BLM rejects Kamala Harris nomination

[Aglaopheme]

It is very much so a bandage of convenience.

Interview on TV - no bandage, no scab, no sign of injury.

At the rally - the maxipad reappears.

Not a single stitch.

 

[Lazaran]

It is very much so a bandage of convenience.

“The White Bandage of Comvenience” - By Donald Trump.

 

[HisArpy]

She’s been on that committee for years. Therefore, she’s had full access to those funds for years. Period. Given that she has had access to said funds for years, there was no need to transfer funds to her.

All of the rules posted in your original link have to do with what you can and cannot due with funds left in a committee account you want to close. Do yourself a favor and look it up. : )

She may have been on the committee but her NAME wasn't the same as the name of the principle for which the committee was created.

Basically, a chief accountant may be on the board of directors but that doesn't make the chief accountant "the company" even if they can sign the checks.

So, in this particular case, The Committee to Reelect JOE BIDEN isn't the same as the Committee to Elect Kamala Harris even if the names of the committee members are the same. This creates a major snag and forms the basis for the GOP's FEC complaint. Under the law, and the chairman's interpretation of it, Kamala may not have legal access to the campaign funds. If not, and she spends any of it, she'll be liable for repayment plus a fine.

Personally I don't care. I'm just laughing at all you dupes who sent in campaign donations thinking they'd go straight to Kamala when even the webpage TOLD YOU where the funds were going to go - Joe Biden's reelection campaign.

 

[Aglaopheme]

She may have been on the committee but her NAME wasn't the same as the name of the principle for which the committee was created.

Basically, a chief accountant may be on the board of directors but that doesn't make the chief accountant "the company" even if they can sign the checks.

So, in this particular case, The Committee to Reelect JOE BIDEN isn't the same as the Committee to Elect Kamala Harris even if the names of the committee members are the same. This creates a major snag and forms the basis for the GOP's FEC complaint. Under the law, and the chairman's interpretation of it, Kamala may not have legal access to the campaign funds. If not, and she spends any of it, she'll be liable for repayment plus a fine.

Personally I don't care. I'm just laughing at all you dupes who sent in campaign donations thinking they'd go straight to Kamala when even the webpage TOLD YOU where the funds were going to go - Joe Biden's reelection campaign.

Have you ever been on a federal campaign committee? Have you ever been a treasurer that had to file with the FEC?

I didn’t think so.

 

[HisArpy]

Have you ever been on a federal campaign committee? Have you ever been a treasurer that had to file with the FEC?

I didn’t think so.

I can only go by what I'm being told through the media sources I follow. At this point what I know is that the GOP filed an FEC complaint and the chairman of the FEC is on record quoting the law which validates the GOP's complaint that Kamala isn't lawfully allowed to have the campaign funds.

You want to argue personal POV that's fine - I can't and won't play that game. Instead, what I'm saying is that what I've been told by MANY DIFFERENT media sources shows that the law (which I looked up and it says what the chairman says it says) indicates that Kamala isn't in lawful possession of that cash.

Your personal POV doesn't matter in that situation. The law is the law and the FEC chairman has to decide what is what.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Biden could still have trump taken out for the safety of the country. It's a core mission according to the SC.

But he can’t move money to the VP. Yup, that ruling makes total sense.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I can only go by what I'm being told through the media sources I follow. At this point what I know is that the GOP filed an FEC complaint and the chairman of the FEC is on record quoting the law which validates the GOP's complaint that Kamala isn't lawfully allowed to have the campaign funds.

You want to argue personal POV that's fine - I can't and won't play that game. Instead, what I'm saying is that what I've been told by MANY DIFFERENT media sources shows that the law (which I looked up and it says what the chairman says it says) indicates that Kamala isn't in lawful possession of that cash.

Your personal POV doesn't matter in that situation. The law is the law and the FEC chairman has to decide what is what.

Basically, a chief accountant may be on the board of directors but that doesn't make the chief accountant "the company" even if they can sign the checks.


Personally I don't care. I'm just laughing at all you dupes who sent in campaign donations thinking they'd go straight to Kamala when even the webpage TOLD YOU where the funds were going to go - Joe Biden's reelection campaign.

Kamala is not an accountant. Show me any FEC rules that say she never had access to those funds for the entire time she’s been named in that committee.


Are you saying Kamala doesn’t even have access money she’s raised after they filed for a name change? I don’t think anyone is saying that. : )

 

[BeawulfAR]

The irony is this is the type of situation that motivated the founding fathers to structure the United States as a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC rather than as a democracy.

 

[HisArpy]

Kamala is not an accountant. Show me any FEC rules that say she never had access to those funds for the entire time she’s been named in that committee.


Are you saying Kamala doesn’t even have access money she’s raised after they filed for a name change? I don’t think anyone is saying that. : )

That's what I'm being told.

Give me a minute and I'll see if I can find an article I read which is enlighting on the issue.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

It's still fun watching Derpy and Ishmael spin their wheels against this non issue.

