Lerner to GOP candidate: We'll drop charges if you promise never to run again

[Lovebears65]

Lerner to GOP candidate: We'll drop charges if you promise never to run again - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com

Tell us again why this person is NOT FIRED. To me that is a threat

 

[WillowTree]

Aren't democrats just the biggest fucking scumbags you've ever seen in your life?

 

[asterism]

Wow.

Now we know why she took the fifth.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hmmm. I hate predictions. But....I predict that Salvi is full of shit.

And....lets make sure you know that she was not with the IRS at the time. Pay attention, nutters.

 

[depotoo]

Hmmm. I hate predictions. But....I predict that Salvi is full of shit.

seeing as all charges were dropped by the judge...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is there any credible confirmation of this story?

 

[OriginalShroom]

Is there any credible confirmation of this story?

I guess we could look up the court where the judge said

"The judge said to Lerner, 'Let me get this straight - Mr. Salvi loaning himself money is legal, and you have no complaint against that, is that right?'" Salvi recalled. "Ms. Lerner agreed. Then the judge said, 'You just don't like the way his attorneys filled out the report?' Lerner agreed."

 

[Papageorgio]

Hmmm. I hate predictions. But....I predict that Salvi is full of shit.

And....lets make sure you know that she was not with the IRS at the time. Pay attention, nutters.

She worked for the FEC, she learned early to abuse power, I think you are full of shit.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hmmm. I hate predictions. But....I predict that Salvi is full of shit.

And....lets make sure you know that she was not with the IRS at the time. Pay attention, nutters.

She worked for the FEC, she learned early to abuse power, I think you are full of shit.

PG,

The source is full of shit. The source's source is a disgruntled loser. I submit that no such threats were made...and that the was no illegal activity that resulted is the election of Dick Durbin.

Thanks for your intense opinion. You fucking imbecile.

And....why do so many nutters use LIBERAL comedians for avatars? Is it some kind of weird jealous obsession?

 

[OriginalShroom]

FEC v. Al Salvi for Senate Committee

On March 8, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court order dismissing a civil enforcement action the FEC had brought against the Al Salvi for Senate Committee and its treasurer. In its original suit, filed on March 3, 1998, the Commission had asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to find that the Salvi committee had misreported and failed to report in a timely manner more than $1.1 million in contributions and loans. (See the April 1998 Record, p. 4.)

The district court dismissed the case on technical grounds: The court held that the FEC had failed to obtain local counsel to process papers and handle emergencies.1 The Commission refiled the suit. On November 30, 1998, the district court dismissed the Commission’s second suit because it was identical to the first, which the court had dismissed with prejudice.

After learning that the court’s initial dismissal had been with prejudice, the Commission filed motions to vacate that dismissal and thereby permit consideration of the second suit, and to alter or amend the court’s judgment in the second suit. Both motions were denied, and the Commission filed an appeal.

The appeals court affirmed the district court’s decisions. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 99-1508 and 99-2183.

 

[depotoo]

FEC v. Al Salvi for Senate Committee

On March 8, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court order dismissing a civil enforcement action the FEC had brought against the Al Salvi for Senate Committee and its treasurer. In its original suit, filed on March 3, 1998, the Commission had asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to find that the Salvi committee had misreported and failed to report in a timely manner more than $1.1 million in contributions and loans. (See the April 1998 Record, p. 4.)

The district court dismissed the case on technical grounds: The court held that the FEC had failed to obtain local counsel to process papers and handle emergencies.1 The Commission refiled the suit. On November 30, 1998, the district court dismissed the Commission’s second suit because it was identical to the first, which the court had dismissed with prejudice.

After learning that the court’s initial dismissal had been with prejudice, the Commission filed motions to vacate that dismissal and thereby permit consideration of the second suit, and to alter or amend the court’s judgment in the second suit. Both motions were denied, and the Commission filed an appeal.

The appeals court affirmed the district court’s decisions. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 99-1508 and 99-2183.

awesome find!

