Read More

2 COMMENTS

  1. She is on a commission that’s supposed to set the rules, and she posted her own draft of the rules, not the actual rules agreed upon by the committee

    She ironically said “I always thought these anti-regulatory people liked the First Amendment well enough” while posting guidelines that would unconstitutionally infringe on the first amendment, something Robert Mueller laid out in his report (Vol 1 pages 187-188)

    There are a whole host of reasons you can’t count abstract speech as a ‘thing of value’ to be regulated by campaign finance without any firm grounding in monetary value. Not just the 1st amendment, but also the 4th and 5th and section 1 articles 9/10, as you try to create an ex post facto material reinterpretation and application of a law that would be invalidated under vagueness doctrine, infringing on free speech and requiring regulation of every private conversation and incriminating virtually every journalist and politician in the country. All you need to add in is a clause to make it quarter soldiers in your home and you score a bingo.

  2. “[Lutsenko] strongly needed some political ally, he believed that Giuliani could convey specific messages to Trump, and he created this message to become more interesting to the American establishment,” said a law enforcement source familiar with the Giuliani-Lutsenko connection.

    That Giuliani might have been fed information by Ukraine’s then-top prosecutor that was adulterated to make it more appealing to Trump is a startling potential twist in the developing scandal.

    ​

    The fact that this whole thing was a nothing burger that Guliani fell for is hilarious.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here