Courtesy of Newsweek:
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders accused front-runner Hillary Clinton of apparent campaign finance violations on Monday, ratcheting up the rhetoric against his rival one day before New York state's crucial primary elections.
The Sanders campaign questioned whether Clinton's campaign violated legal limits on donations by paying her staffers with funds from a joint fundraising effort by Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, or DNC.
Sanders has long maintained that the DNC has favored Clinton over Sanders. The U.S. senator from Vermont is a democratic socialist who has run as an independent in his Senate campaigns.
“While the use of joint fundraising agreements has existed for some time - it is unprecedented for the DNC to allow a joint committee to be exploited to the benefit of one candidate in the midst of a contested nominating contest,” said Sanders' campaign manager, Jeff Weaver.
Okay so when I read this I at first did not know what to think. After all this is the Sanders' campaign accusing the Clinton campaign and the DNC of illegal fundraising during a primary, that is a pretty serious charge.
So as usual when I am not entirely clear on what is happening I waited until the Rachel Maddow Show last night to clarify what was going on, and whether there was any "there there."
There isn't.
The first thing I learned was this:
Right off the bat, it’s worth noting that the Democratic National Committee offered Team Sanders the identical opportunity for a joint fundraising operation, but the senator declined – not because the joint victory fund is illegal, but because Sanders preferred to simply do his own thing, separate from the national party.
So if this same arrangement was offered to the Sanders' campaign, and they rejected it because they felt their own fundraising was adequate, and are NOW bitching because they see Clinton raking in mountains of moola, how is that Clinton and the DNC's fault?
But is it illegal?
Not not according to a former counsel for the FEC:
Andrea Mitchell said on the show last night that Larry Noble, who served as the FEC’s general counsel for 13 years, believes the allegations don’t make a lot of sense. Rick Hasen, an elections law expert, added yesterday that Team Sanders seems to have a “weak” case.
"Clinton, like Sanders and other presidential candidates, has set up a joint fundraising committee with her political party. The JFC allows you to raise a huge chunk of change (more now than in past campaigns, thanks to the Supreme Court blowing out the aggregate federal limits in the McCutcheon case). A small bit goes to the candidate’s committee under the federal limits (currently $2,700 for the primary and $2,700 for the general). The next bit goes to the DNC, and the rest so state parties in $10,000 chunks. Sanders is accusing the joint committee of raising really big donations, and then having the JFC using some of those really big donations to engage in direct mail and internet targeting of small donors. When those small donors donate small amounts, contributions up to the first $2,700 benefit Clinton under the JFC agreement, and because these are small donors, it means Clinton gets all that small donor money.
The [Sanders campaign’s] letter cites no authority showing that this use of the JFC is not allowed, and it is hard to see what provision of the law it violates when donors give only small amounts that happen to benefit only Clinton. The letter says that maybe this is like an in-kind contribution from the DNC to the Clinton campaign, but I don’t see how it is that if the money is coming from the JFC not from the committee. The letter even says this means that those giving big checks to the DNC might thereby be giving more than the $2,700 to Clinton, which is not literally true – it is what the JFC is doing with the money, over which the donors have no control."
Okay so color me confused, what exactly is the Sanders' campaign complaining about?
I watched a Sanders' spokesperson on cable news this morning confronted with these facts, and he literally had nothing by way of an explanation for what was illegal about all of this, and instead simply fell back on campaign talking points that the Clinton campaign was receiving preferential treatment from the DNC.
But once again how is that possible if the Sanders' campaign was offered the exact same opportunity?
It should also be noted that while the Sanders' campaign sent a letter to the DNC in protest, it did NOT contact the FEC which of course is what one does if they believe there are any fundraising irregularities.
So to be clear it appears that Bernie Sanders and his campaign are falsely attacking his opponent, AND the Democratic party, on the day before a huge Democratic primary in New York.
That does NOT seem like a good idea, and forgive me for saying so, but sounds suspiciously like something Donald Trump would do.
Update: And the plot thickens:
Bernie Sanders received a warning from the Federal Election Commission, citing problems with his campaign's February finance report.
The letter states the report lists amounts of contributions, receipts, expenses and disbursements that "appear to be incorrect."
The letter also cites possible impermissible contributions that exceed the allowed limit per election cycle ($2,700 for individuals) along with donations that come from outside the United States and from unregistered political committees.
