St. Paul Pioneer Press: “Federal investigators are looking into allegations that a longtime friend and benefactor tried to steer money to U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, the Pioneer Press has learned. ”
* Coleman “suitgate” pal Nasser Kazeminy is among Minnesota’s top 20 political donors
* Taking Stock Of The Coleman-Kazeminy Charges
* VIDEO: Coleman campaign spokesperson can’t answer yes or no to charges Kazeminy bought suits for Coleman
* Of wives and men: Comparing Coleman and Blagojevich charges
“Neither lawsuit alleges the money actually made it to Coleman or that the Colemans knew about the alleged plan.”
So Coleman tried to steer money to himself? That seems to be what you’re implying when you title the entry, “Norm Coleman Under FBI Investigation.” The article makes pretty clear that Coleman is not under investigation but rather Nasser Kazeminy is.
It strikes me as ironic over and over again that a guy who works for an organization that claims to watch over “disinformation” is always engaging in disinformation.
The money and who it went to is under investigation. Coleman was possibly one of the recipients of the money. It ain’t that hard, son.
that is a really bad picture.
Could someone point me to an associate, ally, patron, or friend of Coleman’s who is NOT in serious trouble?
Coleman’s starting to look like the Typhoid Mary of political corruption…
Two points…
1.) Always? It hurts your credibility when accusing someone of spreading misinformation when you clearly lie yourself.
2.) This kind of crime has two perpetrators: the person to offers the money, and the official who takes it. You make sure the money was offered before you go after the politician. But don’t pretend for a second that Norm Coleman isn’t under investigation, no matter what he says to the contrary.
In fact, no where does it says Norm Coleman isn’t under investigation. Hell, the FBI won’t say if Nasser Kazeminy is under investigation.
So you are basically zero for two. Would you like to make another claim so you can strike out of this thread and leave the adults alone?
Good to see that CS is still the same asshole he’s always been.
Once again he returns to his retarded ways claiming Oliver is correct because the article DOESN’T say that Coleman is NOT under investigation.
Wow.
Freaking wow.
Question: Is Norm Coleman the target of an FBI investigation?
Answer: No.
Therefore a blog post that is titled, “Norm Coleman Under FBI Investigation” is bullshit.
I mean, I realize you guys are hard up for some more GOP scandals now that you have a truckload of your own: Blago, Spitzer, Rangel, Jefferson, Dodd, Mahoney, etc. But at least TRY and get some basic facts right.
“Good to see that CS is still the same asshole he’s always been.”
Good to see you are as fucking stupid as always.
“Question: Is Norm Coleman the target of an FBI investigation?
Answer: No.”
How the fuck do you know that? Are you part of the FBI team that is investigating this case? If so, you just broke FBI guidelines and can be punished for that.
If not, you are a fucking liar.
In reality, there’s an investigation whether or not Nasser Kazeminy tried to illegally funnel money to Norm Coleman. If the allegations are true, both men broke the law. Therefore, BOTH MEN ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION.
Got it?
“But at least TRY and get some basic facts right.”
Right back at you, you fucking ‘tard.
Or better yet, don’t. Don’t try to get the facts right, and see what that does to your party in two years.
> leave the adults alone?
Snort. I would certainly consider some of the commenters here to be “adult” in argument and/or demeanor. As subjective as what it means to be “adult” is, I am 100% certain that CS, in particular, isn’t even remotely close to being “adult” in any way shape or form. Thanks for the chuckle.
CSS: In fact, no where does it says Norm Coleman isn’t under investigation.
That’s the standard we’re to go by? The guy must be beating his wife because he’s never issued a statment saying he wasn’t??
Jay has a legitimate point. OW’s headline is “Norm Coleman Under FBI Investigation” yet nowhere in the article linked to does it say that. In fact, it actually quotes Coleman’s campaign as saying “We are not aware of any investigation that is under way, nor have we been contacted by any agency with respect to this matter.” and notes that “The breadth of the FBI probe is unclear.”
To defend OW’s headline as legitimate because the article doesn’t say Coleman isn’t being investigated is terribly close to saying someone is still beating their wife because they’ve never claimed they weren’t.
Methinks perhaps you’re focusing on the messenger (it is Jay, after all) and not the comment being made?
CSS: In fact, no where does it says Norm Coleman isn’t under investigation.
The guy must still be beating his wife because he’s never issued a statement claiming he wasn’t. Is that the standard we’re to go by now?
Jay has a legitimate point. OW’s headline says “Norm Coleman Under FBI Investigation. But the article linked to quotes Coleman’s campaign as saying “We are not aware of any investigation that is under way, nor have we been contacted by any agency with respect to this matter.” and further notes “The breadth of the FBI probe is unclear.” OW’s headline is misleading.
Methinks perhaps you’re focusing on the messenger (it is Jay, after all) and not on the message.
test
Yeah, Coleman is in the clear. The $75k his wife received might indicate trouble for her, however.
CSS: “Question: Is Norm Coleman the target of an FBI investigation?
Answer: No.”
How the fuck do you know that?
And how do you know he is?
In reality, there’s an investigation whether or not Nasser Kazeminy tried to illegally funnel money to Norm Coleman. If the allegations are true, both men broke the law. Therefore, BOTH MEN ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION.
That’s speculation on your part. You are making a statement, as OW did in his headline, that something is true. Reasonable to assume he’s under investigation? Perhaps. But you don’t know it for an established fact and you are not able to point to anyone in a position to actually know to back it up.
(Apologies to all for the double posts. Once I mistyped my name but even when that’s entered correctly everything I post seems to be getting routed into the mediation queue today.)
CSS: “Question: Is Norm Coleman the target of an FBI investigation?
Answer: No.”
How the fuck do you know that?
And how do you know he is?
In reality, there’s an investigation whether or not Nasser Kazeminy tried to illegally funnel money to Norm Coleman. If the allegations are true, both men broke the law. Therefore, BOTH MEN ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION.
That’s speculation on your part. You are making a statement, as OW did in his headline, that something is true. Reasonable to assume he’s under investigation? Perhaps. But you don’t know it for an established fact and you are not able to point to anyone in a position to actually know to back it up.
“That’s the standard we’re to go by?”
Shut the fuck up, you lying piece of shit.
God, I know you like picking fights with me, but please take you head out of your ass before you speak. And certainly stop snipping my posts and lying about what I said.
You are such a lying, fucking asshole, and I wish you would think before replying to me. Or just not reply at all.
“Jay has a legitimate point.”
And you still think ‘That’s what per 100,000 is for’ was a legitimate response. Your opinion is almost as meaningless as his.
“OW’s headline is ‘Norm Coleman Under FBI Investigation’ yet nowhere in the article linked to does it say that.”
Actually, it alleges there is an investigation to determine if Nasser Kazeminy tried to illegally funnel money to Norm Coleman. So both men are under investigation, because both men are involved in a possible crime.
“In fact, it actually quotes Coleman’s campaign as saying…”
Yes, you would take his word at face value over the facts.
“To defend OW’s headline as legitimate because the article doesn’t say Coleman isn’t being investigated is terribly close to saying someone is still beating their wife because they’ve never claimed they weren’t.”
No, jackass, it is not the same. If a crime is being investigated, then the two people involved are both being investigated.
“Methinks perhaps you’re focusing on the messenger (it is Jay, after all) and not on the message.”
That’s a nice slice of hypocrisy coming from you.
“That’s speculation on your part.”
No it is not speculation. It is the nature of the crime.
I’ll explain it again, try not to snip it when you respond…
Nasser Kazeminy is alleged to have illegally funneled money to Norm Coleman through one of his companies, which hired his wife. If the police are investigating this crime, which is what the story says they are, then everyone involved is under investigation. Nasser Kazeminy. Norm Coleman. Mrs. Coleman. Everyone.
