Florida AG calls for investigation into $16M Bloomberg donations to help felons vote

[martybegan]

They could also sprout antlers and fart unicorn dust.

They could. Frankly, it would make about as much sense for anyone voting for Trump.

They are getting their fines paid so they CAN vote, and they know who is paying the fines for them, and they know who said person supports.

None of which compels them to vote for that person.

The reality is, the REpublicans are the ones who don't want ex-felons to vote because they know they will vote Democratic. It's just another form of voter suppression.

Bullshit.

And the only reason Bloomie is paying their fines and restitution is because he knows they will vote democrat, and he's paying for it.

How does Bloomberg know who they will vote for?

Then why buy their voting rights back?

Refusing to answer the question again.

Such a snowflake.

He knows how most of them will vote, that's why he's buying their vote.

And again you use the term snowflake wrong, twat.

How does he know how they will vote?

A snowflake refuses to answer questions because they’re too scared of the implications of the answers.

He doesn't have to know how every single one votes, he just knows they are more likely to vote for Biden because Republicans are always harder on criminals.

What am I scared of?

Do you agree that criminals are more likely to vote for Democrats? Why so?

Is it because they are usually weak on crime?

So the answer is that Bloomberg doesn't know how anyone's going to vote.

Sure, felons are more likely to vote Democratic, but as you said that may very well be because of policy disagreements which is certainly not Bloomberg's fault, therefore he cannot be held liable for the actions of Republicans.

As we can see, this isn't about criminality, it's about Republican fear of being voted out of office.

He assumes they will vote democrat, otherwise why is he paying for them to vote?

No, it's about Bloomberg potentially breaking the law trying to buy votes for Democrats.

And of course, as always, go fuck yourself with Kamala's extra large dildo.

So he doesn't actually know how they'll vote.

How can he be accused of buying votes if he doesn't know who they're voting for?

He can't. You're entire accusation crumbles.

He's betting on them voting democrat, why else would he pay for them to get their voting rights back?

Again, why is he paying for them to be able to vote?

He can “bet on” whatever he wants. Given he doesn’t know who is voting for who, it cannot be considered buying votes.

His intent is for them to vote for Biden. Most of them will. That's a plausible chain showing corrupting influence on their vote, and that is what the Statue prohibits.

For starters, you can't prove intent. Second, you can't prove influence. Third, you can't prove CORRUPT influence.

This is just Republicans shitting their pants because they thought they were going to prevent people from voting and now that they might be able to, are worried that those people are going to be pissed at them.

proving intent is a major component of any criminal prosecution. proving influence is part of bribery prosecutions, and proving it is corrupt is part of the whole fighting corruption thing.

And you have no evidence of intent. No evidence of influence. No evidence of corruption.

And that's why they have to investigate.

No predicate for investigation.

Plenty of reason for an investigation. Motive, actions, money changing hands, voters being influenced due to it.

Failed to provide sufficient cause to suspect any corrupt influence has been exerted.

This is merely criminalizing political support for an opposing candidate. How very Stalin-esque of you.

Not support, paying money to get them to vote for your candidate.

And you’ve failed to provide any reason to suspect he’s paying them to do anything.

Other than he's paying them to do something, i.e. vote?

Show me where he's made the payment contingent on them voting.

You can't which is why you cannot accuse him of paying them to do something.

He's paying for them to vote, it doesn't have to be contingent, all it has to be is influence according to the Election law in question.

Him supporting Biden and his paying for their ballot isn't influence?

Of course it has to be contingent. Otherwise he’s not paying for anything. Buying something means there’s an agreement. There is no agreement.

If you weren’t so committed to this nonsense, you’d agree.

You are imposing limitations that are not part of the law. Any form of monetary compensation for action doesn't have to include an agreement written in blood.

I pay for your family to go on vacation, you give me that juicy government contract, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Of course it’s part of the law. Buying and corrupt influence mean things and you are ignoring the plain language.

Compensation for an action requires SOME form of agreement and so far you’ve provided zero reason to believe there is any agreement.

The agreement doesn't have to be written down on verbal, it can be implied. Are you saying any corruption conviction for quid pro quo requires written evidence or even verbal evidence, and cannot deduce such understanding from the situation as described?

 

[colfax_m]

They could also sprout antlers and fart unicorn dust.

They could. Frankly, it would make about as much sense for anyone voting for Trump.

They are getting their fines paid so they CAN vote, and they know who is paying the fines for them, and they know who said person supports.

None of which compels them to vote for that person.

The reality is, the REpublicans are the ones who don't want ex-felons to vote because they know they will vote Democratic. It's just another form of voter suppression.

Bullshit.

And the only reason Bloomie is paying their fines and restitution is because he knows they will vote democrat, and he's paying for it.

How does Bloomberg know who they will vote for?

Then why buy their voting rights back?

Refusing to answer the question again.

Such a snowflake.

He knows how most of them will vote, that's why he's buying their vote.

And again you use the term snowflake wrong, twat.

How does he know how they will vote?

A snowflake refuses to answer questions because they’re too scared of the implications of the answers.

He doesn't have to know how every single one votes, he just knows they are more likely to vote for Biden because Republicans are always harder on criminals.

What am I scared of?

Do you agree that criminals are more likely to vote for Democrats? Why so?

Is it because they are usually weak on crime?

So the answer is that Bloomberg doesn't know how anyone's going to vote.

Sure, felons are more likely to vote Democratic, but as you said that may very well be because of policy disagreements which is certainly not Bloomberg's fault, therefore he cannot be held liable for the actions of Republicans.

As we can see, this isn't about criminality, it's about Republican fear of being voted out of office.

He assumes they will vote democrat, otherwise why is he paying for them to vote?

No, it's about Bloomberg potentially breaking the law trying to buy votes for Democrats.

And of course, as always, go fuck yourself with Kamala's extra large dildo.

So he doesn't actually know how they'll vote.

How can he be accused of buying votes if he doesn't know who they're voting for?

He can't. You're entire accusation crumbles.

He's betting on them voting democrat, why else would he pay for them to get their voting rights back?

Again, why is he paying for them to be able to vote?

He can “bet on” whatever he wants. Given he doesn’t know who is voting for who, it cannot be considered buying votes.

His intent is for them to vote for Biden. Most of them will. That's a plausible chain showing corrupting influence on their vote, and that is what the Statue prohibits.

For starters, you can't prove intent. Second, you can't prove influence. Third, you can't prove CORRUPT influence.

This is just Republicans shitting their pants because they thought they were going to prevent people from voting and now that they might be able to, are worried that those people are going to be pissed at them.

proving intent is a major component of any criminal prosecution. proving influence is part of bribery prosecutions, and proving it is corrupt is part of the whole fighting corruption thing.

And you have no evidence of intent. No evidence of influence. No evidence of corruption.

And that's why they have to investigate.

No predicate for investigation.

Plenty of reason for an investigation. Motive, actions, money changing hands, voters being influenced due to it.

Failed to provide sufficient cause to suspect any corrupt influence has been exerted.

This is merely criminalizing political support for an opposing candidate. How very Stalin-esque of you.

Not support, paying money to get them to vote for your candidate.

And you’ve failed to provide any reason to suspect he’s paying them to do anything.

Other than he's paying them to do something, i.e. vote?

Show me where he's made the payment contingent on them voting.

You can't which is why you cannot accuse him of paying them to do something.

He's paying for them to vote, it doesn't have to be contingent, all it has to be is influence according to the Election law in question.

Him supporting Biden and his paying for their ballot isn't influence?

Of course it has to be contingent. Otherwise he’s not paying for anything. Buying something means there’s an agreement. There is no agreement.

If you weren’t so committed to this nonsense, you’d agree.

You are imposing limitations that are not part of the law. Any form of monetary compensation for action doesn't have to include an agreement written in blood.

I pay for your family to go on vacation, you give me that juicy government contract, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Of course it’s part of the law. Buying and corrupt influence mean things and you are ignoring the plain language.

Compensation for an action requires SOME form of agreement and so far you’ve provided zero reason to believe there is any agreement.

The agreement doesn't have to be written down on verbal, it can be implied. Are you saying any corruption conviction for quid pro quo requires written evidence or even verbal evidence, and cannot deduce such understanding from the situation as described?

No. The situation as you describes would not represent any evidence of any implied agreement. Any agreement, even an implied one, has to be conveyed in some way and that requires evidence to prove.

 

[martybegan]

They could also sprout antlers and fart unicorn dust.

They could. Frankly, it would make about as much sense for anyone voting for Trump.

They are getting their fines paid so they CAN vote, and they know who is paying the fines for them, and they know who said person supports.

None of which compels them to vote for that person.

The reality is, the REpublicans are the ones who don't want ex-felons to vote because they know they will vote Democratic. It's just another form of voter suppression.

Bullshit.

And the only reason Bloomie is paying their fines and restitution is because he knows they will vote democrat, and he's paying for it.

How does Bloomberg know who they will vote for?

Then why buy their voting rights back?

Refusing to answer the question again.

Such a snowflake.

He knows how most of them will vote, that's why he's buying their vote.

And again you use the term snowflake wrong, twat.

How does he know how they will vote?

A snowflake refuses to answer questions because they’re too scared of the implications of the answers.

He doesn't have to know how every single one votes, he just knows they are more likely to vote for Biden because Republicans are always harder on criminals.

What am I scared of?

Do you agree that criminals are more likely to vote for Democrats? Why so?

Is it because they are usually weak on crime?

So the answer is that Bloomberg doesn't know how anyone's going to vote.

Sure, felons are more likely to vote Democratic, but as you said that may very well be because of policy disagreements which is certainly not Bloomberg's fault, therefore he cannot be held liable for the actions of Republicans.

As we can see, this isn't about criminality, it's about Republican fear of being voted out of office.

He assumes they will vote democrat, otherwise why is he paying for them to vote?

No, it's about Bloomberg potentially breaking the law trying to buy votes for Democrats.

And of course, as always, go fuck yourself with Kamala's extra large dildo.

So he doesn't actually know how they'll vote.

How can he be accused of buying votes if he doesn't know who they're voting for?

He can't. You're entire accusation crumbles.

He's betting on them voting democrat, why else would he pay for them to get their voting rights back?

Again, why is he paying for them to be able to vote?

He can “bet on” whatever he wants. Given he doesn’t know who is voting for who, it cannot be considered buying votes.

His intent is for them to vote for Biden. Most of them will. That's a plausible chain showing corrupting influence on their vote, and that is what the Statue prohibits.

For starters, you can't prove intent. Second, you can't prove influence. Third, you can't prove CORRUPT influence.

This is just Republicans shitting their pants because they thought they were going to prevent people from voting and now that they might be able to, are worried that those people are going to be pissed at them.

proving intent is a major component of any criminal prosecution. proving influence is part of bribery prosecutions, and proving it is corrupt is part of the whole fighting corruption thing.

And you have no evidence of intent. No evidence of influence. No evidence of corruption.

And that's why they have to investigate.

No predicate for investigation.

Plenty of reason for an investigation. Motive, actions, money changing hands, voters being influenced due to it.

Failed to provide sufficient cause to suspect any corrupt influence has been exerted.

This is merely criminalizing political support for an opposing candidate. How very Stalin-esque of you.

Not support, paying money to get them to vote for your candidate.

And you’ve failed to provide any reason to suspect he’s paying them to do anything.

Other than he's paying them to do something, i.e. vote?

Show me where he's made the payment contingent on them voting.

You can't which is why you cannot accuse him of paying them to do something.

He's paying for them to vote, it doesn't have to be contingent, all it has to be is influence according to the Election law in question.

Him supporting Biden and his paying for their ballot isn't influence?

Of course it has to be contingent. Otherwise he’s not paying for anything. Buying something means there’s an agreement. There is no agreement.

If you weren’t so committed to this nonsense, you’d agree.

You are imposing limitations that are not part of the law. Any form of monetary compensation for action doesn't have to include an agreement written in blood.

I pay for your family to go on vacation, you give me that juicy government contract, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Of course it’s part of the law. Buying and corrupt influence mean things and you are ignoring the plain language.

Compensation for an action requires SOME form of agreement and so far you’ve provided zero reason to believe there is any agreement.

The agreement doesn't have to be written down on verbal, it can be implied. Are you saying any corruption conviction for quid pro quo requires written evidence or even verbal evidence, and cannot deduce such understanding from the situation as described?

No. The situation as you describes would not represent any evidence of any implied agreement. Any agreement, even an implied one, has to be conveyed in some way and that requires evidence to prove.

I pay for you to vote, I support candidate X, it's easy to draw the line if you weren't a partisan hack.

 

[colfax_m]

They could also sprout antlers and fart unicorn dust.

They could. Frankly, it would make about as much sense for anyone voting for Trump.

They are getting their fines paid so they CAN vote, and they know who is paying the fines for them, and they know who said person supports.

None of which compels them to vote for that person.

The reality is, the REpublicans are the ones who don't want ex-felons to vote because they know they will vote Democratic. It's just another form of voter suppression.

Bullshit.

And the only reason Bloomie is paying their fines and restitution is because he knows they will vote democrat, and he's paying for it.

How does Bloomberg know who they will vote for?

