I wonder what the odds are that she raised more than $12,000 through her illegal promotion of the Super PAC… 🤔
It should be 100% raised plus the fine.
The fine means she’s been found guilty, Forbes.
Your use of the word “alleged” is unnecessary, misleading and makes it sound like you’re taking the word of notoriously unhinged liar Perjury Greene over that of the FEC.
OP directly quoted article title. The article from Forbes uses allegedly to protect itself from a defamation lawsuit.
Yes yes, I know. What I’m saying is that there’s no way they’re going to be sued based on going by the determination of the FEC that anyone is guilty, least of all a politician who’s known to be a serial liar.
On the other hand, using “alleged” when she HAS been declared guilty by the government agency implies that they may have gotten it wrong and/or that their ruling isn’t legally binding. Either would add fuel to her and the rest of the GOP’s martyrdom narrative.
If anything, the FTC should begin to fine every instance of a media outlet using “alleged” when someone has legally been found guilty.
I mean yes I hear you. And agree they shouldn’t be sued. Doesn’t mean she wouldn’t try and cost them money to defend it.
It doesn’t cost any money to defend against a suit that no judge would accept.
To allow a suit based on the assumption that the FEC was wrong and Forbes must have known so is the kind of insanity that gets a judge removed from the bench in even the most conservative jurisdictions.
So no, there’s absolutely no valid excuse for Forbes to use the word in this case.
I mean. It does. Having lawyers on retainer that would defend it costs money. Money that could be better spent on other legal services. I do agree it would be thrown out. But there are plenty of legal things that cost money just to file. Hundreds of dollars to respond to a petition if you file online. It’s not “free”.
It really doesn’t. Lawyers on retainer are on paid no matter whether they have anything to do. That’s what being on retainer mean.
It costs nothing to ignore an unlawful legal request, at least not when you already have lawyers on retainer to do exactly that. A publication the size of Forbes ABSOLUTELY do.
There’s no legal or economic downside to ommitting “alleged” and it still sends the misleading message that she might be innocent, which could feed into her false martyrdom scam and actually help “earn” her a lot more money than the fine cost.
In conclusion: there’s no potential downside to NOT spreading false doubt like that and there’s a ton of potential downside to doing it.
Have you ever paid an attorney a retainer? They absolutely use it for every phone call and email pertaining to anything with a case. A retainer is just a down payment. And they draw from it. They don’t work for free.
Free speech lmao
Why can’t these fuckers ever follow rules? It’s rhetorical…
It’s because there’s no actual consequences for breaking them.
If a rule isn’t enforced, it’s not a rule.
Federal law is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules.
Also the judged asked her to pretty please not do it a gain cross her heart.
Her dad gave her a company and she had a token position in it, she use the money from it to run a CrossFit for five years. This is the extent of her real life experience. 49 years old.
How is that even a fine, that’s peanuts.
Not that I don’t agree with you, but now I’m imagining what $12,000 worth of peanuts looks like and it’s glorious 😁
She can legally loan her campaign money and pay it back to herself at 20% interest.
So this token bullshit doesn’t impress me.
Lock her up! Lock her up!
[Nelson laughs]
