Things are not going well for the Hillary campaign these days.
She is without a doubt sick, but no one knows from what. Anyone trusting the pneumonia diagnosis as the full truth has mush for brains.
Her “deplorables” comment backfired miserably.
And today we learned that the Clinton campaign has been dinging donors multiple times for “one time” donations.
Recurring “One Time” Donations
Please consider Hillary Clinton Campaign Systematically Overcharging Poorest Donors.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.
The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.
“We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department told the Observer. The source claims that the Clinton campaign has been pulling this stunt since Spring of this year. The Hillary for America campaign will overcharge small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. However, the Clinton campaign strategically doesn’t overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud.
The fraud specialist said that Clinton donors who call in will attempt to resolve the issue with the campaign first but they never get anywhere. “They will call the Clinton campaign to get their refund and the issue never gets resolved. So they call us and we just issue the refund. The Clinton campaign knows these charges are small potatoes and that we’ll just refund the money back.”
The source said that pornography companies often deploy a similar arrangement pull. “We see this same scheme with a lot of seedy porn companies,” the source said. The source also notes that the dozens of phone calls his department receives daily are from people who notice the fraudulent charges on their statements. “The people who call us are just the ones who catch the fraudulent charges. I can’t imagine how many more people are getting overcharged by Hillary’s campaign and they have no idea.”
Carol Mahre, an 81-year-old grandmother of seven from Minnesota, is one of the victims of Clinton’s campaign donor fraud scandal. In March, Mahre said she made a one-time $25 donation via Clinton’s official campaign website. However, when she received her US Bank card statement, she noticed multiple $25 charges were made. Mahre, who said in an interview she only contributed $25 because she’s “not rich” and that’s all she could afford, contacted her son, Roger Mahre, to help her dispute the unauthorized charges.
Roger, who is an attorney, told the Observer that he called the Clinton campaign dozens of times in April and early May in an attempt to resolve the issue. “It took me at least 40 to 50 phone calls to the campaign office before I finally got ahold of someone,” Roger said. “After I got a campaign worker on the phone, she said they would stop making the charges.”
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.”
Since the campaign failed to amend the problem for Carol, Roger contacted her bank, US Bank. However, he ran into problems when he asked US Bank to refund his mother’s money. Roger told the Observer that the bank would not reverse the charges and that a bank spokesperson told him that they had no control over companies that make unauthorized charges. At that point, Roger decided to contact his local news and filed a fraud complaint with Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson’s office on behalf of his mother. After local TV news Kare 11 ran a story, someone from US Bank contacted Roger the next day and said that they had reversed and stopped the charges to his mother’s card.
Since Carol’s story became public, Roger said he’s heard from other people who have been ripped off by the Clinton campaign. “I’ve heard this is happening to other small donors,” Roger said. “People will donate $25 but then when they receive their credit card statement they are charged $25 multiple times.”
The incident hasn’t just left a bad taste in Roger’s mouth. Carol decided she’s not going to vote for Hillary even though she’s voted for the Democratic presidential nominee every election since President Dwight Eisenhower won reelection in 1956. “My mother is a lifelong Democrat and she’s voted every election in her life for a Democrat but she’s not going to vote for Hillary,” Roger said.
The New York Times reported in 2007 that Clinton’s first presidential campaign had to refund and subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars from its first-quarter total often because donors’ credit cards were charged twice. Additionally, it was reported that Clinton had to refund a stunning $2.8 million in donations, three times more than the $900K President Barack Obama’s campaign refunded.
Dinged Again and Again
Note the varying charges.
“We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department told the Observer. The source claims that the Clinton campaign has been pulling this stunt since Spring of this year. The Hillary for America campaign will overcharge small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. However, the Clinton campaign strategically doesn’t overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud.
“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we don’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they’ll stop the charges just below $100. We’ll see her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.” The source, who has worked for Wells Fargo for over 10 years, said that the total amount they refund customers on a daily basis who have been overcharged by Clinton’s campaign “varies” but the bank usually issues refunds that total between $700 and $1200 per day.
