See: Special Counsel redacted filing unsealed by Judge Chutkan

Desperation

Not effective.

(10-07-2024 02:59 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Not effective.

This.

Harris might win this thing when it’s all said and done. Her side has the superior GOTV and ballot harvesting system, and other — let’s call them mechanical advantages. Those advantages may yet push her over the finish line. But even if that happens, it won’t be because of stuff like this ^^^^. The Dem message has failed and they know it.

You can't tell me this doesn't raise some red flags at the FEC.

(10-07-2024 03:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You can't tell me this doesn't raise some red flags at the FEC.

It most certainly does. That said, we all know someone will come by and say this is just fine. Because, as I've said before, "REEEEEEEEE! ORANGE MAN BAD!"

And I had a feeling Kamala was going to release something like this. The only reason I didn't say anything is because I didn't think she'd have the arrogance -- and audacity, for that matter -- to actually do it. Yet she did, and I'm not surprised. That should tell you how predictable the left has become. So one more cup of coffee for me, please?

(10-07-2024 03:17 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 02:59 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Not effective.

This.

Harris might win this thing when it’s all said and done. Her side has the superior GOTV and ballot harvesting system, and other — let’s call them mechanical advantages. Those advantages may yet push her over the finish line. But even if that happens, it won’t be because of stuff like this ^^^^. The Dem message has failed and they know it.

Don't underestimate the pube GOTV in targeted areas this year. There is a much better ground game and planning in place this go around.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(10-07-2024 05:10 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 03:17 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  [The Democrats] has the superior GOTV and ballot harvesting system, and other — let’s call them mechanical advantages.

Don't underestimate the pube GOTV in targeted areas this year. There is a much better ground game and planning in place this go around.

I hope that’s true, and at least here in Georgia, I admit I have seen some evidence of that. But even so: we shall see.

In before a thousand words of utter bullshite from our resident tard lawyer

(10-07-2024 03:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You can't tell me this doesn't raise some red flags at the FEC.

you can't tell me how it will matter when the tALLY is fully realized....

that hope thingy ... she's a mothertrucKKKer ... all religion is built upon that simple premise...

(10-07-2024 04:08 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 03:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You can't tell me this doesn't raise some red flags at the FEC.

It most certainly does. That said, we all know someone will come by and say this is just fine. Because, as I've said before, "REEEEEEEEE! ORANGE MAN BAD!"

And I had a feeling Kamala was going to release something like this. The only reason I didn't say anything is because I didn't think she'd have the arrogance -- and audacity, for that matter -- to actually do it. Yet she did, and I'm not surprised. That should tell you how predictable the left has become. So one more cup of coffee for me, please?

Using a public document is election interference and should be scrutinized by the FEC?

I will absolutely grant you that the issue of whether she *should* have produced and released the commercial is wholeheartedly debatable on both sides of the issue.

The issue of using a public document in a campaign ad is somehow running afoul of election laws is just daft.

Even given its legality... no matter how solid the 'could' that alone does not necessarily mean *should*.

(10-07-2024 11:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 04:08 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 03:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You can't tell me this doesn't raise some red flags at the FEC.

It most certainly does. That said, we all know someone will come by and say this is just fine. Because, as I've said before, "REEEEEEEEE! ORANGE MAN BAD!"

And I had a feeling Kamala was going to release something like this. The only reason I didn't say anything is because I didn't think she'd have the arrogance -- and audacity, for that matter -- to actually do it. Yet she did, and I'm not surprised. That should tell you how predictable the left has become. So one more cup of coffee for me, please?

Using a public document is election interference?

The issue of whether she *should* have produced and released the commercial is absolutely debatable on both sides of the issue.

The issue of using a public document in a campaign ad is somehow running afoul of election laws is just daft.

Given its legaiity, could does not necessarily mean should.

is that why we have judges and law thingys ... curious minds and all, Ja?!

(10-07-2024 04:08 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 03:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You can't tell me this doesn't raise some red flags at the FEC.

It most certainly does. That said, we all know someone will come by and say this is just fine. Because, as I've said before, "REEEEEEEEE! ORANGE MAN BAD!"

