We FOUND the COLLUSION!

[Colonel Hogan]

Peruse the FEC's opinions. Voter rolls have been found to count as a 'thing of value'. It's not a stretch to imagine that dirt on an opponent would also count. That is... "value" is not just money.

The Prosecution:

Junior thought the Russian government was going to give him dirt on HRC. Junior agreed to meet with someone he thought represented the Russian government to receive that information.

Dirt on HRC would have value to the Trump campaign and was being offered by a foreign government.


I take no position on the matter, just laying out the possible charge as I was asked to do.


Pay me $450 per hour and I'll lay out the defense.

The first opinion is free.

It clearly states it covers donations.



That covers in-kind donations for opposition research.

Yeah, it's a HUGE stretch.

From ABC News online:

"No person shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation," reads Title 11 in the Code of Federal Regulations, section 110.20 (g). A contribution can be "anything of value," including negative information about a political opponent.

It is unlawful to "provide substantial assistance in the solicitation, making, acceptance or receipt of a contribution or donation," reads 11 CFR 110.20 (h).

Solicitation

Experts said it can be difficult to determine whether unlawful solicitation has occurred, as there is little established law or precedent in this area.

Simply attending the meeting with Veselnitskaya almost certainly did not cross that line, said experts.

There are "no magic words" to turn this into solicitation, said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University School of Law. "You have to look at the context. Was Don Jr. attempting to induce someone?"

To make this unlawful, Trump, Kushner and Manafort would have to "ask for something, and it would have to be an express or implied ask," said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California at Irvine. And they would have to know whom they were meeting, he added.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-jr-meeting-russian-lawyer-violated-campaign-laws/story?id=48557183

The "solicitation" specifics aside, the ABC News assertion that ANY negative information about a political opponent constitutes a LEGAL definition of "a thing of value" is simply flat-ass wrong. I can find nowhere in the United States Code or CFRs where "a thing of value" is so narrowly defined.

Common sense would tell us that those who engage in the specific commerce of political opposition research CANNOT simply give their services away for the purpose of avoiding reporting requirements related to "in-kind donations." No question about that.

But to apply that same rationale to any and all political intelligence freely offered from individual partisans, either foreign or domestic and not so "commercially engaged," is beyond the pale. The law makes no attempt to address that eventuality -- particularly in 20-minute meetings where no such information exchange actually took place.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Colonel...





You have to keep up with the evolving fake news. Now the story is that he was offered evidence of financial indiscretions on the art of Hillary Clinton* and he lied about how many people were there.

#ImpeachTrump

 

[Sean]

Turns out Reince Priebus might have been at the meeting.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Colonel...





You have to keep up with the evolving fake news. Now the story is that he was offered evidence of financial indiscretions on the art of Hillary Clinton* and he lied about how many people were there.

#ImpeachTrump

Hey, I'm running as fast as I can! Referencing my last post "over there" post haste.

 

[Rightguide]

Turns out Reince Priebus might have been at the meeting.

Could Yosemite Sam have been there too?

 

[Phelia]

Turns out Reince Priebus might have been at the meeting.

Oh shit. Where'd you read that? C'mon universe - give me this. I've been sick and miserable for two days! I deserve this!!!!

 

[Sean]

Oh shit. Where'd you read that? C'mon universe - give me this. I've been sick and miserable for two days! I deserve this!!!!

ProPublica, I think.

 

[Phelia]

ProPublica, I think.

Thank you! Their Kasowitz stuff was nuts! I'll take a peek and keep my fingers crossed, but I'm sure we'll find out in a few days as we face the fresh horror of a new week in Trump's America.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

On this point, he is correct, and I supported. In fact, I have been hammering his ass that he's only reading american thinker and has is out of touch on a global scale.

His comments, on the rest of u'all, that everything everyday is solely focused on the 'nothing trump' idea, is the point, and is correct.

One proof? Ur reply. Way out of focus to even notice; the nothing trump trend; coz ur in it.

You are overly sure about the current being so good, and relieving, etc. that you find anyone criticizing it as some dazed and confused, obsessed with his own views, etc. when it is entirely the opposite.

As dissected as i could hoping u didn't need lenses.

I really don't care all that much on bean counting the quality of your feels and his feels about what's going on in the world that's being highlighted here every day. His feels aren't being validated by reality right now, so he's got that diaper rash. Once again, not my problem.

You wanna go buttress his feels up, go right ahead. When he's drinking from the same fountain of urine that's supposed to be lemonade for him when things are going his way but when he don't like the taste and he complains about it, here's a sippy cup. Go join him. You can go chant "lefty lefty lefty" or whatever it is that gets you hard while slurping thru the straw.

Meanwhile, other people here actually get what's going on:

Awww, looks like AJ's not having fun anymore!! I thought all this Russia stuff was really enjoyable 4 u, 4est! I wonder what has changed?

....

etc. etc.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/259cce9f6f0bdab3ecc2e9ffcd8a710c/tumblr_inline_n7hokvXyhG1sos8f4.gif

bwahahahahahahaha

 

[Pookie]

Yeah, it's a HUGE stretch.

From ABC News online:



The "solicitation" specifics aside, the ABC News assertion that ANY negative information about a political opponent constitutes a LEGAL definition of "a thing of value" is simply flat-ass wrong. I can find nowhere in the United States Code or CFRs where "a thing of value" is so narrowly defined.

Common sense would tell us that those who engage in the specific commerce of political opposition research CANNOT simply give their services away for the purpose of avoiding reporting requirements related to "in-kind donations." No question about that.

But to apply that same rationale to any and all political intelligence freely offered from individual partisans, either foreign or domestic and not so "commercially engaged," is beyond the pale. The law makes no attempt to address that eventuality -- particularly in 20-minute meetings where no such information exchange actually took place.

It's not beyond the pale at all.

FEC ADVISORY OPINION 1990-12 :

https://cg-519a459a-0ea3-42c2-b7bc-fa1143481f74.s3-us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/legal/aos/72021.pdf

If, however, Mr. Hochberg imparts poll result information to you or anyone else working for your campaign, including any data or any analysis of the results, or if he uses the poll information to advise your campaign on matters such as campaign strategy or creating media messages, such poll information will constitute an in-kind contribution from Mr. Hochberg to your campaign, and an expenditure in an equal amount by your committee. 11 CFR 106.4(b).

 

[Pookie]

As to what defines "solicitation":



11 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

(6)Solicit has the same meaning as in 11 CFR 300.2(m).



11 CFR 300.2 - Definitions.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/300.2

(m)To solicit. For the purposes of part 300, to solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. A solicitation does not include mere statements of political support or mere guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Yeah, it's a HUGE stretch.

From ABC News online:



The "solicitation" specifics aside, the ABC News assertion that ANY negative information about a political opponent constitutes a LEGAL definition of "a thing of value" is simply flat-ass wrong. I can find nowhere in the United States Code or CFRs where "a thing of value" is so narrowly defined.

Common sense would tell us that those who engage in the specific commerce of political opposition research CANNOT simply give their services away for the purpose of avoiding reporting requirements related to "in-kind donations." No question about that.

But to apply that same rationale to any and all political intelligence freely offered from individual partisans, either foreign or domestic and not so "commercially engaged," is beyond the pale. The law makes no attempt to address that eventuality -- particularly in 20-minute meetings where no such information exchange actually took place.

It's not 'individual partisans' that is the issue - that instance is protected under the 1st Amendment. The statute and regulation applies to foreign entities.

 

[JohnnySavage]

As an aside, that Russian lawyer is pretty hot.

 

[EternalFantasies]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/259cce9f6f0bdab3ecc2e9ffcd8a710c/tumblr_inline_n7hokvXyhG1sos8f4.gif

bwahahahahahahaha

https://media.giphy.com/media/7OaYzPWOW112E/giphy.gif

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It's not beyond the pale at all.

