John Podesta Discussed Super PAC Coordination in Email With Hillary Clinton

illegal, but we already know laws don't apply to Clintons. Not a mention of this from the MSM as they're too busy trashing James Comey. Who appointed that guy, anyways?

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/11/john-podesta-discussed-super-pac-coordination-in-e.html

 

It would be nice if the FBI uncovers this email from Podesta to Hillary. Then they have them engaging in a crime.

 

if they did, you would quote it....

 

John Podesta, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, the DNC and the whole lot of them have discussed the nation's confidential business on their Yahoo and Gmail accounts. What else do you need to know need about a future Clinton presidency? You think Trump is stupid enough to post his tax returns on a Gmail account?

 

Hillary supporters don't care.

 

havent we known for a long long time that this whole super pac thing was just a charade to get aroud election financing laws and to allow large doners to evade transparency and to transform their political donations into tax deductible charitable contributions?

It is a game that is played be all politicians
, it is a political arms race where no Politician can afford unilateral disarmament

I remember back in the republican primary... media were reporting pac money as a campaign resource
this prestense of independence between the cainpaign and its pac are just a charade

If political contributions were deductible and anonymous... pacs would largely disappear


The only difference in this case was the email hacking that reveals what is common practice

 

This, to you, makes it OK for Hillary's campaign to break the law?

 

So, it is not illegal? I'm confused as to how your rationalization changed the law.

 

I dont think i said that... do you have a quote to remind when i did

 

Ah.
So, the violation of the law offends you and you will take the Clinton campaign to task for it.
Very well - please begin.

 

I don't know, he refuses to release his tax returns or his personal emails

 

So you infer something i did not say because you are (insert generic insult)

Did i do something other than make a general observation?
Do you object to the observation that i made?
Do you propose the what she did is uncommon?
Or do you propose that it is politically incorect to talk about what i am saying and that i should therefore be attacked and mt views egergiously misrepresented...which is exactly what you have done

 

the super pac idea needs to end, but Hillary broke no laws, everyone plays it very lose on this one and stays on the tightrope of the law, communicating without directly communicating....

 

Do you or do you not take exception to the fact Clinton's campaign broke the law. Why?
Are you or are you not willing to criticize the Clinton campaign for breaking the law? Why?

 

You meant to downplay an illegal activity. I asked you why you thought you could be successful in downplaying an illegal act. Do you think breaking the law is bad?

 

An interesting discussion here
How do you reach the conclusion that you impute to me?
Either you have a good reason to do so... or you do not
If you have a good reason... please detail that
If you do not have a good reason.
Then either you have a deficiency i your thought process
Or you are being intentionally dulpicitous

It will be interesting to see which option you choose
Or if ypu change the subject to avoid trying to defend your false characterization of my comment

 

Unwilling to directly answer the questions, eh?
I figured.
Hillary appreciates your support.

 

Did i say something false? If so tell me what
Why is it downplaying to tell the truth
The fact is that these pacs an super pacs are all charades and virtually all politicians play that game
If i am wrong
Lets talk about that
We can have a gentlemans bet where your honor is at stake in ypur apparent claim that other politiciqns do not play this game..l which is what i have asserted and you apparently deny

Why would you infer this

If i said speeding is common, would that mean i am saying it is ok to break the law?
I have to say, if you are saying that... you are saying something extraordinarily stupid
But i guess ypu are not saying that...are you?

 

I have no idea wheather she broke the law... and frankly do not care simply because thelaws concerning pacs are just a chrade of .. rich contibutors and political campaigns... just as you said

Simple fact is that this situation will continue so long as spending money is considered free speech in politics
As it stands
It doesnt matter what we think about it, or what laws we pass... big money will continue to distort and corrupt our political process

 

Very good. thank you for clearing that up.

 

Naturally they don't care.....but then lets see how they act if she is charged. So far that's all they can play off of.

 

They'll say its all political.

 

Well no one said they were ever about the truth. As we have seen. Most of them aren't and very very few are.

 

Btw, i can say many other bad things about the clintons, the democrats, and liberals, and political correctnes, and sjw, and so forth.
On this particular issue, i see little to differentiate gop from democrats or clinton from trump
Which is why my tag line announces refusal to vote for either major candidate.

As far as policy is concerned
I think hrc is very competent but has a lot of bad ideas and instincts
I think trump has questionable competence but has some good instincts along with PROPOSING SOME exceptionally stupid ideas if you believe what he says... which i dont

I would happily vote for romney, or webb
But we do not have any choice i can support

That is what i think