Posted on 02/17/2019 6:51:02 AM PST by Libloather
Perhaps it will take millions wearings vests out in the streets demanding justice be served on traitors to get the message across to the douche bags in office, ya think?
Oh yes,well posted
Because the FEC is full of deep staters.
JoMa
More generally, why does practically everyone ignore the Clinton scandals? Could fill an encyclopedia with the details of their numerous crimes.
///////////////////////////////////
So right.
1)Bill & Hillary crimes? Move On (that was the founding purpose of Let’s Move.org during Bill’s troubles.
2)Trump or any associate or family member? Investigate. Leak to news media. Prosecute.
Golf course in Scotland,thousands of business transactions on decades of income tax returns for Trump? His 1955 elementary school coin donation box for party fund?-— Audit by top Wall Street auditing firm.
Unfounded slanders by lawyer Cohen,Omarosa ors any publicity seeking supposed mistresses? Put on daily TV news.
But the Clintons? Y’all hush up now, hear?
The YUGE ENORMOUS BIG “D” protecto ring. Oh and maybe the ‘doh-j’ ineptitude?
Are you playing with us with that question, Dan?
Just as you anticipated when you took the first step and filed your very thorough complaint, the FEC is ignoring the matter for political reasons.
More specifically, the issue, and its inherent risks, is too great for ordinary and perhaps loosely coordinated politicians to get their head around. I refer not to the FEC but each sponsor of its individual members.
But, fortunately for us, you know as the moving party whether the action is stalled at the administrative level or the pleading phase it is up to you on behalf of your client to press forward.
Why are any agencies ignoring ANYTHING this criminal hag did?
The First Amendment intends to assure that “a hundred flowers bloom, a hundred thoughts contend.” Not insincerely and cynically, as Mao meant it, but as a real, operative principle.The First Amendment codifies the principle that everyone has the right to spend as much of their own money as they want, to promote whatever (legally defensible under the laws of libel, etc) opinions they wanna. After all, 1A rules out official priesthoods, and does not overturn the constitutional prohibition of “titles of nobility.” So the people who own, operate, and work for presses are no different, constitutionally, than anyone else who has not decided to do these things yet. For this reason McCain-Feingold (upheld 5-4 by SCOTUS in McConnell v. FEC) should have been held unconstitutional, along with every “Campaign Finance Reform” law.
The FEC should not exist. Abolition of CFR would obviously not increase the power of “the media,” it would simply stop the government from establishing limits on how much money you can contribute to election campaigns. Obviously, that would not change the ability of Donald Trump to put money in his own campaign coffers, but would increase the ability of billionaires to (legally) contribute money to political campaigns, as was instrumental in launching Ronald Reagan’s presidential bid. Reagan would not have been able to run for president in 1980 if present campaign finance restrictions had been in place then. Let that sink in.
So now we-the-people not only need "another Ronald Reagan," we have to have a rich "Ronald Reagan.” Because of the FEC.
Because the democrats are too loyal (to each other) to do it, and the Republicans are too chicken!
Yet Dinesh D’Souza was sentenced to 5 years where he had to go to some sort of “community confinement center” every night... for illegal campaign contributions. What is good for Dinesh would be even better for the Democrats who do this on a scale that is almost unimaginable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.