2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLet's Be Clear: Hillary's Campaign Is Breaking Campaign Finance LAW.
This is not a personal attack.
This is not sour grapes.
Based on the FACTS, Hillary's campaign went too far to bypass the $2700 donation limit and her campaign in conjunction with the DNC are using general election and down-ticket funds for Hillary's primary campaign.
It is also not a DEFENSE to say Bernie was offered the same deal as Hillary. You offer someone a chance to break the law, wait for them to do it, and then call them on it so you can create a scandal, that's the Hillary way. And Bernie's campaign didn't bite. Now Hillary's went forward with what they thought they could get away with and not be called on it, and now their getting called on it.
Robbie Mook used this excuse this morning and now every Hill-fan commenting on it is using it. IT'S A BULLSHIT DEFENSE. And the ONLY TIME you use this excuse is WHEN YOU GET CAUGHT RED-HANDED.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Yep, it isn't the party it used to be. Probably why the head count is at a critical level.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)She is of the opinion that ... "RULES DO NOT APPLY TO HER!"
Zira
(1,054 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)But Hillary and her ilk, buddies and supporters sure do.
THAT is what we are fighting against.
KPN
(15,650 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)called the New Dems.
They sure as shit ain't the old ones.
mythology
(9,527 posts)For that to be true a lot of people would have had to sign on to an illegal scheme.
RandySF
(59,224 posts)While discussing the Sanders campaigns allegation that Hillary Clinton and the DNC violated campaign finance laws, Mitchell said:
Ive talked to as many experts as we could since this first evolved. PolitiFact says its mostly wrong. Larry Noble, who had been a general counsel at the FEC, and is an expert on this says that the allegation is not correct. They may be pushing the envelope, but that there really is no underlying corrupt nature to this relationship. I talked to the DNC, and they say that this is a joint campaign victory fund that was also offered to Bernie Sanders. That the Sanders campaign, they claim, signed an agreement, but they never exercised it, so they never engaged.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/19/rachel-maddow-debunks-bernie-sanders-claim-clinton-campaign-finance-violations.html
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)so perhaps it is not as black and white as you clearly desire it to be.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Pathetic, but not unexpected.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that's being investigated by the FEC. The same organization that Bernie should have notified if he actually thought Clinton was breaking the law. He knew they would laugh at him so he just sent a note to the DNC. How pathetic of you Bernie supporters to forget we have things called facts.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)for illegal campaign contributions?
Contributions over the $2700 limit?
Contributions from foreign individuals?
Sid
...and it why he's deployed the "Look over there!!!" tactic.
Baitball Blogger
(46,757 posts)People repeat the same indiscretions because the lesson here is that the winner gets the spoils.
Mika
(17,751 posts)Fairgo
(1,571 posts)If you win, you rise above the law. Your indiscretions don't count. We proved with Nixon that the president is actually above the law in any meaningful way. Reagan pushed the boundaries. Bush 2 punked them all.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)IamMab
(1,359 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Obama did the same thing. Kerry did the same thing. There is nothing new or underhanded going on here, this is the way it's been done for a while.
If you assert that Hillary is breaking the law, please point to the specific law she is breaking. Also, please explain how this slipped by the DNC's team of lawyers for all these years to finally surface now.
This line by Bernie is a political maneuver. He's trying to leverage faux outrage into more fundraising dollars. His campaign knows there's nothing illegal going out here.
Just to be clear, I don't think what Bernie is doing is wrong and I'm not upset with him about it. I think it's a rather shrewd political move. It takes the focus off of him not raising money for downticket dems by claiming that the mechanism by which it's done is corrupt. It takes the focus off of him and puts it back on Hillary.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,342 posts)talking about that, is he? Well my my. Isn't that odd?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)The Democratic Party has ever had. The upside is Sanders is not a Democratic, so that is a bit reassuring.
IamMab
(1,359 posts)Which specific law is being broken?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Rage Now, Think Later: Bernie 2016
Maru Kitteh
(28,342 posts)there.
So good!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Oh, I beg to differ.
creon
(1,183 posts)Send the evidence to the US Attorney.