Then why buy their voting rights back?

Refusing to answer the question again.

Such a snowflake.

He knows how most of them will vote, that's why he's buying their vote.

And again you use the term snowflake wrong, twat.

How does he know how they will vote?

A snowflake refuses to answer questions because they’re too scared of the implications of the answers.

He doesn't have to know how every single one votes, he just knows they are more likely to vote for Biden because Republicans are always harder on criminals.

What am I scared of?

Do you agree that criminals are more likely to vote for Democrats? Why so?

Is it because they are usually weak on crime?

So the answer is that Bloomberg doesn't know how anyone's going to vote.

Sure, felons are more likely to vote Democratic, but as you said that may very well be because of policy disagreements which is certainly not Bloomberg's fault, therefore he cannot be held liable for the actions of Republicans.

As we can see, this isn't about criminality, it's about Republican fear of being voted out of office.

He assumes they will vote democrat, otherwise why is he paying for them to vote?

No, it's about Bloomberg potentially breaking the law trying to buy votes for Democrats.

And of course, as always, go fuck yourself with Kamala's extra large dildo.

So he doesn't actually know how they'll vote.

How can he be accused of buying votes if he doesn't know who they're voting for?

He can't. You're entire accusation crumbles.

He's betting on them voting democrat, why else would he pay for them to get their voting rights back?

Again, why is he paying for them to be able to vote?

He can “bet on” whatever he wants. Given he doesn’t know who is voting for who, it cannot be considered buying votes.

His intent is for them to vote for Biden. Most of them will. That's a plausible chain showing corrupting influence on their vote, and that is what the Statue prohibits.

For starters, you can't prove intent. Second, you can't prove influence. Third, you can't prove CORRUPT influence.

This is just Republicans shitting their pants because they thought they were going to prevent people from voting and now that they might be able to, are worried that those people are going to be pissed at them.

proving intent is a major component of any criminal prosecution. proving influence is part of bribery prosecutions, and proving it is corrupt is part of the whole fighting corruption thing.

And you have no evidence of intent. No evidence of influence. No evidence of corruption.

And that's why they have to investigate.

No predicate for investigation.

Plenty of reason for an investigation. Motive, actions, money changing hands, voters being influenced due to it.

Failed to provide sufficient cause to suspect any corrupt influence has been exerted.

This is merely criminalizing political support for an opposing candidate. How very Stalin-esque of you.

Not support, paying money to get them to vote for your candidate.

And you’ve failed to provide any reason to suspect he’s paying them to do anything.

Other than he's paying them to do something, i.e. vote?

Show me where he's made the payment contingent on them voting.

You can't which is why you cannot accuse him of paying them to do something.

He's paying for them to vote, it doesn't have to be contingent, all it has to be is influence according to the Election law in question.

Him supporting Biden and his paying for their ballot isn't influence?

Of course it has to be contingent. Otherwise he’s not paying for anything. Buying something means there’s an agreement. There is no agreement.

If you weren’t so committed to this nonsense, you’d agree.

You are imposing limitations that are not part of the law. Any form of monetary compensation for action doesn't have to include an agreement written in blood.

I pay for your family to go on vacation, you give me that juicy government contract, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Of course it’s part of the law. Buying and corrupt influence mean things and you are ignoring the plain language.

Compensation for an action requires SOME form of agreement and so far you’ve provided zero reason to believe there is any agreement.

The agreement doesn't have to be written down on verbal, it can be implied. Are you saying any corruption conviction for quid pro quo requires written evidence or even verbal evidence, and cannot deduce such understanding from the situation as described?

No. The situation as you describes would not represent any evidence of any implied agreement. Any agreement, even an implied one, has to be conveyed in some way and that requires evidence to prove.

I pay for you to vote, I support candidate X, it's easy to draw the line if you weren't a partisan hack.

Again, the plain English of “I pay you to vote” means there is an agreement that the pay is contingent on the vote. This isn’t complicated. Consider “I pay you to mow my grass”, means that I give you money and you mow the grass. If you don’t mow the grass, I don’t give you money. There is no such quid pro quo here. There is no agreement that Bloomberg pays person and the person votes.

 

[martybegan]

They could also sprout antlers and fart unicorn dust.

They could. Frankly, it would make about as much sense for anyone voting for Trump.

They are getting their fines paid so they CAN vote, and they know who is paying the fines for them, and they know who said person supports.

None of which compels them to vote for that person.

The reality is, the REpublicans are the ones who don't want ex-felons to vote because they know they will vote Democratic. It's just another form of voter suppression.

Bullshit.

And the only reason Bloomie is paying their fines and restitution is because he knows they will vote democrat, and he's paying for it.

How does Bloomberg know who they will vote for?

Then why buy their voting rights back?

Refusing to answer the question again.

Such a snowflake.

He knows how most of them will vote, that's why he's buying their vote.

And again you use the term snowflake wrong, twat.

How does he know how they will vote?

A snowflake refuses to answer questions because they’re too scared of the implications of the answers.

He doesn't have to know how every single one votes, he just knows they are more likely to vote for Biden because Republicans are always harder on criminals.

What am I scared of?

Do you agree that criminals are more likely to vote for Democrats? Why so?

Is it because they are usually weak on crime?

So the answer is that Bloomberg doesn't know how anyone's going to vote.

Sure, felons are more likely to vote Democratic, but as you said that may very well be because of policy disagreements which is certainly not Bloomberg's fault, therefore he cannot be held liable for the actions of Republicans.

As we can see, this isn't about criminality, it's about Republican fear of being voted out of office.

He assumes they will vote democrat, otherwise why is he paying for them to vote?

No, it's about Bloomberg potentially breaking the law trying to buy votes for Democrats.

And of course, as always, go fuck yourself with Kamala's extra large dildo.

So he doesn't actually know how they'll vote.

How can he be accused of buying votes if he doesn't know who they're voting for?

He can't. You're entire accusation crumbles.

He's betting on them voting democrat, why else would he pay for them to get their voting rights back?

Again, why is he paying for them to be able to vote?

He can “bet on” whatever he wants. Given he doesn’t know who is voting for who, it cannot be considered buying votes.

His intent is for them to vote for Biden. Most of them will. That's a plausible chain showing corrupting influence on their vote, and that is what the Statue prohibits.

For starters, you can't prove intent. Second, you can't prove influence. Third, you can't prove CORRUPT influence.

This is just Republicans shitting their pants because they thought they were going to prevent people from voting and now that they might be able to, are worried that those people are going to be pissed at them.

proving intent is a major component of any criminal prosecution. proving influence is part of bribery prosecutions, and proving it is corrupt is part of the whole fighting corruption thing.

