Shame on the DNC for using their non-democratic tactics to coronate a suspect in an ongoing investigation of incompetence/treason. Comey is in an impossible position.
If the voters had picked the candidate, like Christie and Bridge-ghazi, then so be it. But this was a national party artificially elevating the most advantaged candidate - after that candidate already ran & lost a Presidential election. WassermanSchultz and the DNC didn't give the voters, or HRC, the chance to have a fair election.
Everything she touches, she screws up with hubris. -Colin Powell
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
With so much pressure on Comey right now from both sides, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a press briefing from him in the next day or two. You can't just drop a bomb like that right before one of the most important elections in history and then sit on the sidelines in complete silence. He's inserted himself into this election in a big way, and he needs to explain why he made that decision. At the very least he should provide an explanation for the vagueness of his letter and be more specific about the nature of the investigation. As Clinton herself said yesterday, put it all out on the table so that both sides (and the public) can take a look for themselves and make an informed decision about whether or not it's significant.
I have been suggesting, in this thread, that Comey thinks that Clinton was in violation of the law, but that the offense is not egregious enough for charges to be laid becaus the collateral damage (tainting her work/promises/agreements as SoS) would not be appropriate.
Comey, in my eyes, turned the trial over to a new jury; 300 million voters. That's why he did (and was correct to do) a press conference that provided the pertinent facts. It is also why he can't remove himself, or this 'trial', from consideration at this point.
I have also been arguing that the DoJ has a unique burden to avoid influencing elections (that is relevant in this case). I'm confident the counter-argument has been exposed as malarkey with the last page of posts.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
Yeah I don't know if going all 'Hatch Act' is the right response, at least not during the election.
Trump's response to all this should be at least as newsworthy than the letter itself, saying it's maybe the mother lode that proves a crime that's been covered up.
Either that or Trump in Colorado telling people there they can cancel their previous ballots and get new ones (they can't that'd be illegal in most states), telling people that their early ballots are being destroyed, etc.
EDIT: Or how the warmup speaker at a rally says their wish is for Clinton and Abedin's death is their wish.
Shame on the DNC for using their non-democratic tactics to coronate a suspect in an ongoing investigation of incompetence/treason. Comey is in an impossible position.
If the voters had picked the candidate, like Christie and Bridge-ghazi, then so be it. But this was a national party artificially elevating the most advantaged candidate - after that candidate already ran & lost a Presidential election. WassermanSchultz and the DNC didn't give the voters, or HRC, the chance to have a fair election.
Everything she touches, she screws up with hubris. -Colin Powell
Bernie lost. Move the #### on. You're behaving like a six year old that got his favorite toy taken away from him. Focus on the greater good, for the love of all things holy.
How about shame on the highest ranking cop in the land using his position to influence an election, even after his boss tells him he's in the wrong and not following protocol? No, focus on crying about Bernie and what a raw job he got.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 10-30-2016 at 05:28 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Shame on the DNC for using their non-democratic tactics to coronate a suspect in an ongoing investigation of incompetence/treason. Comey is in an impossible position.
If the voters had picked the candidate, like Christie and Bridge-ghazi, then so be it. But this was a national party artificially elevating the most advantaged candidate - after that candidate already ran & lost a Presidential election. WassermanSchultz and the DNC didn't give the voters, or HRC, the chance to have a fair election.
Everything she touches, she screws up with hubris. -Colin Powell
There is absolutely no evidence that the DNC gave the primary to Clinton. Can you show me where they broke rules to get her elected? And please show these actions were pre-super Tuesday when she won the nomination. Did they want her to win absolutely but you sound trumpish or a Whiny Bernie bro when you skate around this rigged paradigm.
I don't mind the disclosure of the continuing investigation however he should make himself available to the media and should get the relavent emails screened and disclosed immediately. He's had a weekend, they should have hundreds of officers combing through the relavent emails to get this done.
There is absolutely no evidence that the DNC gave the primary to Clinton. Can you show me where they broke rules to get her elected? And please show these actions were pre-super Tuesday when she won the nomination. Did they want her to win absolutely but you sound trumpish or a Whiny Bernie bro when you skate around this rigged paradigm.
So it needs to be a specific, unlawful collusion between HRC and DNC that occurred before Super Tuesday? I've got a spreadsheet with these and other variables I can sort.
The DNC was circumventing maximum individual donations to HRC by laundering it through individual state Democratic committees - most of which had their leadership picked by Tim Kaine or by WassermanSchultz (resigned in disgrace from DNC & instantly got a job for HRC).
There is an individual maximum contribution to a political campaign. There is a separate maximum individual for the national Democratic Party, and (separate) 50 state Democratic Parties.
When someone like George Clooney threw a fundraiser, guests would make the full legal contribution to all 3 entities. This money would all go into the HRC coffers during the primaries.
This is in violation of the letter and the spirit of the law.
This is corruption. How much is too much?
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
A sanders lawyer says illegal, a Clinton lawyer says legal, a 3rd party lawyer says legal.
Also Bernie didn't complain to the FEC he complained to the DNC. This is odd if you truly believe that something illegal was done.
