1
   

FEC Fines Swift Boat Vets $300K

 
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 11:34 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright & the Arkansas Supreme Court say he committed perjury, obstructed justice & violated the civil rights of Paula Jones. A US President violating the civil rights of a fellow American, that is awful


On the contrary, Jusge Susan Weber Wright threw out Paula Jones' stupid lawsuit. Wright never, ever, ever said that Clinton violated the civil rights of Paula Jones.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 12:35 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Coastal,

Are you saying you actually believe that what the Swift Boat Veterans said was true???

There is a big difference between partisan, and blindly partisan.


Far more accurate than John Kerry for sure.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 12:39 am
Re: FEC Fines Swift Boat Vets $300K
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
FEC Fines Swift Boat Vets $300K
By Paul Kiel - December 13, 2006

Is the era of the millionaire-backed attack group coming to an end?

The Federal Election Commission hit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with a $299,500 fine today for playing too fast with election rules. The Swift Boat Vets were a "527" organization, which has no limits on contributions, but were acting like federal political committees, the FEC charged. 527s are allowed to work for or against certain candidates, but if they have no other "major purpose," according to FEC spokesman Bob Biersack, then they should register as a committee.

That's a huge difference. Committees can only accept $5,000 in contributions per person per year. The Swift Boat Vets, by comparison, accepted $4.4 million from GOP money man Bob Perry in 2004. Perry played the same trick in this year's election, throwing $9 million at three different 527 attack groups, which used it to target dozens of Democratic congressional candidates all over the country. Democrats have also taken advantage of 527s, and two liberal groups were fined today: MoveOn and the League of Conservation Voters.

If the FEC were to really crack down on this sort of thing (the 527 loophole has been an open secret for a number of years), as they've idly been threatening to do, then 2008 would be a remarkably different election than the past two cycles.

Update: I talked to David Donnelly, the director of Campaign Money Watch, who knows a lot about this sort of thing, and he said that these fines (and the ones rumored to follow soon), probably will have a significant deterring effect in the '08 elections.


How come you didn't title the thread, "2 liberal groups fined by FEC for breaking rules?"
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 12:49 am
Because the Swift Boat Veterans wee fined considerably more than the other two, plus are better known.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 11:02 am
kelticwizard wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright & the Arkansas Supreme Court say he committed perjury, obstructed justice & violated the civil rights of Paula Jones. A US President violating the civil rights of a fellow American, that is awful


On the contrary, Jusge Susan Weber Wright threw out Paula Jones' stupid lawsuit. Wright never, ever, ever said that Clinton violated the civil rights of Paula Jones.

You don't know what you're talking about.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 12:09 am
Quote:
Judge Tosses Out Jones' Lawsuit
Clinton wins a surprising legal victory in Little Rock



LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AllPolitics, April 1) -- Less than two months before a trial date, a federal judge Wednesday threw out Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton, ruling that Jones had no "genuine issues" worthy of trial........

......In a 40-page ruling, Judge Susan Webber Wright granted Clinton's motion for summary judgment, saying Jones' allegations "fall short"......
Source

I know damn well what I am talking about. You are making false claims here
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 01:24 am
Re: FEC Fines Swift Boat Vets $300K
okie wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
FEC Fines Swift Boat Vets $300K
By Paul Kiel - December 13, 2006

Is the era of the millionaire-backed attack group coming to an end?

The Federal Election Commission hit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with a $299,500 fine today for playing too fast with election rules. The Swift Boat Vets were a "527" organization, which has no limits on contributions, but were acting like federal political committees, the FEC charged. 527s are allowed to work for or against certain candidates, but if they have no other "major purpose," according to FEC spokesman Bob Biersack, then they should register as a committee.

That's a huge difference. Committees can only accept $5,000 in contributions per person per year. The Swift Boat Vets, by comparison, accepted $4.4 million from GOP money man Bob Perry in 2004. Perry played the same trick in this year's election, throwing $9 million at three different 527 attack groups, which used it to target dozens of Democratic congressional candidates all over the country. Democrats have also taken advantage of 527s, and two liberal groups were fined today: MoveOn and the League of Conservation Voters.

