Welcome Guest
Sign In | Register

i'm not acknowledging the rule never existed. you're

Posted on: September 30, 2019 at 09:47:25 CT
blake1771 MU
Posts:
14331
Member For:
19.81 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
still trying to conflate law with rules. the rule most certainly existed.

but to the bigger issue, the OLC said the complaint was crap and didn't meet the elements of the actual statute. they said the proper avenue was to report it to the DoJ CD.

Subsequently, the DoJ CD ruled there was no criminal violation of campaign finance laws in the call as suggested by the complainant.

so 2 rulings by the DoJ:
1. did not meet the statutory requirements of an urgent concern
2. call did not violate any statute

now, you can impeach someone for nothing. it's a political process. so if you want to impeach him, be my guest. personally, think it's a dangerous precedent but you do you.

going back to the rule change on the reporting. if you don't think it's odd that it was changed that's fine. I do think it's odd and furthermore, when asked WHY they changed it they (reporters) were told to go pound sand. I think an explanation is owed. and it could be 100% coincidental and there could be a good reason for it. but I'd like to see that rationale.

Edited by blake1771 at 09:52:49 on 09/30/19
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

Changed rules! - Ace AU - 9/30 07:45:45
     which is 100% correct (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 07:49:15
     Is his statement not true? (nm) - tcat KC - 9/30 07:48:42
          It was a question not a statement (nm) - pickle MU - 9/30 07:54:03
               that's true (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 07:55:11
          the statute did not change - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 07:50:26
               use your brain. i'll give you an example. I've made no - blake1771 KC - 9/30 08:35:28
                    a more comparable comparison is - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 09:12:40
                         a more apt analogy would be an individual making - blake1771 KC - 9/30 09:43:56
                              maybe you reported it because you're an a**hole - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 10:40:09
                         that is an awful analogy (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:15:21
                    ok. the statute is unchanged. show me where the CFRs changed - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 08:45:28
                         are you talking about the code of fed regulations? you can - blake1771 KC - 9/30 08:50:43
                              a rule that does not exist was changed - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 09:01:36
                                   well if you want to talk rules the OLC said the entire f'n - blake1771 KC - 9/30 09:10:59
                                        the statute specifically contemplates continued protection - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 09:18:58
                                             You are all over the place (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:23:22
                                                  it was directly responsive. - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 09:31:05
                                                       It would not have been deemed "urgent" to begin with - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:32:35
                                                            but not the result - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 09:41:07
                                                                 i'm not acknowledging the rule never existed. you're - blake1771 KC - 9/30 09:47:25
                                                                      at least you're getting to the meat and potatoes. - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 10:03:42
                                                                 What result are you talking about? - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:43:56
                                        lol but that's different! (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:14:50
                                   The reporting requirements on the urgent form - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:05:49
                         jfc you are stuck on a liberal talking point (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:50:37
               They changed the requirement for something to - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:00:10
                    the statute is unchanged - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 08:04:34
                         It's odd you keep going to that - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:15:13
                              it's odd the subject is "the rules" - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 08:18:45
                                   This is referring to a very specific part of the reporting - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:19:15
                                        because it does not exist in the statute - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 08:20:25
                                             The urgent request form would have been rejected - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:22:28
                                                  "an extra-legislative rule added by the executive branch - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 08:32:32
                                                       No ... you can't read (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:51:06
                              OMG... somebody changed FORM? - mizzoumurfkc KC - 9/30 08:16:49
                                   Does that mean anything is a lie? - Ace AU - 9/30 08:20:22
                                        Nope! (nm) - mizzoumurfkc KC - 9/30 08:21:43
                                   Yes, they did - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:17:18
               LOL - Ace AU - 9/30 07:53:11
                    In your opinion but i guess you’re the king now - tcat KC - 9/30 07:56:35
                         What if he's put under oath? - Toger STL - 9/30 08:03:34
                              I agree, but I want all of them under oath. (nm) - tcat KC - 9/30 09:25:43
               So your saying that rumors have always been allowed - tcat KC - 9/30 07:52:16
                    i didn't look at the legislative history since nixon - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 08:09:02
                         lol you are stuck on an odd talking point - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:16:39




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard