maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:47 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2802 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:30 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 27698
Reputation points: 20000
She could write a sequel...."What Happened II: How I Got Hurt on My Trip to India"

Chapter I: I stepped in some fresh crap and nearly fell down but a kindly man held me up but he did bruise my grandma flaps on my arms and the crap got stuck between my toes. Then I tried to take a bath to get the crap off but I fell down again and broke my wrist.

Chapter II: I got a severe case of "Delhi belly" from the tandoori chicken gizzards the lady with the dot on her forehead sold me....

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:25 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:49 pm
Posts: 10401
Reputation points: 18382
The woman who would have been president:



gesh

_________________
This post was prepared by C_S as a service to the Internet community. It is intended, but not promised nor guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up to date. Do not act or rely on any of this information without first seeking the advice of an attorney


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:05 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11941
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 15961
We really dodged a bullet didn't we?

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:59 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 31285
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/04/20/ ... president/

Quote:
Hillary: “They Were Never Going To Let Me Be President”

ED MORRISSEYPosted at 12:01 pm on April 20, 2018

One day, when Americans of stout heart rise up and declare themselves free of it, the 2016 election will be over, but … today is not that day, friends. While the minutiae and meaning of Donald Trump’s campaign continue to get dissected, the other campaign gets some attention in a new book from reporter Amy Chozick titled Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling.

The Daily Beast’s Gideon Resnick excerpts several passages from the book, none of which make Hillary Clinton sympathetic. For example, this recounting of her Election Night notification reminds everyone of both Hillary’s sense of entitlement and paranoia:

“Of all the Brooklyn aides, Jen Palmieri had the most pleasant bedside manner,” Chozick writes. “That made her the designated deliverer of bad news to Hillary. But not this time. She told Robby there was no way she was going to tell Hillary she couldn’t win. That’s when Robby, drained and deflated, watching the results with his team in a room down the hall from Hillary’s suite, labored into the hallway of the Peninsula to break the news. Hillary didn’t seem all that surprised. ‘I knew it. I knew this would happen to me….’ Hillary said, now within a couple of inches of his face. ‘They were never going to let me be president.’”

Who’s “they”? According to Chozick, Bill Clinton thought it was … the New York Times?

“After the election, Bill would spread a more absurd Times conspiracy: The publisher had struck a deal with Trump that we’d destroy Hillary on her emails to help him get elected, if he kept driving traffic and boosting the company’s stock price.”


The NYT did not exactly have a track record of promoting Donald Trump, either before his political career or during it. What makes this all the more remarkable is all of the machinations made by the Clintons and the DNC to ensure she got the 2016 nomination. They used the Clinton Foundation to employ key personnel and keep them handy for the cycle, while the DNC made sure to calculate all of its moves during the primaries for maximum Clinton advantage. Democratic fundraisers signed on early, locking out any serious potential challengers, a move that backfired when fringe independent Bernie Sanders took advantage of widespread dissatisfaction with the Clinton establishment and nearly upset her plans for a coronation.

Besides, if anyone outside the GOP promoted Trump, Chozick reports, it was Team Hillary:


“An agenda for an upcoming campaign meeting sent by [Campaign Manager] Robby Mook’s office asked, ‘How do we maximize Trump?’” Chozick writes, describing a time when the GOP primary was still crowded.

Even as Trump surged in the polls, the Clinton camp still saw him as a danger to stronger candidates rather than such a candidate in his own right, Chozick reports, so that in August 2015, “when the main GOP debate came on, everyone pushed their pizza crust aside and stared transfixed at the TV set… [Campaign Manager] Robby [Mook] salivated when the debate came back on and Trump started to speak. ‘Shhhhh,’ Robby said, practically pressing his nose up to the TV. ‘I’ve gahtz to get me some Trump.’ Robby thought Rubio would be the nominee. Podesta was bullish on Kasich. Bill and Hillary, still stuck in the 1990s, feared the Bush surname most of all.”


Be careful what you ask for, an old adage warns, you just might get it.