If the FEC were to really crack down on this sort of thing (the 527 loophole has been an open secret for a number of years), as they've idly been threatening to do, then 2008 would be a remarkably different election than the past two cycles.

Update: I talked to David Donnelly, the director of Campaign Money Watch, who knows a lot about this sort of thing, and he said that these fines (and the ones rumored to follow soon), probably will have a significant deterring effect in the '08 elections.


How come you didn't title the thread, "2 liberal groups fined by FEC for breaking rules?"

It's because the media have a longstanding leftwing bias. That's the reason why the stories played up the SBV and played down moveon.org.
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 01:29 am
kelticwizard wrote:
Quote:
Judge Tosses Out Jones' Lawsuit
Clinton wins a surprising legal victory in Little Rock



LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AllPolitics, April 1) -- Less than two months before a trial date, a federal judge Wednesday threw out Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton, ruling that Jones had no "genuine issues" worthy of trial........

......In a 40-page ruling, Judge Susan Webber Wright granted Clinton's motion for summary judgment, saying Jones' allegations "fall short"......
Source

I know damn well what I am talking about. You are making false claims here

Just like the leftwing media and their convenient omission of the fine levied on moveon.org, you have omitted just one small detail about the Paula Jones case:
Paula Jones' lawyers get lion's share of $850,000 settlement
Quote:
LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (AllPolitics, March 5) -- The bulk of the $850,000 settlement in Paula Jones' sexual harassment case against President Clinton will go toward attorneys' fees, while Jones will collect $200,000, according to one of the attorneys


Here is as good a summation of the Paula Jones case as you will need:

Paula Jones
Quote:
Paula Corbin Jones (born Paula Rosalee Corbin on September 17, 1966, in Lonoke, Arkansas) was a former Arkansas state employee who sued President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment and eschewal. Eventually, the court dismissed the lawsuit, before trial, on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. However, while the dismissal was on appeal, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000. Many believe that Jones's lawsuit strengthened the Monica Lewinsky scandal, leading to the eventual impeachment of Bill Clinton.

It is beyond bizarre and nothing short of a catastrophic disconnect with reality for you to hold that a party that paid out an $850,000 settlement is not guilty. Most civil court cases end up in settlements of some kind, where the guilty party agrees to pay a monetary settlement in lieu of waiting for a court judgement.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 08:45 am
Re: FEC Fines Swift Boat Vets $300K
Monte Cargo wrote:
It's because the media have a longstanding leftwing bias. That's the reason why the stories played up the SBV and played down moveon.org.


If this is an example of your "leftwing bias", then it is clear that you are talking through your hat.

Once again, the Swift Boat Veterans were fined considerably-considerably-more than the other two groups. And the Swift Boat Veterans are better known than the other two groups. That is why they made the headlines and the others did not.

Fines are noteworthy because of the size of the fine and how famous the people being fined are. It has always been that way.

On the other hand, if the news editor had made the title about the two less famous groups, which had paid less money in fines, then it certainly would have shown a rightwing bias. Which would be right up your alley.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 09:16 am
Mr. Monte Cargo:

LoneStarMadam wrote the following post, and I set her straight on the matter. Judge Susan Webber Wright did not do these things.

LoneStarMadam wrote:
Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright & the Arkansas Supreme Court say he committed perjury, obstructed justice & violated the civil rights of Paula Jones. A US President violating the civil rights of a fellow American, that is awful


When did it become evidence of a "catastrophic disconnect" when one gives a factual rebuttal to an assertion, backed by evidence? Or does the use of facts on this board constitute still more evidence of the "leftwing bias" you are forever decrying?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 10:00 am
kelticwizard wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright & the Arkansas Supreme Court say he committed perjury, obstructed justice & violated the civil rights of Paula Jones. A US President violating the civil rights of a fellow American, that is awful


On the contrary, Jusge Susan Weber Wright threw out Paula Jones' stupid lawsuit. Wright never, ever, ever said that Clinton violated the civil rights of Paula Jones.


