The Obama Campaign’s Fundraising Operations Are Akin To Illegal Money Laundering
[Posted by WLS Shipwrecked]
For several months I have tried to closely follow the campaign fundraising being done by the Obama campaign, commenting several times that their contributions over the summer did not seem high enough to reach a level at which it would have been worth the time and effort it would take to raise sufficient funds to have made it worth opting out of the public financing system. Previous posts on this subject are here, here, and here.
I was not alone in the judgment that taking public financing was a mistake based upon the early fundraising numbers. Articles in various publications, including the NY Times as reflected in my posts here and here addressed the issue, including statements from unnamed campaign officials and Democratic party officials that suggested legitimate worries in the Obama camp about the lackluster giving.
But the Obama camp blew away all the doubts with its September fundraising total of $150 million (duly noted here) and has used its huge economic advantage since then as a cudgel to bludgeon McCain across the electoral landscape.
When this number was announced a couple of weeks ago, I said that Obama’s campaign had done what I had maintained it could not do. I acknowledged that my analysis had not given them credit for what the campaign had quietly maintained was their “ace in the hole” — that they had not tapped their donor base for “general campaign” contributions throughout the summer, meaning those “millions” of donors in their data base were all able to give again to the general election campaign fund when tapped to do so.
When I acknowledged the campaign’s success in that regard, I didn’t see the cheater’s “ace up his sleeve” — that the campaign would willingly engage in wholesale acceptance of illegal campaign contributions via credit cards over the Internet.
Late yesterday Beldar posted over at HughHewitt.com the stunning revelation taken from this Washington Post article yesterday that of the $150 million raised by the Obama campaign in September, $100 million came by way of the Internet. The only mechanism for donating money via the Internet to the Obama campaign is to use a credit card.
One subject of conversation over the past several days has been the fact that the Obama campaign chose to disconnect all available anti-fraud mechanisms commonly used by merchants receiving credit card payments over the Internet — things like requiring the name and address of the person using the credit card to match the data base information for that credit card as verified through the company that issued the card. Hence Obama’s campaign has been able to receive donations for such persons as “Fake Voter” and “Saddam Hussein.”
In addition there is no mechanism — besides after-the-fact analysis by the campaign staff — to determine whether a contributor has given previously and whether the current contribution is in excess of campaign contribution limits. The Obama campaign claims it is refunding the improper funds as it determines them to have been made, but only after the money has landed in the campaign’s coffers and been available for use.
The one new revelation in yesterday’s Washington Post article is that the Obama campaign also accepts contributions from “pre-paid” credit/cash cards such as those that you can buy in grocery stores. These cards are not registered to any particular person and payments made with them are impossible to trace.
There is NO mechanism available in the Obama campaign’s fundraising apparatus to determine whether the donor is eligible by law to make the contribution under Title 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441a, 441e, and 441f.
Section 441a limits contributions from any one individual to $2300 for a given election. Section 441e prohibits contributions by foreign nationals. Section 441f makes it illegal to make contributions in the name of another person.
Section 441f also states: “[N]o person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another.”
Section 441a(f) states: “No candidate or political committee shall knowingly accept any contribution … in violation of the provisions of this section.”
“Knowingly” is a term of legal art. In nearly every instance that it is used in a federal criminal statute it means “absence of mistake.” You “knowingly” stab someone when you intentionally plunge a steak knife into their back. You “mistakenly” stab someone when you are shoved from behind while buttering a piece of toast, causing you to plunge the butter knife into someone’s back.
Can the Obama campaign really claim that it is not “knowingly” accepting over-limit contributions, or contributions made by foreign nationals, or contributions made by persons in the name of another?
Why do I say this is “akin” to money laundering? Well, money laundering is a peculiar crime, in that Congress has determined that only money generated by certain specific types of criminal activity can be the subject of a money laundering prosecution. Those crimes are referred to as “specified unlawful activities” (SUAs) and are listed at various places in Title 18 (the federal criminal code) and other places. To my knowledge, illegal campaign contributions in violation of Title 2 are NOT among the crimes Congress has specified. So, the money generated by illegal campaign contributions are not the “proceeds” of a “specified unlawful activity.”
But, other than that, the Obama campaign’s handling of the illegal campaign contributions fits the elements of a typical money laundering offense. Money laundering has four elements:
1. A “financial transaction”;
2. Involving the “proceeds” of “specified unlawful activity”;
3. Which the defendant knows to be the result of some criminal conduct, even if the defendant is not aware of the specific nature of the criminal conduct (i.e., the defendant knows it is “dirty money”); and
4. Done with the intent to promote or conceal the underlying “specified unlawful activity.”
Other than illegal campaign donations not being an “SUA”, the Obama campaign’s handling of the illegal contributions — in essence making use of them in their campaign coffers until someone in the back room gets around to looking closely to determine if they were legal — satisfies the remaining three elements of the offense.
The term “financial transaction” is interpreted broadly — any commercial activity involving funds is sufficient. So, paying salaries, buying commercial time, paying campaign logistical expenses, etc., are all “financial transactions” using the funds.
The Obama campaign can’t claim that it doesn’t know the money is from an illegal contribution. In many instances it’s illegal on its face — it comes from a blatantly false name or from a foreign address, etc.
Further, financial transactions which fund further internet campaign fundraising activities would be designed to “promote” the specified unlawful activity — that is, if the giving and receiving of illegal campaign contributions had been included by Congress in the list of SUAs.
And once “dirty” money is co-mingled in a campaign account with “clean” money, all the money in the account is then deemed under the law to be “dirty.”
So the conduct of the Obama campaign isn’t strictly money laundering because Congress hasn’t included campaign finance laws under the statute. But the practices of the Obama campaign in this regard smell just as bad.
When this election is said and done, all the Internet contributions made to, initially accepted, and later returned by the Obama campaign will be closely analyzed. We’re going to see firsthand that Obama, if he wins, will have done so largely as a result of employing a weapon against McCain that he had by virtue of his willingness to disregard all pretense of ethics and good government.
What a way to get started.
— WLS Shipwrecked
Well, he said he’d found a new, parallel public financing system. I guess by “parallel” he meant “not altogether ethical”.
MayBee (3114aa) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:26 pmSo classically Alinsky-esque. Use a man’s basic principles against him.
bob (919e95) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:29 pmSOB.
WLS – There is no proof that the Obama campaign deliberately disabled security controls in campaign contribution software in order to accept illegal contributions. It could have been done for completely innocent reasons instead.
