AG Ashcroft violated election laws in 2000

[Donutboy 0]

The Federal Election Commission has determined that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's unsuccessful 2000 Senate reelection campaign violated election laws by accepting $110,000 in illegal contributions from a committee Ashcroft had established to explore running for president.

In documents released yesterday by the FEC, Garrett M. Lott, treasurer for the two Ashcroft committees, the Spirit of America PAC and Ashcroft 2000, agreed to pay a $37,000 fine for at least four violations of federal campaign law. Lott agreed "not to contest" the charges.

FEC Fines Ashcroft's Senate Bid For Breach

[CCTAU 3,350]

Why didn't Ashcroft get fined?

MORE CRAP.

[Donutboy 0]

Why didn't Ashcroft get fined?

MORE CRAP.

This "crap" came directly from the non-partisan Federal Elections Commission.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Why didn't Ashcroft get fined?

MORE CRAP.

This "crap" came directly from the non-partisan Federal Elections Commission.

And I repeat.

Why didn't Ashcroft get fined?

MORE CRAP.

[Donutboy 0]

Why didn't Ashcroft get fined?

MORE CRAP.

This "crap" came directly from the non-partisan Federal Elections Commission.

And I repeat.

Why didn't Ashcroft get fined?

MORE CRAP.

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps because by fining his PACs, they WERE fining him? Could that be it? Of course, Republicans can freely break the law without reproach since they now own the government. Here'a little exerpt from the post, since you obviously didn't read the entire article or you'd have known that the two PACS fined were Ashcroft's own PACs.

On a 3 to 3 split vote, the FEC rejected the recommendation of its general counsel, Lawrence H. Norton, to find that the violations involved illegal contributions of $254,000. The three Democrats backed the counsel and the three Republicans opposed him.

The issue of the Ashcroft campaign's use of the Spirit for America's donor list was first raised by The Washington Post in February 2001, and the next month the National Voting Rights Institute, Common Cause, the Alliance for Democracy and two Missouri voters filed a complaint with the FEC. In March 2002, the National Voting Rights Institute representing the two voters and the Alliance for Democracy filed suit charging that the FEC had failed to investigate the apparent illegal contribution.

Ashcroft's Senate campaign committee initially tried to get the lawsuit dropped. In October 2002, the plaintiffs asked Ashcroft to release records of the FEC investigation. The attorney general refused and another suit was filed, this one seeking a court order to have the records released or have the FEC make a finding.

The National Voting Rights Institute yesterday charged that the $37,000 fine was inadequate, amounting to a "tax" on illegal activities.

"The Federal Election Commission's action in this case is a farce," said Bonnie Tenneriello, an attorney with the institute. "John Ashcroft's political committees, and possibly John Ashcroft himself, engaged in serious violations of federal campaign finance law during the 2000 election. The FEC's fine is merely a slap on the wrist."

As I said, nothing is either illegal or immoral if it's a republican doing it. BTW, anyone hear anything of the CIA leak investigation? Didn't think so!!

[Tiger Al 0]

Donutboy, while I applaud your effort in pointing out the hypocrisy the Republicans display time and again, matters such as this are of no concern to 99% of the posters on this board, as evidenced CCT's wanting to know why Ashcroft wasn't fined when the snippet of the article you posted clearly says there was a $37,000 fine. The only interest these people have in learning of political wrongdoing is when it involves Democrats. Especially if there is sex involved.

[Donutboy 0]

Donutboy, while I applaud your effort in pointing out the hypocrisy the Republicans display time and again, matters such as this are of no concern to 99% of the posters on this board, as evidenced CCT's wanting to know why Ashcroft wasn't fined when the snippet of the article you posted clearly says there was a $37,000 fine. The only interest these people have in learning of political wrongdoing is when it involves Democrats. Especially if there is sex involved.