Morals of the Story
I cannot prove any of this. Nor can anyone else unless they have a recording of the call.
But there is a moral to this story, two actually.
- Do not give credit card or bank account information out to anyone who calls you.
- Do not give money to untrustworthy people or known liars. It will only give you grief.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Thanks, Mike, for another heads-up on the vast Clinton dypsomaniacal dynasty. Why am I not surprised?
On the other hand, I take a grim satisfaction that anyone chump enough to believe in or trust anything to do with the Clintons or their cohort gets fleeced again and again by them. Those who put trust in their own ignorance should suffer the penalties of such ignorance.
Pingback: Intanto i Sondaggi in America....(Trump sempre più Vicino) - Rischio Calcolato | Rischio Calcolato
I love how the author of the article used porn companies as a comparison. Can any one on this forum confirm?
A friend of mine went to a las Vegas strip club several years ago. He spent a little bit on drinks and a lot more on lap dance and stuff. He was stupid enough to use credit card for this.
According to him he spent about $300 to $400. When his bill came he was charged like $700. Unfortunately he had no way to prove that it was fraudulent charge.
Don’t know what happens in the porn industry. Does anyone pay money for porn these days?
Years ago I was in the business of fraud detection and prediction software, and I can very much confirm that porn companies were employing a similar tactic. They’d offer a free trial, but “needed a credit card number to verify that the viewer was 18……..” I believe most of them eventually either had to move offshore, or contract with one of a few very tightly monitored dedicated billing companies, as a result of the backlash.
Bitcoin and such, would solve issues such as this conclusively. You just hand over the amount of digital cash you want to hand over. Not the keys to your safe, with some feckless instructions that the receiver only take X amount.
Handing over ones account information to third parties based on blind faith in some “system” consisting of nothing more than sleazy laws and lawyers, will never result in anything other than being robbed. It’s no different than trusting the government to have first crack at your paycheck via income taxes. The only way to prevent someone from robbing you, is to make it impossible for them to do so. Not make bend over and make it easy, just because some slimeball like Hillary or a pornographer, “promises” they’ll use lube and be gentle.
Many credit card companies will allow you to generate a one-time use card number. It is a bit of a hassle, but if you are worried about multiple charges, it prevents this sort of thing.
There way more free stuff on line than I could ever possibly consume so not sure why anyone pays for it.
I still don’t believe the deplorables comment hurt her. It was stupid but ultimately harmless. The van collapse I think really hurt her though. She is still winning the polling averages despite being at her presumed low point, however.
Otis I am not so sure those comments were harmless my friend. She called Trump supporters more then deplorable. Romney made the same mistake with his 47% comment even though that comment was true but off 2% as 49% was the correct figure. Romney apologized to all, but Hillary regretted the comment and went on to state that it still applied to 50% of his supporters. She does not regret for one minute stating what she did.
I do not think this was harmless at all.
My mother didn’t vote for Romney just because of that comment. She gets Social Security and Medicare, and never realized she was one of the “takers” that the Tea Partiers were talking about. It’s like the guy who says “keep your dirty, stinking government hands off my medicare”? Lots of cognitive dissonance.
“Do not give money to untrustworthy people or known liars.”
IOW, democrats.
” One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.”
Why?
It’s a simple matter of theft.
Anyone who would believe a known liar gets what they deserve.
But we tend to LIKE our liars because they tell us what we want to hear.
The part where Wells Fargo is refunding customers but bit clawing the money back grin the Clinton campaign is tantamount to clandestine donations by WFC to HRC.
That’s supposed to be “but not clawing back money from the Clinton campaign.”
Sorry about that.
Above The Fraud
starring …
“the Clinton campaign strategically doesn’t overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud.”