The FEC sent the letter Thursday to the campaign asking for more information regarding the report filed Feb. 20. The letter warned: "Failure to adequately respond by the response date noted above could result in an audit or enforcement action."
Oops.
I have to say that I am getting a bit irritated with Bernie Sanders. Clinton is fundraising with the DNC and raising a ton of money for down ballot races. The Senate might flip to Democratic control if certain Senate campaigns get some help.
ReplyDeleteSanders has not raised any money for the down ballot races. Perhaps Sanders is not doing anything for down ballot Democratic races because he is not a Democrat. And now he is comparing himself to FDR? Sanders is no FDR; not even close.
Which brings up a good point, Curtis. Your feelings seem to be that since both Parties are bought, both Parties are equally responsible for most all of the predicaments we find ourselves in, today. I posit that you're wrong, and here's why. The fact that the Dems do, comes from two truths; 1) Corporations, being the behemoths that they are, are impossible to deny unless you can reanimate the body of TR !! Secondly, and this is more in the form of question 2) Since the mid 20th century The Rethuglikan Party has been firmly directed by money interest of all types in this country, where do you think the Democratic Party would be had they refused to partaking of some of this largesse. Therefore it is my belief that the Rethugs do it because they ARE money, and Dems go along for survival. Take money completely out at every level of influence. and you'd find Rethugs at a distinct disadvantage. They provide the working man with nothing but lies.
DeleteFuck Bernie Sanders, he knows there is no isse at all with the fundraiser but s just mad his expensive folly to the Vatican for him and Hag Jane was a bust.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I thought campaign funds were monitored? That Vatican trip is not a legitimate campaign expense. What funds or who funded his escapade to the Vatican?
Too bad Hillary didn't make sure Bernie's cyber thieves were criminally convicted months ago.
" hag Jane"??? Really? Sounds like something Trump would say.
DeleteWow, I don't like Sanders all that much, but calling his wives names, especially gendered names, is just plain wrong.
DeleteI think you're just a troll. Definitely not a Clinton supporter.
Actually the HAG term is a favorite of the Bernie bros so what's the problem with it? Oh, it's only okay to refer to Hillary as a hag but not baby Jane?
DeleteIt's not ok to refer to either of them in that way.
DeleteI prefer "Crone Jane" myself.
Delete@10:24 Because others do it makes it ok? Wow! Your stupidity is showing.
DeleteSigh. I'm trying to develop my patience, but this sorely tests it. It's as if Sanders has emerged from the political version of a cryogenic freeze and does not comprehend the system in which he finds himself. Or is he really determined to undermine Democratic candidates?
ReplyDeleteBingo! He's always hated the Democratic Party.
DeleteHe can't support Democrats because it goes against the purity test he's built up among his supporters. It's fucking ridiculous.
DeleteSince Bernie has never been a Democrat, it wouldn't bother me at all if the DNC gave preferential treatment to Hillary. She is the one who is helping all the Democrats down ballot.
DeleteQuite agree. Some number crunchers
DeleteSome number crunchers should sit him down, give him a maths lesson and tell him to get_out_of_the_way.
You got that right Gryphen! HOPEFULLY Sanders is burnt out...
ReplyDeleteSo, what would Bernie do if his small contributions suddenly dried up? He'd have no money. Would he just quit the race? He'd be up against billionaire Trump. We're supposed to believe that Bernie wouldn't do what Hillary's doing? I'm so tired of this my-way-is-noble-and-yours-isn't stuff from Trump and Bernie.
ReplyDeleteThis attacking of other types of fundraising, types that are legal and have been for a long time, just has to stop.
I keep asking those Berniebots just what they will have left if Bernie IS the nominee, and the Kochs roll out attack ad after attack ad. Are they going to have a billion dollars to counter that? And frankly, with him flipping off the DNC at every opportunity, Bernie's Army is going to look pretty pitiful when they come begging for dollars every hour of every day. He needs the DNC more than they need him, and just why is he running as an Independent again in Vermont? Oh, right. He's not really a Democrat. You've been used people.
DeleteOr maybe he thinks it's time to stop buying the presidency?
ReplyDeletethat may be true but you don't falsely accuse someone of getting preferential treatment when it's clearly not true.