More than anything else in Resnick’s selection of excerpts, though, the elitist and entitled attitude that voters picked up so well from the candidate was a clear feature of the campaign. The “deplorables” remark was a case in point, Chozick reports, and explains that it was no mere ad-lib. Clinton and her team had repeatedly broken Trump supporters into three “baskets” in their internal discussions, between anti-Hillaryites, the economically depressed, and the you-know-whos. What’s more, Chozick adds, those comments always got a big laugh among the cognoscenti, at least until Hillary tried out the label in public:

“The Deplorables always got a laugh, over living-room chats in the Hamptons, at dinner parties under the stars on Martha’s Vineyard, over passed hors d’oeuvres in Beverly Hills, and during sunset cocktails in Silicon Valley,” Chozick continues.

And they wonder why middle America didn’t connect to the Clinton campaign! At least from the excerpts, Chozick makes the case that the real author of Hillary’s defeat is Hillary Clinton. But, of course, we knew that already, even if the Clintons and their supporters still don’t.

By the way, the Womyn Power message of the Hillary Clinton campaign apparently didn’t extend to Team Hillary itself, other than the candidate. The Washington Post provides a few excerpts about how Chozick describes her treatment at the hands of the campaign:

Sharper are the profiles of Clinton’s entourage, particularly the longtime male press aides whom Chozick never identifies by name but simply calls “The Guys.” The women around Hillary — such as Palmieri, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills — rate full names and attributed quotes, but the men are dubbed Brown Loafers Guy, Policy Guy, Hired Gun Guy, Outsider Guy and the loathsome Original Guy, “the longest-serving Svengali and the most-devoted member of Hillary’s court of flattering men.”

The Guys constantly mess with Chozick, magnifying her self-doubts. “I don’t care what you write because no one takes you seriously,” Outsider Guy says. They suggest that a Times colleague is leaking her story ideas to a competitor at Politico and that more-experienced reporters in her newsroom will steal away her assignment. (“C’mon, you really think they’ll keep you on the beat with Maggie there?”) They ask if there are any other Times reporters, preferably male, that they could talk to instead of her. “They’d gotten in my head, and I let them,” Chozick admits. The undercurrent of sexism spills over when Chozick and Original Guy spar over whether a prior conversation can go on the record, and he randomly paraphrases a crude line from “Thank You for Smoking,” a 2005 film in which a reporter sleeps with a lobbyist for information. “I didn’t know I had to say it was off the record when I was inside you,” Original Guy smirks. (“The words hung there,” Chozick recalls, “so grossly gynecological.”) …

“HAA exhibited generally creepy behavior, but seemed more pitiful and effeminate than threatening, which is why I tried to ignore his rubbing up and down my back,” Chozick writes. She does not name HAA in the book; more than a year after Trump’s inauguration, Chozick co-wrote a Times story about how Clinton kept spiritual adviser Burns Strider on the 2008 campaign despite repeated accusations of harassment by campaign staff.


It’s interesting that these stories came out after the election, too, rather than contemporaneously when voters could factor it into their decisions and the candidate held responsible for the hypocrisy. But that’s media criticism for another time.



Quote:
Hillary didn’t seem all that surprised. ‘I knew it. I knew this would happen to me….’ Hillary said, now within a couple of inches of his face. ‘They were never going to let me be president.’”

Who’s “they”? According to Chozick, Bill Clinton thought it was … the New York Times?
:roll:

What a bunch of kooks!
Hillary (and Bill) think that there was a conspiracy to keep HRC from becoming President and the NY TImes was behind it?????? :lol:

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:38 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 27698
Reputation points: 20000
Hillary literally is psychologically damaged goods. The physical plant is not working so well either.

She blames the email disaster on Comey...well...sweetheart...Comey HATES Trump. he would never had been involved if you had not purposely and knowingly chosen to hide your dealings from the voters with a private email server.

Comey did not push you down at the 9-11 memorial either....or decide not to campaign in Michigan or Wisconsin...or use the phrase "basket of deplorables"

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:36 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 31285
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/bom ... 4-million/

Quote:
Crime
Bombshell: FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million

The mainstream media took no notice of a federal court filing that exposes a $84 million money-laundering conspiracy Democrats executed during the 2016 presidential election.


