Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Trump Administration
Author Message
tanqtonic Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #5301
RE: Trump Administration
And, just to be clear, I think your idea that *any* payoff to a mistress or sexual partner in any form whatsoever is (or would ever be, for that matter) a 'legitimate campaign expenditure' is pretty much absolutely and completely moronic.
(This post was last modified: 12-14-2018 02:38 PM by tanqtonic.)
12-14-2018 02:20 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #5302
RE: Trump Administration
(12-14-2018 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Are you suggesting that they arose totally independently of the Mueller investigation? Considering the Mueller referred the case to them, that seems an improbable leap.
That is mentioned at
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-ref...osecutors/
Nope - I know how they got started. I specifically said they are not part of the Mueller investigation (which they aren’t).
That’s why I asked the last question - Mueller provided information on crimes to another prosecutor. If you want to complain about these being part of a witch hunt, you’re suggesting that you want prosecutors to look the other way when they see evidence of crimes.
Mueller farmed them out because New York was where the evidence was, and the SDNY legal staff was in better shape to prosecute them. It's really classic witch hunt--we found something that may be outside our scope, so let's turn it over to somebody under whose purview it falls. Anything to pursue anything.
So what should Mueller have done? Ignored evidence of crimes?
The reason I say this isn't part of the witch hunt is he passed of the investigation. He knew it was not within his original scope, so we handed it to someone else. If Mueller really did want to get Trump, no matter what, what incentive is there to lose oversight of the investigation?

I think we were discussing whether it was part of the Mueller investigation. It clearly originated there, and was farmed out. What Mueller should have done would depend on facts that I don't know. My guess is that he farmed it out because he evaluated it as having a low probability of producing anything relative to the amount of effort required to pursue it. So let some US attorney go try to make a name for him/herself.

But you admit the point. It was outside his scope. So why did he turn it up in the first place? That's the witch hunt element, that e was looking into a bunch of stuff that was outside his scope. Tat's how Ken Starr prolonged the Whitewater investigation into Monicagate.

I think we need to revisit the special counsel statute. I don't think to does anybody any good to turn a social counsel loose with no accountability and unlimited funding and no deadline, to look at whatever he wants to. I'd say that a special counsel should have someone to answer to, be appointed with a certain budget for a fixed time frame and scope, and at the end of that time frame, must report progress, and at interval points should request and justify any scope changes. I think there's a very real possibility that being the scenes Mueller has just been told to stir up as much as he can for as long as he can, to try to interfere with Trump's performance as president.

The problem is that the Special Counsel is only proper to investigate a 'crime' per the statute. The predicate has never been met.

The predicate is *not* there is 'enough smoke, lets sniff around'.

But, ends justifies means for some. That goes not just for Special Counsel purposes, but for a boatload of other venues as well ('Living Constitution', 'Progressive Re-Interpretation of Statutory Language (some of which we see currently in this thread mind you...), etc.)
12-14-2018 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #5303
RE: Trump Administration
Some more evidence that Lad harps about.

Cohen acted to stop stories from getting out that would
Quote:"adversely affect the Campaign and cause personal embarrassment to Client-1 and his family.”

Sentencing memo from Cohen.

Funny, the word *and* means 'something else' in my book. Imagine that.

Edited to add: the simple point is that Trump paid off Daniels and McDougal with personal funds, so people scream and ***** about an unreported campaign expenditure. If just the opposite happened, and the Trump campaign had paid them off with campaign funds, the same fing rabble would be bitching and screaming about how he’d improperly diverted campaign resources for personal use. That is the absolute long and short of it.

The only upside to the current situation is that this current one forces the people who ***** and scream about the personal funds being used 'improperly' is that they also have to defend the stupid-ass 'opposite' end of that stance -- that is 'payoffs to mistresses are perfectly legitimate uses of campaign funds'. Which, in and of itself is somewhat enjoyable to watch them dance that jig....

