General Discussion

ProdigalJunkMail

(12,017 posts)

36. i am not suggesting HIS CAMPAIGN DO ANYTHING

Reply to DrDan (Reply #34)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:42 PM

Jul 2012

but you don't get that...

sP

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

why don't they indict Romney? [View all] ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 OP

Because it would submarine the campaign. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #1

THAT would generate serious blowback IF he wins ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #2

Trust me - I feel your frustration on this. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #12

Just as there are those who will excuse Holder when he disregards publicly known evidence and will AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #47

I may be one of the few here who still have some faith in Holder Voice for Peace Jul 2012 #55

Yep, you might be the one. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #57

It wouldn't stop them... Xyzse Jul 2012 #3

I guess you get immunity for running for President. nt Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #4

Correction: You get immunity if you are a Ruhpublican. Jamaal510 Jul 2012 #14

Too true, too true. nt Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #49

I thought Edwards dropped out of the race Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #64

"The devil you know...." nt DCKit Jul 2012 #5

Let him twist in the wind. JoePhilly Jul 2012 #6

that's a good point ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #7

Sorry, not years to indict ... years to prosecute. JoePhilly Jul 2012 #9

eh...perhaps. maybe we would get lucky ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #11

And Twist And Twist...Put More ? Out There... KharmaTrain Jul 2012 #51

Because you don't indict the opposition to a sitting president in an election year Bok_Tukalo Jul 2012 #8

ok to the first line... ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #10

Helloooooo? Iggy Jul 2012 #13

why is it weak? ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #15

Huh? What Are Iggy Jul 2012 #45

x2 -- Exactly. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #58

so you are in favor of the Obama campaign using the IRS and other federal agencies to indict Romney DrDan Jul 2012 #16

I'm in favor of those agencies doing their job ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #18

"It would seem a sure-fire way to submarine the campaign" DrDan Jul 2012 #20

doing their job is enforcing the law ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #21

have you given any thought to how this would play out in the media? DrDan Jul 2012 #22

the media should have no bearing on it ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #23

and that is EXACTLY what you are proposing DrDan Jul 2012 #24

no i am not... ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #26

it is EXACTLY what you are suggesting - using federal agencies for political purposes DrDan Jul 2012 #29

wow.. you just don't get it. ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #31

ok - you got it figured out . . . DrDan Jul 2012 #34

i am not suggesting HIS CAMPAIGN DO ANYTHING ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #36

exactly - you are suggesting FEDERAL AGENCIES do it DrDan Jul 2012 #38

right...as is their JOB... ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #41

never mind . . . the thought just boggles my mind DrDan Jul 2012 #27

so you're ok with the media influencing ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #33

done . . . the thought is just so ridiculous - once again, I thank GOD that DrDan Jul 2012 #37

get it through your head ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #42

"submarine the campaign" . . . you did say that . . . right? DrDan Jul 2012 #44

i don't suspect anybody here remembers Watergate.... oldhippydude Jul 2012 #50

He's baiting you. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #60

"baiting"??? DrDan Jul 2012 #61

Right, Please get a Clue Iggy Jul 2012 #46

did you reply to my post? if so, not sure I understand. DrDan Jul 2012 #48

2002 is 9 years back - statute of limitations on taxes is 7 years KurtNYC Jul 2012 #17

there is no seven year statute of limitations ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #19

As explained by the IRS, the statute of limitations is not "7 years." It never has been. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #32

Those are IRS rules but the felony at issue is an SEC violation KurtNYC Jul 2012 #54

When someone says, "statute of limitations on taxes is 7 years," I assume that they are using words AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #56

It's probably not as clear as you think Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #25

i get that...okay ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #30

You mean the Obama campaign? Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #52

That is what I am wondering. Is this Stephanie Cutter doing her own thing or dkf Jul 2012 #63

Wapo was dead wrong along fc.org, it's obvious they spoke too soon and are holding out on backtrack uponit7771 Jul 2012 #40

Hmmm . . . Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #53

Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. slackmaster Jul 2012 #59

Fun, isn't it? Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #62

One of my best friends is named Marcia, spelled that way. She's over 50... slackmaster Jul 2012 #65

because he was working for Bain Enrique Jul 2012 #28

The immediate consequence would be articles of impeachment in the House jberryhill Jul 2012 #35

if the SEC filings are true ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #39

Rmoney has de facto immunity because he is among the super-rich. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #43

Beengo! Iggy Jul 2012 #67

Because that would end the Romney campaign. jeff47 Jul 2012 #66

Because the Justice Department isn't about Justice, it's about criminal politics just1voice Jul 2012 #68