MI-GOV: Abdul continues his daily scorched earth attacks against Whitmer.

[Jim Lane]

184. You appear not to have read this thread carefully

The information I gave about Onward Together was completely accurate, however much people may try to dance around it by "correcting" things I didn't actually say.

I didn't say that Hillary Clinton is a vile proponent of illegal money laundering who's in league with Karl Rove and who lies about it. I made a much simpler statement: Onward Together is a 501(c)(4) and doesn't have to disclose its donors. I cited a CNN report from 2017.

In #141, lapucelle responded that "Onward Together was organized as a superpac, not a 501(c)(4)" and that I was relying on a "currently inaccurate, early CNN report" that made a mistake. I don't know how Onward Togetehr was originally organized. My statement was that it is currently a 501(c)(4). Interestingly, lapucelle didn't come right out and expressly deny that, but post #141 would certainly leave most readers with the impression that my statement was false.

In reply, I provided up-to-date citations, including Onward Together's own website, where it admits that it's a 501(c)(4). Nothing in any subsequent post has contradicted that.

So, no, contrary to your charge, I did not provide any "misinformation" about Onward Together.

Unable to contradict what I posted, lapucelle embarked on a campaign of distraction. To that end, post #141 mentions six organizations that are not Onward Together. Post #173 denounces Our Revolution in general and Nina Turner in particular. Does this refute anything I wrote? No, it does not. You could present unimpeachable evidence that Our Revolution is running a child sex ring out of a Washington pizzeria and it wouldn't change one simple fact: Onward Together is a 501(c)(4) and doesn't have to disclose its donors.

You then jump into the game, though admittedly to a lesser extent, by brilliantly refuting something else that I didn't say.
* What I wrote: "Of course, 'dark money' is a pejorative term with no set legal definition AFAIK."
* Your purported refutation: "You mean like 'establishment Democrat' is a perjorative term with no set political definition? Actually, [the term 'dark money'] does have a specific definition...."

Do you see the difference? You refuted a statement about a "political definition" (a statement I didn't make) and a statement about a "specific definition" (another statement I didn't make). I wasn't saying that the term "dark money" is meaningless. I said it had no "legal definition" -- which is different. As an example of a legal definition, the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5 bars insider trading, but only "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security." Therefore, citizens (and courts) must be able to tell what a "security" is, and that term is in fact defined in detail in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. I'm not aware of any comparable legal definition of the term "dark money".