DU is not an officer of the court.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)explaining just how she broke the law.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)"You know whats funny to me about this is a lot of people in Liberal World today are using the Bush standard, something they normally find abhorrent on everything, including what you order for dinner. Theyre using the Bush standard as the defense of Hillary. Bushs e-mails were legally available to everyone. Hillary Clintons system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, which is designed to defy the law. The Freedom of Information Act and all this government transparency, which we obviously care about a lot more than voters do, that was a decades-long liberal crusade. It was liberals pushing on this from the Nixon administration forward to say, Theres see much nasty stuff backstage, we have to find out how this is really working. So every one of these regulations the regulation that Hillary Clinton was defying is a liberal regulation."
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)campaign finance 'scandal' which is the meme of the day, not (again) the e-mails.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)as she is continually cleared because she ACTUALLY follows the rules and laws.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth found "evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith" and specifically noted the "constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials."
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan (a Clinton appointee for those try to write off all of Hillary misdeeds as part of a "vast right wing conspiracy" had also previously found that the claims were sufficiently meritorious as to warrant the disclosure of the disputed emails.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)And that Hillary has truly fucked up this time.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)You're making a complete fool of yourself not even acknowledging that BERNIE is the one being investigated by the FEC. How pathetic of you to forget that fact and try and deflect from his desperation.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and for the Bernie Campaign to even go there, to insert themselves in something that will be known to pass the legal sniff test, when they were given a pass on stealing data, when Bernie's Group has their own $10M of FEC investigative money to answer for, when the timing is more suspect of being petty and vindictive, just shows how desperate they are. Lashing out out at any and all idiosyncrasies, kinda like a cornered rat.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)Your bias trumps your credibility.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)all day today. It is the NY Primary.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Sander is the one the FEC is looking into. They have been looking into his shady donations for a while.
FEC
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/619/201602250300038619/201602250300038619.pdf
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
This is worse than sour grapes, it is dishonest ratfucking.
One of us has facts. The other........
Highly unethical what the Sanders camp is doing here.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)And the fact remains, that she did break Campaign Finance Law and she's going to be held accountable for it.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Sanders signed the same joint fundraising agreement with the DNC.
I'm very glad I'm not in your position. This doesn't look good.
FEC
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/619/201602250300038619/201602250300038619.pdf
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I do understand where you are coming from. Your issue isn't campaign finances, it's personal politics. That is why the links are not significant to you. You aren't looking for the truth you are looking to play partisan politics. That is abundantly clear as can be seen in your dismissal of serious campaign finance issues with Sanders.
angrychair
(8,733 posts)For people screaming "bullshit" you sure are shoveling a lot of it.
These are "inquiries" not crimes. Literally, no crime was committed.
IF a crime had been committed, it would no come in the context of a polite email.
These were questions. No one has to read past the header to see that the "answer by" date has past.
Guess what? The inquiries were answered and concerns addressed. Your little scheme was foiled. The FEC has no current open inquiries or issues with the Sanders campaign. Thanks for playing!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I fully understand why you don't want to see them. They do outline some serious issues.
angrychair
(8,733 posts)Inquiries, literally what they are called.
They have been answered. What keep harping on an situation that no longer exists???
Questions were answered. Records were corrected. Money was returned from the foreign source. The $10,000,000 thing was a clerical error.
The amounts and totals from that first quarter were public domain infomation.
You look foolish to keep harping on something that no longer exists.
I don't know enough about the concerns brought up by the Sanders campaign. I am more than willing to let the FEC or Justice Department or the whoever the responsible authorities with oversight are in this case, look into it and live with their decision.
I am not going to take the opinion of DUers, reporters or paid shills.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I appreciate it.
"Records were corrected. Money was returned from the foreign source. The $10,000,000 thing was a clerical error. "
Good thing the FEC has an eye on him.
angrychair
(8,733 posts)I said they were questions, inquiries, as they wanted to make sure the campaign was aware there were mistakes. Not crimes.
Speaking of mistakes, I noticed you removed your DU rec on that nasty OP with the neo-Nazi, anti Semitic website source links. Good for you. We all make mistakes.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I thank you for backing off that dishonest claim. You have now backed off it twice. I appreciate it.