No one said directly that Norm Coleman was under investigation, but the only people asked were Norm Coleman’s people, whose word is meaningless, and the FBI, who can not confirm nor deny any ongoing investigation.
Using your ‘wife beating’ example. It would be like reading a story about woman who is the victim of spousal abuse and when the husband was asked if he beat his wife he said, “No comment.” You could safely say the story said he beat his wife.
It’s how the law works. It’s how the language works. It’s how logic works.
Got it now?
If not, go fuck yourself, because you are useless.
Jay: Applying the same ethical standards to Democrats that he does to Republicans since never.
And you wonder why your party and its candidates are a complete joke to the American people these days?
CSS: Shut the fuck up, you lying piece of shit.
God, I know you like picking fights with me,…
No, not really. Having to deal with your childishness and hypocrisy whenever I try to make a point is not fun. Attempting to have a conversation where you’re involved means no matter how neutral I make my comments I get to endure your ad hominem rants. But don’t let real facts stop you from claiming whatever you opinion you have as “fact”.
And certainly stop snipping my posts and lying about what I said.
How exactly do I manage to snip directly from your posts and yet lie about what you said? I take care to copy your comments exactly as you post them but still get accused of lying about what you said. Incredible.
On the other hand, I find it interesting that rather than just reply to what I’ve actually posted you choose to include rants, insults, non sequiters, bring up irrelevant other discussions, etc. There are several threads where I’ve had the same view as you and said so in my postings, for example, but don’t let that stop you from fixating on one from ages ago where we didn’t agree.
If you want to harken waaaay back to older threads, then try to remember that the very first time we ever had an exchange it was because I commented that you had good points but the way in which you were making them didn’t serve you well. Clearly, some things will never change.
Question: Is Norm Coleman the target of an FBI investigation?
Answer: Yes.
See, it’s true because I said so.
I mean, I realize you guys are hard up for some more GOP scandals now that you have a truckload of your own: Blago, Spitzer, Rangel, Jefferson, Dodd, Mahoney, etc. But at least TRY and get some basic facts right.
You made those people up. Nice try through.
Jay, why do you hate America so much?
Jay: “Question: Is Norm Coleman the target of an FBI investigation?”
Zython: “Answer: Yes.”
Technically the answer is no, because the FBI doesn’t investigate people, it investigates crimes.
However, the FBI is investigating a crime that Norm Coleman is involved it. At least according to the story. According to the FBI, they do not confirm nor deny possible ongoing investigations.
However, while that’s the technical answer, one would not be in error in a more casual setting like this to say Norm Coleman is under investigation. You can not say, as Jay did, that Nasser Kazeminy is under investigation but Norm Coleman is not. They are both involved in the crime, therefore they are both under investigation.
Now, there is a chance the FBI has decided Norm Coleman was a victim in this conspiracy… Yeah right. But there is a chance. But to make that claim, you are putting forth an affirmative defence, and you must supply evidence to back it up.
It’s the rules of debate, which I clearly know better than practically anyone here. I also know how to use these rules as a weapon, so don’t fuck with me.
“It’s the rules of debate, which I clearly know better than practically anyone here. I also know how to use these rules as a weapon, so don’t fuck with me.”
I’m sure you’ll understand why we don’t all just take your word for that and bow down as though you were Giblets, eh?
Oliver, I think your Strowbridge comment bot needs some tweaking to its settings. It exhibits the following poor behaviors:
1.delusions of grandeur
2.repeats the phrase “shut the fuck up” and several variants of the same over and over again as if it were meaningful
3.asserts that it is right because it says so, with no other evidence needed. when called on it, it merely reverts to behaviors 1 and 2. (This I can understand to some extent, because coding up an intelligent bot is a hard task.)
Anyway, thought you’d want to know.
-Haplo9
CSS: But don’t pretend for a second that Norm Coleman isn’t under investigation
CSS: BOTH MEN ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION
CSS: So both men are under investigation, because both men are involved in a possible crime.
… If a crime is being investigated, then the two people involved are both being investigated.
