Money Laundering and Dirty Politics

My friend and former codefendant Dan Backer has an article over at Investor’s Business Daily titled The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton’s $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme. (Ironically, Dan and I were among a couple of dozen codefendants accused of money laundering as a predicate crime in a civil RICO suit filed by Democrat party operative Brett Kimberlin.)

Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton’s campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election — 100 times larger than allowed.

HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums.

Did any of these transfers actually happen? Or were they just paper entries to mask direct transfers to the DNC?

For perspective, conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza was prosecuted and convicted in 2012 for giving a handful of associates money they then contributed to a candidate of his preference — in other words, straw  man contributions. He was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center and five years of probation. How much money was involved? Only $20,000. HVF weighs in at $84 million — more than 4,000 times larger!

So who should be worried? Everyone involved — from the donors themselves to Democratic fundraisers to party officials who filed false reports and, ultimately, to Clinton campaign and HVF officials looking at significant legal jeopardy.

The Federal Election Commission has failed to act on a complaint filed in 2017, so a never-before-used option in the law is being used to file a private lawsuit, placing the matter in Dan’s hands as lawyer for his client, the Committee to Defend the President. As the plaintiff’s counsel, he’ll have the tools of discovery—including subpoena power to go after bank accounts and other DNC records and to question party officials and bundlers. Every big-shot donor participating the scheme could be exposed to criminal prosecution based on evidence turned up in the civil matter.

Meanwhile, the Press is excited over $130,000 in non-campaign hush money paid to a porn star.

Dan Backer Punches Back Twice As Hard

Dan Backer, Aaron Walker’s lawyer, has filed his Response to Defendant Kimberlin’s Motion and Memorandum in Support of Rule 11 Sanctions Against Plaintiff’s Attorney Dan Backer in the federal Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit.

I’ll have more to say about TDPK’s sanctions motions and Mr. Backer’s reply in later posts. For now, let me simply refer the Gentle Reader to Mr. Backer’s section A Note on Ethics beginning at the bottom of page 16 of the response (page 20 of the pdf).


Bitten off more than he can chew. Fighting above his weight. Whatever. TDPK is in way over his head. Get the popcorn ready and stay tuned.

Tick, tock, tick, tock, …


On Halloween, Breitbart Unmasked rose up zombie-like and sent me a series of tweets. Their contents were utter rubbish, but because of some assertion made in them, I’d like to specifically describe my relationships with some of the good guys involved in the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuits.

Aaron Walker. I have no business relationship with Aaron Walker. I first met him when I attended the 5 July Kimberlin v. Walker peace order trial. We have since become friends.

Dan Backer. I met Mr. Backer when I attended the 5 October hearing in Manassas. That was the hearing at which TDPK unsuccessfully sought sanctions against Mr. Backer. Other than finding out that he reads this blog and enjoys the astronomy pictures I sometimes post, the only relationship I have with Mr. Backer is that he is an occasional source of information about the lawsuits. He is a stickler for following the court’s instructions and the Virginia Supreme Court Rules, so I receive little information from him other than confirmation that documents have been filed. I have to retrieve them for myself.

Bloggers Defense Team. My only relationship to the Bloggers Defense Team is as a contributor who encourages others to contribute. I just donated again this morning. If you would like to support their work defending our First Amendment rights, go here and hit the Donate button.

I’d also like to tell you how much money I make off this blog. None. There are no ads or donation/subscription buttons. I’m not selling anything. This blog is probably best described as a hobby.

Thanks for stopping by.

UPDATE–Thank you to commenter Pablo for alerting me to the fact that has been inserting ads on this site. They were not showing in my browser. This is supposed to be a no-ads site. I pay an extra fee for that.

Dread Pirate #BrettKimberlin Reads My Blog

Anyone can open an account at Pacer and download federal court documents for 10 cents per page. Anyone can walk into Room 314 at the Prince William County Courthouse in Manassas, Virginia, and print copies of court documents for 50 cents per page. I’ve done both. That sort of shoe leather reporting is how I’ve come by the court filings I’ve posted recently in the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. federal and Virginia civil suits.

Here’s the latest. It’s a Motion to Order Plaintiff to Cease and Desist and for Sanctions Against Plaintiff’s Counsel filed by Brett Kimberlin in the Virginia case. I would normally wait for Aaron Walker’s lawyer to file his response and let that answer Mr. Kimberlin’s claims. However, since Mr. Kimberlin cites my writing on this blog, I will respond as a point of personal privilege. But first, here’s the filing.

My comments are keyed to Mr. Kimberlin’s number paragraphs. Since I’ll only respond to a few, most are skipped.

2. In this paragraph and in his introductory remarks at the beginning of the motion, Brett Kimberlin asserts that all of his emails with Mr. Walker’s lawyer have appeared in one way or another on the Internet and that that is somehow illegal. As evidence, he attaches Exhibit B which is a partial copy of this Hogewash! blog entry. Sure enough, there are copies of his email communication back and forth with Dan Backer on a matter related to the Virginia case. I can’t say that whether or not these are all the email traffic between them. These emails were included as an exhibit in a court filing and, as such, are a part of the public record. The. public. record. Publishing documents that are a part of the public record is not illegal. TDPK and his crew do it all the time.

3. The only posts I have made with respect to Mr. Kimberlin’s invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent simply wonder why he would need to unless he has a reasonable apprehension of criminal liability.

15. By incorporating by reference my blog post as an example of the “improper and unethical” behavior he complains of, Brett Kimberlin essentially accuses me of participating in it. Here is how you will know that his claim is false. If he were to repeat it any place other than a court document, he would be opening himself up to a claim by me of defamation. See if he repeats it elsewhere.

One more thing … At the end of his motion, Mr. Kimberlin asks that Prince William County Circuit Court order that a federal trial be transferred to its jurisdiction. Sigh. IANAL, but it seems that Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause) and Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2 (the Privileges and Immunities Clause) would keep that from happening even if the Circuit Court were disposed to try it.

Meanwhile, 5 October is almost here. We’ll see who gets sanctioned.

Tick, tick, tick, tick, …

UPDATE—Brett Kimberlin’s assertion that it is unethical for a lawyer to publicly discuss civil litigation in Virginia has no basis. Indeed, Rule 3.6 of the Virginia bar prohibits such extrajudicial discussions in a criminal matter that can be tried by a jury, but does not apply to a civil suit.

Rule 3.6

Trial Publicity

(a) A lawyer participating in or associated with the investigation or the prosecution or the defense of a criminal matter that may be tried by a jury shall not make or participate in making an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication that the lawyer knows, or should know, will have a substantial likelihood of interfering with the fairness of the trial by a jury.

(b) A lawyer shall exercise reasonable care to prevent employees and associates from making an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer would be prohibited from making under this Rule.

However, I have never received any information that was not a matter of public record from any lawyer representing Aaron Walker in any matter discussed in this blog.

UPDATE 2—I did not deal with all of the claims in the motion above that seem disconnected from reality. I’ll leave that to opposing counsel. Given that a hearing is scheduled on the motion on 5 October, the same day Mr. Kmberlin’s responses to discovery are due, I’d guess that there will be a response filed soon.

Theme graphic added.