That is not true, she never asked for money and in congressional testimony the person overseeing those decisions, Charlene Lamb, testified to congress that funding was not an issue.

Really? From the Washington Post.

In an interview Tuesday with MSNBC, after calling for a “purge” of FBI agents proven to be biased against President Trump, Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) made an eye-popping accusation against Hillary Clinton.
“We’ve seen a lot of ends-before-the-means culture, both out of the Obama administration; out of Hillary Clinton, you know, with her $84 million of potentially illegal campaign contributions or the Clinton Foundation Uranium One [scandal],” said Rooney. “People need a good clean government.”

What was behind Rooney’s claim that Clinton’s 2016 p**********l campaign possibly received millions in illegal money? It was the first time a member of Congress had referred to a Federal E******n Commission complaint lodged by a pro-Trump super PAC against Clinton and most state Democratic parties.

In the complaint, the Committee to Defend the President asked the FEC to determine whether the defeated Democrat engaged in “unprecedented, massive, nationwide multimillion-dollar conspiracy” to allow large donors to spread more money around. The “conspiracy,” however, may have simply taken advantage of new loopholes in campaign finance law — loopholes expanded after a Supreme Court victory by the lawyer who filed the new complaint.

The story starts in 2012, when Republican donor Shaun McCutcheon sued over FEC regulations that limited how much money donors could give to parties and candidate, in total, in any campaign cycle. McCutcheon’s case made it to the Supreme Court in 2013, where defenders of the FEC limits failed to convince the court’s conservative bloc that lifting the limit would allow candidates to blow past their own donation limits by routing more money through state parties.

“How realistic is that?” asked Justice Samuel Alito during oral arguments. “How realistic is it that all of the state party committees, for example, are going to get money and they’re all going to t***sfer it to one candidate?”

In the end, it was very realistic. In 2016, Clinton’s campaign created a Hillary Victory Fund — a joint fundraising committee — that allowed the candidate to raise money for both her campaign and 32 state parties at the same time. Donald Trump’s campaign did the same, albeit with fewer state parties. During the campaign, neither move courted much controversy.

After the campaign, the dam broke. In October, former Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile began releasing excerpts from her memoir “Hacks,” in which she described a DNC that was effectively run “from Brooklyn” — i.e., by Clinton’s campaign. Brazile’s criticisms got noticed by Dan Backer, who’d won McCutcheon’s case at the Supreme Court, and who happened to be the attorney behind the Committee to Defend the President. Donors who had given to the Hillary Victory Fund, whose money had been “earmarked” to elect Clinton, had, he argued, been part of a laundering scheme.

“The DNC, in turn, contributed most of those funds to HFA, made coordinated expenditures with HFA and otherwise t***sferred control of its money to HFA, as both the DNC’s own public filings and former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile’s public confessions make clear,” Backer wrote in the complaint. “In McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434, 1455 (2014), the Supreme Court itself recognized this precise arrangement would flatly violate federal earmarking restrictions, … though the court dismissed the possibility of such a f**grantly illegal scheme as ‘unlikely’ to occur. Not even the Supreme Court could anticipate the extent to which the Democratic Party and its elite, wealthy donor class would commit willful felonies in a futile attempt to facilitate Clinton’s e******n.”

Until Tuesday, most coverage of the FEC complaint had appeared in conservative media. Fox News reported that Clinton and the DNC had been accused of a “corrupt money scheme.” Backer explained the complaint’s logic in the conservative op-ed pages of Investor’s Business Daily.

Democrats, meanwhile, basically ignored the story. Reached for comment, several state party chairs — all of their state parties having been named in the complaint — said they were unaware of it. In the weeks since Brazile’s book was released, state Democratic Party chairs have criticized the 2016 funding arrangement; none thought it was illegal.

In an email, Backer argued that the complaint rested entirely on what Democrats had said and done about the JFC.

“If state parties never had any actual custody or control, the ‘allocation’ of funds to them was never a contribution to them, but rather an attempt to paper the funds through strawmen on the way to the DNC, where the funds were placed under the control of Team Clinton in Brooklyn,” Backer wrote. “Thus, the $300,000(ish) from Calvin Klein was not a contribution to each of the participating entities, but rather an excessive contribution to at least the DNC, and since they took that money and put it under the custody and control of Team Clinton, it is an excessive contribution to the campaign. If that’s how it was pitched to donors (I’ll bet you a steak dinner on that one), those doing the pitching violated federal law.”

Democrats have, by and large, declined to comment about Backer’s complaint. Campaign finance watchdogs, however, believe that the pro-Trump super PAC may be on to something. Paul S. Ryan, a vice president of Common Cause who works on campaign finance issues, said that “the possibility of this type of scheme was why I was critical of McCutcheon in the first place,” and that some type of probe into practice of new, larger joint fundraising agreements might have been inevitable.