 

[LoneLaugher]

FEC v. Al Salvi for Senate Committee

On March 8, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court order dismissing a civil enforcement action the FEC had brought against the Al Salvi for Senate Committee and its treasurer. In its original suit, filed on March 3, 1998, the Commission had asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to find that the Salvi committee had misreported and failed to report in a timely manner more than $1.1 million in contributions and loans. (See the April 1998 Record, p. 4.)

The district court dismissed the case on technical grounds: The court held that the FEC had failed to obtain local counsel to process papers and handle emergencies.1 The Commission refiled the suit. On November 30, 1998, the district court dismissed the Commission’s second suit because it was identical to the first, which the court had dismissed with prejudice.

After learning that the court’s initial dismissal had been with prejudice, the Commission filed motions to vacate that dismissal and thereby permit consideration of the second suit, and to alter or amend the court’s judgment in the second suit. Both motions were denied, and the Commission filed an appeal.

The appeals court affirmed the district court’s decisions. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 99-1508 and 99-2183.

awesome find!

Awesome why? Because it in no way substantiates the claims made by Salvi in the Examiner's hit piece? Is that why?

 

[Papageorgio]

You won't get anyone to admit to anything. The left just justifies.

 

[Stephanie]

No wonder she took the fifth...man I hope they can get this out in the open..

and how about that snake Durbin not saying a WORD as she pleads the fifth...


I posted this also, think I beat you on the time LoveBear...it's from a site from Illinois..
mods can merge if you want..
here's the link to mine...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...durbin-salvi-u-s-senate-race.html#post7307856

 

[NYcarbineer]

FEC v. Al Salvi for Senate Committee

On March 8, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court order dismissing a civil enforcement action the FEC had brought against the Al Salvi for Senate Committee and its treasurer. In its original suit, filed on March 3, 1998, the Commission had asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to find that the Salvi committee had misreported and failed to report in a timely manner more than $1.1 million in contributions and loans. (See the April 1998 Record, p. 4.)

The district court dismissed the case on technical grounds: The court held that the FEC had failed to obtain local counsel to process papers and handle emergencies.1 The Commission refiled the suit. On November 30, 1998, the district court dismissed the Commission’s second suit because it was identical to the first, which the court had dismissed with prejudice.

After learning that the court’s initial dismissal had been with prejudice, the Commission filed motions to vacate that dismissal and thereby permit consideration of the second suit, and to alter or amend the court’s judgment in the second suit. Both motions were denied, and the Commission filed an appeal.

The appeals court affirmed the district court’s decisions. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 99-1508 and 99-2183.

So he got off on a technicality, kind of like Oliver North? lolol

 

[LoneLaugher]

When the facts show guilt.....we liberals prosecute. Until then, we call accusations what they are. Unfounded............all the way to straight-up BS.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is there any credible confirmation of this story?

I guess we could look up the court where the judge said

"The judge said to Lerner, 'Let me get this straight - Mr. Salvi loaning himself money is legal, and you have no complaint against that, is that right?'" Salvi recalled. "Ms. Lerner agreed. Then the judge said, 'You just don't like the way his attorneys filled out the report?' Lerner agreed."

1. That's Salvi's account of what was said.

2. How about confirmation that she offered to drop the case if he never ran for office again.

Salvi is:

1. A rightwing nut

2. A former rightwing nut talk radio host

3. An ambulance chaser

Are there some reasons you can cite that would compel a reasonable person to accept as fact his unsubstantiated accusations against someone from among those he bears open hatred for??

 

[g5000]

Aren't democrats just the biggest fucking scumbags you've ever seen in your life?

Nope. You seriously can't think of worse scumbags? Really?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is it fair if I summarily dismiss as crap anything from the Examiner, based on the source alone, and for no other reason,

in exactly the same manner links to mediamatters or the huffingtonpost are dismissed by you clowns?

Is that FAIR?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Aren't democrats just the biggest fucking scumbags you've ever seen in your life?

Nope. You seriously can't think of worse scumbags? Really?

Well, in Willow's defense, when you see the world through coke bottle glasses covered in bacon grease and cat hair,

everybody looks kind of scummy.