"Records were corrected. Money was returned from the foreign source. The $10,000,000 thing was a clerical error." angrychair
Glad the FEC has an eye on him. There are clearly issues.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)It's the Sanders campaign that's being investigated by the FEC. Bernie was so sure Hillary was breaking the rules, he sent a note to the DNC - NOT to the FEC (because he knew they would laugh at it). How pathetic of you trying to change the subject and pretend up is down.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Sanders and the traitor Nader share a love of stating that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties and have even used the same sad terminology. Sanders first used the same terminology of stating that there are no differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican party when he ran as a spoiler for governor. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/04/when-bernie-sanders-ran-against-vermont/kNP6xUupbQ3Qbg9UUelvVM/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed
After Sanders used this termination, Nader joined in first http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/30/ralph-nader/nader-almost-said-gore-bush-but-not-quite/
"The only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door," he told supporters in California a month later.
"It's a Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum vote," Nader said in Philadelphia four days before the election, repeating a favorite refrain of his. "Both parties are selling our government to big business paymasters. ...That's a pretty serious similarity."
Nader also failed to challenge Sam Donaldson on ABC's This Week when Donaldson said, "You don't think it matters. You've said it doesn't matter to you who is the president of the United States, Bush or Gore."
Nader replied, "Because it's the permanent corporate government that's running the show here ... you can see they're morphing more and more on more and more issues into one corporate party."
Sanders needs to back down from this crap if he wants to speak at the national convention
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)going. Don't think its gonna work.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)the former we knew, the latter is an eye-opener, AND a repeat of 2008 when Clinton was loaning herself money to fund the campaign, so apparently things are not going that well -- wonder why
emulatorloo
(44,182 posts)He's lost too many campaigns to lose another one. That would be the end of his career and kill the cash cow
Love Bernie, don't think much of Devine or Weaver.
emulatorloo
(44,182 posts)And that's what they are paid to be. The accusations are baseless.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Please explain your understanding of the HVF, as you see it. Not a demand, just a friendly request. I really want to know what you know and believe.
emulatorloo
(44,182 posts)The lame sounding part: Andrea Mitchell hates Clinton and would do anything to damage her. However she says Weaver's claim is bogus. If there was anything to it she would be promoting it non-stop.
---
And then I look at Weaver and Devine's track record. When Bernie's tech guys were caught digging in HRC's data, Bernie fired them. Which was the right and honorable thing to do.
Then Weaver spins the wrongdoing of a couple of fired employees into filing a lawsuit against the DNC. Which was unmitigated bullshit.
WhAt an honest man does is apologize when his employees did wrong. That's what Bernie did.
A dishonest man doesn't take responsibility and blames others and files lawsuits. That's what Weaver did.
I beleive Weaver's motivation is because Sanders campaign has run into some trouble with the FEC over contributions. So again he's avoiding responsibility and projecting on others.
I love Bernie, I think it was a mistake for him to hire Weaver and Devine. Weaver is not ready for prime time, Devine has a long track record as a failure. And neither of them have let Bernie be Bernie. IMHO those two have detracted from and damaged Bernie's campaign.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)The premise is that Andrea hates Hillary and would be biased to do Bernie a service, but for the truth-- if I understand. Andrea is an Establishment reporter, working for an Establishment network constantly tilting for Hillary. Her corporate family has contributed to Hillary's campaign. They have constantly mislead by hundreds regarding the delegate count and Andrea's husband, an Establishment insider, was given the public dressing down of his life by Bernie. So your premise is so divorced from what I observe that I reject it. I take anything Andrea Mitchell says with a grain of salt without proof.
I have a lot more discussion about your points but let's leave it at that for now.
emulatorloo
(44,182 posts)I really dislike him because of the choices he's made. Both he and Devine represent politics as usual to me. In my mind, Bernie is not politics as usual. He's a man of principle.
Points well taken about Mitchell of course. She's problematic in many many ways.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Nice talking with you.
emulatorloo
(44,182 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)He then fund raised off of it...no attacks not...the Bern(sarcasm). I am longing for the day when this sort of thing will not be tolerated.