And you have no evidence of intent. No evidence of influence. No evidence of corruption.

And that's why they have to investigate.

No predicate for investigation.

Plenty of reason for an investigation. Motive, actions, money changing hands, voters being influenced due to it.

Failed to provide sufficient cause to suspect any corrupt influence has been exerted.

This is merely criminalizing political support for an opposing candidate. How very Stalin-esque of you.

Not support, paying money to get them to vote for your candidate.

And you’ve failed to provide any reason to suspect he’s paying them to do anything.

Other than he's paying them to do something, i.e. vote?

Show me where he's made the payment contingent on them voting.

You can't which is why you cannot accuse him of paying them to do something.

He's paying for them to vote, it doesn't have to be contingent, all it has to be is influence according to the Election law in question.

Him supporting Biden and his paying for their ballot isn't influence?

Of course it has to be contingent. Otherwise he’s not paying for anything. Buying something means there’s an agreement. There is no agreement.

If you weren’t so committed to this nonsense, you’d agree.

You are imposing limitations that are not part of the law. Any form of monetary compensation for action doesn't have to include an agreement written in blood.

I pay for your family to go on vacation, you give me that juicy government contract, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Of course it’s part of the law. Buying and corrupt influence mean things and you are ignoring the plain language.

Compensation for an action requires SOME form of agreement and so far you’ve provided zero reason to believe there is any agreement.

The agreement doesn't have to be written down on verbal, it can be implied. Are you saying any corruption conviction for quid pro quo requires written evidence or even verbal evidence, and cannot deduce such understanding from the situation as described?

No. The situation as you describes would not represent any evidence of any implied agreement. Any agreement, even an implied one, has to be conveyed in some way and that requires evidence to prove.

I pay for you to vote, I support candidate X, it's easy to draw the line if you weren't a partisan hack.

Again, the plain English of “I pay you to vote” means there is an agreement that the pay is contingent on the vote. This isn’t complicated. Consider “I pay you to mow my grass”, means that I give you money and you mow the grass. If you don’t mow the grass, I don’t give you money. There is no such quid pro quo here. There is no agreement that Bloomberg pays person and the person votes.

There doesn't have to be an agreement for corrupting influence, and that's the wording of the law in question.

 

[colfax_m]

They could also sprout antlers and fart unicorn dust.

They could. Frankly, it would make about as much sense for anyone voting for Trump.

They are getting their fines paid so they CAN vote, and they know who is paying the fines for them, and they know who said person supports.

None of which compels them to vote for that person.

The reality is, the REpublicans are the ones who don't want ex-felons to vote because they know they will vote Democratic. It's just another form of voter suppression.

Bullshit.

And the only reason Bloomie is paying their fines and restitution is because he knows they will vote democrat, and he's paying for it.

How does Bloomberg know who they will vote for?

Then why buy their voting rights back?

Refusing to answer the question again.

Such a snowflake.

He knows how most of them will vote, that's why he's buying their vote.

And again you use the term snowflake wrong, twat.

How does he know how they will vote?

A snowflake refuses to answer questions because they’re too scared of the implications of the answers.

He doesn't have to know how every single one votes, he just knows they are more likely to vote for Biden because Republicans are always harder on criminals.

What am I scared of?

Do you agree that criminals are more likely to vote for Democrats? Why so?

Is it because they are usually weak on crime?

So the answer is that Bloomberg doesn't know how anyone's going to vote.

Sure, felons are more likely to vote Democratic, but as you said that may very well be because of policy disagreements which is certainly not Bloomberg's fault, therefore he cannot be held liable for the actions of Republicans.

As we can see, this isn't about criminality, it's about Republican fear of being voted out of office.

He assumes they will vote democrat, otherwise why is he paying for them to vote?

No, it's about Bloomberg potentially breaking the law trying to buy votes for Democrats.

And of course, as always, go fuck yourself with Kamala's extra large dildo.

So he doesn't actually know how they'll vote.

How can he be accused of buying votes if he doesn't know who they're voting for?

He can't. You're entire accusation crumbles.

He's betting on them voting democrat, why else would he pay for them to get their voting rights back?

Again, why is he paying for them to be able to vote?

He can “bet on” whatever he wants. Given he doesn’t know who is voting for who, it cannot be considered buying votes.

His intent is for them to vote for Biden. Most of them will. That's a plausible chain showing corrupting influence on their vote, and that is what the Statue prohibits.

For starters, you can't prove intent. Second, you can't prove influence. Third, you can't prove CORRUPT influence.

This is just Republicans shitting their pants because they thought they were going to prevent people from voting and now that they might be able to, are worried that those people are going to be pissed at them.

proving intent is a major component of any criminal prosecution. proving influence is part of bribery prosecutions, and proving it is corrupt is part of the whole fighting corruption thing.

And you have no evidence of intent. No evidence of influence. No evidence of corruption.

And that's why they have to investigate.

No predicate for investigation.

Plenty of reason for an investigation. Motive, actions, money changing hands, voters being influenced due to it.

Failed to provide sufficient cause to suspect any corrupt influence has been exerted.

This is merely criminalizing political support for an opposing candidate. How very Stalin-esque of you.

Not support, paying money to get them to vote for your candidate.

And you’ve failed to provide any reason to suspect he’s paying them to do anything.

Other than he's paying them to do something, i.e. vote?

Show me where he's made the payment contingent on them voting.

You can't which is why you cannot accuse him of paying them to do something.

He's paying for them to vote, it doesn't have to be contingent, all it has to be is influence according to the Election law in question.

Him supporting Biden and his paying for their ballot isn't influence?

Of course it has to be contingent. Otherwise he’s not paying for anything. Buying something means there’s an agreement. There is no agreement.

If you weren’t so committed to this nonsense, you’d agree.

You are imposing limitations that are not part of the law. Any form of monetary compensation for action doesn't have to include an agreement written in blood.

I pay for your family to go on vacation, you give me that juicy government contract, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Of course it’s part of the law. Buying and corrupt influence mean things and you are ignoring the plain language.

Compensation for an action requires SOME form of agreement and so far you’ve provided zero reason to believe there is any agreement.

The agreement doesn't have to be written down on verbal, it can be implied. Are you saying any corruption conviction for quid pro quo requires written evidence or even verbal evidence, and cannot deduce such understanding from the situation as described?

No. The situation as you describes would not represent any evidence of any implied agreement. Any agreement, even an implied one, has to be conveyed in some way and that requires evidence to prove.

I pay for you to vote, I support candidate X, it's easy to draw the line if you weren't a partisan hack.

