In defense of Clinton however, the only difference between her campaign's superPAC and every other one that has existed is hacked emails. Literally every superPAC communicates with the candidate's campaign.
That's because communication with a SuperPAC isn't all illegal. Coordination that meets specific criteria is illegal (unless as I mentioned that SuperPAC restricts itself to Internet communications, then coordination is fine, or that's the claim anyway).
That's why I think specifics are important. Without details, one can't properly evaluate the claim.
EDIT: For example from what I understand a campaign could provide contact information and broad guidance on a prospect, but could not give instruction on telling them how much to ask for. "Call Street Pharmacist as he's a frequent generous donator" is ok, as I think would be "Call Street Pharmacist and ask for $4000" because that's under the limit. "Call Street Pharmacist and ask for $25,000" wouldn't be legal as it's over the limit.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Superpacs are one of the reasons Obama hasn't moved too much, in addition to congress. I expect the same with Hillary, although with congress she'll likely be able to move the social needle somewhat, but private interests will continue to be protected I'm sorry
Unless they are in the vein of "Hillary told us to capture and kill fluffy bunnies just for the joy of hearing them scream!", they're too ambiguous to be interesting.
You're right.
If there's no "Ray Rice punching out his girlfriend" videotape, then there's nothing worth considering.
He asked a simple question, and I gave it a direct, polite, and sourced answer.
He made a second, unreasonable request, and I dismissed it.
I'm not prepared to provide, support, cite, and defend case law for this Byzantine legalese, and expecting me to do so is rude.
If you are not prepared to defend a position why bring it up in the first place?
That's because communication with a SuperPAC isn't all illegal. Coordination that meets specific criteria is illegal (unless as I mentioned that SuperPAC restricts itself to Internet communications, then coordination is fine, or that's the claim anyway).
That's why I think specifics are important. Without details, one can't properly evaluate the claim.
EDIT: For example from what I understand a campaign could provide contact information and broad guidance on a prospect, but could not give instruction on telling them how much to ask for. "Call Street Pharmacist as he's a frequent generous donator" is ok, as I think would be "Call Street Pharmacist and ask for $4000" because that's under the limit. "Call Street Pharmacist and ask for $25,000" wouldn't be legal as it's over the limit.
CTR's claim that it's online and thus "not real" is absurd on its face.
It's a Trump-like tactic, where they are bullying the FEC into silence or facing an overwhelming legal battle. The FEC knows that Congress wouldn't support them.
You have a more lenient understanding than I; I consider all three examples illegal, but I am also unable to claim expertise.
I certainly agree that specifics are what matters. I encourage posters to evaluate if there is co-ordination.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gozer For This Useful Post:
These people are hilarious. If Clinton wins, it's rigged. But if Trump wins, then everything is fair and the people have spoken. Trump is creating quite a sh-- storm with his ridiculous claims, and of course his unhinged supporters are just eating it up. I wonder, if Trump loses and actually decides to concede like a gracious human being, will that calm things down? Or would it make his supporters more angry and cause them to completely snap? Either way, things are gonna get interesting (and possibly frightening) on Nov. 8th after the voting results come in.
CTR's claim that it's online and thus "not real" is absurd on its face.
I'm not saying it's not real, they're just following what their legal advice says the law says and provides for. It's probably a loophole that's being exploited, just like other loopholes that hers and other campaigns have exploited (like coordinating with SuperPACs before the campaign officially kicks off).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
You have a more lenient understanding than I; I consider all three examples illegal, but I am also unable to claim expertise.
Well those examples were given by a lawyer trying to help the campaign navigate the complex laws and stay onside, so I'll provisionally defer to a lawyer experienced in the field vs a website called unfittorun.com
Lawsuit happy Trump would be all over this if there was actually evidence of wrongdoing IMO.
As an aside, it's kind of amusing that the PDF of supposed evidence of collusion includes emails with a legal firm who's job it is to advise the campaign on how to avoid collusion.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I did not make that claim.
I will say that Bernie (because of honesty) and Trump (because of incompetence) did not engage in this behaviour.
This is fresh meat; Bernie's campaign had proof of other, less ethical accusations of the Clintons/DNC working together to evade these laws. I'm happy to expand if you're unfamiliar.
Working just off your ColberPAC knowledge, you know enough to understand this is in violation of the Federal Elections Commision - regardless of how silly those laws were considered by Colbert. His lawyer explained they couldn't co-ordinate.
