Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm not the one feverishly continuing to defend a Felon who continued committing crimes while under multiple FBI investigations in the middle of an election she was only in because she stole her party's nomination, unable to actually win it herself.actually... it kind of seems like everyone, left and right, is sort of agreeing that this system is bogus. Yet only one party has paid lawyers that not only sued to put in place, but then sued opponents for using it.In their brainwashed minds their dictators / criminals can do no wrong.
Weird, huh? And here you are, their little footsoldier, carrying their water... like a good little boy...
Ha, not exactly, just kind of a best guess, given what I have read. And again, Trump's campaign did the same thing, as would have any campaign. Again, I think it's a shady practice and needs to go away.Oooh we have a legal expert on our hands here folks!
I'm not feverishly defending Clinton. Trust me, of the two of us, nobody on the planet would mistake me as being "the feverish one". I think the Clinton campaign was very shady. I think the whole system is shady and encourages shadiness.I'm not the one feverishly continuing to defend a Felon who continued committing crimes while under multiple FBI investigations in the middle of an election she was only in because she stole her party's nomination, unable to actually win it herself.actually... it kind of seems like everyone, left and right, is sort of agreeing that this system is bogus. Yet only one party has paid lawyers that not only sued to put in place, but then sued opponents for using it.In their brainwashed minds their dictators / criminals can do no wrong.
Weird, huh? And here you are, their little footsoldier, carrying their water... like a good little boy...
The FE has not released any opinion on that. So I think you made that up. Look, just make your argument or post your material. I am not going to beg you for it.Not according to the FEC.
I like how Hillary supporters never use applicable terms such as 'illegal' and 'criminal'. They use terms like 'shady' - it makes what she did / does seem more acceptable than acknowledging she committed a crime.I'm not feverishly defending Clinton. Trust me, of the two of us, nobody on the planet would mistake me as being "the feverish one". I think the Clinton campaign was very shady. I think the whole system is shady and encourages shadiness.I'm not the one feverishly continuing to defend a Felon who continued committing crimes while under multiple FBI investigations in the middle of an election she was only in because she stole her party's nomination, unable to actually win it herself.actually... it kind of seems like everyone, left and right, is sort of agreeing that this system is bogus. Yet only one party has paid lawyers that not only sued to put in place, but then sued opponents for using it.In their brainwashed minds their dictators / criminals can do no wrong.
Weird, huh? And here you are, their little footsoldier, carrying their water... like a good little boy...
And of one thing I can be sure: When people try to change these laws and change our shady system, it will be your heroes, backed by 20 million cackling "you"s, who will be standing in the way.
I used it in this case, because I don't think this was actually illegal. I also said that it should be illegal.They use terms like 'shady'
The FEC ruled / acknowledged the Hillary campaign broke the law by laundering $84 Million. It's on the books. It's documented. Evidence supports this. In the defense of Hillary it was claimed that Trump's campaign did it to. The FEC has not found this to be true. There is no evidence to back up the statement. It's just another diversion from Hillary's crime, another false accusation made against Trump without evidence to back it up.The FE has not released any opinion on that. So I think you made that up. Look, just make your argument or post your material. I am not going to beg you for it.Not according to the FEC.
I used it in this case, because I don't think this was actually illegal. I also said that it should be illegal.They use terms like 'shady'
No they didn't, no it isn't, and you really are a bizarre person just to make those things up and then insist they are true. Do you think things become true, once you have typed them?The FEC ruled / acknowledged the Hillary campaign broke the law by laundering $84 Million. It's on the books.
It’s agaist the lawWhy still harp on Hillary. It's a dead horse. Stop beating it.
Hmm, nah, probably not.It’s agaist the lawWhy still harp on Hillary. It's a dead horse. Stop beating it.
The lawyer made the deal to himself
Here's the funniest part of the story:
What Hilary did was completely legal
You must have missed this in the article posted:
'The Supreme Court Made It Clear This Is Illegal'
"The illegality of this scheme isn’t a matter of debate. The Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC that this exact scenario would violate the law."
Um, no.
McCutcheon v. FEC is exactly the case that made this sort of bundling completely legal.
Guess who argued that case for McCutcheon?
You must have missed this in the article posted:
'The Supreme Court Made It Clear This Is Illegal'
"The illegality of this scheme isn’t a matter of debate. The Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC that this exact scenario would violate the law."