FEC ADVISORY OPINION 1990-12 :

https://cg-519a459a-0ea3-42c2-b7bc-fa1143481f74.s3-us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/legal/aos/72021.pdf

If, however, Mr. Hochberg imparts poll result information to you or anyone else working for your campaign, including any data or any analysis of the results, or if he uses the poll information to advise your campaign on matters such as campaign strategy or creating media messages, such poll information will constitute an in-kind contribution from Mr. Hochberg to your campaign, and an expenditure in an equal amount by your committee. 11 CFR 106.4(b).

From your link:

Mr. Hochberg commissioned this poll for his own potential candidacy and not on behalf of your campaign. Although Mr. Hochberg obviously will have knowledge of the polling information while he pursues his volunteer activities, Mr. Hochberg entered into the transaction with the pollster prior to working for your campaign and not in contemplation of working for your campaign. His receipt of the results was a completion of that transaction, rather than a receipt on behalf of your campaign. In such circumstances, Mr. Hochberg's knowledge of the poll results by itself is not treated as a contribution of the poll and will not preclude his unpaid volunteer services to the campaign.

If, however, Mr. Hochberg imparts poll result information to you or anyone else working for your campaign, including any data or any analysis of the results, or if he uses the poll information to advise your campaign on matters such as campaign strategy or creating media messages, such poll information will constitute an in-kind contribution from Mr. Hochberg to your campaign, and an expenditure in an equal amount by your committee. 11 CFR 106.4(b). See also 11 CFR 104.13(a) and (b). The amount of such a contribution will be determined by calculating the share of the overall cost of the poll allocable to that particular information. Cf. 11 CFR 106.4(e). A determination as to the overall cost of the poll in its entirety will be premised upon the decreasing valuations presented in 11 CFR 106.4(g).

As the FEC advisory opinion makes perfectly clear:

1. "Knowledge" of the poll results itself or general knowledge Hochberg may bring to the Strub for Congress campaign as an unpaid volunteer is not treated as an in-kind contribution nor does it "precludes his unpaid services as a volunteer."

2. The DIRECT use of the poll information itself IS an in-kind contribution and obvious "thing of [monetary] value" because it was previously "commissioned" and paid for.

3. The SPECIFIC VALUE of the in-kind contribution is ONLY THAT of an "ALLOCABLE SHARE" of that poll information that is directly used.

That FEC opinion and its citations of the applicable Title 11 CFRs has no more legal relevance to unsolicited, non-compensated and unused information from a Russian lawyer walking in off the street than a 747 jet aircraft can be reasonably compared to a hummingbird.

As to what defines "solicitation":



11 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

(6)Solicit has the same meaning as in 11 CFR 300.2(m).



11 CFR 300.2 - Definitions.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/300.2

(m)To solicit. For the purposes of part 300, to solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. A solicitation does not include mere statements of political support or mere guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation.

People keep misapplying Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the campaign finance laws under the United States Code either unintentionally or otherwise. They relate to campaign FINANCES and what SHOULD NORMALLY be paid for in a campaign. If "anything of value" as written in the law LITERALLY meant ANYTHING of value, then clearly the labor, skills and information provided by VOLUNTEERS to political campaigns would not be allowed AT ALL!!!

As it is, 52 USC § 30101 and 11 CFR 300.2 provide a wealth of specific definitions with regard to specific terms like "solicitation," "contributions," "donations," etc. In neither place is the specific meaning of "anything of value" similarly defined.

But we do KNOW, from the very FEC opinion YOU provided, that IT DOES MEAN "knowledge [of the poll results by itself] is not treated as a contribution [of the poll]..."

And if "contributions" under 52 USC § 30101 also DO NOT INCLUDE such "things of value" as...:

"use of real or personal property, including a church or community room;"

"cost of invitations, food, and beverages, voluntarily provided by an individual to any candidate or any political committee of a political party;"

"any legal or accounting services rendered to or on behalf of...(II) an authorized committee of a candidate or any other political committee...:

"the payment by a State or local committee of a political party of the costs of campaign materials (such as pins, bumper stickers, handbills, brochures, posters, party tabloids, and yard signs) used by such committee in connection with volunteer activities on behalf of nominees of such party;"

"any loan of money derived from an advance on a candidate’s brokerage account, credit card, home equity line of credit, or other line of credit available to the candidate;"