U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Little Rock dismissed Paula Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton on April 1.

The bold step astonished many legal experts, who thought Wright would take the personally safer course and let the suit go to trial. But in a bold and unwavering 39-page ruling, Wright expressed exasperation with Jones and her lawyers and made it clear that she didn't think the case was even a close call.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/players/wright.htm
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 10:04 am
Monte Cargo wrote:
It is beyond bizarre and nothing short of a catastrophic disconnect with reality for you to hold that a party that paid out an $850,000 settlement is not guilty. Most civil court cases end up in settlements of some kind, where the guilty party agrees to pay a monetary settlement in lieu of waiting for a court judgement.


Oh really, Mr. Monte Cargo. For a member who pursues legal topics with such enthusiasm, how is it you are unfamiliar with the time-honored tradition of paying off a plaintiff to just go away, regardless of the merits of the case?

If you are a passenger in a car which gets hit by another motorist, very often the motorist's insurance company will come around, unasked, and offer you a check. You may be unhurt, and not asking for money, but they offer it anyway. Why? Just to make sure you go away permanently-that you don't decide to sue them somewhere down the line. So they offer unasked for money just to make sure you go away.

In any case where a person of means is sued, regardless of the merits, the lawyers discuss the desirability of just throwing the suer a small settlement to get lost. The defendant's lawyers don't always do it, but it is a consideration that is usually discussed and very often taken.

If you read the transcript, Paula Jones' lawsuit was bogus. For such a politically motivated lawsuit backed by powerful political forces, (remember Jones was talked into suing by rich, powerful Republicans-she wasn't going to do it on her own), the suit looked like it took the lawyers about two hours to compose, write and file-total.

In one memorable excerpt, Jones was claiming as a result of her rebuff of Clinton's attentions, she was denied the chance for a certain job in the Arkansas state government which paid better.

Jones was told that she had no application in her file for this job she was talking about. Jones then claimed that her supervisor told her not to even bother applying-the job was not really available. That is why there was no application.

Jones was asked what the title of the job was. Jones said she did not know.

Jones was asked to give a brief description of the nature of the job she was supposedly interested in. Jones could not even do that.

So, among other things, Jones was suing for not getting a job which she never filled out an application for, could not give the title of, and could not even tell what the nature of the job was.

How could Judge Susan Webber Wright NOT throw this silly suit out?

However, as a result of this suit, it turned out that the President gave answers about a consenting, adult extramarital affair that were not truthful. This resulted in months and months of investigations, hearings, impeachment proceeedings and conviction votes in the Congress. Most of it the result of this thrown-out lawsuit.

So when Jones lost her case, she had a lawyer's bill for $800,000, and not the kind of job skills which could pay it off. She had little choice, from a purely financial point of view, but to roll the dice and go for the appeal. she did so. Which would result in even more months of upheaval.

A President only gets, at best, eight years in office. Way, way too much of that time had already been consumed by Paula Jones and her claims. So Clinton made the deal-he would pay her the money her lawyers were suing her for, throw in another $50,000 for what Paula Jones might have spent for travel, plastic surgery and other expenses while pursuing the case, if Jones would drop the appeal and put an end to it. In other words, Jones couldn't afford to go away after she lost her case, so Clinton just paid her bills so she would. She did.

Later, Jones settled the $800,000 lawsuit her lawyers were suing her for by paying them $650,000, and she pocketed the rest. But that deal came AFTER the settlement offer from Clinton. At the time of the Clinton settlement, Jones' lawyers were suing her for $800,000, and she had no guarantee they would settle for less. So that is what Clinton offered her to go away. And that is what she took.

Jones was paid to go away. Her claims were meritless, but the appeal was just going to drag things out even further-so Clinton made the deal.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 06:44:46