Edited further to add: Cohen leaned on at least one magazine back in 2011 not to publish details of the Stormy affair. Or is this another piece of evidence to Trumps omniscience about the future campaign?
(This post was last modified: 12-14-2018 05:40 PM by tanqtonic.)
12-14-2018 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #5304
RE: Trump Administration
Given the following:

Cohen has pleaded guilty to a crime.
Cohen has been convicted of that crime.
Cohen is going to prison for that crime.
We are not even sure this is a crime.

when combined, is a real strong reason why I am libertarian for the most part.
12-14-2018 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #5305
RE: Trump Administration
(12-14-2018 12:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Does that make him feel like a big boy still?
I understand his point that any inkling of personal rationale for the payments renders the campaign expenditure moot.
However, all evidence points to motivations being campaign related, and none point to there being a personal motivation. Of course one could assume that there was a personal motivation, but there needs to be evidence of that 0.001% personal motivation.
All Tanq has that indicates I "don't understand the law" is his own opinions of how the law should be applied. I mean, I know that every lawyer knows they're right about the law, so I've tried to not get into this issue too much.

There is evidence of the personal motivation. It's called "pattern of behavior," with is a recognized legal principle. Basically, you can presume intent from a pattern of past behavior. And Trump has paid off women before, several times. I agree that there evidence points to a campaign relationship. But under the specific wording of the statute, and related cases law, that's not enough.

I get this - but I have googled and read that Wikipedia article, and maybe I missed this, but I’ve not seen any other examples of Trump paying hush money to a mistress. settling a sexual assault case that was brought to court is much different. That’s a reactive response and not a proactive response. Trump being a serial philanderer that gets sued every once in a while doesn’t create a pattern of behavior that suggests he always proactively pays off his mistresses to keep quiet.

Can you show me other examples of Trump proactively paying mistresses off to keep quiet about affairs?
12-14-2018 06:20 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #5306
RE: Trump Administration
(12-14-2018 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Are you suggesting that they arose totally independently of the Mueller investigation? Considering the Mueller referred the case to them, that seems an improbable leap.
That is mentioned at
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-ref...osecutors/
Nope - I know how they got started. I specifically said they are not part of the Mueller investigation (which they aren’t).
That’s why I asked the last question - Mueller provided information on crimes to another prosecutor. If you want to complain about these being part of a witch hunt, you’re suggesting that you want prosecutors to look the other way when they see evidence of crimes.
Mueller farmed them out because New York was where the evidence was, and the SDNY legal staff was in better shape to prosecute them. It's really classic witch hunt--we found something that may be outside our scope, so let's turn it over to somebody under whose purview it falls. Anything to pursue anything.
So what should Mueller have done? Ignored evidence of crimes?
The reason I say this isn't part of the witch hunt is he passed of the investigation. He knew it was not within his original scope, so we handed it to someone else. If Mueller really did want to get Trump, no matter what, what incentive is there to lose oversight of the investigation?

I think we were discussing whether it was part of the Mueller investigation. It clearly originated there, and was farmed out. What Mueller should have done would depend on facts that I don't know. My guess is that he farmed it out because he evaluated it as having a low probability of producing anything relative to the amount of effort required to pursue it. So let some US attorney go try to make a name for him/herself.

But you admit the point. It was outside his scope. So why did he turn it up in the first place? That's the witch hunt element, that he was looking into a bunch of stuff that was outside his scope. Tat's how Ken Starr prolonged the Whitewater investigation into Monicagate.

I think we need to revisit the special counsel statute. I don't think to does anybody any good to turn a social counsel loose with no accountability and unlimited funding and no deadline, to look at whatever he wants to. I'd say that a special counsel should have someone to answer to, be appointed with a certain budget for a fixed time frame and scope, and at the end of that time frame, must report progress, and at interval points should request and justify any scope changes. I think there's a very real possibility that being the scenes Mueller has just been told to stir up as much as he can for as long as he can, to try to interfere with Trump's performance as president.