 

[wizzard426]

Maybe it's because she isn't black

 

[MajorRewrite]

It's still fun watching Derpy and Ishmael spin their wheels against this non issue.

They are consistent losers pretending to be winners. Pathetic but funny.

 

[Lazaran]

I can only go by what I'm being told through the media sources I follow. At this point what I know is that the GOP filed an FEC complaint and the chairman of the FEC is on record quoting the law which validates the GOP's complaint that Kamala isn't lawfully allowed to have the campaign funds.

You want to argue personal POV that's fine - I can't and won't play that game. Instead, what I'm saying is that what I've been told by MANY DIFFERENT media sources shows that the law (which I looked up and it says what the chairman says it says) indicates that Kamala isn't in lawful possession of that cash.

Your personal POV doesn't matter in that situation. The law is the law and the FEC chairman has to decide what is what.

Derpy is going to find out just how the FEC and the law really work in a minute:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4785703-fec-chair-suggests-harris-cant-access-biden-funds/amp/



The frivolous lawsuits and the FEC challenges will be rendered moot as Kamala spends all the money long before any decisions are arrived at. And the decisions wouldn’t go in Trump’s and the MAGAt’s favor anyway. The FEC will deadlock at best, and the lawsuits will fizzle.



Derpy

 

[HisArpy]

Ok, read this and follow the links because there is additional info in some of them.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...ng-federal-election-law-do-they-care-n2642445


Overall, the problem appears to be that Kamala was never listed as a candidate. (Contrary to what you're saying.) She then amended the form for a DIFFERENT candidate other than herself to make herself the principle candidate. She next ALTERED an existing form (trivial in itself but shows disdain for following the rules) and used that as a basis for her amended forms.

Basically, someone thought this was going to be a simple paperwork process and ran roughshod over the rules in doing the filings. Given the hostile political climate, that was an extremely stupid thing to do. Not only does it give a valid basis for the GOP's complaint, but it's potentially criminal in nature (lots of fraud and money laundering violations). Just dumb all around when the easy thing to do would have been to ask the FEC Chairman for an advisory opinion and follow the steps he outlined. the money would have been dealt with, the committee would be created, and she'd (presumably because I have other doubts about that) be a valid Presidential candidate.

But D's never have been known for doing things the smart way when violence is so much more preferable for them to use.

 

[HisArpy]

Derpy is going to find out just how the FEC and the law really work in a minute:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4785703-fec-chair-suggests-harris-cant-access-biden-funds/amp/



The frivolous lawsuits and the FEC challenges will be rendered moot as Kamala spends all the money long before any decisions are arrived at. And the decisions wouldn’t go in Trump’s and the MAGAt’s favor anyway. The FEC will deadlock at best, and the lawsuits will fizzle.



Derpy

You hope.

The black fly in your Chardonay is that it was, at best, a JOINT campaign account, not a sole owner account. As with every 50/50 partnership, when the partnership is dissolved, each partner only gets to take away their half and none of the other guys' stuff.

I'm not actually sure it was a partnership based on the paperwork/FEC filings.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Ok, read this and follow the links because there is additional info in some of them.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...ng-federal-election-law-do-they-care-n2642445


Overall, the problem appears to be that Kamala was never listed as a candidate. (Contrary to what you're saying.) She then amended the form for a DIFFERENT candidate other than herself to make herself the principle candidate. She next ALTERED an existing form (trivial in itself but shows disdain for following the rules) and used that as a basis for her amended forms.

Basically, someone thought this was going to be a simple paperwork process and ran roughshod over the rules in doing the filings. Given the hostile political climate, that was an extremely stupid thing to do. Not only does it give a valid basis for the GOP's complaint, but it's potentially criminal in nature (lots of fraud and money laundering violations). Just dumb all around when the easy thing to do would have been to ask the FEC Chairman for an advisory opinion and follow the steps he outlined. the money would have been dealt with, the committee would be created, and she'd (presumably because I have other doubts about that) be a valid Presidential candidate.

But D's never have been known for doing things the smart way when violence is so much more preferable for them to use.

They did this so Harris can access nearly $100 million in already raised campaign funds.

That is what the complaint is about, the money that was already in that committee, not the funds raised after.

 

[HisArpy]

That is what the complaint is about, the money that was already in that committee, not the funds raised after.

The funds which were raised after Joe quit went into Joe's campaign account. (Which the article explains WASN'T a "joint" account. They may have operated as if it were, but LEGALLY it isn't.) The webpage even told donors that's where it was going.

Everyone ASSUMED it would go to Kamala, but legally that's not the way things work. (Which I believe you know since you're an adult - you don't get to raid someone else's bank account for money just because you assumed you're entitled to it.)

This is NOT straightforward and there's NO PRECEDENT for it. That means we can't assume anything.

 

[Lazaran]

You hope.

The black fly in your Chardonay is that it was a JOINT campaign account, not a sole owner account.

The “black fly” was sitting on Mike Pence’s head when Kamala dominated Pence in their debate. The “black fly” is a minor distraction at best.