What's funny is the "old news" reaction to the links showing all the things they've been denying for the past few weeks; the fact that Reagan-Bush provided them with the makings of the biological weapons and that they also knew Saddam was using them against his own people as early as 1983!! Even though they've constantly denied it. When you show them the proof, it's simply "OLD NEWS. We looked the other way until the Saudis got uncomfortable with Saddam Hussein. Then he was a monster. What hypocrisy is oozing from this admnistration and his ditto-headed followers.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Donutboy, while I applaud your effort in pointing out the hypocrisy the Republicans display time and again, matters such as this are of no concern to 99% of the posters on this board, as evidenced CCT's wanting to know why Ashcroft wasn't fined when the snippet of the article you posted clearly says there was a $37,000 fine. The only interest these people have in learning of political wrongdoing is when it involves Democrats. Especially if there is sex involved.

Demoncratic a**holes like you two are the ones that set the bar. You know, if she has her lips around your sclong, technically it ain't sex. So I am just following your moral lead by saying that technically, Ashcroft didn't get fined. Oh how these things always escape you mindless followers of socialistic lies.

[DKW 86 7,447]

Wait a minute guys. We all know there were never any WMDs in Iraq, afterall if there were, then going into Iraq would have been justified and we know that it wasnt, you told us so.

So tell us now, yes or no. Were there WMDs in Iraq as these posts prove there were, or are they all lies?

We sold them WMDs and we were looking for them or there never were WMDs and Bush is exactly as you two claim, just in it for the oil.

Which is it? Did Iraq have WMDs or are these articles all lies?

TIA.

[DKW 86 7,447]

Next question. Why would we have supplied any weapons to Iraq? The entire Iran-Contra investigation that the Dems are so proud of aid we were supplying arms to Iran. But you just said we were selling arms to Iraq.

Iran-Contra plainly proved that we were siding with Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. Are you now saying exactly the opposite of $41M dollars of investigations that yeilded exactly 2 convictions?

Seems to me you two are the ones back tracking on Dem Party dogma here. Hope the Dem thought police dont read this board. They would take your honorary left wing practicing philosopher cards away.

[Tigermike 3,057]

Hope the Dem thought police dont read this board. They would take your honorary left wing practicing philosopher cards away.

Too funny, I wonder if Howard Elmer Fudd Dean has one of those cards?

[CarolinaTiger 0]

they haven't bashed ashcroft in a long time...

must be making the retread rounds again.

we'll be hearing soon about the high-level bush administration leak that outed the CIA lady pretty soon....

[MDM4AU 336]

Wait a minute guys. We all know there were never any WMDs in Iraq, afterall if there were, then going into Iraq would have been justified and we know that it wasnt, you told us so. 

So tell us now, yes or no. Were there WMDs in Iraq as these posts prove there were, or are they all lies?

We sold them WMDs and we were looking for them or there never were WMDs and Bush is exactly as you two claim, just in it for the oil.

Which is it? Did Iraq have WMDs or are these articles all lies?

TIA.

Donutboy, 12/19/03

What's funny is the "old news" reaction to the links showing all the things they've been denying for the past few weeks; the fact that Reagan-Bush provided them with the makings of the biological weapons and that they also knew Saddam was using them against his own people as early as 1983!! Even though they've constantly denied it...

Donutboy, 12/10/03

Actually, there is proof of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein's existence. They've been seen and heard. No one's seen or heard of these mysterious WMDs. Just because they existed in George W.'s mind doesn't make them real.

Donutboy, 12/10/03

There you go again Al. Using logic and truth to discredit their stories. Of course, the irony is that we're supposed to believe that Iraq had these weapons because some enemy of Saddam's says, "but they really did", when we've been in occupation of their country since Springtime and haven't found even one shred of evidence that he did. It's amazing all of the evidence we could provide for the UN and the American citizens to sell this war when we had no access to their country but now that we control their country, we can't find anything!! We must have had the spy satellites turned off when Saddam was hiding all of his WMDs.

Donutboy 12/1/03

They've interviewed the scientists they claimed would talk freely once Saddam Hussein was overthrown. They've searched the nation over and have found no evidence that Hussein had any WMDs or biological weapons.