DeleteHis accusation implies a falsehood and he portrays himself as the victim. He is reminding me of republicans - putting themselves in a corner and them complaining they are there.
So Bernie isn't collecting any funds from supporters? Oh, I get it. It's ONLY okay for Bernie to fundraise but on one else.
DeleteIf he truly felt that way he wouldn't be accepting any donations to his campaign. Oh, I get it. It's ONLY okay for Bernie to fundraise but on one else.
DeleteBernie Sanders got caught in not sharing his take with others. That's what Democrats do - they share. And Bernie Sanders, who never mentions Democrats running in other races, got criticized so he suddenly shared the take with three House candidates. He reacts to his own mistakes like a four year-old shift the blame to someone else. His stunt in Rome backfired big time so now he's going to attack the political party that welcomed him as a new member about a year ago.
DeleteBeaglemom
He's only endorsing those who endorsed him first and are taking on the "establishment" democrat.
DeleteHe cares nothing about the democrats struggling in Red States. They don't pass his purity test.
Sanders seems quite fine with buying the presidency as long as it's bought with money from the 99%.
DeleteI've heard him address overturning Citizens United but haven't heard him propose reforms that would limit the ridiculous cost of campaigns in general or level the amount spent so it's not left to each candidate trying to outspend the other.
I'm voting for Bernie Sanders and hope you do too. I want free college, free milk,free bread, free meat, free gas, free ....
ReplyDeleteYes, and when is Bernie going to complain about the high wages for government workers, oh right, he is a government worker with great benefits.
DeleteIf he wants to disagree with Hillary on policy fine, but lying about it is disgusting.
Have to go OT here. Palin has posted that Salon agrees that Bill Nye is no scientist, and in Sarah's mind this makes what she said last week about her own scientistness true. She's posted a link to an article over two years old about Marsha Blackburn--who majored in home ec in college--being on Meet the Press with Bill Nye. There are many Salon articles that support Nye. This one that she refers to makes fun of MTP because both people are not the ultimate experts to talk about climate change. The author says it should be possible to find two climate scientists to debate. Palin completely misses what the article is really saying and that it mocks home ec major Blackburn. Palin is so hung up on this "scientist" thing and is still rummaging around for things to post in support of herself as being as much of an expert as Nye. Of course she has an ally in Breitbart and has posted that article too. But we all know that there's been a slew of articles cracking up about Palin's asinine quote of last week. She's a joke once again, but once again she just has to fight a losing public battle and make herself look even more stupid.
ReplyDeleteShe must have b0mbed out in Vegas with her judgy pretend show.
DeleteShe is downright hilarious right now!
When the down ticket Democrats are the corporate favorable Democrats the DNC likes I have no problem with Sen. Sanders not contributing to their cause.
ReplyDeleteDoes Sanders imagine he'll be dictator?
DeleteBut yet Bernie apparently had no problem accepting money and other things from the DNC that those same people had raised or raised money to pay for.
DeleteAnd if Sanders wins in November he wil face a GOP congress and get NOTHING done. His minions will stay home in 2018 and 2020 (like the firebaggers pulled on Obama) and we will give the GOP EVERYTHING for decades.
DeleteAnd if Clinton wins in November she wil face a GOP congress and get NOTHING done. Her minions will stay home in 2018 and 2020 (like the firebaggers pulled on Obama) and we will give the GOP EVERYTHING for decades.
DeleteNeither one of them will get anything done if elected, Clinton or Sanders. Donald Trump will get nothing done. The only one who will find a Congress with like-minded values is Ted Cruz and that's why he must be stopped at all costs.
DeleteI'd rather have 4 years of inaction than 4 years of going backwards.
Trump, Clinton or Sanders won't be a disaster, more like a stop gap, Cruz would be a disaster, 100%.
So prefer down ticket republicans? Isn't what we have in congress and senate now? At least down ticket Democrats got us ACA. That's a hell if a lot better than citizens United
DeleteIt's politics, plain and simple. Hillary smeared Obama in 2008, she fed the Muslim rumors, she used a ton of underhanded and dirty tricks to minimize him, in fact, she apologized once and being the man he is he would not accept.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately dirty infighting is par for the course in politics.
She really turned a lot of us off in 2008 and just as Obama did not, we haven't accepted her apology either.
