You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #28: Not "worthy?" How much campaign cash did Clinton spend on Monica--remind me, now? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Not "worthy?" How much campaign cash did Clinton spend on Monica--remind me, now?
"He didn't defraud a soul." Really? How do you know? How do you know where the money that his dead campaign manager used to buy this woman a house came from? How do you know where the ten and fifteen grand payments that this guy funneled to her over the course of the last few years originated? Did you have access to the books, is that it? Your posts are so authoritative, that's the impression you're creating.

We're not just talking about a single payment for a crappy set of videos, here. There's much more going on than that. If you paid attention to the whole tale, instead of putting your fingers in your ears and screeching "No, no, no!" you'd see that.

And don't tell me to "go do some homework" either. What did I say about politicians? I don't care what party they come from. No one is "exempt." Two wrongs don't make a right, either. If they spend donor funds on hankypanky, the horses, or fur coats for the wife, I have a fucking problem with that.

You're the only one who's whining about "felony charges" and/or "the waste of taxpayer dollars." For all you know, he could end up being fined if (and we can't know unless we investigate) he's found guilty. I'd say a good "fine" would be, oh, the cost of the investigation, plus a hundred grand, give or take. That would work for me.

Like it or not, this is a news story. It's more of one because Mrs. Edwards has decided to go on OPRAH and talk about it, and sell a book about it. Stop trying to be the gatekeeper of what people may, or may not, discuss. HIDE THREAD is your friend, you might want to use it before you blow a gasket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Fed investigation into Edwards mistress $ is for honest services fraud Adelante  May-07-09 11:41 AM   #0 
  - Yes, you are missing something.  MADem   May-07-09 11:49 AM   #1 
  - I think it's subjective, though I agree on the quality  Adelante   May-07-09 11:55 AM   #2 
     - Is it a "product delivered and paid for," or is it a "cover story" to provide a faux reason  MADem   May-07-09 12:28 PM   #6 
     - Yeah, the dead guy money is a different thing  Adelante   May-07-09 12:36 PM   #9 
        - Well, hell hath no fury....it looks like answers will be forthcoming...!  MADem   May-07-09 12:43 PM   #11 
     - To a degree one can say it's subjective. But ultimately, was the final product she delivered  KittyWampus   May-07-09 12:40 PM   #10 
     - The product was used on the campaign website  Adelante   May-07-09 01:11 PM   #14 
     - Hah? Who thought they were the greatest thing since slice bread?  LisaL   May-08-09 08:03 AM   #59 
        - I remember being lectured at the time on how I was an elitist  Adelante   May-08-09 08:30 AM   #66 
  - So we're not going to investigate torture....  walldude   May-07-09 11:59 AM   #3 
  - To the fullest extent of the law!  pocoloco   May-07-09 12:10 PM   #4 
  - This is an FBI investigation, not one emanating from DOJ. Apples/oranges. nt  MADem   May-07-09 12:30 PM   #7 
     - Bullshit, the investigative arm of the DOJ is the FBI.  merh   May-07-09 01:42 PM   #19 
        - OK, so Frank Perry is a big fat liar...or a bullshitter. What's his motive?  MADem   May-07-09 01:47 PM   #21 
           - The DOJ is the one that the FBI goes to when trying to determine  merh   May-07-09 02:12 PM   #25 
              - Yes, so? They're still investigating. When they've concluded their investigation,  MADem   May-07-09 03:18 PM   #31 
                 - My point is, the DOJ oversees the criminal investigations of the FBI  merh   May-07-09 03:31 PM   #34 
                    - Read the quote. It says what it says. This investigation is a ground-up, not a top-down, exercise.  MADem   May-07-09 03:35 PM   #37 
                       - $114,000 ... ... .. . .. $12,000,000,0000,000  Fumesucker   May-08-09 04:59 AM   #52 
                          - Probably, eh? And of course, if one thing is "worse" than another,  MADem   May-08-09 05:14 AM   #53 
                             - Ever had the cops "investigate" a burglary or car theft?  Fumesucker   May-08-09 05:17 AM   #54 
                                - There you go again. Tell ya what, let's not bother doing ANYTHING at all.  MADem   May-08-09 07:59 AM   #58 
                                   - Edwards is getting investigated  Fumesucker   May-08-09 10:55 AM   #70 
                                      - The two aren't linked. At all. Why try to make them so? The point is not made.  MADem   May-08-09 11:10 AM   #72 
                                         - But I predict that the government will not "walk and chew gum"..  Fumesucker   May-08-09 11:14 AM   #73 
                                            - That is a separate discussion, though. I predict the government will not land a man on  MADem   May-08-09 11:31 AM   #74 
                                               - It's called "compare and contrast"..  Fumesucker   May-08-09 01:17 PM   #77 
                                                  - No it isn't. It's called "Try, and fail, to shut down discussion on a small, progressive discussion  MADem   May-08-09 06:33 PM   #78 
                                                     - How am I trying to shut down discussion?  Fumesucker   May-09-09 06:05 AM   #79 
                                                     - By complaining about matters that have nothing to do with the topic.  MADem   May-09-09 11:59 AM   #82 
  - Like I've said before....  Kansas Wyatt   May-07-09 12:24 PM   #5 
  - He wasn't a public official - he was a private citizen running for office  merh   May-07-09 12:35 PM   #8 
  - He was a private citizen taking money from the public while running for public office  KittyWampus   May-07-09 12:43 PM   #12 
