Taking a few notes from Trump: Clinton campaign was overcharging poor donors back in September. - Polidicks

[URL]http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/[/URL] [quote]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.[/quote] I tried searching and nothing about this came up on the forum search.

I never want another 2016 election again

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media. The website also was one of the few to endorse Trump for obvious reasons. While I'm not saying the events in the article didn't occur, the way it's written is amateurish and incredibly biased.

[QUOTE=elfbarf;51388873]Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.[/QUOTE] Yeah seconds away from posting this, anybody got a better source? [editline]18th November 2016[/editline] Nothing promising so far in Google, but I did find this: [url]http://www.snopes.com/clinton-campaign-overcharging-donors/[/url]

[QUOTE=elfbarf;51388873]Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media. The website also was one of the few to endorse Trump for obvious reasons. While I'm not saying the events in the article didn't occur, the way it's written is amateurish and incredibly biased.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-clinton-campaign-may-have-overcharged-donors/article/2602044[/url] [url]http://www.snopes.com/clinton-campaign-overcharging-donors/[/url] [url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/15/1570715/-On-the-Horizon-Claims-that-Clinton-Campaign-is-Overcharging-Small-Donors[/url]

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51388890][URL]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-clinton-campaign-may-have-overcharged-donors/article/2602044[/URL] [URL]http://www.snopes.com/clinton-campaign-overcharging-donors/[/URL] [URL]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/15/1570715/-On-the-Horizon-Claims-that-Clinton-Campaign-is-Overcharging-Small-Donors[/URL][/QUOTE] Come on man did you even read those. The first one cites the Observer as its first source and the author discloses that she even writes for the observer. Second one is the same link i posted that [I]states it's unproven.[/I] The third is somebody going "hey guys look at this *posts link* /entirearticle"

[QUOTE=Splarg!;51388896]Come on man did you even read those. The first one cites the Observer as its first source and the author discloses that she even writes for the observer. Second one is the same link i posted that [I]states it's unproven.[/I] The third is somebody going "hey guys look at this *posts link* /entirearticle"[/QUOTE] In truth no I didn't, they were the only ones other than the likes of gateway pundit/"truthrevolt" and other blatantly conservative tabloids. Regardless I'd still believe it because of the other shady acts that was going on like a noise machine in a private rich donor speech, Bill Clinton shutting down polling stations, etc.

[QUOTE=elfbarf;51388873]Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media. The website also was one of the few to endorse Trump for obvious reasons. While I'm not saying the events in the article didn't occur, the way it's written is amateurish and incredibly biased.[/QUOTE] Mods should probably ban this source

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51388933]In truth no I didn't, they were the only ones other than the likes of gateway pundit/"truthrevolt" and other blatantly conservative tabloids. Regardless I'd still believe it because of the other shady acts that was going on like a noise machine in a private rich donor speech, Bill Clinton shutting down polling stations, etc.[/QUOTE] and next time you can believe a new story because of shady acts like "overcharging donors"

Looking at the source, as others have pointed out, plus the absolute lack of external confirmation, this sounds like utter bullshit. Nothing but propaganda being thrown out there to try and make Clinton look worse now that the election is done to try and whittle away the holdouts for her. Until somebody else comes along and proves it, that's the way this should be interpreted. They have obvious motivations for running a story like this, and it sounds too good to be true.

Just speaking from my personal experience, I was signed up for monthly donations to the Clinton campaign since June, in addition to a number of other one off donations, and never saw anything like this, and I religously monitor my charges. Doesn't mean it couldn't have theoretically happened to others, but again, considering the source, I'm highly skeptical.