No idea how the information turned up during the course of the investigation. But given that the investigation was focusing on the campaign and if anyone in the campaign colluded with Russia, is it that wild that you might find out information regarding how the campaign operated?

If this wasn’t related to Trump’s campaign in any way, and say was about something he did back in college, I’d agree with you wholeheartedly. But this isn’t even two degrees of separation from his campaign, so I’m not sure why there’s reason to be suspicious about how these facts were found. My guess is they either found details about this in financial ledgers from Cohen or they picked this up when they reviewed his recordings.
12-14-2018 06:31 PM
Find all posts by this user
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #5307
RE: Trump Administration
(12-14-2018 06:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 12:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Does that make him feel like a big boy still?
I understand his point that any inkling of personal rationale for the payments renders the campaign expenditure moot.
However, all evidence points to motivations being campaign related, and none point to there being a personal motivation. Of course one could assume that there was a personal motivation, but there needs to be evidence of that 0.001% personal motivation.
All Tanq has that indicates I "don't understand the law" is his own opinions of how the law should be applied. I mean, I know that every lawyer knows they're right about the law, so I've tried to not get into this issue too much.
There is evidence of the personal motivation. It's called "pattern of behavior," with is a recognized legal principle. Basically, you can presume intent from a pattern of past behavior. And Trump has paid off women before, several times. I agree that there evidence points to a campaign relationship. But under the specific wording of the statute, and related cases law, that's not enough.
I get this - but I have googled and read that Wikipedia article, and maybe I missed this, but I’ve not seen any other examples of Trump paying hush money to a mistress. settling a sexual assault case that was brought to court is much different. That’s a reactive response and not a proactive response. Trump being a serial philanderer that gets sued every once in a while doesn’t create a pattern of behavior that suggests he always proactively pays off his mistresses to keep quiet.
Can you show me other examples of Trump proactively paying mistresses off to keep quiet about affairs?

Jill Harth, circa 1997, for one.
12-14-2018 06:32 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #5308
RE: Trump Administration
(12-14-2018 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Given the following:

Cohen has pleaded guilty to a crime.
Cohen has been convicted of that crime.
Cohen is going to prison for that crime.
We are not even sure this is a crime.

when combined, is a real strong reason why I am libertarian for the most part.

You’re forgetting the AMI also plead guilty to a crime.

Quote:AMI has now admitted to the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York that they worked "in concert with" the Republican campaign in order to "suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

So much for the John Edwards defense.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.msnbc.com...ortant/amp
12-14-2018 06:33 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #5309
RE: Trump Administration
(12-14-2018 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 06:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 12:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Does that make him feel like a big boy still?
I understand his point that any inkling of personal rationale for the payments renders the campaign expenditure moot.
However, all evidence points to motivations being campaign related, and none point to there being a personal motivation. Of course one could assume that there was a personal motivation, but there needs to be evidence of that 0.001% personal motivation.
All Tanq has that indicates I "don't understand the law" is his own opinions of how the law should be applied. I mean, I know that every lawyer knows they're right about the law, so I've tried to not get into this issue too much.
There is evidence of the personal motivation. It's called "pattern of behavior," with is a recognized legal principle. Basically, you can presume intent from a pattern of past behavior. And Trump has paid off women before, several times. I agree that there evidence points to a campaign relationship. But under the specific wording of the statute, and related cases law, that's not enough.
I get this - but I have googled and read that Wikipedia article, and maybe I missed this, but I’ve not seen any other examples of Trump paying hush money to a mistress. settling a sexual assault case that was brought to court is much different. That’s a reactive response and not a proactive response. Trump being a serial philanderer that gets sued every once in a while doesn’t create a pattern of behavior that suggests he always proactively pays off his mistresses to keep quiet.
Can you show me other examples of Trump proactively paying mistresses off to keep quiet about affairs?

Jill Harth, circa 1997, for one.