  - I'm smart enough to read the OP and to reply to comments in same.  merh   May-07-09 01:36 PM   #17 
     - Who supplied the HOUSE that was bought for her in California? What money paid for that?  MADem   May-07-09 01:49 PM   #22 
     - He is a millionaire  merh   May-07-09 01:57 PM   #24 
     - Sometimes rich people are awfully cheap. That's how they got to be rich.  MADem   May-07-09 02:48 PM   #27 
        - You are so out of your league  merh   May-07-09 03:17 PM   #30 
           - I think you're the one who needs to stop doing the insulting, and start doing the research.  MADem   May-07-09 03:23 PM   #32 
              - It is you that has been confrontational.  merh   May-07-09 03:33 PM   #36 
                 - You haven't a clue, you're out of your league...and you call ME confrontational?  MADem   May-07-09 03:43 PM   #38 
                    - You have stated no law or fact to support your position.  merh   May-07-09 03:54 PM   #42 
                       - I've provided you with three links, at least. Why don't you read them?  MADem   May-07-09 04:11 PM   #44 
                          - I have read your links, they are tabloid press or news articles  merh   May-07-09 04:51 PM   #47 
                             - Now you don't like the links. What's next?  MADem   May-08-09 04:48 AM   #50 
                                - I challenge your absolutes and your understanding of the facts  merh   May-08-09 07:48 AM   #56 
                                   - You aren't challenging anything. You're simply complaining that you don't "like" my cites.  MADem   May-08-09 08:04 AM   #60 
                                      - LOL, you just don't get it.  merh   May-08-09 08:21 AM   #61 
                                         - Oh, I get it. Your method of "debate" is to snark, whine and insult.  MADem   May-08-09 08:27 AM   #64 
                                            - nice pwnage  dionysus   May-08-09 11:02 AM   #71 
                                            - Thank You! nt  MADem   May-08-09 01:12 PM   #76 
     - The Dem lawyer from Dallas who died recently  rainbow4321   May-07-09 04:18 PM   #45 
        - The dead guy worked on Edwards' campaign--he managed the money.  MADem   May-07-09 04:41 PM   #46 
     - Without taking sides . . .  TeeYiYi   May-08-09 11:52 AM   #75 
  - Hello? Campaign finance laws?  MADem   May-07-09 12:51 PM   #13 
     - Hey, did you read the OP? I did  merh   May-07-09 01:18 PM   #15 
        - What about the money for the fund for the poor that may have been diverted?  MADem   May-07-09 01:24 PM   #16 
           - LOL, the government doesn't investigate torturers  merh   May-07-09 01:39 PM   #18 
              - You're playing the apples and oranges game. The "if one, then not the other" routine.  MADem   May-07-09 01:45 PM   #20 
                 - Because, Edwards having an affair is not worthy of federal investigation  merh   May-07-09 01:56 PM   #23 
                    - Not "worthy?" How much campaign cash did Clinton spend on Monica--remind me, now?  MADem   May-07-09 02:59 PM   #28 
                       - LOL, campaign funds, how about taxpayer dollars  merh   May-07-09 03:14 PM   #29 
                          - There you go again. You're determined, because you don't like this subject, to  MADem   May-07-09 03:32 PM   #35 
                             - Wrong - one has to prove that the services he paid for were not  merh   May-07-09 03:44 PM   #39 
                                - No, that's not true. Get off the video tapes, too. Your fixation ignores the bigger issues.  MADem   May-07-09 04:01 PM   #43 
                                   - Again, giving me the link from the biochemist proves what exactly?  merh   May-07-09 04:52 PM   #48 
                                      - Complaining that you don't like the links without answering them substantively proves what, exactly?  MADem   May-08-09 04:49 AM   #51 
                                         - Just pointing out that a biochemist is not an expert on the law and your source is weak.  merh   May-08-09 07:42 AM   #55 
                                            - You're not either, and you've not provided anything save your own complaints. nt  MADem   May-08-09 07:57 AM   #57 
                                               - Now who is showing that they don't read all the posts and links  merh   May-08-09 08:22 AM   #62 
                                                  - But I have read them. And you continue with the snark, because that's all you've got.  MADem   May-08-09 08:29 AM   #65 
  - My guess is there is a DA who was cheated on once and wants blood  Taverner   May-07-09 02:16 PM   #26 
  - Interesting - I had not read much about Rielle Hunter but her life has been  csziggy   May-07-09 03:28 PM   #33 
  - No matter what Hunter's politics are, no matter who "hooked them up," Edwards  NYCGirl   May-07-09 03:47 PM   #40 
  - Yes, I am not excusing Edwards any more than I do Clinton  csziggy   May-07-09 05:33 PM   #49 
  - I see her as a product of her times  Adelante   May-07-09 03:50 PM   #41 
  - Missing element of the crime, IMO  Hepburn   May-08-09 08:25 AM   #63 
  - And...  MonteLukast   May-08-09 08:34 AM   #67 
  - Elizabeth was lied to by her husband.  MADem   May-08-09 08:46 AM   #69 
     - According to one of Hunter's friends  chatnoir   May-09-09 12:38 PM   #84 
        - Uh oh. That makes the situation worse, still.  MADem   May-09-09 05:19 PM   #85 
           - Only makes sense considering how amateurish the vids were  chatnoir   May-09-09 09:50 PM   #86 
  - They got Jack Abramoff on this, too.  MADem   May-08-09 08:40 AM   #68 
  - Don't forget, If Bush hadn't stolen the election in 2004, John Edwards would be Vice President  Optical.Catalyst   May-09-09 06:21 AM   #80 
  - How does this apply to the OP?  Adelante   May-09-09 06:54 AM   #81 
  - So the Feds are investigating sex again but not torture?  Chisox08   May-09-09 12:07 PM   #83 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC