LOL!!!
Open your eyes.
Really, you don’t know what’s known? Campaign finance felony, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, lying to the FBI … all that’s escaped your notice? Even Fox has begrudgingly mentioned these crimes.
I will say this.
AOC shouldn’t be let off from a PR perspective just because what might have been happening here is “technically legal”.
She has set a higher standard for herself and she show be held to it.
I say this still not knowing all the details yet.
3 Likes
here is how i define it:
“I knew that I was not going to be liked. I’m a Democrat. I’m a woman. I’m a young woman. A Latina. And I’m a liberal, a D.S.A. member,”
and
“I can see Trump being enormously upset that a 29-year-old Latina, who is the daughter of a domestic worker, is helping to build the case to get his financial records. “
so she acuses everyone who criticizes her as being either sexist, and or racist.
but not because of idiotic leftist shoot the moon policies and positions
I thought they were a reliable source? Dear lord what is left as a reliable source. At the very least I thought they were the center right version of the Washington Post.
Are you confusing the Examiner with the Post?
I thought they were about in the same ballpark just one was center left and the other center right.
Um…no.
Is she wrong? Are there people who don’t like her because she’s a Democrat? Yes. Are there people who don’t like her because she’s a young woman? Yes. A Latina? Yes. A liberal and a DSA member? That’d be your reasons for hating her.
So what’s the problem with being right?
You know what isn’t in that quote? Her saying everyone who criticized her is racist and sexist.
I’m not making a claim about what’s wrong or right…only stating what is.
I will point out that you criticizing behavior in those that disagree with you politically that you excuse in those that agree with you politically only exposes your “flexibility” in your standards of “right and wrong”.
You’re describing the results of many, many, many investigations of the Clintons over decades and comparing them to an ongoing investigation of the current president that has already produced multiple indictments. Give it time.
That’s not why Trump is being investigated.
if you didnt cherry pick portions of my post in your reply you would see that the sexist racist part was not in quotes. so that is obvious
she is referring to her critics and the GOP. totally broadbrusing essentially accusing them of sexism, racism. pure identity politics.
read the article
Finally had time to read the story. Sounds like a reporting issue. The transfers are quite visible - if you’re a Harvard business grad and you’re trying to set up a “slush fund”, there are WAY less obvious ways to do it.
Speaking of “slush fund”: the only place the term appears is in the Washington Examiner’s headline. 'Nuff said?
Finally:
Unnamed campaign finance attorneys. You know - those guys. With their fancy legal jargon and all.
It’s always amusing to me that any Trump-critical story in the Post or Times, with unnamed but enumerated and described sources, is fake news. Something like this, woefully shy of detail about exactly what makes this a big problem, is swallowed whole by the CEC.
1 Like
Which surprises me, actually. Because she asked the most logical and authoritative questions in the Cohen hearing of anyone. Her logic wasn’t impressive?
I’m not sure where the problem is on either of these. Just because she labels herself isn’t a bad thing. It’s like calling a Republican a RINO, is it not? As for her opinion on Trump that was quoted, I don’t see anything wrong there either. She’s not criticizing everyone. She’s talking about herself and only herself.
It’s Fox News light in terms of news reports. From the little I’ve seen of them, they aren’t as wacky with the conspiracy theories and bikinis (does Fox do that anymore?) but they’re not thorough, which is why I dismissed the story right away. I’m anxious to see what if anything the NYT or Post does with it and what they’ll have that the Examiner didn’t. The Examiner, FYI, is owned by Philip Anschutz, an extreme right-winger who’s not as well known as Murdoch.
I will also post here in this thread. Article states there can be troubled times for the socialist wanna be.
It could be if you weren’t posting links from proven liars and propagandists.
Other than that? Top notch post!
Because I know you want to speak accurately: your link is not a news article. It’s an opinion piece with no new information.
I think it’s humorously despicable that the worthless scum who run that site find themselves remotely comparable to the people who wrote the federalist papers.