You are free to believe the lawyer is speaking the pure and complete truth, if that's what you'd prefer.
I think that's a pretty dumb idea, particularly when it's the lawyer who made it possible in the first place.
There are articles saying the earth is flat, does that make it true?I used it in this case, because I don't think this was actually illegal. I also said that it should be illegal.They use terms like 'shady'
Well isn't that 'special'. Despite the fact that the Court made it clear that this was / is ILLEGAL - not open to debate as the article says, YOU THINK it may not be illegal.
Bwuhahahahagha.....
The word is "duly." There is no evidence that Clinton "is trying to take down" Filthy Donald. She does support the Mueller investigation, yes. The majority of the voters do support it, yes.What an ASS... Hillary is who is trying to take down a duelly elected president by fraud and deception... Go fuck yourself... were going to flogg this mule till it dies.Why still harp on Hillary. It's a dead horse. Stop beating it.
I would say that 27 referrals for criminal prosecution of deep state operatives is significant evidence those investigations are productive... But alas the liberal aversion to facts continue..Funny how these bombshells never go off....the "investigations" never go anywhere (if they ever took place at all)
View attachment 190007
Deep state operatives..... too damn funny.
I see you avoided the facts..... Again... You want to tell me why we now have 27 referrals for prosecution of DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES?
View attachment 190008
In your wet dreamSCOTUS kills your wet dream...Actually...No
Here's the funniest part of the story:
What Hilary did was completely legal - because the lawyer suing her in this case won a case in front of the Supreme Court five years ago to allow this exact sort of bundling, on behalf of a Republican donor.
That case did not involve foreign entities. Hillary Did..
You didn't read the OP. Feel free to try again.
"The press continues to feed the dying Russia collusion conspiracy theory, spending Friday’s news cycle regurgitating Democrat talking points from the just-filed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia.
Yet the mainstream media took no notice of last week’s federal court filing that exposes an $84 million money-laundering conspiracy the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign executed during the 2016 presidential election in violation of federal campaign-finance law."
"That lawsuit, filed last week in a DC district court, summarizes the DNC-Clinton conspiracy and provides detailed evidence from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings confirming the complaint’s allegations that Democrats undertook an extensive scheme to violate federal campaign limits."
'The Supreme Court Made It Clear This Is Illegal'
"The illegality of this scheme isn’t a matter of debate. The Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC that this exact scenario would violate the law."
HILLARY PROTECTED AGAIN:
'FEC Declines To Follow The Law'
"Upon receipt of Backer’s complaint, the FEC was required to notify those accused of violating federal law of the charges. Then the commissioners were required to determine whether there was “reason to believe” a violation occurred. Following a finding by four FEC commissioners that there was “reason to believe” a violation has occurred, the FEC must investigate the complaint.
Last week Backer turned to federal court, seeking to force the FEC to fulfill its statutory duty. But in this case, the FEC did nothing, other than presumably notify the DNC and Clinton of the charges."
FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million
Let the lying, denying, justifying, and excuse-making from snowflakes begin........
You know it is true when Jilian laughs."The press continues to feed the dying Russia collusion conspiracy theory, spending Friday’s news cycle regurgitating Democrat talking points from the just-filed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia.
Yet the mainstream media took no notice of last week’s federal court filing that exposes an $84 million money-laundering conspiracy the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign executed during the 2016 presidential election in violation of federal campaign-finance law."
"That lawsuit, filed last week in a DC district court, summarizes the DNC-Clinton conspiracy and provides detailed evidence from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings confirming the complaint’s allegations that Democrats undertook an extensive scheme to violate federal campaign limits."
'The Supreme Court Made It Clear This Is Illegal'
"The illegality of this scheme isn’t a matter of debate. The Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC that this exact scenario would violate the law."
HILLARY PROTECTED AGAIN:
'FEC Declines To Follow The Law'
"Upon receipt of Backer’s complaint, the FEC was required to notify those accused of violating federal law of the charges. Then the commissioners were required to determine whether there was “reason to believe” a violation occurred. Following a finding by four FEC commissioners that there was “reason to believe” a violation has occurred, the FEC must investigate the complaint.
Last week Backer turned to federal court, seeking to force the FEC to fulfill its statutory duty. But in this case, the FEC did nothing, other than presumably notify the DNC and Clinton of the charges."
FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million
Let the lying, denying, justifying, and excuse-making from snowflakes begin........