There is also absolutely no evidence that the Obama campaign has accepted and not refunded tens and tens of millions of illegal domestic and foreign campaign contributions. The Obama campaign has refused to release a complete list of donors so such evidence cannot in fact be assembled. Any such assertions to the contrary are merely well informed conclusions based on available evidence as opposed to sheer wild assed guesses.
This stuff is almost as basic as laughing at the brainiac Democrat voting experts claiming that voter registration fraud never leads to vote fraud. Huh?
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:32 pmI’m sure an Obama DoJ and FEC will get right on that investigation…….
Techie (62bc5d) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:41 pmThis is a winning issue for McCain/Palin, I think, if it can get traction. My wife was chatting with someone today when the issue of the World Series game, Obama’s speech pushing it back, and the money that Obama had to pay for such an event was discussed. When my wife mentioned this issue about credit card donations, the person, who is (was?) an Obama supporter, was quite shocked by the facts and the implications.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:47 pmdaleyrocks… you’re absolutely wrong. You cannot accept credit card payments without having these controls enabled by default, and your merchant bank will also require a certain set of controls. Only by disabling the verification software which at this level appears to be in violation of even the most flexible merchant banking agreement (and probably in violation of the underlying processor’s agreement) can this level of unverified processing be allowed.
So tell me, are you prepared for the right to counter your criminal activities and bend the rules too? You do realize we own the system you’re traveling on. You parasites are just uninvited guests here…
redherkey (9f5961) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:50 pmDoes anyone have any knowledge of what the penalties are for breaking campaign finance law?
PC14 (82e46c) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:56 pmYeah, it is about as close to money laundering as say, donating money to The United Way.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:05 pmIt is like money laundering, because the intent to launder the money obviously had to be there and made somewhere pretty high in the campaign. This also suggests that Obama lied from the start, when he said he would accept public financing. It also makes the trip to Europe understandable–trolling for dollars or marks or rials.
I can’t wait for the first cheater to fess up. The whole thing will unravel.
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:07 pmI’ve said it before: This should be investigated.
If there was wrong done, it should be prosecuted thoroughly and never forgotten.
If there was no wrong done, it should be dropped and never mentioned again.
i like america (d2f951) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:08 pmNice double standard ‘I like America’. If there was no wrong done I think those who were up in arms about getting an investigation should purchase 30 minutes of prime time air time to apologize.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:11 pmit’s illegal on its face — it comes from a blatantly false name or from a foreign address, etc.
Overseas Americans aren’t barred from making campaign contributions, are they?
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:13 pmYou can find the following at http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.shtml#statutes
(See link at bottom)
Look under Campaign Finance Law, 3rd bullet…elections and political activity.
Criminal penalties
(a) Excess campaign expenses. Any person who violates the provi-
sions of section 9035 shall be fined not more than $25,000, or imprisoned
not more than 5 years, or both. Any officer or member of any political
committee who knowingly consents to any expenditure in violation of
the provisions of section 9035 shall be fined not more than $25,000, or
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Unlawful use of payments. 123
(1) It is unlawful for any person who receives any payment
under section 9037, or to whom any portion of any such payment
is transferred, knowingly and willfully to use, or authorize the use
of, such payment or such portion for any purpose other than—
(A) to defray qualified campaign expenses, or
(B) to repay loans the proceeds of which were used, or
otherwise to restore funds (other than contributions to defray
qualified campaign expenses which were received and expended)
which were used, to defray qualified campaign expenses.
(2) Any person who violates the provisions of paragraph (1)
shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than
5 years, or both.
(c) False statements, etc.
(1) It is unlawful for any person knowingly and willfully—
(A) to furnish any false, fictitious, or fraudulent evidence,
books, or information to the Commission under this chapter, or
to include in any evidence, books, or information so furnished
any misrepresentation of a material fact, or to falsify or conceal
any evidence, books, or information relevant to a certification
by the Commission or an examination and audit by the Com-
mission under this chapter, or
(B) to fail to furnish to the Commission any records,
books, or information requested by it for purposes of this
chapter.
(2) Any person who violates the provisions of paragraph
(1) shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more
than 5 years, or both.
(d) Kickbacks and illegal payments.
(1) It is unlawful for any person knowingly and willfully to
give or accept any kickback or any illegal payment in connection
with any qualified campaign expense of a candidate, or his authorized
committees, who receives payments under section 9037.
(2) Any person who violates the provisions of paragraph
(1) shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more
than 5 years, or both.
(3) In addition to the penalty provided by paragraph (2), any
person who accepts any kickback or illegal payment in connection
with any qualified campaign expense of a candidate or his authorized
committees shall pay to the Secretary for deposit in the matching
payment account, an amount equal to 125 percent of the kickback
or payment received. § 9039
Federal Election Campaign LawsFederal Campaign Finance Internal Revenue Code Statutes (Criminal Penalties)
yourlilsis (095089) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:15 pmtruthnjustice, you fail at reading comprehension.
i like america (d2f951) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:16 pmIt will be investigated by the Baracky FEC at least a year after the election. Huge fine. The perfidy up to this point will be nothing compared to what is happening in October. September was just a trial run.
JD (5f0e11) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:16 pmYou mean like Adolphe Hitler with an address as the Reichstag?
The law imposes on the campaign the obligation to not accept illegal donations.
The Obama campaign is accepting them and using them — subject to later review.
WLS Shipwrecked (26b1e5) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:17 pmNice double standard ‘I like America’. If there was no wrong done I think those who were up in arms about getting an investigation should purchase 30 minutes of prime time air time to apologize. Comment by truthnjustice — 10/29/2008 @ 5:11 pm
I completely agree. If an investigation is done and no wrong doing is found, the investigators need to apologize for doing a lousy job.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:18 pmBush never apologized for failing to read WMD intelligence reports about Iraq.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:22 pmtruthnjustice, that’s a pretty stupid attempt on your part at thread hijacking.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:25 pmThis newfound respect the Republicans are showing for the rule of law is rather refreshing.
Maybe it’s what can be used to begin the rebuilding process once Rush has driven the bus off the “anti-intellectualoid” cliff?
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:28 pmIt was a stupid comment in response to a stupid comment. ah-hem #17.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:28 pmI have only seen instances of Obama accepting donations from good credit card numbers with phony addresses when the donated amount is under $50. There is a provision in the law for accepting anonymous donations under that amount, see here.
On Monday (10/27), I tried donating $60 with a good credit card number and a name and address that didn’t match. It was not accepted; instead of a “Thank You” screen, I got a “Vote for Change” screen. (Interestingly, the email I gave for the effort is now on the Obama mailing list.)
I don’t know if this means that the campaign changed AVS settings at the website over the weekend as a result of being outed, or if the antifraud measures were only disabled for amounts under $50.
National Journal (link) reported on 10/24/08 that
In other words, it will not be possible for the Obama campaign or anyone else to investigate most of the plausible-appearing donations for violations of the law. The campaign’s records consist of “name, address, and other information provided” but do not include the credit card number that was charged.
A prepaid debit card loaded with $10,000 and then run through the website fifty times at $200 (or perhaps two hundred times at $50), with matching names and addresses pulled from the phone book? No way to check.
AMac (c822c9) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:30 pmAmac, well that gets pretty darn close to the definition of money laundering.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:32 pmShouldn’t we be investigating McCain donors for mental illnesses? Most of those people own guns, and that should scare you as good, family men and women.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:33 pmAMac,
Doesn’t that also mean there’s no way invalid donations can be returned?
DRJ (cb68f2) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:44 pmTmj is drinking early and heavy tonight.
DRJ – I wondered about that previously. How do they refund money to Adolph Hitler? If they know whose actual account it came from, do they not have an obligation to report that? Is it not illegal, in and of itself, to make a contribution in someone else’s name, ie. poiuyt qwerty, Doodad Pro, etc…
JD (5f0e11) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:53 pmI believe in cases like that, the money is “donated to charity”, JD.
Just like Palin’s movie star wardrobe.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:57 pmProve that you’re not making those donations to fuel your own hobby of pretending to be appalled on an internet blog chat.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:00 pmtruthnjustice, that’s a pretty stupid attempt on your part at thread hijacking.
But it’s emblematic of every post – never an attempt to discuss the issues at hand, always threadjacking and Trolling ad nauseum.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:04 pmThank you AMac. That is important information.
It’s not hard to imagine what the response of the press and tnj and snuffles would be if it was the McCain campaign doing this.
Re #’s 18, 21, and 24.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:05 pmI stand by #17. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and someone tells me it’s an eagle, I get another opinion.
GWB did read the intelligence reports re Iraq and WMD, as did other leaders in the world (not including Obama, who indeed had no knowledge of what he was talking about).
Although it is nice that you bring this up, because the coverage of the Iraq study group findings was almost as atrocious as coverage of this fiasco. David Kay told Sen. Kennedy whether WMD’s were found in caches as expected or not, Hussein was more dangerous than previously thought on the basis of the huge volume of violations of treaty obligations, especially the existence of long range ballistic missiles components. And I’m still waiting for an adequate explanation for why Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever virus was found buried in the backyard of one of Hussein’s top biologists. (CCHF causes illness similar to Ebola, but only fatal about 40% of the time).
Just like Palin’s movie star wardrobe.
See how easy that is? BTW Sniffy, your new copy of Mein Kampf from Amazon’s in the mail to you.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:06 pmIt rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:07 pmTmj is drinking early and heavy tonight.
I vote for a lapse in it’s prescription of Lithium.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:08 pmDmac, some town’s pharmacy is obviously having supply problems.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:08 pmRead: The conserva-crazies were scrambling for a reason to invade Iraq after it happened.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:09 pm— I have only seen instances of Obama accepting donations from good credit card numbers with phony addresses when the donated amount is under $50. —
cboldt (3d73dd) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:09 pm.
There was a report of one couple in MO who had upwards of $140 grand charged against their card. 70+ transactions on the same day (sounds like 70+ at $2,300 each, eh?). Quite a coincidence.
.
Most likely, some rich donor (or a pool accumulated by a front man) had a CC account for funneling a mess of fake-name donations, and used the wrong account number 70+ times. Oops.
.
I dunno if FEC requires an auditable trail. I think not, unless the person opts-in to public financing.
truthnjustice, begging for a banning? Just put the keyboard down.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:10 pmUntil I see this become a major story I am not going to get worked up about it. Let’s make this simple. Unless it is a big story, it is not a big story. Comprende? Nobody is focusing on this, least of all McCain. It seems like he is finally addressing the subjects that Americans want to hear about: the economy and the economy.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:11 pmBush never apologized for failing to read WMD intelligence reports about Iraq.
While we’re still waiting for the Bi – Polar entity to apologize for sliming the entire readership here; over one week and counting.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:11 pmDmac, some town’s pharmacy is obviously having supply problems.
More like the pharmacist took one look at the disheveled heap in front of his counter and denied service.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:13 pmtnj- I realize you don’t give a hoot about what’s true, but in case anyone else reading is interested, that was Kay’s testimony, under oath, before the Senate.
Gang, do you think the credit card companies could get reports out of their own databases if they wanted to, or were given subpoenas?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:14 pmComment by truthnjustice — 10/29/2008 @ 6:11 pm
Saw your comment from 3:30 this am re the tapes on Hannity.
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:17 pmDid you watch them?
Do you still deny their authenticity?
It lies in almost every comment.
JD (5f0e11) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:18 pmDrew: Did you see the link I provided about the veracity of his past statements? Let’s talk about that before we discuss his current jive.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:19 pmThis is the constant refrain from Obama supporters about illegal and unethical conduct by Obama. They giggle.
Just as when Obama broke his promise to use public campaign, funds. We did we see? Giggles.
Illegal access of personal information to support intimidation of critics like Joe the Plumber? Giggles.
The Democrats have thrown ethics, principles, integrity of the most basic kind, all to the wind. They don’t care. Power is all that matters. Quite despicable.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:23 pmThe tapes contained NO statements by Hannity, only the words of Obama/Biden.
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:25 pmAre you saying that they (O/B) cannot be trusted in what they say?
#41 MD
CC companies do all sorts of datamining on purchasing habits so they can toss offers/coupins etc in the billing envelope…or create lists of names/addresses for their affiliates.
It wouldn’t be hard at all…IF they wanted to do it.
They won’t unless subpoenaed..and they’ll fight the subpoena, too.
Darleen (187edc) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:26 pmSPQR
It’s a cult.
Darleen (187edc) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:27 pmBut first, you have as yet not answered the question as to whether or not you watched the tapes?
Did you watch the tapes of Obama/Biden moving the goalposts downward as regards who will have their taxes raised?
$250K to $200K to $150K!
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:27 pmDarleen, you are right. And that infomercial of Obama’s tonight made me think that Scientologists had put it together.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:28 pmSince when was winning a crime, SPQR?
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:31 pmDrew: Here is a pretty good response to the lie that Hannity was trying to perpetrate. Not surprising, that man hasn’t said one truthful thing on that show in a while, unles you count introducing himself.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:33 pmSPQR
You can talk to a cultist and point out their actions are self defeating or self-injurious (like fasting for days on end) … you can use logic and present facts, in the end the cultist rejects you. Because they know what ever they are enduring is what their leader wishes as the price of salvation.
They will NEVER engage you in good faith argument (unlike someone who is just committed to their belief system). You are an “outsider” and are, thus, no worthy of good faith arguments.
There is no criticism of Obama that is not met with automatic cries of “racist.” The criticism is never countered in a good faith factual way, the criticizer is dismissed in the most vile way possible.
ie Joe the Plumber
Darleen (187edc) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:35 pmSince when was winning a crime
sniffles has evidently never heard of Marion Jones.
Darleen (187edc) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:38 pmComment by truthnjustice — 10/29/2008 @ 6:33 pm
UNRESPONSIVE!
We are not talking about an interview that OBama gave in 2001, we are talking about campaign events this year, with date codes, in the voice of the person on the video in real-time.
Answer the question, or confirm in the minds of many that you are a useless troll.
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:40 pmsnuffles typifies the no-values, no-ethics, no-integrity Democrat rather well in #51.
Not to mention the dishonest troll.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:40 pmAnother Drew, what? The “Hey, Look in the sky!” defense ain’t working?
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:41 pmNot to this old man, it isn’t!
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:46 pmThis (alleged) troll, has this one chance at redemption of his veracity.
If he is unable to honestly report on what millions observed on TV yesterday (and possibly more today – haven’t watched the tapes of the shows I record for today), then we can presume that he is unable to honestly discuss anything more engaging than the taste of his binkie.
A handy, short summary of tonight’s Obama infomercial has already been prepared!
[hat tip IBD]
Official Internet Data Office (7800f2) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:49 pmYou guys are awfully judgemental tonight. If we are talking about the comments made by Biden and Obama, I have already addressed those items in yesterday’s postings. But, I find it hilarious that your only comment about the link I sent in which Hannity is caught clearly distorting the truth is a not so kind solicitation for a response to the new crap he’s selling.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:53 pmNo, you did not address the tapes of those comments, you just dismissed any question about the comments as speculation and misinterpretation.
I watched that tape at approx 6:36pm (Pacific Time), posted the info immediately notifying everyone who was discussing the issue contemporaneously that they could watch it themselves when the show repeated three-hours later, even noting the approx. time of the hour that the segment would show.
You posted at approx 3:30am that Hannity could not be believed, never saying whether you viewed that segment or not.
The question is:
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:57 pmDID YOU WATCH THE FUCKING TAPE?
I won’t answer a question phrased to me that way. No way, no how.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:59 pmI heard Hannity play all three audio clips in close succession on his radio show yesterday, and more than once. First Obama said $250,000, then $200,000 in another clip, and then Biden said $150,000.
Administrator, it’s time to get rid of the liar, and you know who I mean.
Official Internet Data Office (7800f2) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:00 pmDID YOU WATCH THE
FUCKINGTAPE?YES, or NO?
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:01 pmie Joe the Plumber
Speaking of Joe, did you catch the roto-rooting he got on Fox today, Darleen?
Ouch!
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:03 pmGo to http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search_donor.php
Bob (2f0b12) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:04 pmThis is a site that list political donors.
Select Barack Obama as the candidate, put in a last name under contributor, and click the OK button.
I bet you can find at least 1 person listed who donated the $2300 maximum more than once.
I tried this with several names and have yet to find a last name that did not list at least one.
Racists! Five days before tuesday. This nightmare will soon be over……for you.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:05 pmWhat laws are there that could hammer him for this? A CEO would be sweating bullets over a SOX violation by now. I see what you said about money laundering, but is there no fraud or other criminal statute anywhere that could catch him?
Allen (defdde) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:06 pm250,000-your taxes will not increase below this number.
200,000-your taxes will go down below this number
Biden hasn’t been a perfect orator, but I’d bet my bottom dollar that he could name a single magazine he’s read, and he has more foreign policy experience than simply seeing a foreign country out of his binoculars as he’s bird watching from his house.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:08 pmIt’s probably just an “ethical” violation, allen
Like Palin and her Troopergate firings.
As the Republicans said about that: yawn.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:09 pmPalin is innocent of that snuffles! Didn’t you hear that part when she disagreed with the bipartisan committee that found she abused the power of her office? I’m pretty sure that works for most criminal offenses. The jury goes out and deliberates, if the jury finds the defendent guilty then he/she must turn to the jury and state ‘I disagree with your findings’, then off he/she goes!
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:13 pmAgain, Unresponsive.
I have asked you a very simple question, one aswerable with a plain YES or NO. I have asked this question six (6) times on this thread (#’s 42, 46, 49, 55, 61, & 64).
BTW, when Obambi states that 95% of Americans will see their taxes go down, or not increase, you do realize that the earnings amount for the top 5% of Americans starts at approx $158K, don’t you?
Therefore, it seems intuitive, that if 95% will see their taxes decrease, or remain the same, the top 5% (those making more than $150K) will see their taxes increase.
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:14 pmComment by Another Drew — 10/29/2008 @ 7:14 pm
The sound of crickets is deafening.
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:24 pmI think we can assume that LiesnTyranny has no intention of discussing this election with any honesty.
Just another partisan troll who only deserves our contempt and disinterest.
“The one new revelation in yesterday’s Washington Post article is that the Obama campaign also accepts contributions from “pre-paid” credit/cash cards such as those that you can buy in grocery stores. These cards are not registered to any particular person and payments made with them are impossible to trace.”
Sounds to me like campaign finance reform has created a situation where American corporations can’t donate money to political campaigns, but foreign terrorists and hostile governments can.
That’s brilliant.
Dave Surls (c863ef) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:26 pmWell, if I had a small corporation and I wished to donate to someones’ campaign using company money, all I would have to do is buy $10-20K worth of those cards as an “office expense”, and then max each one out to that candidate.
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:30 pminteresting to watch sniffy and tnj engage in mutual fantasy masturbation
interesting in a the same way as watching a darwin-style car wreck
dudes, get a room and a dose of reality!
Darleen (187edc) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:34 pm“Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Ore., recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because “I love Obama,” she said.”
“According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit.”
“The Obama campaign reported that it had “redesignated” the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fundraising committee, which have higher limits.”
“But if that happened, it’s news to Handley. “No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money,” she said.”
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_illegal_donations/2008/10/19/141979.html
I read an article once that claimed that political campaigns almost never return donations that are in violation of the law, even though they say they’re going to. They just say they’re going to return the money, and then keep it anyway.
And, I believe it.
Dave Surls (c863ef) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:38 pmI won’t answer a question phrased to me that way. No way, no how.
So the Troll, having previously called the entire readership here every name in the book, suddenly takes umbrage over a little naughty word. What. A. Lying. Douchebag.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:40 pminteresting to watch sniffy and tnj engage in mutual fantasy masturbation
Who’s saying it’s fantasy?
Dmac (e30284) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:41 pm“Well, if I had a small corporation and I wished to donate to someones’ campaign using company money, all I would have to do is buy $10-20K worth of those cards as an “office expense”, and then max each one out to that candidate.”
Yeah, you could do that, but you would be taking a risk, because you could get caught, and get in trouble for doing it. I don’t think Osama Bin Laden would have that worry, though.
Dave Surls (c863ef) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:42 pmAnother Drew, tmj said that Hannity could not be trusted on a separate issue completely distinct from the one you keep pounding him on. Classic “look over there!” troll.
Not to mention that his “proof” that Hannity lies was from Media Matters … ROFL. Showing how gullible tmj is, or thinks we are, to cite to Soros pet hacks.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:42 pmYeah. Keep digging. But hurry. You are running out of time!
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:46 pmDidn’t you hear that part when she disagreed with the bipartisan committee that found she abused the power of her office?
Lies, lies, lies. It was one partisan Democrat and Obama supporter and there has been no “bipartisan” conclusion.
I usually ignore trolls so pardon me for this lapse.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:47 pm#30 MD in Philly:
As well you should. The troll’s mendoucheousness is seemingly boundless, since not only were there WMDs, they were recovered in the hundreds…not just one or two here and there. In fact, there were 503 chemical weapons recovered between 2003 and 2005, something that I know only because I saw former Senator Santorum announcing the declassification of a DIA report on a local television broadcast.
But if you’re a leftard, you can ignore it and it never happened.
Kind of hard to ignore the Phillies fans outside my window tonight though…good on ’em!
EW1(SG) (a19624) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:50 pmDave…
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:52 pmI write a check for CASH, with a memo line of PETTY CASH, take it to the bank, and cash it. If I want to be ultra-careful, I would do this in $2-3K increments. I use the cash to buy the cards. To account for the petty cash, I claim casual labor for a remodeling that is on-going. I donate the money via the internet at the public library computer.
Where is the money trail?
Lies? Ha!
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:53 pmIllegal, overseas contributions…
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:58 pmHow much Soros money came in via the internet from overseas?
Perhaps the guys at the SEC would look at this?
Comment by love2008 — 10/29/2008 @ 7:53 pm
a popular with voters governor makes enemies with the corrupt power brokers of her state who she has stiffed and they file suit after suit for press coverage
YAWN
Darleen (187edc) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:05 pm“Dave…I write a check for CASH…”
I get your point, Drew, but I still think my original comment is valid.
Dave Surls (c863ef) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:13 pm#85 Another Drew:
This is actually the point I was attempting to make in our much earlier discussion of whether or not the O!ne was really receiving such an outpouring of donations from service members as some of the partisan hacks were claiming.
Yeah, there are rules…but the other side isn’t at all concerned with them.
EW1(SG) (a19624) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:20 pmdudes, get a room and a dose of reality!
Darleen,
You’re the one who calls every person you don’t agree with a Nazi.
A rather embarrassing habit indeed.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:29 pmSorry, I was offline for a while.
DRJ #25 — Doesn’t [Obama not storing donors’ credit card #s] also mean there’s no way invalid donations can be returned?
That’s my reading of it. That assumes they could figure out which donations are suspect in the first place, which they mostly will not be able to do. According to the National Journal article linked in #22,
In other words, 99.76% of donations were not returned.
tnj #28 — Prove that you’re not making those donations to fuel your own hobby of pretending to be appalled on an internet blog chat.
That’s a silly charge. I reported in #22 that my attempted illegal donation of $60 didn’t go through. As for the links, click and read ’em with an open mind. They won’t bite.
AMac (ff02e4) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:32 pmTo one of you lawyer types out there – Is it, or is it not a crime, even a felony, to make a political contribution in someone else’s name?
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:32 pmlove2008, you were rightly pointed out as lying when you claimed that a bipartisan panel had concluded that Palin had violated ethics rules in the tasergate matter.
The committee released the report but did not adopt its conclusions as their own. Hence you were indeed lying.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:32 pmIllegal campaign contributions…
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:35 pmIt doesn’t matter what the rules are, there will always be rule-breakers.
Generally, we call them criminals.
Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said that America has only one natural criminal class…Congress!
#47 41 MD CC companies do all sorts of datamining on purchasing habits so they can toss offers/coupins etc in the billing envelope…or create lists of names/addresses for their affiliates.
It wouldn’t be hard at all…IF they wanted to do it.
They won’t unless subpoenaed..and they’ll fight the subpoena, too.
Comment by Darleen — 10/29/2008 @ 6:26 pm
Thanks Darleen, I thought that would be true.
How about if they were threatened (not empty threats) with criminal charges of conspiracy for withholding evidence?
#84 since not only were there WMDs, they were recovered in the hundreds…not just one or two here and there. In fact, there were 503 chemical weapons recovered between 2003 and 2005, something that I know only because I saw former Senator Santorum announcing the declassification of a DIA report on a local television broadcast.
I’m not surprised as I remember that one little blurb Santorum and a Congressman released about all of the stuff that had been found but not made public. I have no idea WITW the Bush Administration was doing by not defending the truth more. Remember the months Saddam had to anticipate and plan, the trucks seen heading to Syria, and the Israeli bombing of a nuclear-related site in Syria?
Kind of hard to ignore the Phillies fans outside my window tonight though…good on ‘em!
Comment by EW1(SG) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:50 pm
Happy Philly fans inside the windows here!
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:53 pmComment by SPQR — 10/29/2008 @ 8:32 pm
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:53 pmI simply gave a link. You take your fight there. The facts are what they are. Calling me a liar makes no difference. That’s all you losers do much these last days.
Thanks to Patrick for digging this out of the archives for me….
Campaign Contribution Rules…
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:54 pmhttp://patterico.net/2008/10/19/obama-did-it-achieved-a-level-of-fundraising-unimagined-before-this-year-150-mposteillion-in-september/#comment-409667
love2008, you didn’t even read the link and you call others loser. You really are a clueless little tool. It had nothing to do with tasergate, nor the report.
Your continual ignorance is astonishing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:55 pmSPQR – All of the trolls appear to have learned how to link, and (mis)represent the contents of their links, from Gren Gleeeeenwald and the Kabana Boyz.
You are an attorney, right? Is it contrary to the law to make a political contribution in someone else’s name?
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:58 pmI think the problem with the campaign cash story is that Axelrod has not come up with a story or a person to blame it on yet that passes the pink face test. Either that or they are not yet feeling enough pressure to explain anything.
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:12 pmAxelrod could always suggest Obama use the always popular “they are no longer advising my campaign” explaination.
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:13 pmJD, I don’t practice election law nor campaign finance law, so I would not attempt to speak authoritatively.
But I’m pretty sure it is a crime, given the prosecutions of people like Feiger.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:14 pmSo, let’s assume it is a crime to donate money in someone else’s name. Every single Dooddad Pro, poiuy qwerty, Elmer Fudd, Adolph Hitler, etc … is evidence of a crime. Rather than simply returning the money, which is a huge assumption given the fact that has not been shown to have actually happened, should they not be referring each and every one to the appropriate party for potential criminal charges?
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:25 pmThis stuff is almost as basic as laughing at the brainiac Democrat voting experts claiming that voter registration fraud never leads to vote fraud. Huh?
yeah, we see it all the time, thousands upon thousands showing up at the polls and voting under the name Darth Vader or Mickey Mouse with non-existent address.
rashinal (1326ac) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:25 pmI knew that the bait could not be ignored for too long.
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:27 pm#105 – Or voting absentee.
Does anyone question the happy coincidence that Obama’s curious pick for VP, Joe Biden, is intimately involved with the very credit card companies that make a percentage of every political donation transaction, along with holding the responsibility for verification of the address and name?
Apogee (366e8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:32 pmApogee – Biden would never get involved in something like that. Just like he would never plagarize someone else’s life story.
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:34 pmWhat’s Biden’s kid doing these days?
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:37 pmHe could probably use the money to fight that indictment.
#97~
Lying yet again.
You’ve been being called on your lies since the end of April…half a year gone. Not exactly days…
But no sign of anymore truthfulness, either.
EW1(SG) (a19624) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:38 pmStunning???
paying by credit cards or debit cards….?
Over the INTERNET??
Damn, Amazon.Com, is a Criminal Organization.
I am sure McCain won’t take my donation via credit card. (that’s sarcarsm, btw.)
(come on, you guys are getting crazy over losing an election, aren’t you?)
datadave (0a8317) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:20 amTroll at 111-
Amazon doesn’t take cards with fake names and addreses. Shoot, half the time it won’t take good cards with good addresses and a different delivery address.
This is actually the point I was attempting to make in our much earlier discussion of whether or not the O!ne was really receiving such an outpouring of donations from service members as some of the partisan hacks were claiming.
*snip*
Comment by EW1(SG) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:20 pm
Side point: I know none of the companies I had cards with would let me list anything besides my Home-Of-Record, while I was overseas. Unless they changed that, the cards would still read US addies……
Foxfier (c0b5bc) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:54 am72-I assume you have a link or some sort of documentation to back that up?
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:01 amActually, I just looked it up, Drew, you’re right! You do know that if the 95th percentile starts at 158k, and as we all have noted his tax breaks cover up to 200k (with nobody getting an increase over 250k), that actually more than 95% of Americans are going to see a tax cut. Thanks for pointing that out, Drew! 🙂
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:17 am*getting an increase until they are over 250k
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:18 amGood links on Obama’s fund-raising procedures here, especially Obama Shrugged, commentary by e-commerce specialists.
The secret is that there’s no secret–it’s all in plain sight. Most of the watchdog media is about as interested in this story as the enablers posting spurious material and trying to start flame wars on this thread.
Hope and Change.
AMac (ff02e4) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:30 amThis set of comments has been truly eye-opening. It typifies Mac’s entire campaign and his camp followers. Focus on the irrelevant, attack the opponent not his ideas, worry about the trivial when the rest of the country wants some ideas, vision and LEADERSHIP. Stop engaging in auto-eroticism and return to earth.
Amazed (13b487) — 10/30/2008 @ 5:20 amAmazed, you plainly did not read any of the comments and have no substantive defense of Obama’s practices.
Troll elsewhere
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/30/2008 @ 6:31 amtruthnjustice, the “tax cut” is a lie in the first place, all Obama will do is propose the continuation of the Bush tax cuts for those income brackets.
Once again, Obama takes credit for someone else’s work.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/30/2008 @ 6:33 amI thought we didn’t need four more years of George Bush.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/30/2008 @ 6:39 amCW Desiato, yeah well that got thrown out over the last six months as The One quietly dumped his more extremist positions from the primary without getting called on it by the media.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/30/2008 @ 6:46 amdatalessdave is a mental midget, for those of you fortunate enough to have not had to deal with him previously.
tmj – You have been provided with that information ad nauseum. That you choose to ignore it is on you.
Baracky and Joey will not even make that claim.
It helps to not be staring into a full length mirror when you type your comments.
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:41 amAs a Jew, I was terrified by a comment made by Sarah Palin at a rally in which “Joe the Plumber” was a featured guest.
“With his shaved head, jeans, and steel toed boots, he’s OUR kind of guy right?” said Palin to a resounding cheer from
the overwhelmingly WASP crowd. (At which point I cringed for her husband, Todd who is nothing like Joe the Plumber).
In what country are shaved heads, certain brands of jeans and especially steel toed boots not associated with radical
Neo-Nazi skinheads? And how do you suppose those Neo-Nazi skinheads feel about Jews, African-Americans, Catholics, and anyone else who does not fit the narrow description of a
“real” American according to the right wing conservatives?
Wake up Children of Israel!
CHILDREN OF ISRAEL (28bd41) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:45 amMcCain/Palin is a vote for those who despise us. Remember this: they protect Israel for Christianity, NOT Judaism.
Alright. Who is doing parody on this lovely morning?
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:47 amComment by EW1(SG) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:38 pm
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:03 amLook who’s talking. You are the liar who claimed that there were WMDs in Iraq. A claim that has been debunked by all the I.A.E.A. experts on ground. Once again, prove that Saddam Hussein did have WMDs, to the scale that was hyped about before the war. Provide links. Prove that you are not a mendacious, two-faced idiot! Facts can be a b*tch!
The Bobo’s in full – scale meltdown; but be careful, or else it will make amorous advances on your own personhood.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:19 amComment by CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — 10/30/2008 @ 7:45 am
Someone has never worked in heavy construction.
Another Drew (260c29) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:21 amComment by love2008 — 10/30/2008 @ 8:03 am
That info was posted at an earlier time, you should have availed yourself of it.
Facts can be a b*tch!
Another Drew (260c29) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:23 amFacts can be inconvenient, but are never a bitch, unlike some other people.
love2008, that link you provided led to accusations, not conclusions. I guess you specialize in lies, eh ? Also, you might read the report from the commission that investigated the WMD claims in Iraq. David Kay, for example. I know reading is tough for you but, once you get into it, it isn’t that difficult. Why don’t you start with this? Then you might learn who was lying.
Children of Israel, someone doesn’t agree with you.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:31 amFinding them at a smaller scale that what was believed prior to the war is not the same as them not existing. Nuance, and all.
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:34 amInsurance Agents, of which i am one; are required to take Anti-Money Laundering cource work. I am with many companies which means i have taken the course work many times for several years.
The Obama Money Machine is a clear text book example of a money laundering operation. Credit Card transactions with phoney names etc. To my knowledge not one Local or Federal Agency is even looking into this crime.
I am in the process of asking more questions of the right people. No crime is committed unless reported. No agency having so many heads has common sense or authority to act on its own.
In other words a dead body on your doorstep could be just a missing body. Sure buddy!
The CRIME is not committed untill the right questions are asked.
By the way how do you like my name.
Daffy Duck
Daffy Duck (a5ad84) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:03 amHere’s a still photograph from a video made in Alaska, showing an interviewer and Sarah Palin in her official Alaska governor’s office. Note that attached to the curtain on the right, way to the right of the huge US flag and Alaska state flag, is a little flag of Israel.
You can play the video, too, if you like.
Official Internet Data Office (184273) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:07 am110- obviously you are not employed in a technical field. Time since April can be measured in any unit of time, years, days, weeks, seconds, etc. Choosing to measure time in one unit over another hardly counts as lying. He didn’t use the singular ‘day’, he used the plural, ‘days’ which is 100% correct. However, because he is correct and you called him a liar, that actually makes you the liar.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:13 amIncoherent is no way to go through life, tmj.
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:29 amYou can’t refute the post so you make fun of me. Ad hominem is no way to argue, Junior Detective.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:31 amAnimal House:
Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:33 amDumb and Stupid is no way to go through life!
How does one refute incoherent babble? Did you watch the videos of Baracky and Biden’s own words yet? Is the figure $250,000, $200,000, or $150,000?
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:36 amComment by liesntyranny — 10/30/2008 @ 11:31 am
To be ad hominem, it would have to be without basis or proof.
Dumb & Stupid!
Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:36 amHa, thanks for demonstrating that you actually do not know what ad hominem means, Drew! Look that one up before you decide what is and is not ad hominem.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:38 amHow about you explain the babbling in #133. Or admit that you had no idea what the course of the conversation was that you were referencing.
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:40 am133 is self-explanatory. You called him a liar for referencing a time period as ‘days’ and I refuted it.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:43 amBut, Junior Detective, I am sure you can use your Junior Detective skills to detect what that post actually meant, Junior.
It is kind of like a couple of Mavericks getting all Mavericky in there, then deciding what a Maverick would do in a situation, then, you know, do that.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:44 amComment by liesntyranny — 10/30/2008 @ 11:38 am
From Wiki….
ad hominem
consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
It was not ad hominem since the attack was truthful, and the proof of that truth has been amply demonstrated in your previous lies, evasions, and other perversions of the truth, that have been repeatedly pointed out to you.
Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:50 amI did not. EW1 did. And whether it was a day or days is not the point in the comment you referenced.
You really are dense.
Step away from the bong.
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:50 am#97~
Calling me a liar makes no difference. That’s all you losers do much these last days.
110. Lying yet again.
You’ve been being called on your lies since the end of April…half a year gone. Not exactly days…
But no sign of anymore truthfulness, either.
Comment by EW1(SG) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:38 pm
This comment references #97 which was
Comment by SPQR — 10/29/2008 @ 8:32 pm
I simply gave a link. You take your fight there. The facts are what they are. Calling me a liar makes no difference. That’s all you losers do much these last days.
Comment #97 references comment #94, which was
love2008, you were rightly pointed out as lying when you claimed that a bipartisan panel had concluded that Palin had violated ethics rules in the tasergate matter.
The committee released the report but did not adopt its conclusions as their own. Hence you were indeed lying.
Comment by SPQR — 10/29/2008 @ 8:32 pm
Comment #94 references lovie’s repeated lies about Gov. Palin being found guilty of an ethics violation.
You really are ignorant.
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:56 am“Dumb and stupid is no way to go through life!”
Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:01 pmJunior detective did not attack the argument itself, he only attacked me. That is ad hominem Drew. What part of that wiki definition that YOU just posted did you not understand?
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:09 pmPalin was found to have violated the power and ethics of her office.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:10 pmComment by truthnjustice — 10/30/2008 @ 12:10 pm
Say it often enough, maybe it’ll stick…..
Foxfier (c0b5bc) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:11 pmread the report boxfire.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:15 pmJust in case we’re not clear.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:17 pmWhen you constantly lie and obfuscate, you will be attacked for being a liar and obfuscator.
You determine your reputation by your actions.
Others have no control over your actions, they can only comment upon them.
Start to comment in an honest and open manner, providing proof (verifiable facts) to your assertions, and your reputation will improve.
Continue your present course of self-absorption and whining, and the disdain will be continued also.
Gov. Palin has been alleged to have violated the powers and ethics of her office.
The Legislative Enquiry (whatever) has no power of law. They have made an accussation, they have not convicted her of any crime, or act. That function resides in another governmental agency which we have not heard from yet.
So, how often do you think cops should tazer 11-year old kids?
Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:20 pmOh, and Drew…
As if the Governor should get involved publically when this happens?
Personally, I’d be excited to see more Governors make public statements when a state trooper tasers their own 11 year old “just to show them what it is like”….
reff (556669) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:23 pmWhy are you asking me that? I love your tap dancing skills. This legislative INQUIRY has no power of law. The BIPARTISAN group did have the power to supbeana (they went ignored the the fine, upstanding Palin) and investigate, given by the authority of the government. That body found the governor had overreached her authority and acted unethically. No point in debating that.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:26 pmComment by truthnjustice — 10/30/2008 @ 11:31 am </i
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:29 pmThanks Pal. Most of these guys are just a bunch of hatemongering liars. It’s time someone stood up to them!