Again, the plain English of “I pay you to vote” means there is an agreement that the pay is contingent on the vote. This isn’t complicated. Consider “I pay you to mow my grass”, means that I give you money and you mow the grass. If you don’t mow the grass, I don’t give you money. There is no such quid pro quo here. There is no agreement that Bloomberg pays person and the person votes.

There doesn't have to be an agreement for corrupting influence, and that's the wording of the law in question.

You don’t understand what corrupting influence means.

Im just correcting your language. Bloomberg cannot be accused of buying votes without an agreement.

 

[martybegan]

They could also sprout antlers and fart unicorn dust.

They could. Frankly, it would make about as much sense for anyone voting for Trump.

They are getting their fines paid so they CAN vote, and they know who is paying the fines for them, and they know who said person supports.

None of which compels them to vote for that person.

The reality is, the REpublicans are the ones who don't want ex-felons to vote because they know they will vote Democratic. It's just another form of voter suppression.

Bullshit.

And the only reason Bloomie is paying their fines and restitution is because he knows they will vote democrat, and he's paying for it.

How does Bloomberg know who they will vote for?

Then why buy their voting rights back?

Refusing to answer the question again.

Such a snowflake.

He knows how most of them will vote, that's why he's buying their vote.

And again you use the term snowflake wrong, twat.

How does he know how they will vote?

A snowflake refuses to answer questions because they’re too scared of the implications of the answers.

He doesn't have to know how every single one votes, he just knows they are more likely to vote for Biden because Republicans are always harder on criminals.

What am I scared of?

Do you agree that criminals are more likely to vote for Democrats? Why so?

Is it because they are usually weak on crime?

So the answer is that Bloomberg doesn't know how anyone's going to vote.

Sure, felons are more likely to vote Democratic, but as you said that may very well be because of policy disagreements which is certainly not Bloomberg's fault, therefore he cannot be held liable for the actions of Republicans.

As we can see, this isn't about criminality, it's about Republican fear of being voted out of office.

He assumes they will vote democrat, otherwise why is he paying for them to vote?

No, it's about Bloomberg potentially breaking the law trying to buy votes for Democrats.

And of course, as always, go fuck yourself with Kamala's extra large dildo.

So he doesn't actually know how they'll vote.

How can he be accused of buying votes if he doesn't know who they're voting for?

He can't. You're entire accusation crumbles.

He's betting on them voting democrat, why else would he pay for them to get their voting rights back?

Again, why is he paying for them to be able to vote?

He can “bet on” whatever he wants. Given he doesn’t know who is voting for who, it cannot be considered buying votes.

His intent is for them to vote for Biden. Most of them will. That's a plausible chain showing corrupting influence on their vote, and that is what the Statue prohibits.

For starters, you can't prove intent. Second, you can't prove influence. Third, you can't prove CORRUPT influence.

This is just Republicans shitting their pants because they thought they were going to prevent people from voting and now that they might be able to, are worried that those people are going to be pissed at them.

proving intent is a major component of any criminal prosecution. proving influence is part of bribery prosecutions, and proving it is corrupt is part of the whole fighting corruption thing.

And you have no evidence of intent. No evidence of influence. No evidence of corruption.

And that's why they have to investigate.

No predicate for investigation.

Plenty of reason for an investigation. Motive, actions, money changing hands, voters being influenced due to it.

Failed to provide sufficient cause to suspect any corrupt influence has been exerted.

This is merely criminalizing political support for an opposing candidate. How very Stalin-esque of you.

Not support, paying money to get them to vote for your candidate.

And you’ve failed to provide any reason to suspect he’s paying them to do anything.

Other than he's paying them to do something, i.e. vote?

Show me where he's made the payment contingent on them voting.

You can't which is why you cannot accuse him of paying them to do something.

He's paying for them to vote, it doesn't have to be contingent, all it has to be is influence according to the Election law in question.

Him supporting Biden and his paying for their ballot isn't influence?

Of course it has to be contingent. Otherwise he’s not paying for anything. Buying something means there’s an agreement. There is no agreement.

If you weren’t so committed to this nonsense, you’d agree.

You are imposing limitations that are not part of the law. Any form of monetary compensation for action doesn't have to include an agreement written in blood.

I pay for your family to go on vacation, you give me that juicy government contract, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Of course it’s part of the law. Buying and corrupt influence mean things and you are ignoring the plain language.

Compensation for an action requires SOME form of agreement and so far you’ve provided zero reason to believe there is any agreement.

The agreement doesn't have to be written down on verbal, it can be implied. Are you saying any corruption conviction for quid pro quo requires written evidence or even verbal evidence, and cannot deduce such understanding from the situation as described?

No. The situation as you describes would not represent any evidence of any implied agreement. Any agreement, even an implied one, has to be conveyed in some way and that requires evidence to prove.

I pay for you to vote, I support candidate X, it's easy to draw the line if you weren't a partisan hack.

Again, the plain English of “I pay you to vote” means there is an agreement that the pay is contingent on the vote. This isn’t complicated. Consider “I pay you to mow my grass”, means that I give you money and you mow the grass. If you don’t mow the grass, I don’t give you money. There is no such quid pro quo here. There is no agreement that Bloomberg pays person and the person votes.

There doesn't have to be an agreement for corrupting influence, and that's the wording of the law in question.

You don’t understand what corrupting influence means.

Im just correcting your language. Bloomberg cannot be accused of buying votes without an agreement.

where does the law say there has to be an agreement? That's just a condition you are adding to attempt to give Bloomie a pass because it suits you politically.

 

[colfax_m]

They could also sprout antlers and fart unicorn dust.

They could. Frankly, it would make about as much sense for anyone voting for Trump.

They are getting their fines paid so they CAN vote, and they know who is paying the fines for them, and they know who said person supports.

None of which compels them to vote for that person.

The reality is, the REpublicans are the ones who don't want ex-felons to vote because they know they will vote Democratic. It's just another form of voter suppression.

Bullshit.

And the only reason Bloomie is paying their fines and restitution is because he knows they will vote democrat, and he's paying for it.

How does Bloomberg know who they will vote for?

Then why buy their voting rights back?

Refusing to answer the question again.

Such a snowflake.

He knows how most of them will vote, that's why he's buying their vote.

And again you use the term snowflake wrong, twat.

How does he know how they will vote?

A snowflake refuses to answer questions because they’re too scared of the implications of the answers.

He doesn't have to know how every single one votes, he just knows they are more likely to vote for Biden because Republicans are always harder on criminals.

What am I scared of?

Do you agree that criminals are more likely to vote for Democrats? Why so?

Is it because they are usually weak on crime?

So the answer is that Bloomberg doesn't know how anyone's going to vote.