Donutboy, 11/29/03

Yes, Iraq HAD WMDs. I've never denied it and I don't think you'll find any other liberal who denies that fact.

Donutboy, 11/6/03

Of course, since we've now learned that there were no WMD, the Republicans have been in spin control overtime trying to re-write the reasons we went to war.

Donutboy, 11/4/03

There were NO WMDs in Iraq!!

Tiger Al, 11/21/03

I'm implying that Iraq had no WMD's to give to terrorists or anyone else.

:unsure:

[DKW 86 7,447]

Thank you MDM, I thought your bro was the Archivist tho?

[War Eagle 96 10]

Didn't Ashcroft lose to a dead guy?

[CarolinaTiger 0]

but you forget, david...saddam said he destroyed them, and therefoer they're not there anymore.

i trust him, don't you?

i think it's incredibly mean and insensitive of the US to not trust saddam and actually demand proof that he destroyed those WMDs (that actually never existed in the first place) that we either did or did not sell him.

i think the entire US government should attend 'how to trust ruthless dictators' school....

[Tiger Al 0]

Wait a minute guys. We all know there were never any WMDs in Iraq, afterall if there were, then going into Iraq would have been justified and we know that it wasnt, you told us so. 

So tell us now, yes or no. Were there WMDs in Iraq as these posts prove there were, or are they all lies?

We sold them WMDs and we were looking for them or there never were WMDs and Bush is exactly as you two claim, just in it for the oil.

Which is it? Did Iraq have WMDs or are these articles all lies?

TIA.

Whoever said that Iraq NEVER possessed WMD's??? No one on this board has and you know that! We destroyed tons of storage facilities in Operation Desert Storm and UN weapons inspectors destroyed tons of chemical and biological agents after that.

[DKW 86 7,447]

Didn't Ashcroft lose to a dead guy?

I forgot about that!!!

Funniest story of 2000 really. Lost to a dead guy. Must be a new record.

BTW, I will also take the time to bash Ashcroft a bit here. Ashcroft gives his daily news releases in front of two statues (of nude men) that have beenn in the Justice Building I think since 1920 or so.

After getting into office, I think he spent $200k to cover them with a curtain and the mechanism for the curtain to be movable.

$200k to cover two staues that no one in their right mind gave two rips about anyway. Ashcroft might be a great guy, but he does pull an occasional bonehead call every now and then. Total waste of money just so two old grandmas in Florida didnt get a little upset.

[DKW 86 7,447]

Wait a minute guys. We all know there were never any WMDs in Iraq, afterall if there were, then going into Iraq would have been justified and we know that it wasnt, you told us so. 

So tell us now, yes or no. Were there WMDs in Iraq as these posts prove there were, or are they all lies?

We sold them WMDs and we were looking for them or there never were WMDs and Bush is exactly as you two claim, just in it for the oil.

Which is it? Did Iraq have WMDs or are these articles all lies?

TIA.

Whoever said that Iraq NEVER possessed WMD's??? No one on this board has and you know that! We destroyed tons of storage facilities in Operation Desert Storm and UN weapons inspectors destroyed tons of chemical and biological agents after that.

So your point would be that we should just take the word of a ruthless dictator that they have no more?

Why did Clinton chase after WMDs for 8 years? Why was the UN looking for 12 then?

Al, something is not adding up here. Are you really saying you think he used up every bit he had, and didnt save a drop?

[Tiger Al 0]

So your point would be that we should just take the word of a ruthless dictator that they have no more?

Why did Clinton chase after WMDs for 8 years? Why was the UN looking for 12 then?

Al, something is not adding up here. Are you really saying you think he used up every bit he had, and didnt save a drop?

Where in my post did I say we took the word of a ruthless dictator? We took the word of the UN weapons inspectors who were destroying WMD's.

Clinton didn't chase after WMD's. UN wasn't chasing WMD's for twelve years. The majority of that time was spent monitoring Iraq.

