Mitch McConnell Received Donations from Voting Machine Lobbyists Before Blocking Election Security Bills

He always has an excuse.

Voting needs to be secure and I believe in a paper trail.

Gee, the very same people trying to insinuate that McConnell is taking money for killing a bill are the same ones who didn't bat an eye when a company donated money to the Clinton Foundation while negotiating to get 20% of our uranium.

Clinton Foundation while negotiating to get 20% of our uranium.

Debunked a long time ago, even by fox news. 

realclearpolitics

Once again, your, "what about..." deflection has failed. 

I didn't say that Hillary sold it.

I stated that a company donated to the Clinton Foundation.

Why do you always seem to want to argue what I DON'T state?

newsweek

factcheck

Clinton’s role in the Uranium One sale, and the link to the Clinton Foundation, first became an issue in 2015, when news organizations received advance copies of the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at a conservative think tank.
On April 23, 2015, the New York Times wrote about the uranium issue, saying the paper had “built upon” Schweizer’s information.
The Times detailed how the Clinton Foundation had received millions in donations from investors in Uranium One.
The donations from those with ties to Uranium One weren’t publicly disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, even though Hillary Clinton had an agreement with the White House that the foundation would disclose all contributors. Days after the Times story, the foundation acknowledged that it “made mistakes,” saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity, for instance, but not the donors to that charity who were associated with the uranium company.
The Times also wrote that Bill Clinton spoke at a conference in Moscow on June 29, 2010 — which was after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced in June 2010, but before it was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in October 2010. The Russian-based Renaissance Capital Group organized the conference and paid Clinton $500,000.
Renaissance Capital has “ties to the Kremlin” and its analysts “talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a ‘buy’ rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was ‘the best play’ in the uranium markets,” the Times wrote.

Ain't capitalism great!? 

Ain't capitalism great!?

It damn sure is--and it beats the living hell out of the alternatives!

So then what is your problem with the Clintons making money? 

So then what is your problem with the Clintons making money?

Where in the HELL did you get THAT from????????

For just ONCE, can you direct your replies to me on something I have ACTUALLY stated---and not some bullshit you make up?

Can I ask you a question? Why do you ask so many questions?  

Some people could maybe possibly find that annoying. Just trying to be helpful, so dont take it personally. 

The Federal Government has NO Constitutional authority to regulate how the states conduct elections just as there is NO Constitutional right to vote.   

“…since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.” – Federalist No. 39, Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles , Independent Journal , January 16, 1788

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” – Federalist No. 45, Alleged Danger from the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered , Independent Journal , January 26, 1788

Hamilton state Sovereignty  

"But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 32

Alexander Hamilton Speech to the New York Ratifying Convention

Date: June 17, 1788

The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation  

The Federal Government has NO Constitutional authority to regulate how the states conduct elections just as there is NO Constitutional right to vote.   

So those, "legal voting rights" are all just made up BS? 

Thanks for letting us know... [eye roll] 

Also? What does the DHS do? Protect the country from threats from OUTSIDE the USA... Pretty sure that Russia is outside the USA? Just a guess though. 

There is NO affirmative voting right in the Constitution or Constitutional Amendments.   The amendments only prohibit efforts to limit or otherwise restrict voting.   A fact noted by some on the left

Americans are so terribly ignorant about the Constitution. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE CONSTITUTION. This fact has been observed by some on the left in the past few years.

“The Bill of Rights, as the name implies, lists a wide variety of privileges of citizenship that cannot be taken from Americans without due process. You have the right to free speech, you have the right to bear arms, you have the right to a fair trial, etc. The right to vote, however, isn’t mentioned.

By Steve Benen, Producer of Rachel Maddow Show

Matt Yglesias had a good piece on this yesterday.

When the constitution was enacted it did not include a right to vote for the simple reason that the Founders didn’t think most people should vote. Voting laws, at the time, mostly favored white, male property-holders, and the rules varied sharply from state to state. But over the first half of the nineteenth century, the idea of popular democracy took root across the land. Property qualifications were universally abolished, and the franchise became the key marker of white male political equality. Subsequent activists sought to further expand the franchise, by barring discrimination on the basis of race (the 15th Amendment) and gender (the 19th) — establishing the norm that all citizens should have the right to vote.