This article below is but one small example of her nasty campaigning, and there are thousands more just like this. Never forget.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/can-black-people-trust-hillary_b_9312004.html
Oh, go vote for the underhanded, mean creepy GOP then. Just don;t come whining to us when they take away more of your rights, send citizen Cousin Vinny back to Mexico because he's not white enough, and insure that no one in this country has a living wage job unless you are a big shot with a Trump company, or Cruz' church. Please proceed.
DeleteWrong again, 9:29. It's Sanders who has criticized President Obama, for many years.
DeleteStop the lying about the origin of birtherism, too.
. From Politifact: "There is no record that Clinton herself or anyone within her campaign ever advanced the charge that Obama was not born in the United States. A review by our fellow fact-checkers at Factcheck.org reported that no journalist who investigated this ever found a connection to anyone in the Clinton organization.
Clinton, herself, answered this very accusation after Trump's tweet during an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon. Lemon asked Clinton if she started smear campaigns that Obama was born outside the United States.
"That is – no. That is so ludicrous, Don. You know, honestly, I just believe that, first of all, it’s totally untrue, and secondly, you know, the president and I have never had any kind of confrontation like that," Clinton said. "You know, I have been blamed for nearly everything, that was a new one to me."
Except that she did not. There is no evidence for that. Jeez, is there nothing for which she is not to blame?
DeleteBingo Gryphen. "...sounds suspiciously like something Donald Trump would do."
ReplyDeleteYep.
Low-handed, mean-spirited, passive-aggressive baloney.
Sanders is the flip side of the Trump coin. ee saying it for months.
DeleteI've just begun thinking that Bernie Sanders is a lot like the flip side of Donald Trump. I hate to think that but his behavior seems to indicate it more and more. Even the Rome stunt was the sort of thing that Trump would do. And neither of them holds any allegiance to the political party whose nomination they seek. And neither seems to have a clue how the federal government works. Not surprising with Trump but Sanders has been in Congress for 20 years. Has Bernie been asleep all that time?
DeleteBeaglemom
I think the Sanders revolution is closer to the flip side of Ted Cruz/Tea Party where there can be do deviation from the ideology.
DeleteThe Sanders campaign is not so much “scrutinizing” the Clinton campaign as attacking it with false claims. Shame!
ReplyDeleteI just wish everyone would stop yelling! Can't stand to listen to much more of any of the candidate's voices.
DeleteDefine false.
DeleteBernie needs to shut is yapper and respond to the latest FEC letter:
ReplyDeletehttp://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/994/201604060300040994/201604060300040994.pdf
I'm supporting Bernie Sanders right up until he gives his concession speech, but I have to disagree with him on this one. If we can flip a few Senate seats to the Democrats will be great, If monies raised would help rid the Senate of the Tom Cotton, McConnell and the tea party faction that will benefit the Country.
ReplyDeleteDo you really think he'll ever concede? I don't. He's going to be like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail, pathetically losing while he's still attacking.
Delete"'Tis but a scratch" the Black Knight says, when King Arthur cuts his arm off: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw
DeleteOh, too funny! The black knight is one of my favorites !
DeleteIt may be that Senator Sanders reads alternative news media articles.
ReplyDeleteWatch: Young Turks Reveals How the DNC and 33 States Used Loopholes to Funnel Millions Into the 'Hillary Victory Fund' | Alternet
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/how-scotus-decision-best-described-citizens-united-steroids-used-state-loopholes
How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/
I didn't watch Rachel Maddow last night. Did she mention any of this?
She deemed it a meritless, false claim, as did Politifact.
Delete10:33
DeleteYou didn't post a link for politifact. How about this one:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/apr/17/george-clooney/george-clooney-decries-big-money-politics-says-mos/
Clooney said, "The overwhelming amount of the money that we're raising, is not going to Hillary to run for president. ... It's going to the congressmen and senators to try to take back Congress."
In cases like this, where large amounts are collected from individual donors and tickets cost over $30,000, Clinton's direct share is going to be small, as Clooney said.
But it should be noted that this isn't typical, and for most people donating to her Victory Fund, the Clinton campaign is going to get the lion's share of the money.
Because Clooney's statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate it Mostly True.
----------
Maybe there's another politifact article refuting the claim that state parties are funneling money to the Hillary Victory Fund that I can't find.