“In my view, the complaint does show enough smoke to warrant investigation into whether there was a fire,” said Ryan. “It would be good to get some guidance from the FEC on this. Either way you cut the Backer complaint, this is either illegal activity, or it’s legal but troubling.”

Campaign finance watchdogs had been waiting for a tough examination of the donor pools created in 2016. It’s unclear how long it might take the FEC to dig in; it took years after the 2008 and 2012 cycles for the commission to levy fines against the campaigns of John Edwards and Mitt Romney.

So you don't care to hear opposing voices? You would prefer a claptrap echo chamber of l*****t voices on your threads?

So what? Since when is it a crime to talk to Russians?

I don't see your above list as fortifying your argument, so Lakoff, the professor, is a prolific writer. The excerpt that you have lifted from a much longer Huffpo article, which I will address in a moment , is nothing more than a progressive action plan for what was to soon be the 2016 e******ns. It was a method that he hoped the left would employ in confronting the right leading up to the e******n. As far as the larger Huffpo article it is ridiculous on its face as he discusses conservatives as if we are a subspecies, I guess his view has been distorted by the lofty plateau that you and others like you have placed him on.

His action plan failed to address any of the key issues for the American people, this, combined with the arrogance of the left in the end were responsible for getting Trump elected to the presidency. So no matter what you may say your professor was really not that bright or prophetic. He suggested that you talk to people about big government and its importance, things important to the left, he grossly missed the target, the American people had had their fill of such talk, they were more concerned about their own well being than that of the government's. Something that you still fail to understand.

Thanks Carol, thanks illininitt, no gimmicks, just AV mode and choosing an ISO that will support the length of the lens in covered patio.

Sure am.

Tom, Lakoff like many underestimate the knowledge level of conservatives, he is flawed in his writing because he is flawed in his assumptions. No one is calling for the total tear down of our government, that is a ridiculous assumption, he asks democrats and party activists to talk positively about the necessity of government and the accomplishment of government and how integral it is to our society. No one argues that it is not. What he does not address is the mismanagement of government, the unchecked growth, the effect of baseline budgeting, the lack of critical review and corrective action plans for improved efficiencies and the elimination of duplicate programs and programs that are frankly not effective. How will you sell the $20 Trillion debt, how do you justify spending my 3 year old granddaughter's future earnings long before she even understands what a job is. If the issues driving our debt go unaddressed as has been the case because neither party has the fortitude or integrity to do so, how is it that you think that future generations will have a treasury capable of supporting future governments. Lakoff's article reads more like a prep sheet for upcoming e******ns, it does not impress me as a serious piece addressing the divisions in ideology and concerns facing our nation.

What are you nuts? Read back through the thread, I did not say that to you until after you told me how to behave myself.... Now once you accept that then maybe you may have something to say that I will listen to, but until we establish that simple fact I don't even know how to respond to statements like this. You show me where I went off on you without your saying anything to me.

This George Lakoff?

http://georgelakoff.com/2016/07/23/understanding-trump-2/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/george-lakoff

The only one out of it is you.

Yes, yes, moon is going to be comfortable with nukes aimed at him now that peace has been declared... Stupid Dems, this changes nothing.

Man that is a strange world you live in, just how far out of our solar system are you?

No, it is you who is missing the point, when I say those who follow the l*****t news outlets I am not simply talking about you but rather the usual suspects who make the most outrageous statements about our president. Do you really think that I care what they think of me? They left civility and rationality behind when Trump got elected and have been dead set on tearing down this president regardless of how that effects those who elected him. So, the point is that I don't need your advice on how to behave myself, not only do I not need it but I don't want it, and then when you make your point in the condescending manner in which you chose.... Well you have read my response to that. I have personally offended you, OK, maybe I was a little too direct with you, but you seem to fail to even see that you offended me with you little lecture.

You are making this way too much about you, my initial outburst was in reaction to the two i***ts going on about w***e s*******y and r****ts as if they are a significant amount of Trump's support that that he would lose part of his base should he acknowledge the courageous act of the young man, that is pure bulls**t coming from very warped minds. I have news for you, Trumps base is applauding that young man. My only angry words directed at you were when you tried to act as an adult speaking to a child and then you post a pic of someone closer to your age than mine shaking his fist, I make no apology for that post either. You and I have had some relatively civil exchanges in the past, it would seem that you might have learned that when treated with respect I generally return the civility, but when people start calling Trump and his supporters r****ts and illiterate, uneducated at-al well then they deserve no civility because they left decency behind even before I engaged. I have also pointed out more than once Trump and the Church hero, very similar circumstance and no acknowledgement, bulls**t is all these comments in this thread against Trump are, just more stirring of the pot by mindless democrats.