But this norm is just a norm. There is no actual constitutional provision stating that all citizens have the right to vote, only that voting rights cannot be dispensed on the basis of race or gender discrimination. A law requiring you to cut your hair short before voting, or dye it blue, or say “pretty please let me vote,” all might pass muster. And so might a voter ID requirement.

The legality of these kinds of laws hinge on whether they violate the Constitution’s protections against race and gender discrimination, not on whether they prevent citizens from voting. As Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier has written, this “leaves one of the fundamental elements of democratic citizenship tethered to the whims of local officials.”

All of which leads to the question about a constitutional amendment, making the affirmative right of an adult American citizen to cast a ballot explicit within our constitutional system.

For some in Congress, this isn’t just an academic exercise. TPM had this report back in May.

A pair of Democratic congressmen is pushing an amendment that would place an affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. According to Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), who is sponsoring the legislation along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the amendment would protect voters from what he described as a “systematic” push to “restrict voting access” through voter ID laws, shorter early voting deadlines, and other measures that are being proposed in many states.

“Most people believe that there already is something in the Constitution that gives people the right to vote, but unfortunately … there is no affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. We have a number of amendments that protect against discrimination in voting, but we don’t have an affirmative right,” Pocan told TPM last week. “Especially in an era … you know, in the last decade especially we’ve just seen a number of these measures to restrict access to voting rights in so many states. … There’s just so many of these that are out there, that it shows the real need that we have.”

msnbc

“The Missing Right: A Constitutional Right to Vote

Put simply—and this is surprising to many people—there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. Qualifications to vote in House and Senate elections are decided by each state, and the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

democracyjournal

So how do we elect our reps? "Ene meanie miney mo"?

No one said no elections. Voting is under the authority and direction of the States.

Do not lecture me on the Constitution, LFOD. I have read the document and in fact, I have a link to it and read it often from top to bottom. I know what your 'game' is with this and as I stated above, it makes me want to puke. I better stop here before I. . . .

More similar to 'hook and crook' elections than Rule of Law. Been there - got T-shirt. Don't need a return invite.

The Federal Government has NO Constitutional authority to regulate how the states conduct elections just as there is NO Constitutional right to vote.   

As you surely know from a life time of watching how elections play out in the states and around the world, the devil is in the details. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold safe, secure, and accurate (as possible) elections. Otherwise, yahoos in various states (as history has recorded) would surely certify and submit inaccuracies - thus, compromising any number of elections.

If you think the federal government is 'big-footing' state elections with its oversight; it does so for good cause. Ultimately, someone has to stop the corrupting influences that power brings. We, the millions, police ourselves as a nation. That you can't process this or admit to the truth of it is a problem for you and others who refuse to get with the times. Your idea America simply has not bothered to materialize since founding—especially in the spectrum of voting.

There is no such responsibility authorized to Congress by the Constitution. You are simply wanting them to have an authority that does not exist.

its not about my opinion. It’s about the Constitution which ENUMERATES the powers of the Federal Government and ENUMERATES that all other powers are reserved to the STATES and the people respectively 

statists like yourself despise this restriction on the Federal Government because you don’t believe in our Republic. You prefer a massive national government

What the heaven are you writing about?! Get a clue. Here! Use the experience of your life time in this country. What you are advocating is states running the show any kind of way they wish -routinely a hodge-podge of chaotic activities and 'lying' outcomes based on the mindset of a crooked/shady governerm and his henchmen coupled with a crooked sheriff and his deputies —in the past such forces nearly broke this country. Time to grow up or 'grow away.' The changes in our laws, policies, and statutes were practical and necessary.

We have a body of law (and boats load of lawyers), statutes, and policies which are build up around the Constitution and clearly you wish to ignore it all, because somehow you see victory in standing on the Constitution as your only "connection" to this Union. Well, that is a problem for you, and your "millions." It has little to nothing to do with the rest of us!

Your namecalling reflects poorly on you and has nothing at all to do with me. Statist, qtatist.  I am aware some of us are 'ass-backwards' in the world and in need of a swift kick in the can to get turned around.

What he so adeptly pointed out is what is clearly written in the Constitution.

Sorry you think that is irrelevant in some way.

Thanks Texan1211. My point was obvious to those who believe in the Constitution 

Don't you mean oblivious?

My point was obvious to those who believe in the Constitution

And, sadly, completely unrecognizable by those who haven't read it or understood it.

