Reply #96: You respond by saying the administration admitted it?

[ProSense]

"I'm not against Axelrod making the accusation, it's the point of saying that the burden of proof is now on the CoC"

They have a choice: full disclosure or the demands will continue. The accusations weren't plucked out of thin air. The accusations will continue.

My contributions aren't secret. Unions are required by law to fully disclose their funding sources.

Why the hell should the Chamber of Commerce be allowed to secretly spend money from foreign sources to influence U.S. elections?

"At least when reporters make such accusations they at least have sources to back up their claims. When you start to go down that road it quickly become a slippery slope."

Why are you ignoring that the evidence exist? Again, you respond to the point that people demanded that the adminsitration disclose the meeting by saying the administration admitted it so where is the "slippery slope"?

There is mounting evidence to support the accusation. This seems like outrage simply because people don't want Democrats to have an advantage in an argument.