Evidence for God from Science

I'll let the source speak:

• The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), an Indiana-based group that litigates to protect election integrity, submitted the complaint Tuesday to the Office of the General Counsel at the FEC claiming that Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee and other left-wing groups may have violated campaign finance laws.
  
  “This complaint is based on information and belief that respondents have engaged in public communications, campaign activity, targeted voter registration drives, and other targeted GOTV [get out the vote] activity under 11 C.F.R. 100.26 and 11 C.F.R. 114.4 at the request, direction, and approval of the Hillary for America campaign committee and the Democratic National Committee in violation of 11 C.F.R. 109.20 and 11 C.F.R. 114.4(d)(2) and (3),” the complaint states.
  
  “Complainant’s information and belief is based on findings from an investigation conducted by Project Veritas Action and their published reports regarding the same, as well as on news sources.”
  
  “‘If the Commission, upon receiving a complaint … has reason to believe that a person has committed, or is about to commit, a violation of [the FECA] … [t]he Commission shall make an investigation of such alleged violation … ‘ 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2); see also 11 C.F.R. § 111.4(a).” (Complaint Filed Against Clinton’s Campaign Following O’Keefe Videos)

Seems like James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas videos weren't merely "edited" after all, eh Ed? To be taken so seriously by a watchdog.

Kurieuo wrote:Seems like James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas videos weren't merely "edited" after all, eh Ed? To be taken so seriously by a watchdog.

Well, if a non-partisan watchdog group says there's a problem then they've got my attention, so let's take a second to check out the PILF...

Christian Adams, General Counsel

He is the author of the New York Times bestseller Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department which examines the Department’s election and voting rights record. He also serves as legal editor at PJMedia.com, an internet news publication and appears frequently on Fox News and has appeared at National Review, Breitbart, the Washington Examiner, American Spectator, Washington Times and other publications.

Hmmm...

Smells a bit like a conservative pundit, but let's check out the rest of the group, just to be fair...

Kaylan L. Phillips, Chief Litigation Counsel
Joseph A. Vanderhulst
Noel H. Johnson

Prior to joining the Foundation, they all worked at The Bopp Law Firm.

The Bopp Law Firm? Funny name. I wonder what they do...

Founding the Bopp Law Firm in 1992, and practicing law for over 30 years, Jim is dedicated to the advancement of conservative Republican principles, policies, politics, and defending individual liberties by providing focused legal guidance for the management of political campaigns, campaign finance, public policy initiatives, First Amendment rights and litigation strategies. During his storied career, Jim has continually proven his prowess in the courtroom by representing clients with vigorous advocacy and expert guidance through a myriad of red-tape, excessive government regulations and politically motivated pressures.

Huh. So all 4 of the lawyers at the PILF appear to be conservative Republicans, or at least to contribute to conservative Republican media outlets and work for conservative Republican media groups and law firms. And all of the PILF's cases seem to be geared toward proving that election fraud (that benefits the Democratic Party) is widespread, while none of them are about ensuring that all citizens have fair access to the polls.

I think maybe the PILF is actually the Conservative Republican Interest Legal Foundation. So no, I'm not surprised or impressed to hear that the CRILF has taken an interest in O'Keef's suspicious video.

Fair enough, but it's funny that the Democratic Party put so much confidence in the videos, because clearly when they fired two people within they thought the videos weren't nothing. The courts can decide, I'm sure they'll treat such without it being tainted simply because they're Republican.

Further, Hillary gives stares that could kill to reporters who ask about them before not answering and running off.

Kurieuo wrote:Fair enough, but it's funny that the Democratic Party put so much confidence in the videos, because clearly when they fired two people within they thought the videos weren't nothing. The courts can decide, I'm sure they'll treat such without it being tainted simply because they're Republican.

Maybe, or maybe they were just trying to get out in front of it as quickly as possible so it couldn't get any traction. Somebody is obviously lying, and I wouldn't put that kind of shady behavior past either side. In fact, it's most likely all of them. Whatever. As you said, the courts will sort it out.

Kurieuo wrote:Further, Hillary gives stares that could kill to reporters who ask about them before not answering and running off.

I've never seen it, and I don't buy it. Clinton is way too good a politician to respond to a question by staring daggers and bolting. Even if she's taken completely off-guard I'm sure she has a list of quick-pivot topics in her head. She's a cold, calculating, brilliant, hyper-organized, policy-obsessed Campaign Bot, and she's been dealing with crap like that video for 30 years.

Ed wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Further, Hillary gives stares that could kill to reporters who ask about them before not answering and running off.

I've never seen it, and I don't buy it. Clinton is way too good a politician to respond to a question by staring daggers and bolting. Even if she's taken completely off-guard I'm sure she has a list of quick-pivot topics in her head. She's a cold, calculating, brilliant, hyper-organized, policy-obsessed Campaign Bot, and she's been dealing with crap like that video for 30 years.

Re: Looks that kill, it was my own assessment of this video I recently watched:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntp0l58cugI