Cortez and her puppet-master Chakrabarti Scandal #1: Admission of illegal control of a PAC supporting her candidacy

Two separate but related scandals are rocking Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her puppet-master Saikat Chakrabarti — the man who recruited, trained, and financed her election victory, and who now is her chief of staff.

Scandal number one is well explained by Andrew Kerr of the Daily Caller News Foundation. In essence, federal campaign finance law allows donations larger than the $2,500 limit for contributions to actual campaigns if they are sent to a political action committee (PAC) but strictly forbids control of PACs by candidates or campaigns. There is strong evidence that Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti controlled just such a PAC and may have made deliberate efforts to conceal that. The concealment would be a key issue in determining whether a civil penalty (fines) or criminal penalties (prison) would be in order if the violations are proven.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/ocasiocortez_and_her_puppetmaster_chakrabarti_scandal_1_admission_of_illegal_control_of_a_pac_supporting_her_candidacy.html#ixzz5hPEzMdxJ
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[image deleted]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

Deliberate efforts to conceal it by having the disclaimer that they control it right on the website the entire time 😂

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

That’s not going to help them. You do know your donation was not deductible, right? . @QuixoticSoul

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@jackjjackson I don't donate to any political candidate, ever - so I'm good.

And we'll see - this setup they tried to create seems novel, but ultimately legal.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

I’m not at all surprised you’d condone it. Meanwhile they are living large at the expense of the bilked contributors. Socialism at is best redistributing wealth and all. I hope he at least owns a Tesla. @QuixoticSoul

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@jackjjackson What exactly do you mean by living large?

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

I’m sure your internet feed describes the lifestyle and when the next issue of People Magazine arrives at your mailbox it will be there too. @QuixoticSoul

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@jackjjackson Hey, you're the one that said it. My internet feed seems to think that the money went elsewhere, and that they weren't really hiding any affiliations.

https://justicedems.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/33000223353-when-i-look-at-the-fec-report-for-justice-democrats-in-2017-why-are-there-so-many-expenditures-to-b

From May of last year.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

Old info. Please try to keep up. @QuixoticSoul

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@jackjjackson What changed? Not all of us have an undying crush on AOC and keep glued to her news, you know.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

Some of us knew from the get go it was suspicious and now it’s being exposed. @QuixoticSoul

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@jackjjackson So far it’s just a bunch of hopeless rightoids making noise. Let’s see if FEC bites.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

The FEC itself filed the complaint. You’re better than being a feckless apologist. @QuixoticSoul

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@jackjjackson Nah, it was some watchdog group iirc.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

So you were intellectually lazy in claiming is is just some hopeful roghtoids making noise. I understand. @QuixoticSoul

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@jackjjackson No, I was perfectly accurate. The watchdog group is also a bunch of hopeful rightoids making noise - otherwise they’d be a [i]nonpartisan[/i] watchdog group.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

So you’re on record as condoning the activity described in this thread?@QuixoticSoul

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@jackjjackson I’m on the fence about it. It sounds pretty routine and harmless, but iffy for someone who argues for transparency.

That is, of course, if it’s legal - I’ll wait for FEC to chime in on that.