...and much, much more, then I feel reasonably safe in asserting that, until being shown a statutory reference to the contrary, if you ever observe or have documented knowledge and/or evidence of a political candidate who you oppose:

1. stumble out of a bar clearly under the influence of alcohol get in a car and drive off,

2. criminally solicit a prostitute for sexual services,

3. urinate in public,

4. hurl an "f-bomb" at a little kid who rode his bike across his lawn,

5. toss a gum wrapper on the ground rather than in a trash can,

you may freely provide that information to his opposition party or candidate without the slightest fear that either YOU will have made or the opposition PARTY OR CANDIDATE will have received an illegal or "in-kind" campaign contribution.

And it won't even matter if you are Russian.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It's not 'individual partisans' that is the issue - that instance is protected under the 1st Amendment. The statute and regulation applies to foreign entities.

But the "anything of value" prohibited from being supplied by foreign entities is neither specifically statutorily defined nor generally held under FEC regulations as being generic damaging information with regard to a political candidate.

The law clearly intends "anything of value" to be a readily derived monetary value and not just a strategic PR "value."

You know what's really ironically semi-humorous about this? Liberals apparently want to protect foreign nationals' First Amendment "right" to be free of religious "discrimination" to enter this country on a visa they don't OTHERWISE have a right to, but damned if we're going to let those same foreign nationals gossip to Donald Trump, Jr. about Hillary Clinton.

As a general proposition subject to extreme considerations for national security, I'm of the opinion that they should be free to do both.

 

[Pookie]

From your link:



As the FEC advisory opinion makes perfectly clear:

1. "Knowledge" of the poll results itself or general knowledge Hochberg may bring to the Strub for Congress campaign as an unpaid volunteer is not treated as an in-kind contribution nor does it "precludes his unpaid services as a volunteer."

2. The DIRECT use of the poll information itself IS an in-kind contribution and obvious "thing of [monetary] value" because it was previously "commissioned" and paid for.

3. The SPECIFIC VALUE of the in-kind contribution is ONLY THAT of an "ALLOCABLE SHARE" of that poll information that is directly used.

That FEC opinion and its citations of the applicable Title 11 CFRs has no more legal relevance to unsolicited, non-compensated and unused information from a Russian lawyer walking in off the street than a 747 jet aircraft can be reasonably compared to a hummingbird.

Your argument is complete nonsense and sophomoric. Your numbered items in no way, shape, or form negate from the paragraph that follows:

If, however, Mr. Hochberg imparts poll result information to you or anyone else working for
your campaign, including any data or any analysis of the results, or if he uses the poll information to advise your campaign on matters such as campaign strategy or creating media messages, such poll information will constitute an in-kind contribution from Mr. Hochberg to your campaign, and an expenditure in an equal amount by your committee. 11 CFR 106.4(b).

It CLEARLY is a thing of value. Your argument in no way makes a case that it isn't.

 

[Pookie]

People keep misapplying Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the campaign finance laws under the United States Code either unintentionally or otherwise. They relate to campaign FINANCES and what SHOULD NORMALLY be paid for in a campaign. If "anything of value" as written in the law LITERALLY meant ANYTHING of value, then clearly the labor, skills and information provided by VOLUNTEERS to political campaigns would not be allowed AT ALL!!!

As it is, 52 USC § 30101 and 11 CFR 300.2 provide a wealth of specific definitions with regard to specific terms like "solicitation," "contributions," "donations," etc. In neither place is the specific meaning of "anything of value" similarly defined.

There is no misapplication. You've not demonstrated a misapplication. My previous posts attests to your OWN misapplication of paragraphs within one FEC opinion.

You appear to be yet again attempting to bluster your way through a reply.

"Title 11" CLEARLY states:

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.


Nothing in your post comes close to showing this is misapplied, or not what it has been presented as. Nothing.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Your argument is complete nonsense and sophomoric. Your numbered items in no way, shape, or form negate from the paragraph that follows:

If, however, Mr. Hochberg imparts poll result information to you or anyone else working for
your campaign, including any data or any analysis of the results, or if he uses the poll information to advise your campaign on matters such as campaign strategy or creating media messages, such poll information will constitute an in-kind contribution from Mr. Hochberg to your campaign, and an expenditure in an equal amount by your committee. 11 CFR 106.4(b).