… If the police are investigating this crime, which is what the story says they are, then everyone involved is under investigation. Nasser Kazeminy. Norm Coleman. Mrs. Coleman. Everyone.
It’s how the language works.
Ok. Got it. Coleman is under investigation. It’s how the language works.
CSS: Technically the answer is no, because the FBI doesn’t investigate people, it investigates crimes.
(sound of needle scratching across the record)
Normie’s campaign said the investigation is a political witch-hunt.
Never mind that all the people involved in the lawsuits are republicans.
Deny, deny, deny, EVADE!!!
“(sound of needle scratching across the record)”
You are a fucking piece of shit, you know that?
I explained exactly what I meant, and you ignore it and pretend I never said it.
This is 100% proof that you don’t give a flying fuck about the truth.
You are a liar and an asshole.
Are you this way with everyone? Or do I get special treatment?
Become a Republican, you deserve each other.
Did someone piss in CSS Cheerios today? I’ve reduced my blog writing and reading a lot post-election, but I just don’t recall him ever being this angry and profane. With all the “fucks” and “fuckings” I thought I was reading an uncensored version of the Blago indictment.
“…but I just don’t recall him ever being this angry and profane.”
Seriously?
And I’m pissed off because Sean lied about what I wrote, again. He can’t compete with me on the facts or using logic, so he lies about what I said and tries for a ‘Gotcha!’ moment.
If someone lied about you, repeatedly, wouldn’t you be pissed off?
CSS: <i.I explained exactly what I meant, and you ignore it and pretend I never said it.
If I did that, it would only be because I’m following your example.
But what I actually did do is quote your exact words. Yet, still, you convince yourself I’m misqouting you.
Are you this way with everyone? Or do I get special treatment?
You’re special, CSS. Mostly because you’re the only one I’ve seen who consistently replies to anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how reasonably or diplomatically, with some variation of “You’re a lying sack of shit and your opinion doesn’t count.”
CSS: <And I’m pissed off because Sean lied about what I wrote, again. He can’t compete with me on the facts or using logic, so he lies about what I said and tries for a ‘Gotcha!’ moment.
Let me pull one of your favorite lines out of the bag.
Prove it.
Show me, exactly, where I’ve lied about what you said.
What I have done (and this would make the third time I’m pointing this out in just this thread) is copy your words exactly. I do that so you can know exactly which of your comments I’m commenting on (seems only fair) and so that others don’t have to scroll up to see what I may be referring to (a courtesy).
So, would you like to point out to me exactly where I’ve lied about what you’ve said in this thread, or would you like to demonstrate the superior validity of your view by calling me a shit again?
“Show me, exactly, where I’ve lied about what you said.”
It’s called a lie of omission. And you’ve done it twice in this thread alone. (Once with the wife-beating example, and the ‘FBI investigates crimes, not people.’
To explain further…
1.) I said Norm Coleman was involved in a crime that was being investigated, therefore unless their evidence that he is not being investigated, he is under investigation.
You quoted that as, ‘unless their evidence that he is not being investigated, he is under investigation.’
Even you have to see how that is a lie.
2.) I said, “Technically the answer is no, because the FBI doesn’t investigate people, it investigates crimes.” and further down in the same post I explained, “However, while that’s the technical answer, one would not be in error in a more casual setting like this to say Norm Coleman is under investigation. You can not say, as Jay did, that Nasser Kazeminy is under investigation but Norm Coleman is not. They are both involved in the crime, therefore they are both under investigation.”
You quoted the first part and pretended the explanation didn’t exist. And you used the first part to imply I was somehow contradicting myself.
“If I did that, it would only be because I’m following your example.
But what I actually did do is quote your exact words. Yet, still, you convince yourself I’m misqouting you.”
No you didn’t, asshole. You cut out half my post and pretended the rest didn’t exist. And don’t give me that lie that, ‘the rest is still there and people could look up if they wanted to.’
Your response only worked if the parts you didn’t quote were never said in the first place.
