I agree, nice job.
And this is why she said they’d hang if they lost.
Brazen criminals get sloppy...
The RATS trying to clean house. The only way to do that is to eliminate the Democrat party.
Where did those missing billions from the Sec of State Dept go?
Donna Brazile needs to be interviewed by the DOJ. Jeff, are you awake.
Naw naw naw! She’s a Christian woman and knows all about persecution. Leave Donna Brassier alone! /sarc
I assume that you know that the Pubbies are different from the Rats, right? There are two standards, one for the Pubbies and another for the Rats. Therefore, these are different.
Sleepy Sessions could easily make a prima facie case that Hillary Clinton committed gross negligence in violation of 18 USC 793 in improperly transmitting thousands of classified documents. Since she has not, and will not, be prosecuted for this obvious case, there is no reason to believe that she will be prosecuted for anything.
Hillary skates. There is no Special Prosecutor for our side even starting to emerge.
Mueller will see that his long arm encompasses all things Clinton and with it digs a hole in which to bury it. Forever.
Mueller is surely timing all movement and damage to coincide with mid term elections and the 2020 election. Meanwhile, without an SP for our side, Mueller has the entire field to himself, including yard lines, time clock, time outs, substitutions, fouls and touch downs.
Donna Brazile was explaining how the DNC was run by Hillary. Sending money to the PACs isn’t illegal.
Well, D’Souza used strawmen to avoid the limit to contribute directly to a candidate, which is illegal. In this scheme, they just use the loophole of donating to the political parties themselves and letting the party forward money to the candidate, which is not illegal.
We may see no difference, but there is a difference under the laws as they are written, because they are stupid laws.
Multiple violations. They circumvented the Federal election law against using foreign operators as employees of the campaign by routing the money through Perkins Coie for the Steele dossier, for example.
D'Souza agreed to reimburse his mistress & another person if they donated directly to a senatorial campaign. It was done to knowingly violate campaign finance laws regarding donations above a set amount to individual candidates from individual donors.
The Dem donations involve contributions not to the candidate but to a PAC (or whatever), although the donations in question obviously end up, at least in part, supporting Hillary.
The latter has been going on for decades by both parties, is perfectly fine under campaign finance law, and is also very swampy & slimy. But, still technically legal.
I heard Hannity say, just a little while ago, that Brazile is a good Christian woman. He’s wrong: she ain’t. She’s been aiding and abetting the criminal Clintons for as long as I can remember.
Yes, but evidently Sessions doesn’t consider election fraud if it was done by the Democrats namely Hillary
Forget it, Jake. It’s the Klitons.
The op-ed page of today’s issue of The Wall Street Journal has an article entitled,
Hillary Clinton, the DNC and the Law which covers this issue. I’ll check to see if anyone else has posted it, and if not maybe I will excerpt it.
It didn’t put Hillary's evasion of donation limits in the context of Dinesh D’Souza’s incarceration, tho - and that is a most excellent point! Hillary is never going to be jailed for anything like the full extent of the crimes - flagrant disregard of the rules regarding classified info alone - which Comey catalogued even as he downplayed them - should put her in the slammer for a long time. Never mind evading the FOIA laws with her clandestine use of a personal server.
But I gotta say, D’Souza’s experience does put a human face on the seriousness with which Democrats take the law when a Republican is charged with an infraction. This is a case, like D’Souza’s in which the law they both broke is IMHO unconstitutional, SCOTUS’s McConnell v. FEC ruling to the contrary notwithstanding. Unfortunately D’Souza didn’t try to make that case, tho from a personal standpoint I can understand it. It would be a condign result if Hillary were put in the dock the way D’Souza was, and she were convicted and appealed to SCOTUS. After all her braying about Citizens United, if she wasn’t jailed only because SCOTUS overturn McCain-Feingold root and branch would be ironic indeed.
And, given the absence of Sandra Day O’Connor from the bench, SCOTUS would likely reverse it’s 5-4 McConnell v. FEC decision. But it would be a tasty irony to see that done for the sake of a Democrat. The President Trump could pardon D’Souza with a huge smile on his face.
Understand, I don’t oppose McCain-Feingold because I like huge donors controlling our elections. I don’t oppose McCain-Feingold because huge donors inevitably do have large voices. The AP and its membership - a.k.a., “the media,” does a fine job of that, thank you very much - and exclusively against patriotic Americans.