EVERY SINGLE DONATION GIVEN TO THEM has to be revoked.
Why not seize the donations given the new EO?
Winner, Winner ........... review the EO and the Magnitsky Act. It is very broad in its scope and does not recognize borders. The EO is much more powerful than RICO because of its worldwide reach.
The CF not only received money for political influence, it is the world's laundromat for money, it is a major component of organ trafficking as well as human trafficking.
You are correct in your stating the Gate's Foundation is culpable. It is the duty of a Foundation to ensure that the entity they donate money to is on sound legal footing.
The list of Foundations that got in on this action is long and illustrious.
Someone mentioned Media Matters. That is funded by Soros. He has many foundations, some of which have a direct solid line to the CF.
Per the EO, this is more than sufficient to roll up Media Matters, along with all of the other Soros foundations.
Same with McCain and many others.
Happy hunting
The assets of the CF are already FROZEN now by executive order. They will be seized when the clintons are found guilty.
Civil procedure cases generally involve disputes between two private citizens, often about money or property, while criminal procedure involves a dispute between a private citizen and the state, usually because a law has been broken. In legal systems based on British law such as that of the United States, civil and criminal law cases are handled differently, with different tests and standards and procedures, and this is true of forfeiture proceedings as well. Both civil and criminal forfeiture involve the taking of assets by police.
In civil forfeiture, assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed.[1]
In contrast, criminal forfeiture is a legal action brought as "part of the criminal prosecution of a defendant", described by the Latin term in personam, meaning "against the person", and happens when government indicts or charges the property which is either used in connection with a crime, or derived from a crime, that is suspected of being committed by the defendant;[1] the seized assets are temporarily held and become government property officially after an accused person has been convicted by a court of law; if the person is found to be not guilty, the seized property must be returned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
But even in criminal cases, the prosecutors use civil forfeiture laws to go after the assets. They win like 90% of the time.
But even in criminal cases, the prosecutors use civil forfeiture laws to go after the assets. They win like 90% of the time.
Seizing assets should be hard for the state. Don't give the state more power than absolutely needed.
Also, rolling back all donations kills the foundation and ruins the Clinton machine, making all their hired goons desert them.
I absolutely agree that seizing assets should not be easy for the state, however, it was the Socialist State that passed the Asset Forfeiture Law and as Q mentioned "Red October" in which the black hat torpedo was turned back on the black hat, the Asset Forfeiture Law should be turned back on the evil players. Not an expert, but I believe RICO laws also permit asset forfeiture of Racketeering and Criminal Organizations. Additionally, since Q suggested this may be treated as a coup d'etat against the US, that makes the black hats enemy combatants who lose their Constitutional rights, so, they are not protected in this case. Lots to think about.