Therefore, you implied they didn’t.
Therefore, you lied.
“You’re special, CSS. Mostly because you’re the only one I’ve seen who consistently replies to anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how reasonably or diplomatically, with some variation of ‘You’re a lying sack of shit and your opinion doesn’t count.’”
And another lie.
Is it pathological with you?
Is it pathological with you?
This is important, so I’m seperating it into another post.
This is like the “Per 100,000″ debate.
In a debate about gun deaths, Jay said, ‘That’s what per 100,000 is for.” I asked what he meant by that, and you attacked me for stalling. Jay then admitted he misread the post he was responding to. (But would never explain how, despite a number of requests on my part on the details.) However, that wasn’t enough for you, and you continues to attack me for asking about it in the first place.
The key is, even after Jay admitted he was wrong, you never did.
JAY ADMITTED HE WAS WRONG AND MY QUESTION WAS VALID AND YOU NEVER DID.
Or if you did, I never saw it. I am open to that possibility. However, I have brought up this little incident, and I have yet to see you address it head on.
It is solid evidence that whatever problems we have between each other, it’s your fucking fault. How else can you explain why you would attack what I said, even after the person I was responding to admitted I was right?
I don’t expect you do respond directly to this post, I’ve never seen you do so to similar posts in the past.
SDM: Show me, exactly, where I’ve lied about what you said.
CSS: It’s called a lie of omission. And you’ve done it twice in this thread alone. (Once with the wife-beating example,
WTF? The wife beating was something I said. Not something I even suggested was something you said. So how, outside CSS-twisted logic, does that even remotely come close to me lying about what you said, by omission or any other way?
CSS: I said Norm Coleman was involved in a crime that was being investigated, therefore unless their evidence that he is not being investigated, he is under investigation.
You quoted that as, ‘unless their evidence that he is not being investigated, he is under investigation.’
Even you have to see how that is a lie.
Oh, I do. I see exactly how you are lying. Although I’m sure the irony (not to mention the hypocrisy) of it will escape you.
To explain further…
Here you are complaining about me lying about what you say, about me not quoting from your comments accurately and you lie about what I said (and about what you yourself said for that matter) and don’t quote from my comments accurately.
EVERYTHING I’ve ever quoted from your comments came exactly as you wrote it, misspellings and all, thanks to cut-and-paste. I never re-type, always paste, just so that I can make sure when I represent what someone else says I do so accurately (a practice you clearly don’t follow, but have I gone around biting your head off for it?). And here you go attributing to me and putting in quote marks something I never wrote.
Understandable, I suppose, when one realizes you frequently don’t really want to respond to what I actually have written.
SDM: That’s the standard we’re to go by?
CSS: Shut the fuck up, you lying piece of shit.
SDM: And how do you know he is?
CSS:
Far easier, I suppose, for you to try to switch the disussion over to how you were misquoted because I didn’t include the entirety of your post in my comments.
CSS: You quoted the first part and pretended the explanation didn’t exist.
CSS: You cut out half my post and pretended the rest didn’t exist.
No I didn’t. I included the relevant part knowning your post is still there, in its entirety, for anyone who wants to scroll up to see it. But, as you’ve done so many times before, you’re going to tell me you know more about what I was actually thinking than I do.
But, then, you consistently tell those who disagree with you that they are liars whose opinions don’t count.
Is it pathological with you?
CSS: I don’t expect you do respond directly to this post, I’ve never seen you do so to similar posts in the past.
Well, what do you know? You’re wrong on both counts.
“EVERYTHING I’ve ever quoted from your comments came exactly as you wrote it, misspellings and all, thanks to cut-and-paste.”
How have you not accidentally killed yourself?
A lie of omission involved leaving stuff out, not changing what was said. You can do it just fine with cutting and pasting.
I can’t believe I have to explain this to you.
“No I didn’t.”
YES. YOU. DID.
I can prove this, because your post doesn’t make sense if you look at the context of the part you did quote.
Got it?