Citation?

All I see is that she took Trump to court and they then settled out of court. As I said, a reactive response, which is very different.
12-14-2018 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #5310
RE: Trump Administration
(12-14-2018 06:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Given the following:

Cohen has pleaded guilty to a crime.
Cohen has been convicted of that crime.
Cohen is going to prison for that crime.
We are not even sure this is a crime.

when combined, is a real strong reason why I am libertarian for the most part.

You’re forgetting the AMI also plead guilty to a crime.

Quote:AMI has now admitted to the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York that they worked "in concert with" the Republican campaign in order to "suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

So much for the John Edwards defense.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.msnbc.com...ortant/amp

Still not seeing how the
Russians figure into this.
12-14-2018 06:56 PM
Find all posts by this user
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #5311
RE: Trump Administration
(12-14-2018 06:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Jill Harth, circa 1997, for one.
Citation?
All I see is that she took Trump to court and they then settled out of court. As I said, a reactive response, which is very different.

How different?
12-14-2018 07:08 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #5312
RE: Trump Administration
(12-14-2018 07:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 06:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Jill Harth, circa 1997, for one.
Citation?
All I see is that she took Trump to court and they then settled out of court. As I said, a reactive response, which is very different.

How different?

So one payment (proactive) suggests that someone is actively interested in keeping actions a secret. The goal is to be discrete.

The other payment (reactive) doesn’t. It only happened after the affair went to court and Trump was at legal risk. The goal of that is reducing legal risk and not being charged with a crime.

In short, one is about covering up an affair, the other is about washing away a potential crime. Seems different to me.
12-14-2018 07:58 PM
Find all posts by this user
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #5313
RE: Trump Administration
(12-14-2018 07:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 07:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 06:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Jill Harth, circa 1997, for one.
Citation?
All I see is that she took Trump to court and they then settled out of court. As I said, a reactive response, which is very different.
How different?
So one payment (proactive) suggests that someone is actively interested in keeping actions a secret. The goal is to be discrete.
The other payment (reactive) doesn’t. It only happened after the affair went to court and Trump was at legal risk. The goal of that is reducing legal risk and not being charged with a crime.
In short, one is about covering up an affair, the other is about washing away a potential crime. Seems different to me.

I don't see the legal significance. All you need to establish legally is that he paid women off before.
12-14-2018 08:11 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #5314
RE: Trump Administration
(12-14-2018 08:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 07:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 07:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 06:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Jill Harth, circa 1997, for one.
Citation?
All I see is that she took Trump to court and they then settled out of court. As I said, a reactive response, which is very different.
How different?
So one payment (proactive) suggests that someone is actively interested in keeping actions a secret. The goal is to be discrete.
The other payment (reactive) doesn’t. It only happened after the affair went to court and Trump was at legal risk. The goal of that is reducing legal risk and not being charged with a crime.
In short, one is about covering up an affair, the other is about washing away a potential crime. Seems different to me.

I don't see the legal significance. All you need to establish legally is that he paid women off before.

I think Lad is headed to a "it is far more culpable to 'attend a meeting' than to 'call a meeting'"- type distinction here. Lolz.

Lad --- did you know that Cohen leaned on a magazine several years ago to prevent the Daniels story? No legal risk there at all..... Kind of the ultimate 'proactive' move. Pretty soon we are going to have to delve into the quantum state scale to delineate the amazing distinctions you keep throwing around..... Lolz.
12-14-2018 08:28 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #5315
RE: Trump Administration
(12-14-2018 08:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 07:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 07:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 06:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Jill Harth, circa 1997, for one.
Citation?
All I see is that she took Trump to court and they then settled out of court. As I said, a reactive response, which is very different.
How different?
So one payment (proactive) suggests that someone is actively interested in keeping actions a secret. The goal is to be discrete.
The other payment (reactive) doesn’t. It only happened after the affair went to court and Trump was at legal risk. The goal of that is reducing legal risk and not being charged with a crime.
In short, one is about covering up an affair, the other is about washing away a potential crime. Seems different to me.

I don't see the legal significance. All you need to establish legally is that he paid women off before.

In short, Lad is trying to say 'that was then, this is now. All the difference.'
12-14-2018 08:30 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #5316
RE: Trump Administration
(12-14-2018 06:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-14-2018 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Given the following:

Cohen has pleaded guilty to a crime.
Cohen has been convicted of that crime.
Cohen is going to prison for that crime.
We are not even sure this is a crime.

when combined, is a real strong reason why I am libertarian for the most part.

You’re forgetting the AMI also plead guilty to a crime.

I guess that is dispositive then. Call out the Supreme Court and note that. Honestly Lad, it doesnt make a flying flip who pled to a crime. Trying to bootstrap a plea to a crime to define something as a crime is pretty much bassackwards. Bummer.

Quote:AMI has now admitted to the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York that they worked "in concert with" the Republican campaign in order to "suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

So much for the John Edwards defense.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.msnbc.com...ortant/amp
[/quote]

So Lad,
Lets say I tell you to go to a place and pick up a hotdog and give you money to pay for the hotdog.

You pick up the hotdog and pay for it.

You get nabbed and charged with purchasing drugs.

You plead guilty to purchasing drugs.

Is it your thesis that your pleading guilty to purchasing drugs makes me guilty when only a hotdog was purchased?

AMI's plea changes nothing on the legality or illegality of the payment. All it does is subject AMI to a sanction.

You really need to do better than that. I hate to tell you but a plea is not transitive, nor is a plea dispositive of anything beyond the circle of the person making the plea.

Hey, but it might make a difference if it is 'reactive' or 'proactive'. I forgot completely about that distinction. But, does it make a difference if I am the one being invited or the one inviting? I seem to remember that was an utterly crucial distinction in your world as well....
12-14-2018 08:40 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #5317
RE: Trump Administration
Noted liberal David French does a good job explaining the situation and ironically hitting on every single talking point OO, Owl#, and Tanq have hit on. It’s quite impressive.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/r...s-trouble/

It also makes me wonder if Tanq was plagiarizing from Bradley Smith...
12-14-2018 10:07 PM
Find all posts by this user
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #5318
RE: Trump Administration
(12-14-2018 10:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Noted liberal David French does a good job explaining the situation and ironically hitting on every single talking point OO, Owl#, and Tanq have hit on. It’s quite impressive.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/r...s-trouble/
It also makes me wonder if Tanq was plagiarizing from Bradley Smith...

I don't think there was any plagiarizing. The concepts are pretty straightforward.

Here's the bottom line as I see it. If campaign funds were used to make the payments, then Trump or somebody in his organization has a legal problem. If the money came out of Trump's pocket, then it's probably not illegal, and even if it might be considered illegal the chances of getting a conviction would be dicey at best.
12-14-2018 10:19 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #5319
RE: Trump Administration
Awwww how cute. Accuse someone of plagiarizing. The true twerp in you coming forth I guess.

Hate to tell you that more than one person can interpret the term 'irrespective' and there are way more sources than one for the reasoning behind the provisions of the Election Act.

In response: take a flying leap you sniveling twerp.

Edited to add: I did add the comment about the people who are complaining about personal monies being misapplied would undoubtedly be complaining if campaign funds were used from the Smith piece. It seemed appropriate. It still does.

But the implication that my position is 'plagiarized' my response is that Lad can go FHimself. Guilty of 'crude' there; better as all hell than twerpy though.
(This post was last modified: 12-14-2018 10:37 PM by tanqtonic.)
12-14-2018 10:21 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #5320
RE: Trump Administration
Who is David French?

However, I must say Lad’s beliefs are awfully similar to Adam Schif’s.

What is the connection to the Russia collusion?
12-14-2018 10:34 PM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.