I think that between what was used against Iran, the Kurds, destroyed in Desert Storm and by UNMOVIC, anything that remained was negligible at best. This was the feeling of the UN inspectors as well. They also believe that if any of the chem/bio agents did still exist, most would no longer be viable anyway. They have a "shelf life."

Read this interview with Hans Blix.

[Tiger Al 0]

Next question. Why would we have supplied any weapons to Iraq? The entire Iran-Contra investigation that the Dems are so proud of aid we were supplying arms to Iran. But you just said we were selling arms to Iraq. 

Iran-Contra plainly proved that we were siding with Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. Are you now saying exactly the opposite of $41M dollars of investigations that yeilded exactly 2 convictions? 

Seems to me you two are the ones back tracking on Dem Party dogma here. Hope the Dem thought police dont read this board. They would take your honorary left wing practicing philosopher cards away.

Iran-Contra was about weapons, TOW's I believe, that we sold to Iran in exchange for their pressure on Lebanon to release US hostages. The US had a neutral position on the Iran-Iraq War until Iran began to win and started sinking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. Iraq accidentally attacked the USS Stark but we blamed Iran.

Read this history lesson.

Iran-Contra yielded more than two convictions:

Caspar W. Weinberg, former Secretary of Defense. Charged with perjury and making false statements stemming from a secret missile shipment to Iran in 1985. Trial was scheduled for Jan. 1993.

Duane R. Clarridge, former senior C.I.A. official. Charged with seven counts of perjury and making false statements stemming from secret missile shipment to Iran. Trial was scheduled for March 1993.

Clair E. George, former head of C.I.A. covert operations. Found guilty this month on two felony counts of lying to Congress. Was awaiting sentence.

Elliott Abrams, former Assistant Secretary of State. Pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information from Congress. Sentenced to two years' probation and 100 hours of community service.

Alan G. Fiers Jr., former head of C.I.A. Central American Task Force. Pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information from Congress. Sentenced to one year probation and 100 hours of community service.

Robert C. McFarlane, former national security adviser. Pleaded guilty in 1988 to withholding information from Congress. Sentenced to two years' probation and 200 hours of community service and fined $20,000.

All were pardoned by pappy Bush. :roll:

Found guilty and not pardoned:

Carl R. (Spitz) Channell and Richard R. Miller : Both businessmen who helped Oliver L. North raise money from private donors for the contras. Both pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to defraud the Government by soliciting tax-deductible donations for non-deductible purposes, and both were sentenced to probation.

Albert A. Hakim : An Iranian-born businessman who created a company to funnel arms and money to the contras. He pleaded guilty on Nov. 21, 1989, to a misdemeanor charge of providing an illegal gratuity to Mr. North by paying for a security fence at Mr. North's home. He was sentenced on Jan. 24, 1990, to two years' probation.

Richard V. Secord : A retired Air Force major general who played a crucial role in the secret arms shipments to Iran and support for the Nicaraguan rebels. He pleaded guilty on Nov. 8, 1989, to lying to Congressional investigators. He was sentenced on Jan. 24, 1990, to two years' probation.

Thomas G. Clines : The former C.I.A. agent was a business partner of Mr. Secord and Mr. Hakim in supplying arms to Iran. He was convicted Sept. 18, 1990, on four felony counts involving the underreporting of his earnings to the Internal Revenue Service in 1986 and 1987 and falsely telling the Government that he had no foreign bank accounts. On Dec. 13, 1990, he was sentenced to 16 months in prison and fined $40,000. A Federal appeals panel upheld the convictions on Feb. 27, 1992. He began serving his jail sentence on May 25, the only defendant in the scandal to go to prison.

CASES DIMISSED

John M. Poindexter : President Reagan's national security adviser from December 1985 to November 1986 was convicted on April 7, 1990, on five counts involving charges that he obstructed, conspired to obstruct and made false statements to Congress. He was sentenced June 11, 1990 to six months in prison. A Federal appeals panel threw out the convictions on Nov. 15, 1991, on the ground that Mr. Poindexter's testimony to Congress under immunity was improperly used against him.