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
I need to know this. Are you a fucking troll, or are you a fucking retard?
Which is it, because those appear to be the only two choices left.
CSS: “I don’t expect you do respond directly to this post, I’ve never seen you do so to similar posts in the past.”
Sean: “Well, what do you know? You’re wrong on both counts.”
Oh my god. Oh my fucking god.
If someone murdered you tonight, they could never be found guilty, because you are clearly already brain dead.
First of all, you didn’t respond directly to my post. You merely deflected.
Secondly, you have no idea what I’ve seen of your posts, so you can’t make the second claim.
Although considering you don’t seem to know what a direct response is, how can I possibly blame you for thinking you know what I’ve seen.
Simply amazing. Clearly it must be pathological with you.
You accuse me of using only parts of what you say to misrepresent what you say. And then you quote only my “No I didn’t” deliberately ignoring the following sentence so you can claim I’m responding to a point other than the one I’m responding to.
You complain that “First of all, you didn’t respond directly to my post. in a thread where you’ve provided responses like:
SDM: That’s the standard we’re to go by?
CSS: Shut the fuck up, you lying piece of shit.
And to look at the longer view (since you clearly will never be able to get over any previous disagreements) the first time you attacked me was when I had the temerity to question your calling Jay “sub-human”. You justified it by claiming once upon a time he said something like he would feel no remorse if you were to die and that anyone that devoid is sub-human.
CSS: If someone murdered you tonight, they could never be found guilty, because you are clearly already brain dead.
Now, I wonder, what should we call someone who says another could be murdered and the guilty should pay no penalty?
Even Jay has apparently on occasion noted he was wrong. CSS, of course, never is.
Just to make a final clarification on to the actual comment made before CSS pulled this off into one of his typical scatological rants (after which I’ll leave this thread for him to continue with his how-can-the-world-not-see-how-stupid-anyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is? rant):
Oliver’s headline says “Norm Coleman Under FBI Investigation”
Jay said the headline is misleading and noted that “The article makes pretty clear that Coleman is not under investigation but rather Nasser Kazeminy is.”
Now, the article itself actually says:
- The FBI is looking into allegations Kazeminy tried to steer money to Coleman.
- Neither Coleman nor his office has been contacted by the FBI.
- The breadth of the FBI probe is unclear.
- The two suits filed allege Kazeminy is guilty of wrongdoing.
- Neither suit alleges Coleman knew anything about Kazeminy’s plan.
Even the headline of that article says only “FBI reviewing allegations involving Norm Coleman ally”
So I agreed with Jay and noted he had a point: The Pioneer Press article doesn’t say Coleman is under investigation and OW’s headline is misleading.
And even CSS ultimately admitted, that to the question “Is Norm Coleman the target of an FBI investigation?” “Technically the answer is no”
Perhaps “Coleman Donor Under FBI Investigation” would have been a less misleading headline?
“You accuse me of using only parts of what you say to misrepresent what you say. And then you quote only my ‘No I didn’t’ deliberately ignoring the following sentence so you can claim I’m responding to a point other than the one I’m responding to.”
Fucking hell, you are stupid.
I did no such thing. I didn’t even specify which point I was talking about, because it applies equally to both of them.
You. Are. Wrong.
Me: “CSS: If someone murdered you tonight, they could never be found guilty, because you are clearly already brain dead.”
Sean: “”Now, I wonder, what should we call someone who says another could be murdered and the guilty should pay no penalty?”
And another lie.
I said they couldn’t be convicted, not that they should pay no penalty.
“And even CSS ultimately admitted, that to the question ‘Is Norm Coleman the target of an FBI investigation?’ ‘Technically the answer is no’”
Wow. Just wow. Is intellectual dishonest a sport with you? Because if it is, you are Olympic caliber.
Jay: “The article makes pretty clear that Coleman is not under investigation but rather Nasser Kazeminy is.”
Read that sentence until is sinks in.
Jay clearly said the headline was misleading because Nasser Kazeminy is under investigation and not Norm Coleman. However, as I have pointed out, the crime being investigated involves both Nasser Kazeminy and Norm Coleman, so you can’t say one is under investigation and the other is not.
If the allegations against Nasser Kazeminy are true, then both men are guilty. You can NOT parse this investigation and say one man is under investigation and the other is not.
Either both men are under investigation, which is acceptable in this casual setting. Or neither men is under investigation, because the FBI investigates crimes and not people.
Now do you get it?
“Perhaps ‘Coleman Donor Under FBI Investigation’ would have been a less misleading headline?”
No. Now it sounds like he’s under investigation for an unrelated issue and OW is going after Colmen because of ‘Guilt by Association.’
“I’ll leave this thread for him to continue with his how-can-the-world-not-see-how-stupid-anyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is? rant.”
Some folks just never disappoint.
“I said they couldn’t be convicted, not that they should pay no penalty.”
On a side note. say you break into someone’s house, sneak into their bedroom, and shoot them in the head, twice. However, it turns out, they died of a heart attack in their sleep and you techinically shot their corpse.
In this circumstance, you could not be convicted of murder, but you could be convicted of attempted murder.
(Also, if you sell powdered sugar thinking it’s cocaine, you can be convicted of conspiracy to traffic drugs. However, if you sell it knowing it’s powdered sugar, you can be convicted of fraud. Law is fun.)
On an additional note, Jay was talking about real people who are dying now. I was talking about a hypothetical situation with nearly zero chance of happening. Equating those two is intellectually dishonest.
CSS: If the allegations against Nasser Kazeminy are true, then both men are guilty.
The suits allege Kazeminy tried to funnel money to the company at which Coleman’s wife works. Nothing in the article says money was going directly to Coleman. Nothing in the suits alleges either Coleman was even aware of Kazeminy’s plan.
And if allegations against one person being true means that someone else is guilty, yeah, the law is funny.
Sean: “I’ll leave this thread for him to continue with his how-can-the-world-not-see-how-stupid-anyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is? rant.”
Sean: “Some folks just never disappoint.”
Yeah, Sean, and that person who never seems to disappoint is you. You realized you just lied when you said you’d leave. And then made fun of me, even though you are the one who lied about leaving.
You are making fun of me for not letting this go, yet you are continuing the conversation. That makes you a hypocrite.
“Nothing in the article says money was going directly to Coleman.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
No wait, you’re serious. You honestly think that that clears Norm Coleman. You don’t think Mrs. Coleman’s finances have direct impact on Norm Coleman’s finances?
Wow. This goes right up there with the “Per 100,000″ debate as one of the stupidest things you’ve said.
“Nothing in the suits alleges either Coleman was even aware of Kazeminy’s plan.”
Yeah, Norm Coleman thought his actor / model wife should be paid $75,000 for a job she is not qualified for, and doesn’t even have to show up to to collect a paycheck.
You are as naive as you are hypocritical.
“And if allegations against one person being true means that someone else is guilty, yeah, the law is funny.”
If you are party to the same crime, then yes. If one person is found guilty of bribing a politician, then the politician is guilty of accepting a bribe.
That’s how the law works. If you don’t get it, you are as dumb as you are naive and hypocritical combined.
You honestly think that that clears Norm Coleman.
No. I honestly think it means that nothing in the article says money was going directly to Coleman.
You continue to insist on declaring as fact things which were not stated in the article, while I continue to quote what the article actually did say.
Yeah, Norm Coleman thought his actor / model wife should be paid $75,000 for a job she is not qualified for, and doesn’t even have to show up to to collect a paycheck.
Show me where in the article it says anything like that. Does it say just what Ms Coleman’s job is? No. Is any dollar amount mentioned? Yes, but it’s $100k and not in any way described as being paid to her. Are her qualifications or lack of them mentioned? No. Is her attendance mentioned? No.
In just one sentence you make up 4 “facts” not anywhere in evidence in the article.
I’ve decided to find you amusing.