(11-01-2026 11:56 PM)Eagleyed Wrote: (10-31-2026 07:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (10-31-2026 04:26 PM)Eagleyed Wrote: (10-30-2026 07:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: (10-29-2026 05:00 PM)Bronco14 Wrote: I don't know if it's illegal, but it's dirty & unethical. But Democrats have played dirty for generations. Republicans try to place nice & just lose.
***** please. 
How's Justice Merrick Garland fairing on SCOTUS these days?
Quote:For the first time, the lead consultant to Florida Senate Republicans has admitted to hiring a disgraced ex-senator and approving a dirty trick to recruit a third-party candidate to siphon votes from a South Florida Democrat.
The scheme succeeded. In 2020, Jose Javier Rodriguez, the Democrat targeted by the GOP and by Florida Power & Light, lost by 32 votes to Ileana Garcia, the founder of Latinas for Trump. A third-party candidate who didn’t campaign and who shared the same last name as Rodriguez drew over 6,000 votes.
Patrick Bainter, the Senate GOP’s chief consultant, told Miami’s chief public corruption prosecutor in a December deposition that he was the one who gave the green light to former state Sen. Frank Artiles to find third-party candidates to help defeat two Democrats.
“He said he thought that was something he could do and do well,” Bainter said. “Great. Go knock yourself out.” Bainter then had $100,000 transferred to a dark money non-profit Artiles controlled.
Florida GOP operative admits role in ‘ghost’ candidate scheme that defeated utility-targeted Dem
Both parties have been doing shenanigans like this for years. 
Here's the thing.
1) It was only the last name. Not the full name.
AND THE BIG ONE
2) Two people were charged guilty over this, convicted with multiple felonies, and one served jail time. This happened in a state where republicans controlled things and the republicans that did this still went to prison. I've noticed the left talking about this case generally leave out the fact that the republicans that did it were convicted guilty in courts.
They weren’t convicted for recruiting her.
They were convicted of a separate act — that is providing illegal campaign donations of 45k to the candidate.
Facts are your friend.
You are indeed correct if they find no money or other help like filling out forms. I find it highly unlikely all the guy did was say he should run and that's all. It costs a decent amount of money for him to file after all.
I find it suspicious enough for it to be investigated further. This is the same order of events for the Florida one. It was considered suspicious enough to investigate due to the same name. Only later were the crimes uncovered due to investigation.
Now I am genuinely curious. Would 18 U.S.C. § 371 not apply here? And in other cases of same name ballots where it is proven that they were intentionally recruited to confuse voters? Other cases I could find did not have such heavy proof that they were for sure recruited for this purpose while this case does.
I have zero problem with investigating it. And if illegal campaign contributions were found with sufficient probable basis to charge, then absolutely charge.
And if there is a crime at the heart of it 371 could absolutely be in play if more than 1 person acted to formulate and commit a criminal act.
But at this point, I don’t see enough there there to charge, let alone sustain a higher standard to convict, let alone if two people acted together to commit an act that is criminal.
And I’m going to be precise here —- any act of trying to convince anyone to run for office looks fundamentally as protected under the 1a.
And to fully honest, I look at it a morally improper —- kind of a high point in dirty politics and deceptive political messaging designed to confuse voters.
As I do many of the Musk funded pro Paxton ads that use three words from a full paragraph to try and convince voters that Talarico supports a position even when the full comment explicitly says the opposite.
Again, fully immoral in an inherent lie. And absolute ****** dirty politics. But not a criminal act.
I find it odd that full MAGA decries (rightfully in the moral sense, and fundamentally incorrec in rhe criminal sense) the very stark act of creating confusion in soliciting a candidate to split the vote, and are not just silent about the very explicit falsehood I note in the Texas campaign above. Not just silence, but actual support of it. Including numerous on this board who parrot that same point with unbounded glee.
Again, that is just a stark comment on objectivity I assume.