Thanks for proving my point. You have contempt for the Constitution. Leftists love to purposely omit that we are a Republic of STATES.

all authority not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government is left to the discretion of the States

but contrary to your nutty assertion, the State power cannot usurp or override the guarantees specified in the Constitution including all Amendments to the Constitution.

this isn’t “backwards” thinking.   We are a Federal Republic of Sovereign States.  That is part of the uniqueness of our experiment in liberty.   

Our Constitution was written to restrict and bind the power of the Federal Government

The Confederation, he continued, “being destitute of both, wants the great vital principles of a Political Constitution. Under the form of such a constitution, it is in fact nothing more than a treaty of amity of commerce and alliance, between independent and Sovereign States.”

James Madison in his paper Vices of the Political System of the United States (April 1787)

John Adams letter to John Taylor 12 April 1824 on Government

“...there is but one allusion—to the general Government in the whole work in that I expressly say that Congress is not a Reprecentative body, but a Diplomatic body, a Collection of Ambassadors from thirteen soverign States; a consolidated Government was never alluded to—or proposed nor recommended in any part of the work, Nor indeed in any moment of my Life did I ever approve of a consolidated government—or would have given my vote for it”

James Madison Republic of Dual Sovereignty 

“James Madison: Essay on Sovereignty

Dec. 1835

For security agst. oppression from abroad we look to the Sovereign power of the U. S. to be exerted according to the compact of Union; for security agst. oppression from within, or domestic oppression, we look to the sovereign power of the State. Now all Sovereigns are equal; the Sovereignty of the State is equal to that of the Union; for the Sovereignty of each is but a moral person. That of the State and that of the Union are each a moral person; & in that respect precisely equal". These are the words, in a speech which more than any other, has analized & elaborated this particular subject; and they express the view of it finally taken by the Speaker*, notwithstanding the previous introductory one, in which he says, "The States whilst the Constitution of the U. S. was forming, were not even shorn of any of their Sovereign power by that process" Tellegraph Mar. 23. 1834 or 3 et sequent in the Enquirer of Apl. 20.”

Here Texan, have fun:

I believe in the Constitution, but I am not willing to give it, the founding fathers, or Madison (a slave benefactor) divine influences. What is also clear to me is why you do. And, frankly it makes me want to puke.

Here Texan, have fun:

That reads more like a cry for help from you---do you desire a clue as to WHAT exactly the U.S. Constitution says about elections and who has the power to conduct elections?

Or are you going to stick to what you think or want it to say and the Constitution be damned?

I suspect we are wasting our time here. 

Some minds are simply impermeable.

@4.1.5

Possibly could you mean the closed minds around a cowardly, lying, cheating, thieving Donald J. Trump? Trump screwed his fellow republicans and now some of them sit around his 'throne' on their hands and knees.

Possibly could you mean the closed minds around a cowardly, lying, cheating, thieving Donald J. Trump?

No.

Funny thing about me--I say what I mean and mean what I say.

That way, there is absolutely no need for folks like you to speculate as to what I have written.

Nice deflection to Trump (AGAIN!!!!!!) after getting your ass handed to you on the U.S.Constitution.

Actually your words show you don’t believe in the Constitution.  The difference between those of us who believe the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land as it clearly states, and those like yourself, is that you believe it to be just a set of general guidelines in which whatever current popular opinion dictates, gives it legal meaning.

Texan, you could not hand me my ass were it attached to you. I have no intention of debating 'settled' law/s with LFOD or you.

What I would suggest you study is the area of our Constitution which gives Congress the right to make laws for this nation in the first place. Oh, and how has handing Congress their asses been working out for your brand of conservatism? Seems to me - 'its steady as she goes' for the ship of State!

Well, if by "supreme" you mean divine, yeah—no.

BTW, @4.1.1 don't think I did not buzz (alert on) this:

“The Bill of Rights, as the name implies, lists a wide variety of privileges of citizenship that cannot be taken from Americans without due process. You have the right to free speech, you have the right to bear arms, you have the right to a fair trial, etc. The right to vote, however, isn’t mentioned.

There is no actual constitutional provision stating that all citizens have the right to vote, only that voting rights cannot be dispensed on the basis of race or gender discrimination.

"See the man. . . ." I see you, LFOD. I really do, dude! The Bill of Rights are not the end of the constitution. The Constitution is not whole until you read though the entirety of 27 amendments. In which case, it is ONE document, not some fragmented thing.

