McCain turns down FEC matching funds

[jillian]

Off-topic. Don't dodge questions by deflecting to statements that were not even made to you. you have been challenged. Prove your case. Provide case law to support your position or shut the hell up.

Huh? The guy makes a comment that's off the charts absurd and he shouldn't be questioned?

I'm sorry it bothers you that McCain probably broke the law. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Huh? The guy makes a comment that's off the charts absurd and he shouldn't be questioned?

I'm sorry it bothers you that McCain probably broke the law. Don't shoot the messenger.

ya, be ? mark there, I love how NcCain PROBABLY broke the law on your say so but Clinton did not break the law when he LIED to a Judge while under oath. Can we say PARTISAN?

 

[Dogger]

Off-topic. Don't dodge questions by deflecting to statements that were not even made to you. you have been challenged. Prove your case. Provide case law to support your position or shut the hell up.

It's a case of first impression. There will be one citation when McCain loses. But other legal principles dictate that result, and if you can't find contrary case law yourself, that's okay. Just explain why my reasoning is wrong.

Under your own logic, support your position or STFU.

 

[Dogger]

yada yada yada, but Clinton did not break the law when he LIED to a Judge while under oath . . . ?

That was contempt of court, but not perjury. Perjury requires a falsehood as to a material fact. At best, the falsehood about Lewinski was about a matter that might lead to relevant evidence (the evidentiary standard for discovery).

But nice try to hijack the thread. Anyone wanting to pursue this, start your own thread. Other hijackers will be ignored.

 

[jreeves]

It's a case of first impression. There will be one citation when McCain loses. But other legal principles dictate that result, and if you can't find contrary case law yourself, that's okay. Just explain why my reasoning is wrong.

Under your own logic, support your position or STFU.

LMAO,LMAO,LMAO.....

There is explicit terms in the contract, contracts are to be performed as they are written not by your imaginary terms.....LMAO

 

[Dogger]

LMAO,LMAO,LMAO.....

There is explicit terms in the contract, contracts are to be performed as they are written not by your imaginary terms.....LMAO

There is terms, is there?

What kind of law school takes someone who has failed to learn simple subject and verb agreement.

Your laughing makes you sound like an idiot, and your grammar confirms it.

Go back to third grade, poser. I'm done with you.

 

[jreeves]

There is terms, is there?

What kind of law school takes someone who has failed to learn simple subject and verb agreement.

Your laughing makes you sound like an idiot, and your grammar confirms it.

Go back to third grade, poser. I'm done with you.

I am not writing a thesis here...just responding to an idiot.

 

[Dogger]

I am not writing a thesis here . . . .

I believe it. Writing a thesis requires knowledge of your subject matter. Stick to improving your defective writing skills.

 

[jreeves]

I believe it. Writing a thesis requires knowledge of your subject matter. Stick to improving your defective writing skills.

I promise to work on my writing skills, if you work on your thinking skills.

 

[jreeves]

Chevron?

Not quite. They are asking the court to act because the FEC does not have the ability to act, not that its actually wrong.

By the way...the FEC also said that McCain cannot pull out of federal funding, he must request federal funding. So if the Court upholds the FEC chairs ruling/letter/whatever McCain loses.

Opps wrong again as usual...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/judge-dismisses.html
ABC News' Tahman Bradley reports: A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Democratic Party that tried to prevent presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, from opting out of the public financing system. The Democratic National Committee had asked that the court force the Federal Election Commission to take action against McCain, saying he had already made use of the program by securing a bank loan on the promise of public money.

Judge John Bates wrote in a five-page decision that the case is the FEC's to decide, and even though the commission has been unable to obtain a quorum for several months, the matter still remains in their jurisdiction. Federal law requires a party to file a complaint with the FEC and then wait 120 days before filing suit, Bates, an appointee of President Bush, pointed out in his ruling. The DNC complaint, which asks for investigation of a bank loan agreement the McCain campaign entered into with Fidelity and Trust Bank of Bethesda, was filed in April. Before the FEC's quorum troubles, the panel asked the McCain campaign to explain the agreement.

Of course it's because the judge is a Bush appointee....

 

[Dogger]

Of course it's because the judge is a Bush appointee....

Sorry. Wrong again. As always. It's the only thing I can depend on with you.

The court held that the complaint was premature because the DNC did not wait 120 days after filing its complaint. The DNC says it will file again at the end of June if the FEC fails to investigate.

Answer this, smart guy. If the complaint was really frivolous, why didn't the judge dismiss it on the merits, and put it down for good?

 

[jreeves]

Sorry. Wrong again. As always. It's the only thing I can depend on with you.

The court held that the complaint was premature because the DNC did not wait 120 days after filing its complaint. The DNC says it will file again at the end of June if the FEC fails to investigate.

Answer this, smart guy. If the complaint was really frivolous, why didn't the judge dismiss it on the merits, and put it down for good?

Because smart guy, it wasn't for them to deal with, the FEC is an adminstrative body. Don't worry it will be struck down for good. Why didn't the court act if there was damages being felt by the DNC?

 

[Dogger]

Because smart guy, it wasn't for them to deal with, the FEC is an adminstrative body. Don't worry it will be struck down for good. Why didn't the court act if there was damages being felt by the DNC?

That was a trick question. I wanted to see if you were paying attention. Good job.

Your question and mine have the same answer: only the FEC has jurisdiction at this time. But don't be so confident in your prediction of how the judge will act when the time comes.

 

[jreeves]

That was a trick question. I wanted to see if you were paying attention. Good job.

Your question and mine have the same answer: only the FEC has jurisdiction at this time. But don't be so confident in your prediction of how the judge will act when the time comes.

I really don't think the DNC will refile but I could be wrong. I think they know their case has no merit.

 

[Dogger]

I really don't think the DNC will refile but I could be wrong. I think they know their case has no merit.

If I had to bet, I would bet on you being wrong.

 

[Gunny]

Sorry. Wrong again. As always. It's the only thing I can depend on with you.

The court held that the complaint was premature because the DNC did not wait 120 days after filing its complaint. The DNC says it will file again at the end of June if the FEC fails to investigate.

Answer this, smart guy. If the complaint was really frivolous, why didn't the judge dismiss it on the merits, and put it down for good?

I would say because it isn't the judge's case to rule on in either direction. As he stated himself, it's the FEC's to decide and has to go through the FEC first.

 

[Gunny]

I really don't think the DNC will refile but I could be wrong. I think they know their case has no merit.

If it's questionable and the DNC can hold up McCain's campaign money in the meantime, whether or not they hav a case, they'll do it.

 

[Dogger]

I would say because it isn't the judge's case to rule on in either direction. As he stated himself, it's the FEC's to decide and has to go through the FEC first.

That's a good answer. Did you peek at my subsequent post? I was testing jreeves, and he was smart enough to get it right. So were you.