Random Politics & Religion #00

That last statement was a broad statement on the hypocrisy of liberal/democrats, which that judge is one of.

Wait, what is hypocritical about the judge's decision?

Broad as the base, not the judge him/herself.

Do you think that the judge made the right decision?

You know I detest private campaign finance and PAC's because they are quid pro quo. What about this judge's decision is relevant?

Thanks for admitting that you didn't read the article.

Suggestion: Before you put your 2 cents in, why don't you educate yourself in the topic beforehand.

I read it

If the judge is basing his assertion of this whole thing as a bribe, then he needs to read the legal definition of what a bribe is.

There is no laws broken from a candidate soliciting to a Super PAC, even if the Super PAC is in support of him.

But hey, if you want to condemn a person for indirectly soliciting himself for campaign money, there are a bunch of "indirect donations" that the government gives to various organizations that would otherwise be illegal to fund. To condemn one and accept the other is hypocritical at best.

I doubt it, you obviously did not read my retort though, because you are asking me what I already stated:

He based it on the fact that large amounts of money aren't just given to people without expecting something in return. On the subject of commerce alone, you cannot discount the possibility. The bar for sufficient evidence is much lower than the bar for reasonable doubt. That's the purpose of trial law, buddy.

You still didn't address what about it is hypocritical or partisan.

But hey, if you want to condemn a person for indirectly soliciting himself for campaign money, there are a bunch of "indirect donations" that the government gives to various organizations that would otherwise be illegal to fund. To condemn one and accept the other is hypocritical at best.

The candidate never received, nor expected to receive the money in the first place. How is that so hard to comprehend?

You still didn't address what about it is hypocritical or partisan.

Sorry, the existence of PAC's says otherwise. People give to a political action committee with the understanding that money will be used to help elect specific persons to a specific office. There's no question in that. If there is one republican running in a given district, people giving to a conservative PAC know where it's going, and the candidate knows they are getting something. The only reason that PAC's are allowed to exist as they do is because there is supposed to be no coordination between the PAC and a candidate. Proving that relationship would be near impossible, but the idea that because they're not supposed to coordinate means they didn't is stupid.

Campaign finance and PP aren't even in the same spectrum, much less comparable. Not in scope, purpose, or function, and trying to compare them says way more about you than it does about this topic.

But my best guess is that he is referring to Chanti indirectly and calling her a hypocrite because of her position on Planned Parenthood?

Brush up on campaign laws then. I still said that what the candidate did is not illegal. Nor did he receive a bribe, like Chanti stated.

Chanti didn't say he received a bribe, nor did the judge.

And, again, money from the government to a public health organization is not even in the same ballpark as PAC's. You even comparing the two shows a lot of ignorance about both.

She asserted bribery

Convenient. Never mind that the two actions are the same (both received indirect funding for a specific restrictive practice), because you conveniently said so, .

Ore. bakers refuse to pay damages in gay wedding cake case

Even if the judge wanted to make an example out of them, 135k is an absurd amount for bakers. Can't wait to see the Pope support them!

Ore. bakers refuse to pay damages in gay wedding cake case

Even if the judge wanted to make an example out of them, 135k is an absurd amount for bakers. Can't wait to see the Pope support them!

The Kleins have filed an appeal of the ruling and are defying the order to pay. They're claiming financial hardship although crowdfunding efforts have brought in over $500,000 on their behalf, The Oregonian reported.

....
Read my response again, I'm condemning the judge for poor judgement.

That last statement was a broad statement on the hypocrisy of liberal/democrats, which that judge is one of.

WASHINGTON -- A district court judge on Monday dismissed four corruption charges against Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and his donor Salomon Melgen, but denied motions to toss out other charges including, notably, the senator’s solicitation of contributions for a super PAC.

Lawyers for the senator had asked the court to dismiss charges related to Menendez’s solicitation of $700,000 from Melgen for Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC run by former aides to Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that made independent expenditures to support Menendez’s 2012 reelection.

The basis for dismissal offered by Menendez’s lawyers were the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United and 2013 McCutcheon decisions. Those two cases redefined corruption as only explicit bribery, excluding influence and access. The senator’s lawyers argued that this redefinition of corruption and Citizens United’s declaration that independent expenditures “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption” provided freedom of speech protections for all “efforts to influence and obtain access to elected officials,” including any campaign contribution.

Judge William Walls disagreed, ruling that the charges related to the super PAC contributions made by a corporation run by Melgen and solicited by Menendez would stand. In his opinion, Walls writes that “the Constitution does not protect an attempt to influence a public official’s acts through improper means.” (Read Walls' decision here.)

While Citizens United may state that independent expenditures cannot lead to corruption, bribery statutes view the super PAC contributions made and their value in different, subjective terms.

“Notwithstanding the statement in Citizens United that independent expenditures have no actual value to candidates, a jury could find that Defendant Menendez placed value, albeit subjective, on the earmarked donations given to Majority PAC by Melgen,” Walls writes.

a jury could find

OK, let's go back to the original post in this mess.

Breaking: Shooting at college campus in Oregon

Looks like the shooter has been caught.

Looks like he was asking people their religion before shooting them. I'm certain hes probably one of those radical Catholics/Christians I'm told are so plentiful.

It's pretty disgusting that people's corpses are probably still warm and you're already using this to score a political point. Have you no shame?

Once in awhile they surprise you with the truth.

U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-California, the leading candidate for speaker of the House, told Fox News the House Republicans' investigation of Hillary Clinton was politically motivated.

In other news, water is wet.

Lest you think I am taking this out of context, look for yourself:

McCarthy went out of his way to brag to Sean Hannity about the political impact of a congressional investigation. He was not browbeaten into admitting it. He boasted about it:

"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen."

The Benghazi Committee has now passed the Watergate Committee as the lengthiest investigation in congressional history. As Ari Ravin-Hapt noted in The Observer, the committee has a Republican staff of 18 people, who are paid an average of $128,000 apiece. Apart from harassing Hillary Clinton's friend (and mine) Sidney Blumenthal, the committee has no substantive accomplishments. And for good reason: It's not on the level.

Benghazi has already been investigated by a blue-ribbon independent review board led by career diplomat Thomas Pickering and retired four-star Adm. Mike Mullen. It's been investigated by the House Intelligence Committee , which produced a bipartisan report that thoroughly debunks numerous conspiracy theories;the Senate Intelligence Committee; the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; the House Armed Services Committee; the House Foreign Affairs Committee; the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

For those keeping score at home, that's eight -- count 'em -- eight investigations into Benghazi. Now, in their relentless quest to damage the former secretary of state politically, the Republicans have seized upon her use of a private email server. Clinton has admitted that was a mistake and apologized for it.

What does that have to do with the tragedy of Benghazi? Well, let me quote the campaign manager -- err, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina: "Well, probably not much of anything."

Seriously. Fox News' Chris Wallace asked Gowdy, "What does this [email controversy'] have to do with investigating what happened around Benghazi?" Gowdy responded, "Well, probably not much of anything."

By their own admission, both the leader of the House Republicans and the leader of the Benghazi Committee have revealed their true partisan intentions. The use of taxpayer funds to turn a congressional committee into a super PAC to launch political attacks -- well, that's a real scandal.

House Speaker John Boehner denied Thursday that the panel investigating the Benghazi attack is political or aimed at discrediting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In a statement, he said will not disband the committee, despite controversial comments made this week by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy that the panel helped Republicans damage Clinton politically.

"This investigation has never been about former Secretary of State Clinton and never will be," Boehner said in a statement provided to CNN Thursday. "Indeed, the Select Committee's very existence is only the result of the Obama administration's obstruction of routine congressional investigations and its failure to properly comply with subpoenas and document requests."

Senate Democrats have called on Republicans to disband the panel in the wake of McCarthy's gaffe. The California Republican is the favorite to succeed Boehner as House speaker.

Other Republicans have also said the panel isn't focused on attacking Clinton, but instead on finding out what happened in the Benghazi terrorist strike that killed four people, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

"The fact remains that Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration have done everything they can to delay, derail, and stop this investigation," Boehner said. "They've failed to turn over documents in a timely way, and their own actions have needlessly prolonged this panel's work."