It CLEARLY is a thing of value. Your argument in no way makes a case that it isn't.

I did NOT say that it wasn't. I specifically AGREED with the FEC opinion that it WAS.

I also specifically cited the FEC's opinion that the VALUE of the in-kind contribution would be proportionally assessed based on the amount of the poll data that was DIRECTLY USED. That's EXACTLY what the opinion says. And there is NOTHING about proportional assessment that negates the phrase "will constitute an in-kind contribution, and an expenditure in an equal amount by your committee." That simply means "in an amount EQUAL to whatever proportion of the poll information that is actually used."

The FEC is NOT going to impose the FULL amount paid for the ENTIRE original poll data as an in-kind contribution if the other campaign only uses 10% of the information. They would ONLY be liable for 10% of the value of the original poll because that's ALL they actually used.

PLEASE tell me you understand that.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

There is no misapplication. You've not demonstrated a misapplication. My previous posts attests to your OWN misapplication of paragraphs within one FEC opinion.

You appear to be yet again attempting to bluster your way through a reply.

"Title 11" CLEARLY states:

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.


Nothing in your post comes close to showing this is misapplied, or not what it has been presented as. Nothing.

It is misapplied because "other thing of value" is nowhere defined in the statute. NOWHERE. "Contribution" is defined. "Donation" is defined. Furthermore, as I have previously pointed out, a whole rash of tangible objects that are clearly "things of value" are specifically exempted as being "contributions" or "donations." NONE OF THOSE ITEMS FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF 'disparaging information detrimental to the electability of a candidate."

That lack of statutory specificity about such "information" leaves us with ONLY one of two possible conclusions:

It's failure to be exempted by statute AT ALL means such "information" is a "thing of value" to be assessed as an in-kind contribution TO ANY CAMPAIGN WHEN IT IS SUPPLIED BY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN [despite the statute being silent on the subject] AND PROHIBITED BY STATUTE FROM BEING SUPPLIED BY A FOREIGN NATIONAL [despite the statute again being silent on the specific value of generic strategic "information" ANYWHERE!]

OR

Such "information" is ONLY a PROHIBITED "THING OF VALUE" when supplied by a foreign national BUT is perfectly acceptable when supplied by an American citizen despite the fact that the applicable statutes make no such distinction ANYWHERE!!!

Since I'm pretty damn certain that "generic information" sporadically and circumstantially supplied to a political campaign, whether obtained FROM a foreign national OR an American citizen, HAS NEVER been held by the FEC to be an in-kind contribution or criminally prohibited, all YOU have to do is provide documentation of the surely hundreds of examples where that has occurred.

Let's move beyond your assertion of what you believe to be the law and find the specific examples of when and where it has actually been violated in the manner which you are alleging. Surely someone MUST have done it BEFORE Donald Trump.

Don'tcha think?

I'll wait.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Her c&p source is not about to let her understand anything other what she wants to believe and they all believe...,


WE'VE GOT HIM NOW!!!


Now, the "collusion" to support Obama energy policy, to suppress our energy economy and force us to pay more for energy, well pucker-up, whistle Dixie and don't go anywhere near that holster flap. Too bad they weren't trying to fix the prices of Real Estate because then...,


WE'VE GOT HIM NOW!!!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"The Russian economy experienced two major shocks in 2014 ... the first shock was the sharp decline in oil prices during the third and fourth quarter of 2014, exposing Russia’s extreme dependence on global commodity cycles. ... The second shock was the economic sanctions resulting from geopolitical tensions, which negatively affected investor appetite for Russian investments."

http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/russia

...

Lack of money was a powerful restraint. The oil crash collapsed the ruble and forced a 27% reduction in the Kremlin's military budget in 2016. With oil prices set to stay flat the Russians have to keep drilling and investing simply to stay level as the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies notes. The Kremlin doesn't make any real spending money until world oil price gets above levels before the great oil crash of 2014, which may not happen any time soon. As the Oxford study explains:

...