By Margot Cleveland
April 24, 2018

The press continues to feed the dying Russia collusion conspiracy theory, spending Friday’s news cycle regurgitating Democrat talking points from the just-filed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia.

Yet the mainstream media took no notice of last week’s federal court filing that exposes an $84 million money-laundering conspiracy the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign executed during the 2016 presidential election in violation of federal campaign-finance law.

That lawsuit, filed last week in a DC district court, summarizes the DNC-Clinton conspiracy and provides detailed evidence from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings confirming the complaint’s allegations that Democrats undertook an extensive scheme to violate federal campaign limits.

From Bundling To Money Laundering


Dan Backer, a campaign-finance lawyer and attorney-of-record in the lawsuit, explained the underlying law in an article for Investor’s Business Daily: Under federal law, “an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party’s main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits—it’s legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfer to their national party.”

This legal loophole allows “bundlers” to raise large sums of money from wealthy donors—more than $400,000 at a time—filtering the funds to the national committees. Democrats and Republicans alike exploit this tactic. But once the money reaches the national committees, other limits apply.


Suspecting the DNC had exceeded those limits, a client of Backer’s, the Committee to Defend the President, began reviewing FEC filings to determine whether there was excessive coordination between the DNC and Clinton. What Backer discovered, as he explained in an interview, was much worse. There was “extensive evidence in the Democrats’ own FEC reports, when coupled with their own public statements that demonstrated massive straw man contributions papered through the state parties, to the DNC, and then directly to Clinton’s campaign—in clear violation of federal campaign-finance law.”

On behalf of his clients, on December 15, 2017 Backer filed an 86-page complaint with the FEC, asking the FEC to commence enforcement proceedings against Hillary Clinton, her campaign and its treasurer, the DNC and its treasurer, and the participating state Democratic committees. The complaint, and an attached exhibit consisting of nearly 20 pages of Excel spreadsheets, detailed the misconduct and provided concrete evidence supporting the allegations. In short, here’s what happened and what the evidence establishes.

Think Of It Like A Shell Game With Millions Of Dollars


During the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and participating state Democratic committees established the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) as a joint fundraising committee to accept contributions from large donors, some exceeding $400,000. So far, so good. To comply with campaign finance law, the HVF needed to transfer the donations to the specified recipients, whether the Clinton campaign, down-ticket Democrats, the DNC, or state committees.

FEC records, however, show several large contributions reported as received by the HVF and the same amount on the same day (or occasionally the following day) recorded as received by the DNC from a state Democratic committee, but without the state Democratic committee ever reporting the contribution.


For instance, the HVF reported transferring $19,500 to the Mississippi Democratic Party on November 2, 2015, and the Democratic National Committee reported receiving $19,500 from the Mississippi Democratic Party on November 2, 2015. But the Mississippi Democratic Party never recorded the receipt or the disbursement of the $19,500, and without the Mississippi Democratic Party controlling the funds, the HVF’s contribution to the DNC violated campaign finance law.

Over a 13-month period, FEC records show some 30 separate occasions when the HVF transferred contributions totaling more than $10 million to the DNC without any corresponding record of the receipt or disbursement from the state parties, thus illegally leap-frogging the state Democratic parties.

On the other hand, of the contributions state parties reported as received from the HVF, 99 percent wound up at the DNC. They were transferred immediately or within a day or two, raising questions of whether the state Democratic committees truly exercised control over the money—something necessary under campaign finance law to allow a later-legal transfer to the DNC.

Again, the evidence is damning. According to Politico, “[w]hile state party officials were made aware that Clinton’s campaign would control the movement of the funds between participating committees, one operative who has relationships with multiple state parties said that some of their officials have complained that they weren’t notified of the transfers into and out of their accounts until after the fact.”

‘Using The Party As A Fundraising Clearinghouse’


But the Clinton campaign’s control of the contributions did not end once the funds reached the DNC, as the complaint filed with the FEC detailed. Rather, public statements by former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile acknowledged that “[a]s Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”

Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of the Clinton campaign, which operated as Hillary For America “HFA,” out of Brooklyn, New York, likewise stated that the Democratic Party was “fully under the control of the Clinton campaign . . . . The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse.”

