Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Even Republicans agree: TRMPAC broke the law

A lot has been written about Tom DeLay and TRMPAC, so if you need backstory go Google around. There's a trial underway, and yesterday a well-connected GOP hack disclosed what most of us already knew:


A former chairman of the Federal Election Commission with deep Republican roots testified Tuesday that Texans for a Republican Majority violated state election laws by failing to report the corporate money it spent during the 2002 elections.


Five Democratic candidates who lost that year are suing Bill Ceverha, the political action committee's treasurer, accusing him of illegally using corporate money for political activity and then failing to report it.


Trevor Potter, a Washington lawyer with ties to former President Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., appeared on behalf of the Democratic candidates.


Potter testified that Ceverha should have reported the corporate money spent on the 2002 elections and disputed the contention that state election laws are unconstitutional because they are vague.

He also said the political action committee's $190,000 contribution to the Republican National Committee raised questions about whether the corporate money was laundered into noncorporate donations for Texas candidates.



Go read the whole thing.

Here's your pop quiz. Which of the following statements is the most plausible?

(Merriam Webster defines 'plausible' as 1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious; a plausible pretext 2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive; a swindler..., then a quack, then a smooth, plausible gentleman -- R. W. Emerson 3 : appearing worthy of belief; the argument was both powerful and plausible)

a) -- Tom DeLay and his cronies didn't know they were violating campaign finance law when they solicited contributions from corporations;

b) : Karl Rove was completely unaware of the gay hooker who for two years masqueraded as a journalist in the White House press room;

c) : Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; it was necessary and proper for the US to invade and disarm them (too easy; pick another. Really. This is the answer for those of my readers who get all of their news from FOX. You're smarter than this.) ; or

d) : the Attorney General of the United States is a firm, forceful advocate against the torture of 'enemy combatants' at Gauntanamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere.

Acknowledging that "all of the above" is the most correct answer, that's not one of your choices. Pick one and post it in Comments. If I get a statistically valid sample -- oh hell, even if I don't -- I'll post the results.

2 comments:

Traveller said...

Sorry, bud. I'm confused. They all sound like they came down from Ailes' office today in an iron-fist memo.

Y'know, that post wasn't up the last time checked. Just the previous one. Maybe my cache is acting up.

Whatever. An intimate and compliant friend is not considered to be a hooker, by the way. Other people hire hookers. Nor does Tom DeLay cheat: only Democrats cheat. Eye-wrack has WMD's allright, the jerks just don't know where to look for 'em in Syria and Eye-ran. You don't cross the AG of the US unless you want a yearly audit. Those are my definitions of plausible or implausible however you define 'em!

PDiddie said...

You're trying to say I'm being obtuse, arncha?

Perhaps the lack of response is indicative. Maybe I should take the hint.

On the other hand, my thousands of readers may just be deep in contemplation of the question.

I'll give 'em a few more days.

(This trying-to-be-clever is hard work...)