Rosie O’Donnell’s Campaign Donations To Dems Went Over Legal Limit

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Trump used to troll O'Donnell with great put-downs

 

[bripat9643]

Hang on a second, you were all for IRS lerner taking the fifth.

sure was... Congress knew that their Teabaggers were breaking the law, and they were trying to hang it all on her.

/-----/ " they should declare Trump mentally incompetent under the 25th Amendment and remove him. " Yup, disagreeing with the Progressive Agenda, like Climate Deniers - is a sure sign of incompetency.

NO, screaming like a deranged maniac on Fox and Friends to the point where the hosts have to shuffle you off the air is a sign of incompetency.

Doing deranged tweets at 3 PM is a sign of incompetency.

Lerner was breaking the law, you Stalinist dumbass.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/-----/ Yes, but I didn't equate the two and secondly, Trump didn't do anything illegal. Rosie did break the law.

Trump lied about what the money was for and why it was paid.

But you are right, he hasn't commited a crime, yet. That comes when he has to testify and can't keep his story straight.

So there is no crime until he testifies? Don’t you see something wrong with that?

Those that hate Trump as president should try to vote him out next election, not try to trap him in a process crime when there is not a legit root crime to be investigating in the first place.

/----/ democRATs need to import more illegal voters from Mexico and get the vote out in cemeteries throughout the Purple states.

 

[evenflow1969]

I am willing to bet this is rather common among some in the .01%.

I doubt Rosie quite makes the top 1%^. She made some money but I doubt it is that much. She did not get my entertainment dollar. I have never had a freind say hey lets watch that becuase Rosie is in it! I was likely to say lets not watch because she is in it! Was not a fan.

 

[bripat9643]

I am willing to bet this is rather common among some in the .01%.

I doubt Rosie quite makes the top 1%^. She made some money but I doubt it is that much. She did not get my entertainment dollar. I have never had a freind say hey lets watch that becuase Rosie is in it! I was likely to say lets not watch because she is in it! Was not a fan.

Rosie was on the view for quite a long time.

 

[evenflow1969]

I am willing to bet this is rather common among some in the .01%.

I doubt Rosie quite makes the top 1%^. She made some money but I doubt it is that much. She did not get my entertainment dollar. I have never had a freind say hey lets watch that becuase Rosie is in it! I was likely to say lets not watch because she is in it! Was not a fan.

Rosie was on the view for quite a long time.

Still doubt she made enough to be a one percenter.

 

[evenflow1969]

I still doubt she was is a one percenter. IDK maybe she invested realy well. She does not seem like the type for that though!

 

[JoeB131]

Lerner was breaking the law, you Stalinist dumbass.

Um,no, she was applying it. 501C3 has a very specific meaning, and the Teabaggers were abusing it.

 

[bripat9643]

Lerner was breaking the law, you Stalinist dumbass.

Um,no, she was applying it. 501C3 has a very specific meaning, and the Teabaggers were abusing it.

Wrong, you brain damaged douchebag. She was persecuting groups for their political orientation. That is strictly against the law.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong, you brain damaged douchebag. She was persecuting groups for their political orientation. That is strictly against the law.

Making them fill out the paperwork correctly is persecuting them.

Tell you what, try cheating on your 1040, and then claim the IRS is "persecuting" you. That should be good for a laugh.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, you brain damaged douchebag. She was persecuting groups for their political orientation. That is strictly against the law.

Making them fill out the paperwork correctly is persecuting them.

Tell you what, try cheating on your 1040, and then claim the IRS is "persecuting" you. That should be good for a laugh.

That isn't what she did, douchebag, and this has nothing to do with tax evasion.

You're just a sleazy lying piece of crap, Joe.

 

[JoeB131]

That isn't what she did, douchebag, and this has nothing to do with tax evasion.

You're just a sleazy lying piece of crap, Joe.

Um, no, that's exactly what she did.

These Teabagging Groups applied for 501C4 status as "Social Welfare Groups" when they should have applied for 501C3 status as a political action group.

these groups were trying to hid big bags of money they were getting from the Koch Brothers and other rich sugar daddies... and that actually is against the law.

So Lerner was actually applying the law correctly when something called "9/12 Patriots for Freedom" was trying to pass itself off as a Social Welfare Agency when its intent was to do political campaigning.

 

[bripat9643]

That isn't what she did, douchebag, and this has nothing to do with tax evasion.

You're just a sleazy lying piece of crap, Joe.

Um, no, that's exactly what she did.