Sure, felons are more likely to vote Democratic, but as you said that may very well be because of policy disagreements which is certainly not Bloomberg's fault, therefore he cannot be held liable for the actions of Republicans.

As we can see, this isn't about criminality, it's about Republican fear of being voted out of office.

He assumes they will vote democrat, otherwise why is he paying for them to vote?

No, it's about Bloomberg potentially breaking the law trying to buy votes for Democrats.

And of course, as always, go fuck yourself with Kamala's extra large dildo.

So he doesn't actually know how they'll vote.

How can he be accused of buying votes if he doesn't know who they're voting for?

He can't. You're entire accusation crumbles.

He's betting on them voting democrat, why else would he pay for them to get their voting rights back?

Again, why is he paying for them to be able to vote?

He can “bet on” whatever he wants. Given he doesn’t know who is voting for who, it cannot be considered buying votes.

His intent is for them to vote for Biden. Most of them will. That's a plausible chain showing corrupting influence on their vote, and that is what the Statue prohibits.

For starters, you can't prove intent. Second, you can't prove influence. Third, you can't prove CORRUPT influence.

This is just Republicans shitting their pants because they thought they were going to prevent people from voting and now that they might be able to, are worried that those people are going to be pissed at them.

proving intent is a major component of any criminal prosecution. proving influence is part of bribery prosecutions, and proving it is corrupt is part of the whole fighting corruption thing.

And you have no evidence of intent. No evidence of influence. No evidence of corruption.

And that's why they have to investigate.

No predicate for investigation.

Plenty of reason for an investigation. Motive, actions, money changing hands, voters being influenced due to it.

Failed to provide sufficient cause to suspect any corrupt influence has been exerted.

This is merely criminalizing political support for an opposing candidate. How very Stalin-esque of you.

Not support, paying money to get them to vote for your candidate.

And you’ve failed to provide any reason to suspect he’s paying them to do anything.

Other than he's paying them to do something, i.e. vote?

Show me where he's made the payment contingent on them voting.

You can't which is why you cannot accuse him of paying them to do something.

He's paying for them to vote, it doesn't have to be contingent, all it has to be is influence according to the Election law in question.

Him supporting Biden and his paying for their ballot isn't influence?

Of course it has to be contingent. Otherwise he’s not paying for anything. Buying something means there’s an agreement. There is no agreement.

If you weren’t so committed to this nonsense, you’d agree.

You are imposing limitations that are not part of the law. Any form of monetary compensation for action doesn't have to include an agreement written in blood.

I pay for your family to go on vacation, you give me that juicy government contract, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Of course it’s part of the law. Buying and corrupt influence mean things and you are ignoring the plain language.

Compensation for an action requires SOME form of agreement and so far you’ve provided zero reason to believe there is any agreement.

The agreement doesn't have to be written down on verbal, it can be implied. Are you saying any corruption conviction for quid pro quo requires written evidence or even verbal evidence, and cannot deduce such understanding from the situation as described?

No. The situation as you describes would not represent any evidence of any implied agreement. Any agreement, even an implied one, has to be conveyed in some way and that requires evidence to prove.

I pay for you to vote, I support candidate X, it's easy to draw the line if you weren't a partisan hack.

Again, the plain English of “I pay you to vote” means there is an agreement that the pay is contingent on the vote. This isn’t complicated. Consider “I pay you to mow my grass”, means that I give you money and you mow the grass. If you don’t mow the grass, I don’t give you money. There is no such quid pro quo here. There is no agreement that Bloomberg pays person and the person votes.

There doesn't have to be an agreement for corrupting influence, and that's the wording of the law in question.

You don’t understand what corrupting influence means.

Im just correcting your language. Bloomberg cannot be accused of buying votes without an agreement.

where does the law say there has to be an agreement? That's just a condition you are adding to attempt to give Bloomie a pass because it suits you politically.

It’s in the definition of the word “buying”. Not sure that English is your first language but to buy something requires an agreement. I don’t know how more plainly I can explain this. A child would understand this by now.

 

[martybegan]

They could also sprout antlers and fart unicorn dust.

They could. Frankly, it would make about as much sense for anyone voting for Trump.

They are getting their fines paid so they CAN vote, and they know who is paying the fines for them, and they know who said person supports.

None of which compels them to vote for that person.

The reality is, the REpublicans are the ones who don't want ex-felons to vote because they know they will vote Democratic. It's just another form of voter suppression.

Bullshit.

And the only reason Bloomie is paying their fines and restitution is because he knows they will vote democrat, and he's paying for it.

How does Bloomberg know who they will vote for?

Then why buy their voting rights back?

Refusing to answer the question again.

Such a snowflake.

He knows how most of them will vote, that's why he's buying their vote.

And again you use the term snowflake wrong, twat.

How does he know how they will vote?

A snowflake refuses to answer questions because they’re too scared of the implications of the answers.

He doesn't have to know how every single one votes, he just knows they are more likely to vote for Biden because Republicans are always harder on criminals.

What am I scared of?

Do you agree that criminals are more likely to vote for Democrats? Why so?

Is it because they are usually weak on crime?

So the answer is that Bloomberg doesn't know how anyone's going to vote.

Sure, felons are more likely to vote Democratic, but as you said that may very well be because of policy disagreements which is certainly not Bloomberg's fault, therefore he cannot be held liable for the actions of Republicans.

As we can see, this isn't about criminality, it's about Republican fear of being voted out of office.

He assumes they will vote democrat, otherwise why is he paying for them to vote?

No, it's about Bloomberg potentially breaking the law trying to buy votes for Democrats.

And of course, as always, go fuck yourself with Kamala's extra large dildo.

So he doesn't actually know how they'll vote.

How can he be accused of buying votes if he doesn't know who they're voting for?

He can't. You're entire accusation crumbles.

He's betting on them voting democrat, why else would he pay for them to get their voting rights back?

Again, why is he paying for them to be able to vote?

He can “bet on” whatever he wants. Given he doesn’t know who is voting for who, it cannot be considered buying votes.

His intent is for them to vote for Biden. Most of them will. That's a plausible chain showing corrupting influence on their vote, and that is what the Statue prohibits.

For starters, you can't prove intent. Second, you can't prove influence. Third, you can't prove CORRUPT influence.

This is just Republicans shitting their pants because they thought they were going to prevent people from voting and now that they might be able to, are worried that those people are going to be pissed at them.

proving intent is a major component of any criminal prosecution. proving influence is part of bribery prosecutions, and proving it is corrupt is part of the whole fighting corruption thing.

And you have no evidence of intent. No evidence of influence. No evidence of corruption.

And that's why they have to investigate.

No predicate for investigation.

Plenty of reason for an investigation. Motive, actions, money changing hands, voters being influenced due to it.

