Reply With Quote
More important how? Someone currently in office?
So now you can quell the parrot schtick because the crimes are right there. Those are crimes. No one said she was convicted.
More important how? Someone currently in office?
Dunno tbh.
Sure I "focus" on that, because one or two passing comments is a huge investment of time.
Which provides evidence that you need some fodder to demonize/diminish me in some way, no matter how weak the criticism. Interesting.
When you see someone work so hard to demonize someone, what do you think that says? Let's focus on that for a bit.
That probably deserves its own thread. I"ll try to get to it on my lunch break.
Unlike a lot of Republicans on this board, I am rather happy to criticize the party I am in, and think such criticism helps improve our democratic process.
Because there is a large gap between "i have enough information to say for certain" and "I think I have pretty good reasons to think this is true, but allow for the possibility that I am wrong".
Anyone who doesn't do that, probably doesn't think enough about how much they do "know".
It is a form of hedging, but that isn't something undesirable, especially from a critical thinking standpoint.
I was speeding this morning. I am, therefore a criminal.
What are the odds you are also a criminal in that sense?
Welcome to the wide world of reality, where there is a spectrum of grays between black and white.
What statute was violated?
Be specific.
Trump is paralyzed by his own incompetence, narcissism, and quite possibly dementia. Dems are getting along just fine overall, and I can attest to that from first hand experience.
If both parties are so equally bad, in your opinion, what are your criticisms of the Republicans then? Do tell.
Passing comments? You created two threads about it.Sure I "focus" on that, because one or two passing comments is a huge investment of time.
Which provides evidence that you need some fodder to demonize/diminish me in some way, no matter how weak the criticism. Interesting.
When you see someone work so hard to demonize someone, what do you think that says? Let's focus on that for a bit.
Well, it seems this was a thread all it's own. Was this more important than the Clinton campaign rigging the democratic primaries? I guess so, based on how you prioritized your thread starting.
Then it's pointless.
Disclosure
The FECA requires candidate committees, party committees and PACs to file periodic reports disclosing the money they raise and spend. Candidates must identify, for example, all PACs and party committees that give them contributions, and they must identify individuals who give them more than $200 in an election cycle. Additionally, they must disclose expenditures exceeding $200 per election cycle to any individual or vendor.
What Killed the Democratic Party?
A new report offers a bracing autopsy of the 2016 election—and lays out a plan for revitalization.
https://www.thenation.com/article/wh...ocratic-party/
https://democraticautopsy.org/
What statute was violated?Because failing to disclose that the DNC paid for the Russian dossier is a crime.
Be specific.
--that isn't a specific statute.
The "crime", i.e. paying for oppo research on a Republican doesn't even seem to fit what you posted here.
If you don't know how to look up federal statutes, let me know. You said it was a crime. Your claim, your burden of proof.
Not an actual statute, but OK. What's the penalty for violating that BTW?
And wasn't the law firm the en y that got paid?
Hm.
"you weren't exacting enough in your phrasing here"
Then
"you were too exacting when indicating your level of certainty".
Sound like you are just looking for an excuse to about something.
"I hate both parties equally, but only about one of them".
What was that about priorities...?
If you cannot connect the two statements, I'm fairly certain you cannot decipher statues either. What, are you going to offer a legal argument? A defense to prosecution for Hillary?
"Additionally, they must disclose expenditures exceeding 200 per election cycle to any individual or vendor"
They did not disclose that they spent money to have the dossier made.
"legal services" isn't full disclosure.
Rationalizing the crimes of the rich and powerful as if they were traffic violations. Typical horse from you.
..
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-03-2017 at 05:20 PM. Reason: double post
What statute was violated?Because failing to disclose that the DNC paid for the Russian dossier is a crime.
Be specific.
--that isn't a specific statute.
The "crime", i.e. paying for oppo research on a Republican doesn't even seem to fit what you posted here.
If you don't know how to look up federal statutes, let me know. You said it was a crime. Your claim, your burden of proof.
Again, not an actual statute, or regulation.If you cannot connect the two statements, I'm fairly certain you cannot decipher statues either. What, are you going to offer a legal argument? A defense to prosecution for Hillary?
"Additionally, they must disclose expenditures exceeding 200 per election cycle to any individual or vendor"
They did not disclose that they spent money to have the dossier made.
It's almost as if you were talking out of your ass when you said a crime was committed. Your claim, your burden of proof. No statute = no crime. This is not rocket science.
.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-03-2017 at 05:25 PM.
Weaksauce strawman. Typical horse from you.
.
Does it meet the terms of the statute you didn't cite?
And what is the penalty again?
Just asking. You seem to be super informed on this one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