Joseph F. Fernandez : The case against the former C.I.A. station chief in Costa Rica was dismissed after the Government refused a defense request for classified documents.

Oliver L. North : The former Marine lieutenant colonel was a staff member of the National Security Council. Was convicted on May 4, 1989, on three felony counts for his role in the Iran-contra affair: aiding and abetting obstruction of Congress, destroying security council documents and accepting an illegal gift. He was acquitted on nine counts. He was sentenced July 5, 1989, to two years' probation and 1,200 hours of community service and fined $150,000. On Sept. 16, 1991, the convictions were thrown out on appeal because testimony in the trial might have been influenced by Mr. North's testimony before Congress under immunity.

But, I digress. The topic of this thread wasn't about about spent WMD's or Iran-Contra, it was about how John Ashcroft adopted an illegal win at all costs campaign and STILL managed to lose to a dead guy!!!

BTW, David, the offending statue is of the Spirit of Justice. She's showing her...well you look for yourself because I'm just too ashamed to say that word.

What a loser prude Ashcroft is!!!

[DKW 86 7,447]

Iran-Contra was about weapons, TOW's I believe, that we sold to Iran in exchange for their pressure on Lebanon to release US hostages. The US had a neutral position on the Iran-Iraq War until Iran began to win and started sinking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. Iraq accidentally attacked the USS Stark but we blamed Iran.

Iran-Contra was about selling arms to IRAN to make cash to overthrow Ortega and his Marxists in Nicaraugua. It never had a thing to do with Iraq. Stark was hit with Iraqi Exocet. Can you say dumb captain? Should never have secured the Vulcan Phalanx System.

Iran-Contra yielded more than two convictions:

Caspar W. Weinberg, former Secretary of Defense. Charged with perjury and making false statements stemming from a secret missile shipment to Iran in 1985. Trial was scheduled for Jan. 1993.

Duane R. Clarridge, former senior C.I.A. official. Charged with seven counts of perjury and making false statements stemming from secret missile shipment to Iran. Trial was scheduled for March 1993.

Clair E. George, former head of C.I.A. covert operations. Found guilty this month on two felony counts of lying to Congress. Was awaiting sentence.

Elliott Abrams, former Assistant Secretary of State. Pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information from Congress. Sentenced to two years' probation and 100 hours of community service.

Alan G. Fiers Jr., former head of C.I.A. Central American Task Force. Pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information from Congress. Sentenced to one year probation and 100 hours of community service.

Robert C. McFarlane, former national security adviser. Pleaded guilty in 1988 to withholding information from Congress. Sentenced to two years' probation and 200 hours of community service and fined $20,000.

All were pardoned by pappy Bush.

Others Found guilty and not pardoned: Some were thrown out on appeal.

Albert A. Hakim : An Iranian-born businessman who created a company to funnel arms and money to the contras. He pleaded guilty on Nov. 21, 1989, to a misdemeanor charge of providing an illegal gratuity to Mr. North by paying for a security fence at Mr. North's home. He was sentenced on Jan. 24, 1990, to two years' probation.

Security System installed was for safety from Osama bin Laden, North said so in Congressional Testimnoy that obviously no Democrat in the world listened to.

Other CASES DIMISSED

But, I digress. The topic of this thread wasn't about about spent WMD's or Iran-Contra, it was about how John Ashcroft adopted an illegal win at all costs campaign and STILL managed to lose to a dead guy!!!

You mean like Bill Clinton and the White House Teas and turning the White House into the world's foremost Bed and Breakfast? In all due fairness to Ashcroft, the Dem candidate (Miller?) was a very popular state legislator whose wife finished the campaign and gathered a very large sympathy vote.

BTW, David, the offending statue is of the Spirit of Justice. She's showing her...well you look for yourself because I'm just too ashamed to say that word.

