 1.6 million total donors. Why the difference?

Posted by: Jprs at October 07, 2012 03:57 PM (DGnMA)

155 If you can't hit someone when they are down, you don't deserve to hit them....whack, whack

Posted by: The Jackhole at October 07, 2012 07:56 PM (DU15A)

Enthusiasms. Enthusiasms... Enthusiasms...

Posted by: Ronnie Ferocious at October 07, 2012 03:59 PM (AWmfW)

156 154 Nah. Obama debates incompetently. The Democrat campaign fund raises "too competently." Of course, Obama also attempted to debate "too competently" with a lot of anecdotes, nonsequiturs, appeals to emotion and prejudices, and weird facial expressions (smiles, grins). For some reason, though, it backfired.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at October 07, 2012 03:59 PM (boomF)

157
It's been open knowledge, both in 2008 and this year, that the Obama web site was not verifying donors. I have implemented web systems that perform credit-card transactions, and I know that verification is an integral part of the system: for verification not to take place, you have to turn it off deliberately. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why a Chicago Democrat would want to deliberately block verification of web-based credit-card transactions.

I'm glad that somebody in the MFM is taking notice; but the fact that this story has been sitting out in the open for nearly five years before somebody in the MFM would even touch it shows just how badly we Americans are being served by our "news" media. They are thoroughly corrupt or utterly incompetent - or both.

Posted by: Brown Line at October 07, 2012 04:00 PM (AGUDW)

158 148, it's 3,350,000 donations, not necessarily people. 138, true no one reads Newsweek but it has more credibility in the mainstream than Pam Geller. To have legs there needs to be some proof and not just implications. There needs to be a James O'Keefe style trap. Something too solid for the MSM to ignore.

Posted by: TD at October 07, 2012 04:03 PM (+uFux)

159 The key to uncovering this scandal is finding the identity of the bank. I've been searching high and low since the whole AVS thing broke in 2008 and nobody seems to know.

Today we know the name of the tech outfit that set up the questionable web payment system (Blue State Digital). But not the name of the bank.

Posted by: Huusker at October 07, 2012 04:03 PM (PaKLC)

160 Since the story was somewhat known in advance and similar allegation were made in 2008, Buttfeed will label this "old news" as soon as it breaks.

Posted by: Elize Nayden at October 07, 2012 04:08 PM (afNTN)

161 163 The key to uncovering this scandal is finding the identity of the bank. I've been searching high and low since the whole AVS thing broke in 2008 and nobody seems to know.

Today we know the name of the tech outfit that set up the questionable web payment system (Blue State Digital). But not the name of the bank.

Posted by: Huusker at October 07, 2012 08:03 PM (PaKLC)

So you say they found the bank.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at October 07, 2012 04:09 PM (AWmfW)

162

They are thoroughly corrupt or utterly incompetent - or both. - Brown Line

They're both!!!!

Integrive Complexity.

The Media has TOP MEN working on this story. Top. Men.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes....FREE KRATOS! at October 07, 2012 04:09 PM (sJTmU)

163 The lack of a CVV2 field on the Obama for America website is very suspicious. CVV2 is the 3-digit or 4-digit number on the bank of your credit card that you enter for a card-not-present purchase (e.g,, Internet or telephone). CVV2 is required by PCI regulations for all card-not-present transactions to prevent fraud. Failure to submit the CVV2 for a CNP authorization results in the merchant bank laying out huge non-compliance fees.

Why does the Obama for America website omit CVV2? Does their bank penalize them for it? And if not why not?

Posted by: Huusker at October 07, 2012 04:13 PM (PaKLC)

164 If Newsweek is going to publish this it is probably because they are tired of being thought of as a hack leftwing rag and want to make some money.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at October 07, 2012 04:13 PM (hlUJY)

165 This could be their CNN Desert Storm moment.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at October 07, 2012 04:13 PM (hlUJY)

166 As Obama sinks, all but the most deranged members of the MSM will scramble to promote stories like this to demonstrate their independence -- and "gravitas."