Derpy

 

[HisArpy]

The “black fly” was sitting on Mike Pence’s head when Kamala dominated Pence in their debate. The “black fly” is a minor distraction at best.



Derpy

Lol, I'll give you that.

It doesn't change anything about the current problems though so it's really nothing but an attempt at deflection/avoidance.


I think it will most likely get resolved by people throwing up their hands and giving up on sorting it out in time for the election. Eventually there will be new rules to keep this from happening again but for right now it's a mess, will probably always be a mess, and will contribute to the sour grapes "illegitimate President" narrative should Kamala get elected.

The tragedy here is that it could have been avoided but no one cared because no one wants to play fair or follow the law. Instead it's just a huge case of "fuck you I'm going to do what I want and you can suck it" by everyone.

 

[Aglaopheme]

The funds which were raised after Joe quit went into Joe's campaign account. The webpage even told donors that's where it was going.

Everyone ASSUMED it would go to Kamala, but legally that's not the way things work. (Which I believe you know since you're an adult - you don't get to raid someone else's bank account for money just because you assumed you're entitled to it.)

This is NOT straightforward and there's NO PRECEDENT for it. That means we can't assume anything.

Your article doesn’t say that. The complaint doesn’t say that.

You hope.

The black fly in your Chardonay is that it was, at best, a JOINT campaign account, not a sole owner account. As with every 50/50 partnership, when the partnership is dissolved, each partner only gets to take away their half and none of the other guys' stuff.

I'm not actually sure it was a partnership based on the paperwork/FEC filings.

Now you’re just making stuff up. : (

 

[Rotadom]

I can only go by what I'm being told through the media sources I follow.

That's what I'm being told.

Uninformed loudmouth sez wat?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Lol, I'll give you that.

It doesn't change anything about the current problems though so it's really nothing but an attempt at deflection/avoidance.


I think it will most likely get resolved by people throwing up their hands and giving up on sorting it out in time for the election. Eventually there will be new rules to keep this from happening again but for right now it's a mess, will probably always be a mess, and will contribute to the sour grapes "illegitimate President" narrative should Kamala get elected.

The tragedy here is that it could have been avoided but no one cared because no one wants to play fair or follow the law. Instead it's just a huge case of "fuck you I'm going to do what I want and you can suck it" by everyone.

Again, this is your opinion. I think her advisers know more about the FEC than you do.

The funds which were raised after Joe quit went into Joe's campaign account. (Which the article explains WASN'T a "joint" account. They may have operated as if it were, but LEGALLY it isn't.) The webpage even told donors that's where it was going.

Everyone ASSUMED it would go to Kamala, but legally that's not the way things work. (Which I believe you know since you're an adult - you don't get to raid someone else's bank account for money just because you assumed you're entitled to it.)

This is NOT straightforward and there's NO PRECEDENT for it. That means we can't assume anything.

ActBlue changed their receipts in a matter of hours. ActBlue and how they word their receipts has nothing to do with any of this. Hope that helps.

Again, your article doesn’t assert that she cannot access monies raised after the fact.

 

[HisArpy]

Your article doesn’t say that. The complaint doesn’t say that.

Now you’re just making stuff up. : (

Part of the problem is that I've read a lot of different articles from different sources and I've begun to put them together in a coherent form. The 1 article linked above is only 1 of those sources and doesn't give the entire picture.

As I said, it's not straightforward and some of the things have to be edited for space/typing/forum post/practicality issues. However, the gist of what I've posted is as correct as I can make it given those limitations.

 

[HisArpy]

Again, this is your opinion. I think her advisers know more about the FEC than you do.

This is an ASSUMPTION on your part. So far what information I have seen makes it appear as if they don't because experts and professionals don't make these kinds of mistakes.

ActBlue changed their receipts in a matter of hours. ActBlue and how they word their receipts has nothing to do with any of this. Hope that helps.

If this were true then it wouldn't be an issue. It is an issue, ergo, not true.

Again, your article doesn’t assert that she cannot access monies raised after the fact.

Simple answers: Where is the money on deposit? When it was donated, who was the named beneficiary on the account?

It's not straightforward and the semantic wriggling that's being done isn't going to change anything. You want it to be Kamala's. I don't care if she gets it or not, MY only concern is whether the law is being followed or not.

At this point it looks like it's not and that no one cares because of partisan politics.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

This is an ASSUMPTION on your part. So far what information I have seen makes it appear as if they don't because experts and professionals don't make these kinds of mistakes.



If this were true then it wouldn't be an issue. It is an issue, ergo, not true.



Simple answers: Where is the money on deposit? When it was donated, who was the named beneficiary on the account?

It's not straightforward and the semantic wriggling that's being done isn't going to change anything. You want it to be Kamala's. I don't care if she gets it or not, MY only concern is whether the law is being followed or not.

At this point it looks like it's not and that no one cares because of partisan politics.

Did Donald Trump follow campaign finance law in 2016?