Delay...

[FromTexas]

I never said I agreed with it. However, if the law dictates you can't use corporate money and it is upheld, then you are laundering it if you take the actions suggested. Check back on the first page and you will see my sentiment that this is all just a witch hunt. Its partisan hackery and nothing else. I bet the same can be proven on the Democratic side. However, if the law is what it is, then exchanging money you can't use (illegal) for money you can use (legal) would be considered laundering. I think you can agree on that. Not saying you have to agree it is right but just that there would be grounds for labeling it money laundering if everything was true and under the law as stated.

So.. lets focus. There are three issues in this thread to be seperated.

1) Is this a stupid democratic based witchhunt? Yes.
2) Can it be called laundering money (not whether anyone is guilty of it or not) based on the law that has not been challenged and the description of alleged events? Yes.
3) Does one being a yes make the other any more less a yes? No.

 

[Bruzilla]

Hey! A criminal robs a bank and only has marked bills. He takes it to the Cayman's and drops it all in an account. He withdraws new American dollars before he leaves the island. He comes back and spends it on the boat he always wanted which is why he robbed the bank. On both sides it was just american dollars and he just intended it to buy the boat. Did he launder the money?

Absolutely!!! Bingo, you get it! But that's not what happened in this case. He placed HIS stolen money into the bank, and exchanged it for unmarked money from the bank, which he then used to buy his boat. He did not give his money to the bank for the purpose of using that money to pay the bank's bills, and the bank gave him their money to buy his boat. That's a different situation all together.

The PACs used their soft money to pay bills, and to pay the bills of the RNC, which freed up the RNC's hard money to pay for campaign expenses in Texas. Sorry, but that's just good and legal money management, not laundering. The only way that would be laundering would be if the PACs sent soft money to the RNC, the RNC sent hard money to Texas and used hard money to pay the bills, and that's not what happened. Blame the game, not the playah!

 

[FromTexas]

Absolutely!!! Bingo, you get it! But that's not what happened in this case. He placed HIS stolen money into the bank, and exchanged it for unmarked money from the bank, which he then used to buy his boat. He did not give his money to the bank for the purpose of using that money to pay the bank's bills, and the bank gave him their money to buy his boat. That's a different situation all together.

The PACs used their soft money to pay bills, and to pay the bills of the RNC, which freed up the RNC's hard money to pay for campaign expenses in Texas. Sorry, but that's just good and legal money management, not laundering. The only way that would be laundering would be if the PACs sent soft money to the RNC, the RNC sent hard money to Texas and used hard money to pay the bills, and that's not what happened. Blame the game, not the playah!

Not if the RNC was never going to give the money to the states. Then it is turning illegal money to legal money. That is laundering no matter how you want to try and dodge around it. Freeing up money (the way you put it) is just exchaning bad money for good money. Again, just because we agree its a witch hunt and think its baseless and hard to prove at best, it does not change how it is defined under the law. You can't change the legal definition of what it is just because you want it to be so. Even the Republicans aren't arguing that it isn't laundering if the facts are true (who have much better brilliant legal minds at their hands than ours). They are just arguing that there is no proof the money is the same money and that there is no proof the RNC wasn't giving them RNC money anyway. Don't you think all those great lawyers working for the RNC would have come out and destroyed the charge if it couldn't be laundering?