Actually, He doesnt even get near the two males anymore. You would never see him pictured with them. He conducted an interview on C-Span with construction paper covering both of their parts. They are located in a hallway which was a strange place to be conducting press releases anyway. They have since moved the press releases to a alcove/area where there is a nude woman that he doesnt seem to object to. It was really a homophobic kind of thing really in my opinion. Ashcroft has a really bad history of being beholden to some extremist elements in the conservative right wing religious (notice I didnt say Christian) movement. The infamous Bob Jones University comments, etc. are just a part of it. I have met BJU alums that really consider their salvation above everyone else's because they went to BJU or met BJ. What losers! Certainly not biblical.

What a loser prude Ashcroft is!!!

Agreed

[Donutboy 0]

Donutboy, while I applaud your effort in pointing out the hypocrisy the Republicans display time and again, matters such as this are of no concern to 99% of the posters on this board, as evidenced CCT's wanting to know why Ashcroft wasn't fined when the snippet of the article you posted clearly says there was a $37,000 fine. The only interest these people have in learning of political wrongdoing is when it involves Democrats. Especially if there is sex involved.

Demoncratic a**holes like you two are the ones that set the bar. You know, if she has her lips around your sclong, technically it ain't sex. So I am just following your moral lead by saying that technically, Ashcroft didn't get fined. Oh how these things always escape you mindless followers of socialistic lies.

Oh we never denied there was a sex act performed. We just don't see an impeachable offense there. I mean, it's not like desertion or revealing an American CIA agent's identity, is it?

[Donutboy 0]

Wait a minute guys. We all know there were never any WMDs in Iraq, afterall if there were, then going into Iraq would have been justified and we know that it wasnt, you told us so.

So tell us now, yes or no. Were there WMDs in Iraq as these posts prove there were, or are they all lies?

We sold them WMDs and we were looking for them or there never were WMDs and Bush is exactly as you two claim, just in it for the oil.

Which is it? Did Iraq have WMDs or are these articles all lies?

TIA.

There WERE WMDs in the eighties and prior to the first Gulf War. That much is a fact. One of the UN resolutions after that war was that saddam Hussein had to destroy any and all WMDs. The UN made numerous inspections and found none. Saddam Hussein himself offered us an opportunity days before the war to come in and do our own inspections. We refused that offer because we had to have them hanging as a backdrop to sell this war to the American people.

There was no evidence or even suspicions outside of Washington that Iraq still had any WMDs. We were told that once the war was over, we'd see all of the proof that there were such. We were shown spy satellites purporting to be images showing the WMDs being moved around on trailers. Colin Powell went to the UN trying to use these satellite photos as proof of the existence of WMDs. As we now know today, what with the searches winding down completely, there were NO WMDs in Iraq prior to our invasion.

Using the theory that there are WMDs today because there were WMDs in the eighties is a very juvenile argument that you seem to think justifies all of the Americans killed over there. Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. Seen one lately? Perhaps Colin Powell has a satellite photo of one that will convince you they still exist!!

[Donutboy 0]

Next question. Why would we have supplied any weapons to Iraq? The entire Iran-Contra investigation that the Dems are so proud of aid we were supplying arms to Iran. But you just said we were selling arms to Iraq. 

Iran-Contra plainly proved that we were siding with Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. Are you now saying exactly the opposite of $41M dollars of investigations that yeilded exactly 2 convictions? 

Seems to me you two are the ones back tracking on Dem Party dogma here. Hope the Dem thought police dont read this board. They would take your honorary left wing practicing philosopher cards away.

The Bush family has never had a problem with dealing with anyone (Nazis, ruthless dictators, whomever) when trying to further a cause. It wasn't that we wanted to supply Iran with weapons. We wanted a source of money to aid our illegal war in Nicaragua. What better way to do that than to sell something we have in great supply to someone seeking them, Iran? We were funnelling money and weapons through Iranian connections to support the Contra Rebels in Nicaragua. Congress wouldn't support the uprising in Nicaragua, so the Reagan-Bush team decided to do on their own using their business partners in the Middle east. We had the Iranians and Iraqis busy battling each other, so Reagan-Bush decided to start a little war in our own backyard, supposedly out of sight of the American Congress and the American people.