BREAKING: CNN Tries To Cover Up MASSIVE Scandal… Ends Up BACKFIRING Big League

BREAKING: Organization Implicated By Project Veritas Suspiciously Misfiled Their Taxes To Shield Donors

Brett MacDonald
| Twitter | Facebook |

At this point, nothing should surprise you so I will save you the alarmist theatrics.  The jackals in the press are now trying to claim that the collusion that took place between AUFC, the DNC, and the Clinton campaign was not illegal.  It almost certainly was illegal and was done to shield their donors. We’ll to that, but it get’s a bit technical so stick with me.

The article primarily relies on these two IRS Guideline and Precedent Booklets:

One of the organizations responsible for the violence and intimidation of Trump supporters as well as architects of the systematic plan for voter fraud has seemingly misfiled their IRS 990 forms.  And this is actually a big deal.

ADVERTISEMENT - STORY CONTINUES BELOW
take our poll - story continues below

Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician?

  • Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to AFF updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I owe Jake Tapper over at CNN a big thank you for making me stumble onto this tidbit of information.

See, he was telling everyone on his Twitter feed that the actions of Americans United For Change (AUFC) were not illegal since the law in question was pertaining to SuperPACs.  Well, he’s sort of right and also entirely wrong — the modus operandi of any good CNN anchor.

Let me set the tone with four tweets involving Tapper:

A user asked if Tapper is concerned about the PV leaks:

And Tapper is right, as a 501 c(4) they aren’t held to the same standards. But Tapper is working under some assumptions that fail to pan out:

Tapper is right, according to the IRS, 501c(4)s, or organizations instituted to promote “social welfare” are allowed to engage in political activity so long as said activity does not constitute their primary function.  But, that’s the thing — it’s the only function of AUFC.   Essentially, AUFC has filed as a 501c(4) when they should have filed as a 527 and there’s only one reason to do that — to hide the source of donations.  See, the main difference between the two groups is that the 527s have to reveal their donors.

In order to retain status as a 501c(4), an organization must partake in at least one of two functions and that function must serve as its primary role–they must either operate as civil leagues that promote social welfare or as an association of employees.

The fact of the matter is, AUFC primarily serves as Clinton’s attack dogs.  They troll rallies, they dress up in Donald Duck costumes, they instigate violence, and disrupt the opposition’s ability to function.

And, while AUFC does do real work that can fall under the title of “social welfare” by the standards of the IRS, that work does not presently make up a majority of their effort and precedent would dictate that they would create a separate 527 group so that they were in compliance with campaign finance laws.

Tapper, the good soldier that he’s been ever since he decided to sell his soul, takes on faith alone that the mere status of AUFC as a 501c(4) guarantees that they are operating above board.  Because, clearly, there hasn’t been any damning video evidence that suggests AUFC would behave in anyway outside the highest standard of ethics.

Why they should still lose exemption but won’t:

But there is good news, even if one wants to argue that majority of AUFC’s work is for “social welfare,” that doesn’t necessarily shield them from losing their tax exemption.  501c(4)s can be exempt for as little as one political engagement if the behavior is deemed particularly outside the realm of their purpose. Unfortunately, this scheme isn’t exactly uncommon — candidates use 501c(4)s to shovel dark money literally all the time. The only chance we have is to stress the violent nature of their political involvement and hopes it meets the standard of “substantial in nature” as outlined below:

picnhvs-1

And further to the point, they didn’t even lawfully file their 990.  Since over 10% of their expenditures were categorized as “other,” AUFC was required by law to file line-item information on a form called “Section O.”  And sure enough, while they attached the form to their filing, they basically told the IRS they didn’t keep any records and to talk to their lawyers if they really want specifics. No joke.

rixyxyg

Finally, if a 501(c)(4) makes independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate they are supposed to file with the FEC and declare them.  I could find no such filing despite AUFC indicating they participated in numerous campaign activities.

I am pretty damn sure that beating up Chicago cops at a Trump rally is directly opposed to “social welfare.” I formally request that the IRS and the Justice Department (fat chance) look into the clearly duplicitous filing made by Americans United For Change.  We all know that Woodhouse, the highest paid employee and founder of the organization, is nothing more than a contract-consultant.

This article was written by Brett MacDonald. If you enjoyed this story or did not, hate mail can be left in the comments below and the author totally won’t ignore it.  

Compliments or questions may be sent to @ TweetBrettMac. on Twitter!

VOTE FOR DONALD J. TRUMP! TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Dean James III% AMERICA’S FREEDOM FIGHTERS

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter!

Facebook Has Banned Us!

The leftists at Facebook decided they didn’t like our message, so they removed our page and are censoring us. Help us fight back and subscribe to our newsletter so that you can stay up-to-date with everything Facebook doesn’t want you to see!


Facebook Comments