Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: CA: I think I will vote for , Xavier Becerra---Any scandals I don't know about that are out there or reason [View all]Nixie
(18,049 posts)36. In your uninformed opinion and your own personal extrapolations.
""Asked why he did not use his congressional campaign committee as a benchmark to estimate maintenance costs for his state account, Becerra said he was focused on ensuring he was not violating federal law or ethics guidelines barring him from campaigning.
"I had to make sure I stayed distanced from all campaign or politically-related activity. So I asked Sean to make sure we could take care of it.
Hope that helps, and please do move on. Your views do not match what the case documents say and the amounts involved wouldn't raise a flag in the way you insist that would involve judgment. Most thoughtful voters do know this. The investigators did, which is why Becerra wasn't implicated.
Hope that helps, and please do move on.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
38 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
CA: I think I will vote for , Xavier Becerra---Any scandals I don't know about that are out there or reason [View all]
cally
Tuesday
OP
Try not to conflate lower standards and different standards. Two separate concepts.
Torchlight
Tuesday
#14
It's also not against the law to delegate to staff. I actually read what he instructed his staff to find about
Nixie
Tuesday
#21
If you read the article, you would not misrepresent what the amount was. Go back and read it again. The monthly
Nixie
Wednesday
#23
It was 3x the going rate. THREE times. And the amount removed was $10,000 per month.
._.
Wednesday
#24
That's good you now take Becerra's word since your insinuations that Becerra somehow knew and allowed his
Nixie
Thursday
#30