Now this:

What Is the 15th Amendment?

The 15th Amendment states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

The amendment goes on to state that “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

There is a right to vote. Now then, states play stupid, rabid, ass-backward games with the citizenry which is unconscionable but that just goes to a lack of reason and possibly collective immaturity.

Also, in bold, note that "The Congress shall . . . ." means no convening of a constitutional conference is necessary to make federal laws. Even where 'hardcases' such as yourself are concerned.

Texan, you could not hand me my ass were it attached to you.

Never claimed that.

LFOD was doing just fine all by himself.

he certainly didn;t need any help.

Sure he was. Sure he didn't.

Good old 'bold and beautiful,' just reserves the privilege to have select states write 'jumble' laws which make it incredibly awkward and 'puzzling' for some of the citizens to vote in their own country. And, he thinks no one can figure out the deceitful motive demonstrated in and by such activity/ities.

Well Texan, 'bold and beautiful' is transparent to me. I can see right through the glistening swell words of dead slave owners into the heart of men who wish to imitate them in these more modern times. Or did you forget that the 'orginal constitutionalists'  (The OCs) were slave holders? It is not to be ignored.

This has NOTHING to do with slavery.

What are you going on about?

Sure it does. Need I remind you that a large number of our founding fathers owned slaves? When LFOD keeps droning on and on about the greatness of the founding fathers it is necessary to remind him (and you) that not everybody in the colonies could in any shape, form, or fashion be considered prosperous and FREE in 1780's. It has nothing to do with slavery, maybe, for some. Especially, when one lays out an argument narrowly tailored to include only the Bill of Rights (which LFOD did) and not the other amendments which make our Constitution one complete document.. That's all.

Mc Connell was right. https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/6620/watch-mcconnell-slams-mainstream-media-outlets-for-their-modern-day-mccarthyism-tactics

I cll bulshit on that premise.

You seem to be confusing things. 

What LFOD was talking about (so were you at one time) was elections and who is authorized to run them. That is all.

Since you don't like what it says, now you want to bring slavery into it for your own purposes. 

That is rather a lazy tactic when you can't refute what he stated.

I looked at it. What do you want me to do, research good old Mitch's rationale for why he can't help secure elections at the federal level? Huh? Maybe I will, if my time permits.

You can call it any thing you wish, Texan. I have no expectation you would change your mind any time soon. And as you call it out; let me state it again:

Need I remind you that a large number of our founding fathers owned slaves? When LFOD keeps droning on and on about the greatness of the founding fathers it is necessary to remind him (and you) that not everybody in the colonies could in any shape, form, or fashion be considered prosperous and FREE in 1780's. It has nothing to do with slavery, maybe, for some. Especially, when one lays out an argument narrowly tailored to include only the Bill of Rights (which LFOD did) and not the other amendments which make our Constitution one complete document.. That's all.

Deal with it. What good old LFOD is actually doing (he does this often) is commend our constitution and the Bill of Rights even as he quotes the founding fathers with an almost religious fervor. Well, there is nothing holy about those men and our constitution, separate or combined. So I called, "Foul!" I remind LFOD (and you too if the shoe fits) that there is no need to get all sanctimonious about men who put their pants on like all other men, and who largely founded this nation while being slaveholders themselves.

You don't like that. You would love to ignore that while you read his speechifying. Well Texas, Boo. Hoo. The truth of slavery will always be chained to the founding fathers! Much like Donald Trump's trashiness will go down into the grave and rise up in history with him!

You can call it any thing you wish, Texan.

Yes, I can, And I called it what it is.

Boo-hoo.

Need I remind you that a large number of our founding fathers owned slaves? When LFOD keeps droning on and on about the greatness of the founding fathers it is necessary to remind him (and you) that not everybody in the colonies could in any shape, form, or fashion be considered prosperous and FREE in 1780's.

It has nothing to do with slavery, maybe, for some. Especially, when one lays out an argument narrowly tailored to include only the Bill of Rights (which LFOD did) and not the other amendments which make our Constitution one complete document.

Sen. Mitch McConnell's net worth: 2005: $2,962,015

2015: $26,927,535

Increase: $23,965,520 (+809.1%)

How does a senator earning $193,400 a year increase their net worth by nearly $2.4 million a year, every year for a decade?