These Teabagging Groups applied for 501C4 status as "Social Welfare Groups" when they should have applied for 501C3 status as a political action group.

these groups were trying to hid big bags of money they were getting from the Koch Brothers and other rich sugar daddies... and that actually is against the law.

So Lerner was actually applying the law correctly when something called "9/12 Patriots for Freedom" was trying to pass itself off as a Social Welfare Agency when its intent was to do political campaigning.

Wrong, you lying dumbass:

501(c) organization - Wikipedia

A 501(c)(4) organization is a social welfare organization, such as a civic organization or a neighborhood association. An organization is considered by the IRS to be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.[49][50] Net earnings must be exclusively used for charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[51]

According to The Washington Post:[52]

These groups are allowed to participate in politics, so long as politics do not become their primary focus. What that means in practice is that they must spend less than 50 percent of their money on politics. So long as they don't run afoul of that threshold, the groups can influence elections, which they typically do through advertising.
​

They are not required to disclose who their donors are.

Everything you post is bullshit, Joe

 

[Lovebears65]

I am willing to bet this is rather common among some in the .01%.

Dinesh D'Souza went to jail for this same thing.So she needs to go to jail too

 

[JoeB131]

They are not required to disclose who their donors are.

Everything you post is bullshit, Joe

Dude, you just repeated what I just said, and still didn't understand it.

Political groups have to report their donors. Social Welfare agencies don't.

The Teabaggers are not Social Welfare Agencies.

This isn't complicated.

 

[JoeB131]

I am willing to bet this is rather common among some in the .01%.

Dinesh D'Souza went to jail for this same thing.So she needs to go to jail too

No, Dinesh D'Souza went to jail for trying to commit fraud by using straw donors. That was intentional fraud.

 

[bripat9643]

They are not required to disclose who their donors are.

Everything you post is bullshit, Joe

Dude, you just repeated what I just said, and still didn't understand it.

Political groups have to report their donors. Social Welfare agencies don't.

The Teabaggers are not Social Welfare Agencies.

This isn't complicated.

Is MediaMatters.org a political group or a social welfare group?

Furthermore, I quoted the material that says 501(c)(4) groups can participate in politics.

Bottom line: You're a lying douchebag.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Does this mean she should go to prison for 1000 years like the snowflakes want to do to Cohen?

https://nypost.com/2018/05/05/rosie-odonnells-campaign-donations-to-dems-went-over-legal-limit/

Rosie O’Donnell made illegally over-sized campaign donations to at least five Democratic federal candidates, according to a Post analysis of campaign filings.

The liberal comedian has regularly broken Federal Election Commission rules limiting the total any one person can give to an individual candidate at $2,700 per election. The limit applies separately to primaries, runoffs and general elections.

“Nothing nefarious,” the outspoken star and Donald Trump arch-nemesis wrote in an email to the Post. “I was not choosing to over donate.

“If 2700 is the cut off — [candidates] should refund the money,” she wrote. “I don’t look to see who I can donate most to … I just donate assuming they do not accept what is over the limit.”

O’Donnell said she donates often, and uses the online liberal fundraising platform ActBlue. “My anxiety is quelled by donating to those opposing trump [and] his agenda — especially at night — when most of these were placed.”

Alabama Sen. Doug Jones disclosed $4,700 from O’Donnell in his special general election bid last year against former GOP judge and accused child molester Roy Moore, his campaign filings show. Jones’ office didn’t return messages seeking comment.

Pennsylvania Rep. Conor Lamb reported $3,600 from O’Donnell for the special general election he won in a March upset, his filings show. He’s now running for a full two-year term in a different congressional district in November, and O’Donnell put up another $1,000 for that bid.

Lamb’s campaign manager said they will notify O’Donnell of her error and inform her that the extra $900 can be refunded or put toward the primary.

No one has tried harder to buy elections more than rosie...she even publicly offered bribes to senators [maybe congressmen] for their votes

 

[Lovebears65]

I am willing to bet this is rather common among some in the .01%.

Dinesh D'Souza went to jail for this same thing.So she needs to go to jail too

No, Dinesh D'Souza went to jail for trying to commit fraud by using straw donors. That was intentional fraud.

So using alias and different address is not intent ?? Wow !!

 

[JoeB131]

Is MediaMatters.org a political group or a social welfare group?

It doesn't advocate for specific candidate. It just points out where the media, including the NYT and NBC, are biased in their coverage.

remember the whole complaint was that Lerner held up their exemptions until after the 2012 election. why would they care if they were only doing social welfare?