You would think this a Eureka moment: to contain oil prices is to contain Russia (and Islamism). But cheap fossil fuels are not everyone's cup of tea. "Drill, baby, drill" is not popular on the left. Even though liberals understand the power of cheap energy -- one of Hillary's supposedly hacked emails even alleged anti-fracking and environmental causes were a Russian plot to depress oil production -- to advocate it is bad progressive politics. This probably led the Saudis to Hillary's camp in 2016. "According to Bob McNally, president of consulting firm Rapidan Group, countries in the oil-producing Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, are hoping for Hillary Clinton to become president."

...

f second marriages are the "triumph of hope over experience" perhaps environmental policy is the victory of lobbying over common sense. The Russians stymied on the physical front had to resort to the virtual world to equalize. Despite the depiction of Russians as uber-hackers, they actually saw themselves as coming from behind the West in cyberwarfare. The Russian General staff was inspired by the role social media played in the Arab Spring to create a cyberwarfare capability. Nor had the Kremlin forgotten the traumatic role soft power played in the downfall of the Soviet Union. "In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, many western nations continued to utilise soft power initiatives to consolidate the spread of western liberal ideas and culture. ... For Russia, this extensive dispersal of western liberal influence was viewed as a potential threat. Citing events like Color Revolutions, the Maiden Protest in the Ukraine and uprisings of the Arab Spring, Russia believed America was using soft power as a weapon in a new form of hybrid warfare."

...

Conventional wisdom posits the chief challenges facing the post-Cold War World are Global Warming and the decline of international institutions. But maybe that assurance is a species of Fake News. Suppose the most pressing problems in the next decade is finding new energy supplies to 1) keep the price of oil low enough to contain Russia (and Islamism); and 2) adapting to a disruptive information revolution no one can seem to control. Who will hand you that unconventional wisdom unless you come to it yourself?

Richard Fernandez, PJMedia

https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2017/07/14/unconventional-wisdom/


Hat tip: Clarice Feldman

 

[hznh]

"The Russian economy experienced two major shocks in 2014 ... the first shock was the sharp decline in oil prices during the third and fourth quarter of 2014, exposing Russia’s extreme dependence on global commodity cycles. ... The second shock was the economic sanctions resulting from geopolitical tensions, which negatively affected investor appetite for Russian investments."

http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/russia


Richard Fernandez, PJMedia

https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2017/07/14/unconventional-wisdom/


Hat tip: Clarice Feldman

STFU, asshole. You're the biggest victim here, and second only to connie for being a huge beta bitch. Pj media? GTFO with that shit and grow your own brain.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Her c&p source is not about to let her understand anything other what she wants to believe and they all believe...,
WE'VE GOT HIM NOW!!!
Now, the "collusion" to support Obama energy policy, to suppress our energy economy and force us to pay more for energy, well pucker-up, whistle Dixie and don't go anywhere near that holster flap. Too bad they weren't trying to fix the prices of Real Estate because then...,

WE'VE GOT HIM NOW!!!

Focus, Tonto, FOCUS.

Do you want high fuel prices ($4 a gallon) that would cost-justify shale oil production and alternate sources of energy? "Drill Baby Drill" looks cute on the bumper sticker of your rusted out pickup truck, but it's not viable as long term solution. High fuel prices benefit oil company shareholders, but are a drag on the overall US economy.

 

[Que]

Focus, Tonto, FOCUS.

Do you want high fuel prices ($4 a gallon) that would cost-justify shale oil production and alternate sources of energy? "Drill Baby Drill" looks cute on the bumper sticker of your rusted out pickup truck, but it's not viable as long term solution. High fuel prices benefit oil company shareholders, but are a drag on the overall US economy.

. . .which is the opposite of your claim that "Obama's energy policies* have resulted in low gas prices."

*despite his stated goals of necessarilly causing higher energy prices.

Gas is $2 a gallon, with shale oil production in full swing, also showing the nonsense you are spouting.

How do you live in Houston and know nothing about oil production trends? Hint: cost of production is down, proven oil reserves up.