Failed to provide sufficient cause to suspect any corrupt influence has been exerted.

This is merely criminalizing political support for an opposing candidate. How very Stalin-esque of you.

Not support, paying money to get them to vote for your candidate.

And you’ve failed to provide any reason to suspect he’s paying them to do anything.

Other than he's paying them to do something, i.e. vote?

Show me where he's made the payment contingent on them voting.

You can't which is why you cannot accuse him of paying them to do something.

He's paying for them to vote, it doesn't have to be contingent, all it has to be is influence according to the Election law in question.

Him supporting Biden and his paying for their ballot isn't influence?

Of course it has to be contingent. Otherwise he’s not paying for anything. Buying something means there’s an agreement. There is no agreement.

If you weren’t so committed to this nonsense, you’d agree.

You are imposing limitations that are not part of the law. Any form of monetary compensation for action doesn't have to include an agreement written in blood.

I pay for your family to go on vacation, you give me that juicy government contract, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Of course it’s part of the law. Buying and corrupt influence mean things and you are ignoring the plain language.

Compensation for an action requires SOME form of agreement and so far you’ve provided zero reason to believe there is any agreement.

The agreement doesn't have to be written down on verbal, it can be implied. Are you saying any corruption conviction for quid pro quo requires written evidence or even verbal evidence, and cannot deduce such understanding from the situation as described?

No. The situation as you describes would not represent any evidence of any implied agreement. Any agreement, even an implied one, has to be conveyed in some way and that requires evidence to prove.

I pay for you to vote, I support candidate X, it's easy to draw the line if you weren't a partisan hack.

Again, the plain English of “I pay you to vote” means there is an agreement that the pay is contingent on the vote. This isn’t complicated. Consider “I pay you to mow my grass”, means that I give you money and you mow the grass. If you don’t mow the grass, I don’t give you money. There is no such quid pro quo here. There is no agreement that Bloomberg pays person and the person votes.

There doesn't have to be an agreement for corrupting influence, and that's the wording of the law in question.

You don’t understand what corrupting influence means.

Im just correcting your language. Bloomberg cannot be accused of buying votes without an agreement.

where does the law say there has to be an agreement? That's just a condition you are adding to attempt to give Bloomie a pass because it suits you politically.

It’s in the definition of the word “buying”. Not sure that English is your first language but to buy something requires an agreement. I don’t know how more plainly I can explain this. A child would understand this by now.

The wording of the law is corrupting influence, and if someone giving you money to be able to vote, and said money source being all in for one candidate in the upcoming election isn't corrupting influence, then I don't know what is.

It is buying the person's vote, but in a wink wink, nudge nudge way that doesn't remove the liability under this law.

But you will sell your soul to see Trump defeated, you gutless twat-waddle.

 

[colfax_m]

then I don't know what is.

Then you don’t know what corrupting influence is.

This is little more than thuggish intimidation to suppress votes by you and your party.

 

[martybegan]

then I don't know what is.

Then you don’t know what corrupting influence is.

This is little more than thuggish intimidation to suppress votes by you and your party.

Wow, justifying buying votes by calling opposition to it thuggery.

You really have nothing, do you?

Let the investigation figure it out, oh wait you are afraid of the investigation so you call for it not to happen.

How is the hack life, Hacky McHack-Hack? Hackigowa Hackitori?

 

[colfax_m]

then I don't know what is.

Then you don’t know what corrupting influence is.

This is little more than thuggish intimidation to suppress votes by you and your party.

Wow, justifying buying votes by calling opposition to it thuggery.

You really have nothing, do you?

Let the investigation figure it out, oh wait you are afraid of the investigation so you call for it not to happen.

How is the hack life, Hacky McHack-Hack? Hackigowa Hackitori?

Fabricating accusations and alleging possible charges for legal actiis an attempt to dissuade those from voting out of fear and intimidation.

As you said, this only scares you because you believe these individuals are going to vote Democratic.

 

[martybegan]

then I don't know what is.

Then you don’t know what corrupting influence is.

This is little more than thuggish intimidation to suppress votes by you and your party.

Wow, justifying buying votes by calling opposition to it thuggery.

You really have nothing, do you?

Let the investigation figure it out, oh wait you are afraid of the investigation so you call for it not to happen.

How is the hack life, Hacky McHack-Hack? Hackigowa Hackitori?

Fabricating accusations and alleging possible charges for legal actiis an attempt to dissuade those from voting out of fear and intimidation.

As you said, this only scares you because you believe these individuals are going to vote Democratic.

What fabricating? There is a distinct possibility he broke Florida Election laws, and you want to sweep it under the rug.

The only reason you support this is BECAUSE you think they will vote Democratic.

Hacky takes it up the ass doo-dah doo-dah
Hacky take it up the ass, all dee doo dah day.

 

[beautress]

It's only buying votes if he is paying for the vote.

I mean, hypothetically, all these people who had their fees paid off could still vote Republican... Can't see why they would, but it's a mystery to me why anyone making less than six figures votes Republican.

The real problem here is the people of Florida CLEARLY made their wishes known by voting to restore the voting rights of felons not convicted of violent offenses. The GOP Legistlature cheated to prevent them from voting, and Bloomberg is just helping them restore their rights.

Sounds reasonable to me.

You always play this fast and loose with your lies you believe in, Joe? *yawn*

 

[colfax_m]

then I don't know what is.

Then you don’t know what corrupting influence is.

This is little more than thuggish intimidation to suppress votes by you and your party.

Wow, justifying buying votes by calling opposition to it thuggery.

You really have nothing, do you?

Let the investigation figure it out, oh wait you are afraid of the investigation so you call for it not to happen.

How is the hack life, Hacky McHack-Hack? Hackigowa Hackitori?

Fabricating accusations and alleging possible charges for legal actiis an attempt to dissuade those from voting out of fear and intimidation.

As you said, this only scares you because you believe these individuals are going to vote Democratic.

What fabricating? There is a distinct possibility he broke Florida Election laws, and you want to sweep it under the rug.

The only reason you support this is BECAUSE you think they will vote Democratic.

Hacky takes it up the ass doo-dah doo-dah
Hacky take it up the ass, all dee doo dah day.

No there’s not. Not with any information you’ve presented. Making these accusations is a corrupt attempt to scare people into not voting.

Thug.

 

[martybegan]

then I don't know what is.

Then you don’t know what corrupting influence is.

This is little more than thuggish intimidation to suppress votes by you and your party.

Wow, justifying buying votes by calling opposition to it thuggery.

You really have nothing, do you?

Let the investigation figure it out, oh wait you are afraid of the investigation so you call for it not to happen.

How is the hack life, Hacky McHack-Hack? Hackigowa Hackitori?

Fabricating accusations and alleging possible charges for legal actiis an attempt to dissuade those from voting out of fear and intimidation.

As you said, this only scares you because you believe these individuals are going to vote Democratic.

What fabricating? There is a distinct possibility he broke Florida Election laws, and you want to sweep it under the rug.

The only reason you support this is BECAUSE you think they will vote Democratic.

Hacky takes it up the ass doo-dah doo-dah
Hacky take it up the ass, all dee doo dah day.

No there’s not. Not with any information you’ve presented. Making these accusations is a corrupt attempt to scare people into not voting.

Thug.

Wow, talk about overreach. It's an investigation into a rich guy trying to buy votes for his candidate.

Anything else you say is spin.

 

[colfax_m]

then I don't know what is.

Then you don’t know what corrupting influence is.

This is little more than thuggish intimidation to suppress votes by you and your party.

Wow, justifying buying votes by calling opposition to it thuggery.

You really have nothing, do you?

Let the investigation figure it out, oh wait you are afraid of the investigation so you call for it not to happen.

How is the hack life, Hacky McHack-Hack? Hackigowa Hackitori?

Fabricating accusations and alleging possible charges for legal actiis an attempt to dissuade those from voting out of fear and intimidation.

As you said, this only scares you because you believe these individuals are going to vote Democratic.

What fabricating? There is a distinct possibility he broke Florida Election laws, and you want to sweep it under the rug.

The only reason you support this is BECAUSE you think they will vote Democratic.

Hacky takes it up the ass doo-dah doo-dah
Hacky take it up the ass, all dee doo dah day.

No there’s not. Not with any information you’ve presented. Making these accusations is a corrupt attempt to scare people into not voting.

Thug.

Wow, talk about overreach. It's an investigation into a rich guy trying to buy votes for his candidate.

Anything else you say is spin.

Yes, and he’s being “investigated” for being a Biden supporter. Which as we know in your thug circles makes him suspicious.

Like you aren’t going to go after the people you’re accusing of accepting bribes. No one is that stupid.

 

[martybegan]

then I don't know what is.

Then you don’t know what corrupting influence is.

This is little more than thuggish intimidation to suppress votes by you and your party.

Wow, justifying buying votes by calling opposition to it thuggery.

You really have nothing, do you?

Let the investigation figure it out, oh wait you are afraid of the investigation so you call for it not to happen.

How is the hack life, Hacky McHack-Hack? Hackigowa Hackitori?

Fabricating accusations and alleging possible charges for legal actiis an attempt to dissuade those from voting out of fear and intimidation.

As you said, this only scares you because you believe these individuals are going to vote Democratic.

What fabricating? There is a distinct possibility he broke Florida Election laws, and you want to sweep it under the rug.

The only reason you support this is BECAUSE you think they will vote Democratic.

Hacky takes it up the ass doo-dah doo-dah
Hacky take it up the ass, all dee doo dah day.

No there’s not. Not with any information you’ve presented. Making these accusations is a corrupt attempt to scare people into not voting.

Thug.

Wow, talk about overreach. It's an investigation into a rich guy trying to buy votes for his candidate.

Anything else you say is spin.

Yes, and he’s being “investigated” for being a Biden supporter. Which as we know in your thug circles makes him suspicious.

Like you aren’t going to go after the people you’re accusing of accepting bribes. No one is that stupid.

He being investigated for paying people's debt off so they can vote. That may be against a specific Florida Election Law.

The only thug here is you, denying that an investigation should even take place, because you want your cock-buddy Biden to win regardless of the cost.

 

[colfax_m]

then I don't know what is.

Then you don’t know what corrupting influence is.

This is little more than thuggish intimidation to suppress votes by you and your party.

Wow, justifying buying votes by calling opposition to it thuggery.

You really have nothing, do you?

Let the investigation figure it out, oh wait you are afraid of the investigation so you call for it not to happen.

How is the hack life, Hacky McHack-Hack? Hackigowa Hackitori?

Fabricating accusations and alleging possible charges for legal actiis an attempt to dissuade those from voting out of fear and intimidation.

As you said, this only scares you because you believe these individuals are going to vote Democratic.

What fabricating? There is a distinct possibility he broke Florida Election laws, and you want to sweep it under the rug.

The only reason you support this is BECAUSE you think they will vote Democratic.

Hacky takes it up the ass doo-dah doo-dah
Hacky take it up the ass, all dee doo dah day.

No there’s not. Not with any information you’ve presented. Making these accusations is a corrupt attempt to scare people into not voting.

Thug.

Wow, talk about overreach. It's an investigation into a rich guy trying to buy votes for his candidate.

Anything else you say is spin.

Yes, and he’s being “investigated” for being a Biden supporter. Which as we know in your thug circles makes him suspicious.

Like you aren’t going to go after the people you’re accusing of accepting bribes. No one is that stupid.

He being investigated for paying people's debt off so they can vote. That may be against a specific Florida Election Law.

The only thug here is you, denying that an investigation should even take place, because you want your cock-buddy Biden to win regardless of the cost.

No predicate for an investigation.

 

[martybegan]

then I don't know what is.

Then you don’t know what corrupting influence is.

This is little more than thuggish intimidation to suppress votes by you and your party.

Wow, justifying buying votes by calling opposition to it thuggery.

You really have nothing, do you?

Let the investigation figure it out, oh wait you are afraid of the investigation so you call for it not to happen.

How is the hack life, Hacky McHack-Hack? Hackigowa Hackitori?

Fabricating accusations and alleging possible charges for legal actiis an attempt to dissuade those from voting out of fear and intimidation.

As you said, this only scares you because you believe these individuals are going to vote Democratic.

What fabricating? There is a distinct possibility he broke Florida Election laws, and you want to sweep it under the rug.

The only reason you support this is BECAUSE you think they will vote Democratic.

Hacky takes it up the ass doo-dah doo-dah
Hacky take it up the ass, all dee doo dah day.

No there’s not. Not with any information you’ve presented. Making these accusations is a corrupt attempt to scare people into not voting.

Thug.

Wow, talk about overreach. It's an investigation into a rich guy trying to buy votes for his candidate.

Anything else you say is spin.

Yes, and he’s being “investigated” for being a Biden supporter. Which as we know in your thug circles makes him suspicious.

Like you aren’t going to go after the people you’re accusing of accepting bribes. No one is that stupid.

He being investigated for paying people's debt off so they can vote. That may be against a specific Florida Election Law.

The only thug here is you, denying that an investigation should even take place, because you want your cock-buddy Biden to win regardless of the cost.

No predicate for an investigation.

Plenty of reasons to have one.