And I had a feeling Kamala was going to release something like this. The only reason I didn't say anything is because I didn't think she'd have the arrogance -- and audacity, for that matter -- to actually do it. Yet she did, and I'm not surprised. That should tell you how predictable the left has become. So one more cup of coffee for me, please?

I'm guessing I have 'days' left on the sbc board (maybe this gets absorbed ... I really don't give a fk anymore) .... they asked for this dose ... and they're uber libtard....

(10-08-2024 12:00 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 11:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 04:08 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 03:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You can't tell me this doesn't raise some red flags at the FEC.

It most certainly does. That said, we all know someone will come by and say this is just fine. Because, as I've said before, "REEEEEEEEE! ORANGE MAN BAD!"

And I had a feeling Kamala was going to release something like this. The only reason I didn't say anything is because I didn't think she'd have the arrogance -- and audacity, for that matter -- to actually do it. Yet she did, and I'm not surprised. That should tell you how predictable the left has become. So one more cup of coffee for me, please?

Using a public document is election interference?

The issue of whether she *should* have produced and released the commercial is absolutely debatable on both sides of the issue.

The issue of using a public document in a campaign ad is somehow running afoul of election laws is just daft.

Given its legaiity, could does not necessarily mean should.

is that why we have judges and law thingys ... curious minds and all, Ja?!

No need for the judges and laws thingy here for the 'could' question present. Absolutely legal to use the text and video of the current Smith Motion for Immunity Determination in the ad.

Not that that issue determines the 'should' question of actually using it.

(10-08-2024 12:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-08-2024 12:00 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 11:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 04:08 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 03:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You can't tell me this doesn't raise some red flags at the FEC.

It most certainly does. That said, we all know someone will come by and say this is just fine. Because, as I've said before, "REEEEEEEEE! ORANGE MAN BAD!"

And I had a feeling Kamala was going to release something like this. The only reason I didn't say anything is because I didn't think she'd have the arrogance -- and audacity, for that matter -- to actually do it. Yet she did, and I'm not surprised. That should tell you how predictable the left has become. So one more cup of coffee for me, please?

Using a public document is election interference?

The issue of whether she *should* have produced and released the commercial is absolutely debatable on both sides of the issue.

The issue of using a public document in a campaign ad is somehow running afoul of election laws is just daft.

Given its legaiity, could does not necessarily mean should.

is that why we have judges and law thingys ... curious minds and all, Ja?!

No need for the judges and laws thingy here for the 'could' question present. Absolutely legal to use the text and video of the current Smith Motion for Immunity Determination in the ad.

Not that that issue determines the 'should' question of actually using it.

#lexTalionis ... that's my ARENA!

enter at your own peril .... them 'shoulds' are worse than hemorrhoids after 100mg of oxy and the bottle ...

(10-08-2024 12:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-08-2024 12:00 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 11:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 04:08 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 03:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You can't tell me this doesn't raise some red flags at the FEC.

It most certainly does. That said, we all know someone will come by and say this is just fine. Because, as I've said before, "REEEEEEEEE! ORANGE MAN BAD!"

And I had a feeling Kamala was going to release something like this. The only reason I didn't say anything is because I didn't think she'd have the arrogance -- and audacity, for that matter -- to actually do it. Yet she did, and I'm not surprised. That should tell you how predictable the left has become. So one more cup of coffee for me, please?

Using a public document is election interference?

The issue of whether she *should* have produced and released the commercial is absolutely debatable on both sides of the issue.

The issue of using a public document in a campaign ad is somehow running afoul of election laws is just daft.

Given its legaiity, could does not necessarily mean should.

is that why we have judges and law thingys ... curious minds and all, Ja?!

No need for the judges and laws thingy here for the 'could' question present. Absolutely legal to use the text and video of the current Smith Motion for Immunity Determination in the ad.

Not that that issue determines the 'should' question of actually using it.

The question isn’t the use, it’s the convenient timing of the unsealing, which served on real purpose, to allow it to be available for use.

You have to be really low IQ (like some intellectual democrats) or a socialist who wants to silence all opposition to the narrative to believe some of the BS in Kamala commercials.

If the ends justify the means...........

(10-07-2024 09:17 PM)shere khan Wrote:  In before a thousand words of utter bullshite from our resident tard lawyer

#bestboughtbaaaaaaaaaaaaaa