By excercising control over the DNC’s funds, including funds transferred from the HVF through the state parties, the contributions qualified as donations to the Clinton campaign for purposes of federal campaign finance law, and when properly accounted for exceeded the legal contribution limits.

The Supreme Court Made It Clear This Is Illegal

The illegality of this scheme isn’t a matter of debate. The Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC that this exact scenario would violate the law. Here’s how the court laid it out: “[A] donor gives a $500,000 check to a joint fundraising committee composed of a candidate, a national party committee, and most of the party’s state party committees. The committees divide up the money so that each one receives the maximum contribution permissible under the base limits, but then each transfers its allocated portion to the same single committee. That committee uses the money for coordinated expenditures on behalf of a particular candidate.”

The Supreme Court then declared: “Lest there be any confusion, a joint fundraising committee is simply a mechanism for individual committees to raise funds collectively, not to circumvent base limits or earmarking rules. Under no circumstances may a contribution to a joint fundraising committee result in an allocation that exceeds the contribution limits applicable to its constituent parts; the committee is in fact required to return any excess funds to the contributor.” And “the earmarking provision prohibits an individual from directing funds ‘through an intermediary or conduit to a particular candidate.”


This “scenario could not succeed,” the Supreme Court explained, “without assuming that nearly 50 separate party committees would engage in a transparent violation of the earmarking rules (and that they would not be caught if they did).” Caught Clinton was. Yet the FEC failed to act on Backer’s complaint, even though federal law authorizes any person to file “a complaint with the FEC alleging a violation of federal campaign finance law.”




Continued below due to length

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:38 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 31285
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
Quote:
FEC Declines To Follow The Law

Upon receipt of Backer’s complaint, the FEC was required to notify those accused of violating federal law of the charges. Then the commissioners were required to determine whether there was “reason to believe” a violation occurred. Following a finding by four FEC commissioners that there was “reason to believe” a violation has occurred, the FEC must investigate the complaint.

But in this case, the FEC did nothing, other than pressumably notify the DNC and Clinton of the charges
. Accordingly, last week Backer turned to federal court, seeking to force the FEC to fulfill its statutory duty, as provided by federal law.

Specifically, the controlling statute provides that should the FEC fail to act, “during the 120-day period beginning on the date the complaint is filed,” the aggrieved party “may file a petition with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,” alleging the FEC’s “failure to act is contrary to law, [the court] may direct the Commission to conform with such declaration within 30 days.”

Given the overwhelming evidence of illegal campaign contributions Backer detailed in the complaint he filed with the FEC against Clinton, the DNC, and the state Democratic parties, there is more than sufficient evidence for the FEC to have “reason to believe” they violated federal campaign finance law.

So why didn’t the FEC act? The answer to that question came Thursday, when FEC Vice Chair Ellen L. Weintraub issued a statement in another case, involving another complainant and another provision of federal campaign-finance law, but which nonetheless showed the FEC is dysfunctional.

Senate Democrats’ Delay Could Prove Fatal


As noted above, the FEC can investigate a complaint only upon a finding of “reason to believe” by four commissioners. But the six-member FEC currently only has four commissioners. By statute, the commissioners must come from different political parties, and by practice, the Senate confirms newly nominated commissioners in pairs, one Democrat and one Republican. Democrats, however, have yet to name a replacement, holding up the confirmation process and leaving in place for the foreseeable future a likely deadlock.

This deadlock, though, might prove fatal to Clinton and the DNC because, as Weintraub explained in her statement, Congress provided for just such a contingency: “Fire alarms are sometimes housed in boxes labeled ‘Break glass in case of emergency.’ The Federal Election Campaign Act has such a box; it’s the provision that allows complainants to sue respondents directly when the Federal Election Commission fails to enforce the law itself (52 USC § 30109(a)(8)(C)). In the 44-year history of the FEC, this provision has never been fully utilized. Today, I’m breaking the glass.”

Weintraub then went on to say that she believed the complainant in that case should pursue litigation, “as Congress provided for under the Federal Election Campaign Act,” because by placing the matter in private hands, the goal of enforcing “America’s campaign-finance laws fairly and effectively” can be best achieved. Just yesterday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington took Weintraub’s hint and filed suit in federal court directly against the nonprofit group American Action Network, alleging violations of federal campaign-finance law.

Using Democrats’ Tactics Against Them


While Weintraub is a Democrat and complained about charges against the right-leaning American Action Network, the same glass-breaking provisions provide Backer the right to pursue his case against the DNC and Clinton directly.

Placing the matter in Backer’s hands, as an advocate for his client the Committee to Defend the President, in a federal court, and with the tools of discovery—including the ability to subpoena bank accounts, DNC communications, and question party officials and bundlers—promises to shine more sunlight on the Clinton and DNC shennanigans than the FEC’s behind-closed-doors consideration and investigation. Also, the Clintons and party officials should not be the only ones concerned: Every big-time donor in on the scheme and acting with the requisite intent faces criminal prosecution, as well.

Yet even with the overwhelming evidence of tsunami-level campaign-finance criminality—more than $84 million—the media instead chases the cloud cast over President Trump because of the $130,000 payment his attorney, Michael Cohen, made to Stormy Daniels, and claims that payment constituted an illegal campaign contribution. One wonders what it will take to break through the mainstream media blackout. Maybe a few pointed unpresidential tweets from our commander-in-chief?

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.


A copy of the lawsuit is here:
http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/upl ... awsuit.pdf

A copy of the complaint filed in Dec. 2017 is here:
http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/upl ... plaint.pdf

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2018 8:49 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 31285
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
nelmsm wrote:
Heard this guy on Glenn Beck the other day and after reading his positions on the issues I think if he's on the ballot in Texas he'll get my vote. I don't agree with everything he espouses but I do think I wouldn't have to hold my nose when casting my vote either. Last poll I saw had him just behind Trump and ahead of Clinton in Utah and I heard today he was also running strong in Idaho and Nevada. I think it's time to shake things up a bit. Would love to see someone outside the system win even a state or two.

https://www.evanmcmullin.com/issues


A post-election update on Mr. McMullin:

https://amgreatness.com/2018/04/30/evan ... lonoscopy/

Snip:
Quote:
Name a Republican candidate for president in 2016 who attracted the support of once-principled conservatives who betrayed their long-held beliefs out of tribal hate, who abused his staff after the campaign was over, grandstanded on Twitter to no discernible purpose, and may have committed campaign finance violations, all while pretending to be the voice of a frustrated nation.



If you think the answer is "Donald Trump", guess again.

Summary of Evan McMullin:
---Federal Election Commission (FEC) has sent repeated letters to his campaign about reports they are overdue on filing but have received no response. They are threatening to start fining because the campaign missed 3 consecutive quarterly filings
----His campaign was in debt $670,000 as of July 2017
---McMullin's campaign staff were not paid
---within days after the election McMullin started on the Trump collusion/was a Russian agent-spy bandwagon
---within days after Trump's inauguration McMullin started a group to “Investigate Trump’s Ties to Moscow,” “Establish a Select Committee,” “Sanction Russia Now,” “Release [Trump’s] Tax Returns,” and “Protect Mueller’s Investigation.”
---He's a backer of the Clinton op research/Steele dossier

Image

I am glad this clown didn't have a meaningful impact on the election outcome and hope that he slithers back to the swamp that he came out of.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 27698
Reputation points: 20000
Giuliani is a laugh riot. I love the guy.


"I'm sorry Hillary, I know you are disappointed you didn't win.....but you're a criminal" :lol:

http://www.foxnews.com/

Look up the Giuliani on Hannity video

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 10:58 pm 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19245
Reputation points: 18052
Ohhhhhh shiiiiit.

Apparently noodle-head got busted dumping a bunch of ballots up for review. Also some mention of same in NY. :shock:

(The Debbie Wasserman slams are worth a laugh at least)


_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2802 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group