I wanted to post a respectable, balanced source.
If you think the Hillary Victory fund was ethical then we do not agree.
I'm not impressed that they have lawyers ready to make arguments in defence.
I didnt defer to Bush's legal defence of torture, I decided for myself.
The FEC has admitted they are toothless. They have openly stated they won't go after anyone - so of course the case is weak. The institution is hollow.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
I had to laugh today, I was driving to my sisters house and I saw this beat to crap Mercedes stationary wagon packed to the gills with crap, it had a Donald Trump for president sticker on it. It was also laboring to keep up to speed so I decided to go around it. I looked at the driver and it was a 35 year old guy with a neck beard, a mullet and a battered hunting cap.
All I could think was
"Live the Stereotype dude, live the stereotype"
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I wanted to post a respectable, balanced source.
If you think the Hillary Victory fund was ethical then we do not agree.
I'm not impressed that they have lawyers ready to make arguments in defence.
I didnt defer to Bush's legal defence of torture, I decided for myself.
The FEC has admitted they are toothless. They have openly stated they won't go after anyone - so of course the case is weak. The institution is hollow.
I don't know enough about US election finance law to make a decision one way or another. In this article a lawyer independants of the two camps said it was not illegal. In areas I have no expertise I defer to experts.
As for ethical I'm not sure any part of US election finance law is ethical. When the superpacs exist everything else is almost inconsequential. They have a system to deliver anonymous money to candidates.
I do think the HVF though was much more about building a war chest for the general then about beating Bernie.
I don't know enough about US election finance law to make a decision one way or another. In this article a lawyer independants of the two camps said it was not illegal. In areas I have no expertise I defer to experts.
As for ethical I'm not sure any part of US election finance law is ethical. When the superpacs exist everything else is almost inconsequential. They have a system to deliver anonymous money to candidates.
Don't ask me to provide you with a specific violation and then follow up with this weak tea. This isn't so complicated that you need a lawyer to spoon-feed you - use your own judgement.
After Trump won the Repub nomination, he set up a Victory Fund like this - it's an efficient way to hold a single fundraiser and help the local congressman, state senator, and Presidential funds - these small fish need the big-ticket-names to sell the tickets and help fundraise for the good of the party.
HRC's fund was set-up before any other candidates were in the race with the intention of clearing the path - Biden had to contemplate running against a HRC & DNC alliance. That's not ok.
Furthermore, the money wasn't raised for all 3 entities. It was raised for the exclusive advantage of HRC.
Don't be part of this culture that relies on the secret tape; relying on 'Bond villain explains his motives to camera' as the only way to make a tentative conclusion.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
Now you made me read more than I really wants to into.
But here's what I see.
Hillary is out stumping for cash and takes 44% of the gate personally. Then the state parties get a chunk and the DNC gets a chunk. Then the state parties send their money back to the DNC.
I'm not seeing where the DNC then transfers the money back to Clinton or the state parties give the money to Clinton. It appears to be a way for the DNC to move money from safe states to battleground states using there best fundraiser to drive the dollars in.
Did Bernie ever approach the DNC to set one of these up as well to help the party. And the trump example is pretty could as well as he kept a large % of those fundraising operations for his team.
So without knowing the real law here I'm not seeing where the issue is unless the DNC was transferring money back to Clinton
Now you made me read more than I really wants to into.
But here's what I see.
Hillary is out stumping for cash and takes 44% of the gate personally. Then the state parties get a chunk and the DNC gets a chunk. Then the state parties send their money back to the DNC.
I'm not seeing where the DNC then transfers the money back to Clinton or the state parties give the money to Clinton. It appears to be a way for the DNC to move money from safe states to battleground states using there best fundraiser to drive the dollars in.
Did Bernie ever approach the DNC to set one of these up as well to help the party. And the trump example is pretty could as well as he kept a large % of those fundraising operations for his team.
So without knowing the real law here I'm not seeing where the issue is unless the DNC was transferring money back to Clinton
The states kept half.....half of 1% of the money raised - and the DNC lied about it.
Yes, but the states didn't send the money to Hillary. They sent it to the DNC. The article says she got 37 million of whatever the total is and spent it on Clinton mailings and whatever else to benefit her. I don't see how this is different from the trump arrangement. The big star takes a large share of the money.
The state parties transfer the money back to the DNC though. To me it looks like moving money out of safe states into swing states.
So without knowing the real law here I'm not seeing where the issue is unless the DNC was transferring money back to Clinton
The DNC was part of the HRC campaign - that's the basis of my complaint.
They weren't fair arbiters of a selection process.
Which, if you got them off-record, they'd admit.
Political parties aren't public institutions, they are private clubs that can pick whoever they want.
It happens that the party with demographic dominance has become an oligarchy that is getting better and better at calcifying their power - and that has consequences.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
I think Gozer is making a strong case here and I agree with him.
I think it's pretty clear that the DNC was acting in concert to get Hillary the nomination. All the surrounding optics look terrible about it and the case Gozer makes appears to be solid evidence of some collusion/corruption between party and candidate.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