10:58 not sure of your point. Are you saying Clooney is lying and/or Bernie's latest mendacious accusations have any merit? They don't.
DeleteI want to see the politifact article that refutes the claim that the state parties are funneling money to the hillary victory fund.
DeleteThis search found nothing:
"margot kidder hillary victory fund site:politifact.com"
10:58 - here you go! Here's Rachel debunking Bernie's ridiculous claim last night -http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/19/rachel-maddow-debunks-bernie-sanders-claim-clinton-campaign-finance-violations.html
Delete10:58 -here's the link to the correct Politifact story, that says Clooney is right: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/apr/17/george-clooney/george-clooney-decries-big-money-politics-says-mos/
DeleteBernie is under FEC investigation, not Hillary! http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/
DeleteNone of the links in this group of comments refute the claims of Young Turks or Margot Kidder implying that the DNC and Clinton's campaign are laundering money through thirty-three state democratic committees.
DeleteFor example, $10,000 is given to a state committee which then turns around and gives it to the DNC and/or one of Clinton's committees.
I haven't seen politifact or anyone else dispute that claim and no, George Clooney's explanation doesn't dispute it either. He's explaining the process of raising large amounts of money, some of which goes to Clinton, the rest going to down-ticket candidates.
He doesn't mention the initial claims that state committees are giving it right back to Clinton in the young turk and kidder links and as far as I can tell neither has politifact.
IIRC, Margot Kidder has had some sad mental health issues. Is she better now? I certainly hope so. Alas, the Young Turks are wrong about things all the time. Sorry, I don't have time to research this. I only know that both Rachel Maddow and Politifact said that Bernie is wrong.
DeleteHere's another thing Bernie himself is wrong about: today, claiming that "3 million people were disenfranchised from voting in New York today. "No, Bernie. They chose NOT TO REGISTER AS PART OF A PARTY. KIND OF LIKE YOU USUALLY DO, OLE BERN BERN.
There were 126,000 people who claim that their registration affiliation was changed without their consent, and they are mostly or all Democrats. That's a loss for Hillary and Bernie.
Extra Extra Read All About It!! Gryph hates Sanders! Extra Extra!
ReplyDeleteCorrecting an untruth does not constitute hatred.
DeleteOnly children see everything in black and white.
ZING!! Gryphen-1, 9:56-zero!
DeleteYou really are a baby
DeleteYeah politics. It was a shame that Trump teased Rubio ruthlessly. There's nothing sacred. But it's good to call them out on their sneaky stuff. They think us voters are oblivious, and some are, except for those that are watching and willing to call them out. It's a good thing. What's that saying, policians are like diapers, and they need to be changed for the same reason. Or that other saying, the only thing worst than a child molester is a politician. Just a reminder that we are not really really dealing with noble people but with people who want to be in power, and serve either (really really) the people or themselves. They are a species on their own. Oh, and I don't mean to be a clown but that other saying, after politicians get into office they learn the rule of the land. They are prostitutes, and they learn the word "yes". Except the Republicans. They are the pimps.
ReplyDeleteSo much for "I will not run a negative campaign," eh, Bernie? Seems your ego is interfering with your common sense. Stop it!
ReplyDeleteThis is all about poisoning the well. Sanders knows he's not going to win NY and is looking a string of losses in some really big states (northern, liberal states).
ReplyDeleteHe wants people to distrust Hillary Clinton and the DNC even when she wins. What purpose could that possible serve?
I'm not convinced that Sanders is going to be endorsing Clinton when she wins the nomination.
dRumpf in NYC>
Deletehttp://washingtonspectator.org/avenging-angels-trump/
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/where-did-trump-come-from-tracing-the-political-lineage-of-the-orange-haired-monster/
+1 - he's a snake in the grass.
DeleteSanders is GOP operative.
DeleteI'm getting tired of Bernie. Every time he accuses Clinton of accepting big fees for speaking, I can't help think of the massive amounts that ex VP candidate got, and then the one for abstinence too. Clinton was 2 term no-quitter, and 4 years of SOS, since when have we had such a qualified candidate. Shut up Sanders, I was a fan until this last month.
ReplyDeleteHillary was running for president most of the first two years of her second senate term which she then quit to become secretary of state.
Delete11:01 -Bernie's been running since 2014, same as Sen.Cruz. Your point?
