Useful Idiot David Hogg Tells Whoppers While Unlawfully Soliciting Canadians To Donate to US Political Campaigns
Seriously, if we’ve put millions into searching for Russian collusion and meddling in US elections since 2016, why was useful idiot David Hogg not arrested when he came back into the united States after calling on Canadians to vote to “save America” and even donate to political causes in the US? Apparently, he forgot what country he was in while he stood alongside filmmaker Michael Moore and encouraging Canadians to donate to political campaigns in the States.
It’s beyond embarrassing that this kid lies about semi-automatic rifles being able to be self-defense weapons, but now he’s actually engaging in possible illegal activity by encouraging Canadians to get active in US elections through donations. By the way, stupidity about where you are speaking is no excuse when you are violating the law.
“Who’s ready to save America?” said Hogg, to hardly any applause in the room full of Canadians. “Who’s ready to make America the country that we say it is on paper and make it the actual country that it wants to be?”
Hogg’s facial expression at this point is priceless, showing just how ignorant the young man is.
“I think the most important thing to realize, however, is the problems that we face in a country,” Hogg said, trying to get some momentum going.
While easy to point out the problems in America, some of which are legitimate, Hogg did so and then encouraged the Canadians to “Turn that shame into your vote!”
What? Seriously the awkwardness of the statement and the silence of the crowd had to have made Hogg feel like he was having an out of body experience, but apparently, it hit him where he was and to whom he was speaking and he added, “If you’re not Canadian!”
“I think Canadians can donate to political campaigns in the United States,” Hogg said, looking to Michael Moore for affirmation.
Moore shook his head “no.”
“They can’t?” asked Hogg. “Well, uh, vote here!”
Later on, Hogg told a whopper regarding President Donald Trump.
“The IRS, if you’re watching on Facebook, why aren’t you auditing the President of the United States, who likely got $30 million from Russia via the NRA,” he said.
IRS, if you are reading this post, why not look into little Davey Hogg’s checking account and see just who has been paying him to be their puppet? Why don’t we see if Hogg is living up the very standards he is pontificating about in order to be in the limelight at the expense of dead high school students.
Or better yet, why don’t we just enforce the law against him.
Speaking of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the FEC cites the law of foreign nationals contributing to US campaigns.
The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:
- Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;
- Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);
- Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;
- Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.
Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.
Participation by foreign nationals in decisions involving election-related activities
Commission regulations prohibit foreign nationals from directing, dictating, controlling, or directly or indirectly participating in the decision-making process of any person (such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization) with regard to any election-related activities. Such activities include, the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with any federal or nonfederal elections in the United States, or decisions concerning the administration of any political committee. Foreign nationals are also prohibited from involvement in the management of a political committee, including any separate segregated fund (SSF), nonconnected committee, or the nonfederal accounts of any of these committees. See Explanation and Justification for 11 CFR 110.20 at 67 FR 69946 (November 19, 2002) [PDF].
The Commission has pursued a number of enforcement actions related to this prohibition. For example, in Matter Under Review (MUR) 3460, the Commission reached a conciliation agreement with a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation and four of its foreign national directors. The directors, along with one director who was not a foreign national, passed a resolution authorizing a “contribution committee” to make political and charitable donations from a special account, and capitalizing the committee with $50,000 in corporate funds. The one director who was not a foreign national was appointed as the sole member of the committee. The contribution committee subsequently made contributions to state and local candidates. The foreign nationals’ involvement in the decision to establish and fund the “contribution committee” meant that its subsequent contributions violated the ban on foreign nationals participating directly or indirectly in the making of contributions and donations in connection with elections. The corporation and the foreign national directors paid a civil penalty.
Soliciting, accepting, or receiving contributions and donations from foreign nationals
The Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, “knowingly” means that a person:
- Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;
- Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national; or
- Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.
Pertinent facts that should cause the recipient of a contribution or donation to question whether it was given by a foreign national include, but are not limited to the following: a donor or contributor uses a foreign passport, provides a foreign address, makes a contribution from a foreign bank, or resides abroad. Commission regulations provide for a safe harbor: obtaining a copy of a current and valid U.S. passport would satisfy the duty to inquire whether the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national.
In AO 2016-10 (Parker), the Commission determined that a U.S. citizen living abroad could solicit contributions on behalf of federal candidates and committees from other U.S. citizens residing abroad. She was required to ascertain the citizenship of the individuals whom she might solicit if she were aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire or believe that those individuals were foreign nationals. However, the Commission advised the requestor, “Limiting your solicitations to friends and family who live in the U.S. and who have not, to your knowledge, lived abroad, would not obligate you to conduct further inquiry about citizenship status due to the residence of the individuals whom you solicit.” If, however, she were to obtain a copy of a valid U.S. passport, she would be covered by the safe harbor provision noted above.
In MUR 4834, an individual admitted knowingly and willfully soliciting a contribution from a foreign national and causing a foreign contribution to be made falsely in the name of a U.S. citizen. The individual also admitted that at the time of the solicitation, he knew that the person he was soliciting was a foreign national and that contributions from foreign nationals were prohibited. The Commission entered into a conciliation agreement with the individual, and he agreed to pay a civil penalty.
In MUR 4638, the Commission found reason to believe that a law firm had violated the Act by knowingly solicited and provided “substantial assistance” to a foreign national making donations. Individuals at the firm participated in conversations with a known foreign national and his agents that resulted in his making donations to state and local candidates. As a result of the Commission’s finding, the firm entered into a conciliation agreement with the Commission and agreed to pay a civil penalty.
I’m pretty sure Hogg would fall under that last one of solicitation, even though Moore told him no. Still, Hogg would be a perfect example to apply the law to so that others would learn from his lawlessness and carelessness in order to attack the God-given rights of law-abiding Americans, don’t you think?
Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost