Once one understands that Hillary Clinton is a transparent crook, this is not surprising:
An elderly woman who donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign says she was charged multiple times after she stipulated she would only be making a one-time donation, according to a report from the New York Observer.*
Carol Mahre, an 81-year-old grandmother from Minnesota who has voted Democratic since Eisenhower’s re-election in 1956, said she wanted to make a one-time donation of $25 to Clinton’s campaign. But when she received her U.S. Bank statement, she noticed that multiple charges of $25 (and one for $19) were made to her account from the Clinton campaign.
Mahre said she wanted to make only a one-time donation. Her son, Roger, agreed to help her get her money back, as she could not afford the multiple donations.
“It took me at least 40 to 50 phone calls to the campaign office before I finally got ahold of someone,” Roger told NBC affiliate Kare11, which first investigated Mahre’s story. “After I got a campaign worker on the phone, she said they would stop making the charges.”
But the charges didn’t stop. Roger said his mother is “very good with the Internet,” and doesn’t believe she would have mistakenly signed up for recurring donations. But even if she had, why would the recurring donations change from $25 to $19? Why would the charges come on the same day or in the same month instead of monthly? . . .
Observer reporter Liz Crokin spoke to a Wells Fargo employee who works in the fraud department to figure out what was going on.
“We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” the employee, who asked to remain anonymous, told Crokin. The source added that they had not received any calls about the Trump campaign and donations.
The source said this has been going on since the spring, and that the campaign stops after it has taken a little less than $100 from a one-time donor.
“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the source said. “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.”
Go here to read the rest. Rob from the poor to give to herself.
James Carville was saying something about $50 dollar bills, trailer parks and white trash skanks, wasn’t he?
Barack had a worm named after him.
Hillary also, should have a distinguished amoeba, or parasite named after her as well.
She is a puss sucking spineless virus that is breeding other pathogen’s that seek to gain control of your money.
We must have a strong antidote come November. One that will, at least, slow down the infection.
Aesop: “A liar will not be believed, even when she speaks the truth.”
.
Let’s take a step back and calmly think this through.
.
If the Trump campaign engaged in such crimes, it would be broadcast 24/7 on all media, democrat campaign outlets; and FBI Director Comey would personally arrive at Trump Tower and, with 10,000 cameras and microphones whirring, take away in handcuffs Donald Trump. .
Amici,
Is this not why Robin Hood stole from the goverment of Nottingham to return to the poor what that government had wrongfully taken? Hillary Rodham Clinton is a thief, a liar and a murderess.
I think it does not violate Christian charity to refer to the Clintons as vile, lying, corrupt agents of evil. Politics has been their means to achieve power and wealth and damn anyone who stands in their way.
Why not a class action suit against the Clinton Campaign?
One could certainly be undertaken if the allegations in the news report are accurate.
Mac, I defer to your lawyerly expertise on the civil lawsuit. This is fraud. It would be prosecuted pursuant to Federal mail fraud statutes. Of course, the regime’s Justice Department is in the tank for Clinton so never happen.
A class action suit T.Shaw can operate under any statute or fact pattern, so a class action based upon mail fraud would certainly be possible. A RICO suit might also be viable.
“Why not a class action suit against the Clinton campaign?”-Michael Dowd
Hold on.
I know I’m slow on the up-take, but these are Clinton supporters were speaking of.
Hillary Clinton supporters.
They are not likely to file a protest against their beloved Medusa. They will buy the BS that it was the fault of the internet, the site,the “glitch” in the system…and on and on.
A class action lawsuit by these individuals who rank animals rights above the sanctity of human life will not file a suit.
They are zombies…sorry grandma, but the truth can hurt.
Question Don on the class action suit requirements. In the case at issue presumably all the complainants did or could be reimbursed by the credit card company, so how could they bring a lawsuit against the Hillary campaign? No damages, no lawsuit?
Phillip, we don’t care about the outcome of the class action suit. The point is what it could do to Hillary as a negative advertising campaign. I can see it now. Trump supporters come to the aid of Democrats bilked by Hillary. And so forth.
Michael.
Plaintiffs. Who are the plaintiffs?
Fraud must have a party that is complaining..I guess. I am not educated in these matters, but my guess is that there must be a party that feels wronged. (?)
I would assume that some of the people ripped off would be willing to serve as the initial plaintiffs in a class action suit.
Just because they were reimbursed does not mean they have not been damaged. Also if a class action suit were filed, I assume that some individuals who had not taken the steps to be compensated by the issuing card company would be located. Quite a few people probably do not pay close attention to their credit card bills and some of them would be ripped off Clinton donors.
The entire platform and world view of the modern Democratic Party is a giant fraud, the primary victims of which are the adherents themselves.
Loyalty to a Hitler lead many to do unspeakable acts.
Hillary has that kind of loyalty I presume.
Philip , When I read your “Medusa” comment, I immediately thought of Medea. But, you’re correct. Serpent-tressed Medusa is far more appropriate. Mainly because Medea was intelligent, Hillary is not. Although, I have absolutely no doubt that Hillary would murder her children.
Of course as of 3:00 PM Sunday, the democrat campaign propaganda media has not reported one syllable on the crime. If it had been Trump, it would be 24/7, 60 minutes an hour, the top propaganda meme.
T Shaw.
Yes indeed. Medusa. She looks at her victims and turns them into stone… especially the hearts of her prey…..the dems. She then owns them, lock stock and barrel.
Evil snake monster…
But alas…I must pray for her.
In regards to your last comment.
Absolutely right!
Media center, had it been Trump, would be running this every chance they have.
Bastards.