So based on some reading you can communicate but not coordinate. However that is very grey and untested it court. Both Trump and Clinton have complaints with the FEC lodged against them for their behaviour with their superpacs.
Part of me files this under who cares of course they were doing it, everybody has always done it as the concept of the super pac is ridiculous and the citizens United ruling makes no sense. However I should care more if the law was followed but I certainly don't have the expertise to evaluate if it was
He's lying an bullying again. No way he wants to be deposed under oath on these claims.
Lisa Bloom @LisaBloomOct 22 My law firm will proudly represent any accusers sued by Donald Trump and crowd fund defense costs. Can’t wait to take his deposition!
Lisa Bloom @LisaBloom5h5 hours ago
BREAKING: my client Jill Harth and I respond to Trump's insults and threats yesterday. Spoiler: not backing down.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Bagor For This Useful Post:
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Just four years ago, Donald Trump took a drastically different position on what is now his central issue: deporting undocumented immigrants in the United States.
Asked about his views on immigrant labor, Trump said, "You know my views on it and I'm not necessarily, I think I'm probably down the middle on that also. Because I also understand how, as an example, you have people in this country for 20 years, they've done a great job, they've done wonderfully, they've gone to school, they've gotten good marks, they're productive — now we're supposed to send them out of the country, I don't believe in that, Michelle, and you understand that. I don't believe in a lot things that are being said."
A close reading of FEC regulations reveals that campaigns can do more than just publicly signal their needs to independent groups, a practice that flourished in the 2014 midterms.
Operatives on both sides can talk to one another directly, as long as they do not discuss candidate strategy. According to an FEC rule, an independent group also can confer with a campaign until this fall about “issue ads” featuring a candidate. Some election-law lawyers think that a super PAC could share its entire paid media plan, as long as the candidate’s team does not respond.
...
But many experts say that the limited-coordination rules are emblematic of an outdated, incoherent and often contradictory campaign finance framework.
“We’re at this transitional point where the way money is raised and spent and the costs of campaigns have changed so dramatically,” said Bob Bauer, a prominent campaign finance lawyer who served as White House counsel for President Obama. “The problem isn’t that the law isn’t being enforced — the problem is that we need to rethink the whole thing from the ground up.”
Political strategists on both sides of the aisle agree, saying that navigating the complex legal thickets is increasingly difficult.
“If you talk to three lawyers, you are likely to get three different answers,” said Phil Cox, executive director of America Leads, a super PAC supporting Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey. “The system makes no sense. It’s crying out for reform. We need to put the power back in the hands of the candidates and their campaigns, not the outside groups.”
I hope he appoints Patton's ghost as defense secretary, he sure loves talking about him. And how Obama is doing this to make himself look tough before the election...
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
You're right.
If there's no "Ray Rice punching out his girlfriend" videotape, then there's nothing worth considering.
I notice you cut off my last sentence in your quote, when it's the most important of all - I repeat, give someone enough data, and the will to look for a particular pattern, and they'll find it*. That's why I'm not interested in Wikileaks releasing tens of thousands of emails and the opinions of some utterly biased "investigator" of same.
Contrast this to the hacked records of that Panamanian bank that had all the offshore investors. You can look at data that says Vladimir Putin, for example, has an account there, and when he accessed it, and what was in it. This is evidence. What is in those leaks is nothing of the kind, it is snippets of conversations that can have many different interpretations depending on which bits you dramatize.
Can you not see that? Are you that obsessed with "proving" Clinton is crooked that you give unwarranted credence to people who are clearly assembling a narrative and not presenting unambiguous evidence of anything?
*Everyone should know and be aware of confirmation bias. Personally, I think Clinton is just as "corrupt" as every other federal politicin in the US, more than some, less than others. I've yet to see anything convincing enough to worsen that opinion, but I'd certainly not be surprised if someone came up with such. That no one has, despite all the searching, inclines me to think my opinion is more likely right than wrong, though.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Not to scare anyone but the odds of Hillary losing the election in two weeks are roughly akin to an NFL kicker missing a 30-yard FG. Which just happened twice in about 4 minutes.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
Despite 10's of thousands of emails hacked, there's nothing really yet of substance. Most is being misrepresented as well. Wikileaks has a very clear agenda here, and it's not "whistleblowing"
