I still see nothing quoted that establishes doing anything. Does the context of the speech directly imply favoritism, yup. DWS should probably have handled many things differently and I'm glad she's gone. I could care less about tone, and whiny interoffice bullshit, and kicking around theories. I've read each of these previously and I still see no prosecutable evidence of anything in particular.
But then again, I fully expected that to be the case before he chose to run as a Dem. It's the difference between being a party insider and the populist figure of the moment. I know of two friends and one relative that have experienced the same first hand at various levels. Some of which were over 20 years ago, some were fairly recent. The game doesn't change.
That I'm still up in the air about. I need to read more about the exact statues that apply and the deal with the dnc for cooperative fund raising. The real issue there is who was supposed to get what and how it's spelled out.
edit:
Spent another few hours reading and I see nothing remotely scholarly that puts forth the concept that the Hillary Victory Fund situation is illegal. It may be plenty distasteful and probably a suitable 'told ya so' for the supreme court in the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. As such I stand by my previous stance that it is not illegal.
I still see nothing quoted that establishes doing anything. Does the context of the speech directly imply favoritism, yup. DWS should probably have handled many things differently and I'm glad she's gone. I could care less about tone, and whiny interoffice bullshit, and kicking around theories. I've read each of these previously and I still see no prosecutable evidence of anything in particular.
But then again, I fully expected that to be the case before he chose to run as a Dem. It's the difference between being a party insider and the populist figure of the moment. I know of two friends and one relative that have experienced the same first hand at various levels. Some of which were over 20 years ago, some were fairly recent. The game doesn't change.
Are we not seeing eye-to-eye that the Hillary Victory Fund is an illegal scheme to launder money meant for the Clinton campaign through state parties?
That I'm still up in the air about. I need to read more about the exact statues that apply and the deal with the dnc for cooperative fund raising. The real issue there is who was supposed to get what and how it's spelled out.
edit:
Spent another few hours reading and I see nothing remotely scholarly that puts forth the concept that the Hillary Victory Fund situation is illegal. It may be plenty distasteful and probably a suitable 'told ya so' for the supreme court in the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. As such I stand by my previous stance that it is not illegal.
A few links:
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81996
http://prospect.org/article/clinton-campaign-money-legal-problematic
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statemen...-clooney-decries-big-money-politics-says-mos/
Kiss it all you want, it's still going to be a frog.