Posted by: USA at October 07, 2012 04:14 PM (RIg+t)

167 PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls YÂ’all asked for a preview of Virginia so here it is: Obama is still ahead there. Final numbers soon What debate bounce? The jobs numbers destroyed the debate bounce.

Posted by: Greg at October 07, 2012 04:15 PM (wKkyv)

168 The Berlin campaign rally - for friggin FOREIGNERS - was still more illegal and more politically repulsive ... and that was entirely in the open - the LARGEST campaign rally of the 2008 joke election. Meanwhile, the author of the most insane, offensive campaign finance law, McShame, couldn't be moved to try and defend even the normal, CONSTITUTIONAL campaign laws (such as that part about sovereignty and "to ourselves and our posterity" not including fucking aliens). Instead, all McShame could whip up was some retarded "celebrity" ad.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at October 07, 2012 04:16 PM (X3lox)

169 Whatever Greg. We will see the PPP internals. This is why they always do weekend sampling to get a more democrat response. It happens in Ras, Gallup, and others too.

Posted by: NWConservative at October 07, 2012 04:17 PM (M1gmo)

170

47 I could easily see a foreign power buying influence by bundling small donations.

Nah.

Posted by: William J Clinton at October 07, 2012 04:22 PM (mDDnb)

171 It could be Obama has received millions from the Muslim Brotherhood, "kick backs" for all that money he showers them with.

Posted by: Craig Poe at October 07, 2012 04:22 PM (BVkEs)

172 "173 Whatever Greg. We will see the PPP internals. This is why they always do weekend sampling to get a more democrat response. It happens in Ras, Gallup, and others too." The PPP internals for WI were almost unrealistically good for the GOP. Dems only +1 sampling advantage. PPP had tweeted Thursday or Friday that in VA, by a 3-1 margin, people there thought Romney won the debate. But I guess the debate took precedence and took all the momentum away from poor Mitt. Watch for Obama to go back ahead in Ras in a few days.

Posted by: Greg at October 07, 2012 04:23 PM (wKkyv)

173 Even better would be if they chased down the merchant bank behind Obama for America and asked them if they waived the huge penalties for not enforcing AVS or CVV2 and if that constitutes an illegal payment-in-kind to the Obama campaign. Posted by: Huusker at October 07, 2012 05:03 PM (PaKLC) I hope my bank is not that bank, because it's in a shitload of trouble. I mean, FDIC-closed-down trouble. We're talking hundreds of millions in penalties and possible criminal violation of anti-money-laundering laws. It's gonna be reeeeeaalllly bad for whatever bank decided to get in bed with these crooks. (Actually, I know it isn't my bank, but I have my suspicions about which bank it is. And I won't be surprised if the name Alexi Giannoulias turns up in this investigation.)

Posted by: rockmom at October 07, 2012 04:29 PM (qe2/V)

174 you have to think if it was coming tonight, Newsweek would have leaked this to Drudge so he could start teasing it all evening to build up their web traffic

Posted by: Jose/ningrim at October 07, 2012 04:30 PM (srIqv)

175 Let's see. 1.8 million donors, 98% giving an average of $53. That's 1,764,000 people and $93,492,000. That leaves exactly 36,000 people to donate $87,508,000. Which on my calculator is $2430.78, or right under the legal limit. 36,000 people suddenly decided to max out last month. Hmm.

Posted by: Secundus at October 07, 2012 04:30 PM (ogCxr)

176 stop being a little bitch greg. We all know the race is tied or Mitt now has a slight lead. PPP poll is never to be trusted. It is run by the freaking SEIU! Two polls last week had Romney tied or up in VA.

Posted by: Ben at October 07, 2012 04:32 PM (CXahc)

177 Only two percent are reportable, and they're all maxed. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

Posted by: Secundus at October 07, 2012 04:34 PM (ogCxr)

178 The PPP internals for WI were almost unrealistically good for the GOP. Dems only +1 sampling advantage.

PPP had tweeted Thursday or Friday that in VA, by a 3-1 margin, people there thought Romney won the debate. But I guess the debate took precedence and took all the momentum away from poor Mitt.

Watch for Obama to go back ahead in Ras in a few days.

Posted by: Greg at October 07, 2012 08:23 PM (wKkyv)

Greg, would you like me to get the exit polls for you for the last 12 years for Wisconsin?

Seriously?

Election 2000: D-36 R-32 I-32 Gore-47.8 Bush-47.6 Indies Break Repub +6

Election 2004: D-35 R-38 I-27 Kerry-50 Bush-49 Indies Break Dem +8

Election 2008: D-39 R-33 I-29 Obama-56 McCain-42 Indies Break Dem +19

Election 2010: D-37 R-36 I-28 Repub-52 Dem-47 Indies Break Repub +13

Election in JUNE: D-34 R-35 I-31 Repub-53 Dem- 46 Indies Break Repub +9

So Greg? ALL THE POLLSTERS THINK THIS ELECTION WILL BE D+6-12.

It will not be, even in 2008 the Democrats only separated from the Republicans by 6 pts. And that was AN ALL TIME HIGH. Both Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 had the Republican candidate SEPARATED BY LESS THAN 1% OF THE VOTE. So after all that has happened over the last 4 years, we will have an election that is JUST LIKE 2008?? You sir, are RETARDED.

Posted by: NWConservative at October 07, 2012 04:47 PM (M1gmo)

179 Blah blah blah...

Let me clean up that last post

Election 2000: D-36 R-32 I-32 Gore-47.8 Bush-47.6

Election 2004: D-35 R-38 I-27 Kerry-50 Bush-49

Election 2008: D-39 R-33 I-29 Obama-56 McCain-42

Election 2010: D-37 R-36 I-28 Repub-52 Dem-47

Election in JUNE: D-34 R-35 I-31 Repub-53 Dem- 46

PPP Now: D-34 R-33 I-33

So Republicans have tied their lowest numbers from 2008 and 2000 and are three and two points lower than the most recent elections THIS YEAR and 2010 AND FIVE POINTS LOWER THAN IN 2004.

Posted by: NWConservative at October 07, 2012 04:53 PM (M1gmo)

180 #99 Yep, Doodad Pro's moment in the spotlight is long overdue.

Posted by: The Chap with the App at October 07, 2012 05:00 PM (fscec)

181 I don't know...I think the big scandal is going to be the Lt. Col. testifying this week about the Benghazi debacle. I'm sure it's a Repub that subpoenaed him.

Posted by: PJ at October 07, 2012 06:07 PM (DQHjw)

182 lol @ Greg.

No one believes the jobs numbers.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at October 07, 2012 06:14 PM (hlUJY)

183 ppp is a joke.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at October 07, 2012 06:15 PM (hlUJY)

184 Not just overseas money that flows in but how much big donor US money is given to poor folks to give to Bambi? "Want to earn $50? Take this $250 and I'll show you how to donate $200 to O. You keep the other $50."

Posted by: Old Coach at October 07, 2012 07:10 PM (LYbxI)

185 This has all the signs of Whitey Tape 2.0. When did it take on those signs? Uh, from the beginning.

Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at October 07, 2012 08:40 PM (vahvH)

186 It's only a scandal if people know about it. And the MSM is not going to cover it.

#Propagandists. Again.

Posted by: Paul A'Barge at October 08, 2012 05:58 AM (7JpOx)

187 The story broke. http://bit.ly/Tlw5AQ It looks like the mystery bank is appears to be east asia, probably Shanghai or China. Wow, just wow.

Posted by: Huusker at October 08, 2012 10:06 AM (PaKLC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

168kb generated in CPU 0.158, elapsed 0.3265 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2754 seconds, 315 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.