As if the Governor should get involved publically when this happens?
She wasn’t the Governor when these actions by the Trooper occurred.
Her only action,after she became Governor, was to ask why the process allowed this trooper to keep his job, and the person in command of the State Patrol had to answer her question, and not shine her on as he had when she was just Sarah-Citizen.
Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:37 pmJust because a legislative body can issue a subpeana, does not mean that it can impose a penalty,
or even enforce that penalty.
The enforcement of law is reserved to the Executive Branch of government.
And, any finding of criminality has to be adjudicated in a Court of Law.
All this Legislative Enquiry did was to present a list of allegations that they believe to be accurate.
Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:42 pmThey haven’t proven anything, or convicted anyone of anything.
They don’t have the power.
Drew. That makes it worse. The fact that she wasn’t even governor during this, but then she got involved with the situation after the fact only amplifies the point: she let her personal affiliation with the guy dictate her actions in the situation.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:42 pmYou have no idea of what has happened in this matter just by what you have said.
Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:50 pmI would highly recommend that you review the TazerGate thread on this blog to see what has been discussed here ad nauseum.
After a thorough review of what we have all discussed on this matter, perhaps you will have a better idea of what has transpired, and how to discuss it in a logical, coherent manner.
And point of correction. It is not “Tasergate”. It is “Troopergate.” The difference is clear.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:59 pmAt this blog, our host has identified it as TazerGate! because the difference is clear.
“Dumb and Stupid is no way to go through life!”
Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:05 pmMike here from Obama Shrugged. Obama Shrugged
The Obama campaign consciously turned off address verification. For you Obama supporters, you need to ask yourself why. You also need to ask why he refuses to release his donor base to the public eye as McCain and Clinton have.
A lot of folks here still don’t understand just what a big deal it is to turn off AVS. If you care to learn more, visit our site.
Mike (32f28d) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:14 pm“Dumb and Stupid is no way to go through life!”
Comment by Another Drew — 10/30/2008 @ 1:05 pm
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:28 pmExactly! The most coherent thing you have said all day. It is always good to speak from experience.
“…just what a big deal it is to turn off AVS…”
It is the enabling of fraud.
It is prima facie (at least to this observer) evidence of a criminal conspiracy.
They knew that by turning off AVS, they would enable the contribution of funds that they would not be legally able to accept if their source was known.
Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:31 pmIt is election fraud by omission.
.
and
are not borne out by the facts.
Funny, even the report does not make that finding. In fact, the report does state that she was within her power to take the actions she did.
I love it when your true colors shine through …
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:39 pmha! Drew, you’re an idiot. Why on earth would I search through threads on this site to actually get the truth? You are just asking me to do that because you know that you’ve been beaten both by my links and my comments and you’re relying on the rest of these sorry sorts to bail your @ss out. Nope, not this time. I know exactly what happened and the inquiry found she was unethical. Next!
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:14 pmtruthnjustice identifying an ad hominem attack is like a pot becoming graphically intimate with a kettle.
Icy Truth (84d054) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:15 pmWhat part of that ABC news link are you having trouble reading? I can send over a tutor if you guys need some help. Denial is a dish best served over republican propaganda, eh boys?
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:16 pmDenial is a river in Egypt . . . AND the only word printed in the Dem “Response to Pointed Accusations” handbook.
Icy Truth (84d054) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:20 pmThe Nile, spicy poop? The Nile?
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:23 pmIt really is an idiot.
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:25 pmCertainly your efforts to point fingers regarding fundraising will only get you blank stares from me. There isn’t an official inquiry that found that he acted wrongly in the matter. Even if there were, from the way you guys all argue there is certainly some plausible deniability as long as he has an R after his name.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:26 pmLALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
I do not care. Teh One will be annointed and there is nothing you can do to stop him. Rule of law be damned !!!!
Does that about cover it, tmj?
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:30 pmCertainly your efforts to point fingers regarding fundraising will only get you blank stares from me.
Truer words were never spoken – blank stares from a blank slate. A cranial void of any semblance of activity.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/30/2008 @ 4:12 pmBlank stares b/c I simply don’t care. Ain’t no space behind this face.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:33 pmAs we expected, the Obama cultists condone illegal fund raising.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:34 pmI didn’t say that.
Palin cultists give the rubber ‘okay’ stamp to major ethical violations.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:44 pmBlank stares b/c I simply don’t care. Ain’t no space behind this face.
Space is not the only thing lacking behind that face.
Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:45 pmThe Obama cultists condone everything as long as it gets them some government dollars in their pockets. Obama’s leftist illuminati ideals have been fooling millions for almost two years now.
Jeff (7ff0a7) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:28 pmThis is a very sobering indictment especially since most ecommerce software has several checks (such as Billing ZIP check and CVV check) turned ON by default when solutions are newly installed. Web site/revenue managers would have to make a conscious decision that they want these checks turned off and would have to change software settings (pretty easy) to do so.
For 15 years, I have developed secure card processing software for a major shopping cart processor. Since we offer a free secure shopping cart, we have a lot of experience with new and inexperienced merchants processing credit cards for the first time. I can tell you this: it’s not a case of ignorance or naïveté, especially since this credit card security issue has been so widely discussed online, and we have many proofs that this administration is highly aware of critical discussions taking place in the blogosphere.
Doing what we’ve observed does not require a special arrangement or a conspiracy with the credit card companies: any tiny merchant on the internet could do the same, even with Paypal. After 60 or 90 days, the credit card company would want to have a ‘serious’ conversation with you, but all you would have to do is promise remedial action and you can continue merrily on your way without getting serious about remediation.
The more serious issue is compliance with FEC regulations and federal campaign law – it’s very obvious that the campaign was actively trying to solicit foreign contributions (illegal) when you visit pages like: my.barackobama.com/page/group/LesParisiensavecleSenateurOBAMA where the activist controls on the site even report to everyone how much foreign activist fundraising has taken place in the Paris group. Since most of the page is in French, I seriously doubt that all of the $39,000+ was raised by citizen expatriates in Paris. The common billing address check and a simple SQL query would have prevented so many foreign contributions.
My exit question is this: if this activity is what we observed prior to the election, if this candidate was so careless with common checks that most merchants use, what kind of care and diligence can we expect when this guy has his hands on the US budget?
Ron Robinson
Ron Robinson (3f083d) — 11/18/2008 @ 1:56 pm800Cart