I don’t give a ■■■■ about collusion. I’m holding out for money laundering and obstruction of justice.
Hopefully the voters will continue to reject the policy of the D platform.
That is all I am looking for.
Me too…
Here’s what we know. Campaign finance law is incredibly complex and infamous for its lack of clarity. As I’ve explained before, its complexity is a feature, not a bug. Major political players with the resources to hire the very few attorneys who practice campaign finance law benefit from the complexity that keeps others out. Perhaps HVF’s architects thought so too, and assumed that if no one understands what’s happening, no one would complain.
Here’s what you can do, legally. Per election, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party’s main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits — it’s legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfers to their national party.
Here’s what you can’t do, which the Clinton machine appeared to do anyway. As the Supreme Court made clear in McCutcheon v. FEC, the JFC may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through “earmarks” and “straw men” that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions here.
On top of that, six-figure donations either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting by HVF, state parties, and the DNC to the laundry list.
Finally, as Donna Brazile and others admitted, the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign’s direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law that ties the conspiracy together.
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.
It’s like a police officer stopping you for running a red light then smelling pot in your car. You think he’s gonna let that slide? I can’t believe I actually have to explain this to someone. As for no collusion, as Yogi Berra said, “It ain’t over 'till it’s over.” Be patient, my friend.
…unless you had a rival pay for a dossier that claimed you ran a red light in another jurisdiction…
Other than that it is a fine analogy.
You mean the one that was started by Republicans? That one? You guys will keep shoveling that stupid talking point no matter how stupid it looks, won’t you?
1 Like
Global warming.
Global cooling.
Climate change.
Strzok. Mueller put him on the time. Thos Weissman guy sounds like a piece of work too.
Neither of which will prejudice the final reporting. Except in the minds of those already determined Mueller is overseeing some partisan witch hunt based on…reasons I guess.
It’s hard for people to admit that they threw their support behind someone as shady as Trump, who surrounded himself with a cast of equally shady characters.
One thing will be certain though. Mueller’s conclusions will not be just opinion based. They will be accompanied by sufficient evidence and supporting material to back up all of his conclusions. Whatever they end up being.
1 Like
Glad we could agree.
1 Like
Rival can be both R and D.
I remember when McCain and Romney were both full of anti Trump rhetoric.
Does not negate the fact that the dossier is garbage.
But your not giving tidbits. You’re simply repeating that you are while talking about bread crumbs. There’s nothing of substance there.
I challenge you to put it together. Give a coherent statement of the way things are. Use factual sources
And what McCain did to the Tea Party guys.
That’s very naive.
Fllynn’s plea has nothing to do with any supposed “Russian Collusion”.
I know. Thanks.
Then why did you make the assertion?
We can talk about credibility when Flynn’s guilty plea is revoked or any of the other nonsense predictions you’ve made cont true.
Because that particular poster has a history of making outlandish conspiratorial claims that are never borne out.
You made the claim, not him.
No, he made the claim. Some time ago. It never came true because it was one of those outlandish claims that he scrapped off a trashy rig wing blog.