Rather thoughtful, don’t you think? Fraud investigations take SO much time…
And really, what is a bank to do, if FRAUD CONTRIBUTES TO PROFITABILITY?
Just stand back and give them SEVERAL YEARS; they MIGHT figure it out:
Deutsche Bank “has paid more than $9 billion in fines and settlements since the start of 2008” but “the U.S. Justice Department is seeking $14 billion to settle a probe tied to residential mortgage-backed securities, MORE MONEY THAN IT’S WILLING TO PAY.”
Quotes from “Deutsche Bank Tumbles as DOJ Claim of $14 Billion Is Rebuffed”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-15/deutsche-bank-asked-to-pay-14-billion-in-u-s-probe-wsj-says
They need to investigate the sub $100 dollar frauds.
It is the principle that is important here. One million $50 frauds is worse than one $50 million fraud because statistically it is going to hurt the people who need the money the most, whereas if you lost $50 million you are probably still going to have something.
And if you dont investigate, and lock up those responsible, they will keep on doing it.
“Do not give money to untrustworthy people or known liars.”
Sounds to me like a seditious call for a tax revolt.
I deny the allegation and the alligator!
I had a similar experience with a DNC/phone call donation solicitation from the first Obama campaign but they charged my cc much more than authorized. Took awhile to get it straightened out. Mistakes are the best teachers.
‘Deplorable’
I think it was (is) a honest mistake. Clintons just didn’t realise/understand what ‘one time’ mean. It is a mistake, chit happens, no big deal…
Well, if you don’t understand what the definition of “is” is, “one time” has a whole bunch more letters.
I don’t think you understood me. First, my comment was a sarcasm. Second i used was(past tense) then ‘is’ since it is still going on. And my primary language is not English, i’m probably using it wrong…
Back when Bill Clinton was president he was lying about an affair and he actually used the expression “that actually depends on what the definition of “is” is”. I was referring to that. You’re good.
Oh. I just though she “didn’t recall” the first time she took the donation.. or the second… or the third…
If one is not intending to step away from the two major parties, one has a miserable (should I say deplorable?) voting choice this time around. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Having said that, has it never been this way? I think it has, perhaps not so much on steroids as now, but miserable choices in politics abound.
_aleph_
So, step away. That’s what I will do. I refuse to put in a vote for evil.
Awe now,,,,Gary Johnson isn’t evil. A bit confused sometimes, but not evil.
Non sequitur. Clintons are immune to mundane laws.
Teflon Psychopaths.
If true, I think it was done for two reasons- first they wanted the money, and secondly they wanted a counter to the Sanders claim (and now Trump’s claim) that they had broader support of small donors.
However, the most amusing thing to me is, that if this story is true, how it wasn’t a big newspaper with the “best investigative resources” who broke it. I wonder, again if the story is true, if the initial sources had approached a higher profile news media source and they didn’t want to have anything to do with it.
Not to worry. She’ll fire that staffer who did this as well as the one who was sleeping instead of informing the press about her health. It’s really because her stupid Dr. is giving her Armour Thyroid and coumadin together to treat her pneumonia. So, nothing to see here.
Both Trump and Clinton deserve to be in jail and not in the White House.
The spending on TV ads only grows from here like a hockey stick and puts Hillary in the White House.
Only the owners of TV stations win.
Wells Fargo should complain about overcharging? That’s rich.
The motivation to overcharge is twofold, you get more “donations” from little people rather than a few big donors and you get to say you raised more money then you really did. Trying to manufacture momentum by stealing. The Potemkin Campaign.
I haven’t seen one Hillary sign nor bumper sticker in the liberal state of Maryland yet. Not one. Trump signs are popping up all over the place. There’s a big Hillary for Prison sign on Interstate 70. Democrats are embarrassed to publicly show support for her. Lot of government employees/contractors with secret clearances that are stunned about her email.
Probably a good idea to do a post on Trump too Mish.
https://storify.com/hriefs/tannenbaumr-explores-the-donald-trump-foundation