DeleteGoing from the senate to become SOS is not considered "quitting". However irresponsibly blowing off the elected position of governor of Alaska to do reality shows IS QUITTING. Quitting in capital letters.
Delete@ anon 11:01 am
DeleteSo it's only okay for Bernie to plan a run ahead of time but not Hillary? Or do you think having a small shriveled up old white guy penis is a requirement to run for the presidency?
The Clinton Campaign manager just now said that unless Bernie wins NY by 20 points its a meaningless win Bahahahahahahahaha Looks like Hillary is expecting to lose NY now bahahahahaha What happened Gyrph ? Bahahahaha
ReplyDeleteIt's a little early to be drinking.
DeleteMy understanding is that if Sanders doesn't win by some large margin (say, 20 points), the way the delegates will be divided up will not put Sanders close(r) enough to clinching the nomination. To read the statement as Hillary and her campaign are 'expecting to lose NY' is, I think a serious stretch - fivethirtyeight.com has Hillary's chance of winning at 99% and the last forecast I saw was somewhere in the neighborhood of Clinton getting 56% or 57% of the vote and Sanders 41%.
DeletePoor Raz, you must be one of the children that got left behind since you have no ability to comprehend what you try and read.
DeleteShe isn't playing by anything but the rules even though the rules are dirty, Thats like saying its ok to have sex with a minor as long she is the age of consent, Some states thats as young as 12 : (
ReplyDeleteWhat the fuck is wrong with you? Disgusting comment.
DeleteYou crazy!
DeleteBut apparently it's okay for Bernie to accept donations over $2,700 and apparently from foreigners. Gotcha, Hillay is evil for playing well within the rules and Bernie is a man so he should be allowed to break whatever rules he wants.
DeleteSo Bernie is actually the one taking more than $2,700 per donor. And just who are his foreign donors?
ReplyDeleteDirty Bernie got sum 'splaining to do.
Projection much, Bernie?
ReplyDeleteI liked your ideas, though you have yet to figure out how to realistically fund them.
I don't like what I see coming from your campaign. Are you in charge, or are the Bernibros in charge? STOP.IT.NOW!
What you fail to realize is that Bernie is and always has been just like his Bernie Bros.
DeleteThis isn't about Bernie or Hillary, but it is connected to politics.
ReplyDeleteI found it very surprising that Trump went to vote alone today. Why wasn't Melania there?
Is she even a US citizen?
DeleteThis shows Melania voting alone today, so she is registered. It seems like she just votes for Donald and doesn't bother filling out the rest of the pages. When I saw Donald vote today, it looked that way, too.
Deletehttp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/melania-trump-votes-ny-primary-38518181
I think the reason Bernie has started taking the low road is his wife Jane, who really really wants to be the foist lady.
ReplyDeleteUp until now, when people have asked who I caucused for, I've responded, "I really like Bernie, but I think that Hillary will continue with Obama's programs and get more done". Is it wrong to drop the "I really like Bernie" part at this point?
ReplyDeleteI'll still vote for him, but it'll definitely heading towards being a nose-pincher.
I'm right there with you. I dropped the "I really like Bernie a few weeks ago."
DeleteHmmm. Sanders's problem seems to be the same as that other Republican person's problem. Not being a member of the party, he doesn't exactly know and understand the rules. Also, if he doesn't want the party's support, he doesn't have to take it. But he can't then complain because Clinton has been a Democrat for decades and does fund-raising for the party.
ReplyDeleteIn 1968 I registered to vote in NY. I had considered Independent but then I was told that IF i WANTED to vote in the primaries than I had to register Dem or Rep. Being from a DEM household that's what I registered...soooo...I COULD VOTE IN THE NY PRIMARIES! SMH at the low road and complain by grumpy BERNIE & his BERNIEbots...so ugly!
ReplyDeleteSanders is doing everything he can right now to de-legitimize the NY primary so that his supporters will cry "foul" when Clinton wins.
ReplyDeleteHe just said that NY is suppressing the votes of all those independents who didn't know they had to be a Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary.
I find him more unlikable every day.
He's beginning to look like a crazy old idiot.
ReplyDeleteHe sure does. I am so tired of seeing him with his frowzy hair, his hand waving in the air, and his mouth wide open. I hope he didn't wag his finger at Pope Francis.
DeleteBeaglemom