If you're trying to breathe, you're resisting arrest, cardiac arrest that is!

[KonstantinosM]

In these crazy times let's not forget this isn't the first time that this exact same thing has happened.

Eric Garner said I can't breathe 11 times, he was pronounced dead an hour later. He was accused of a petty crime and allegedly resisted arrest. There were multiple officers present and he was unarmed, so it's ridiculous that he would be killed by the police and that it would be viewed like anything other than murder.

For example in the UK unarmed police used their problem solving ability to stop a psychotic man with a machete that was threatening police without killing him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SrDd8oD6fk
Title: UK Police Deescalate Stunningly Dangerous Situation & Save A Man's Life
TLDW: Man on the street, wielding a machete and moving arround erratically is surrounded by the UK police, the police try and keep him contained while verbally de-escalating the situation, waiting for other officers to get shields and stuff.


Now here's a 2014 clip, that includes a compilation of the usual people defending the cops, with the host Jon Stewart roasting them meanwhile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KqDIPdCOg

At some point a promiment right winger claims that the police don't do that, in defending the cop that it's against the policy of every police department. Well, I guess it's not.


Here's my take on how we solve this. The police are allowed to do these things because they are  supposed to protect civilians. Any abuse of that power should come with a greater penalty then that of a civillian for the simple reason of breaking that trust that we put up on them.

For example, if it's murder, and it's done by a cop the cop has to face a more severe punishment for also breaking that trust. Not fired, not suspended without pay but sent to jail for life. 

[1715012206]

1715012206

[1715012206]

1715012206

[1715012206]

1715012206

[BADecker]

If George's (Floyd) relatives considered that he was their property, and sued the cops and their bonds in common law, court of record, man to man, for stealing their property, they could win a lot.

To see how to do it the right way, combine what Karl Lentz has to say with the things that Richard Cornforth has found.

When you need more air, because you can't get enough to breathe, you don't use a ventilator on a person, like the cop essentially did with George. One death - George - but all kinds of Covid deaths in hospitals, because ventilating people keeps them from getting the oxygen they need to live.

[Juggy777]

In these crazy times let's not forget this isn't the first time that this exact same thing has happened.

Eric Garner said I can't breathe 11 times, he was pronounced dead an hour later. He was accused of a petty crime and allegedly resisted arrest. There were multiple officers present and he was unarmed, so it's ridiculous that he would be killed by the police and that it would be viewed like anything other than murder.

For example in the UK unarmed police used their problem solving ability to stop a psychotic man with a machete that was threatening police without killing him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SrDd8oD6fk
Title: UK Police Deescalate Stunningly Dangerous Situation & Save A Man's Life
TLDW: Man on the street, wielding a machete and moving arround erratically is surrounded by the UK police, the police try and keep him contained while verbally de-escalating the situation, waiting for other officers to get shields and stuff.


Now here's a 2014 clip, that includes a compilation of the usual people defending the cops, with the host Jon Stewart roasting them meanwhile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KqDIPdCOg

At some point a promiment right winger claims that the police don't do that, in defending the cop that it's against the policy of every police department. Well, I guess it's not.


Here's my take on how we solve this. The police are allowed to do these things because they are  supposed to protect civilians. Any abuse of that power should come with a greater penalty then that of a civillian for the simple reason of breaking that trust that we put up on them.

For example, if it's murder, and it's done by a cop the cop has to face a more severe punishment for also breaking that trust. Not fired, not suspended without pay but sent to jail for life. 

@KonstantinosM what happened with George was sad, and the policeman should have definitely used better tactics to tackle the situation, but I also feel that the blame lies on higher authorities for failing to educate the police to use better tactics, and empowering them with unlimited power which they’re misusing on innocent citizens.

It’s also pertinent to note that post this incident Portland mayor, has banned the use of tear gas being fired at the protesters unless there no other option left but to use it.

Source:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/2020-06-06-george-floyd-protests-n1226451

[squatz1]

While this is going to look a bit touch to try to think about, I think that it took people a very long time to notice that this was a real problem in America and that it needed to be acted on. While the officer involved in choking Garner to death didn't face any prison time or anything along those lines, that officer was terminated from his job in the NYPD (even if it was 5 years after what he had done)

I think that the video of Floyd is more gruesome though -- not trying to rate these murders -- as watching someone with a knee on someone elses neck looks a lot more reckless then putting someone in a choke-hold. I don't know if that sounds stupid or anything, but that's just what I think.

Takes time for people to notice these things, and hopefully we can bring forward some real change in the coming years. Who knows what that'll look like.

[chris_nor]

There are thousands of police people interactions going on every single day. Each with different individuals from both sides, involved in tense situations. No matter what, as the years pass by, some interactions are going to be insane, while others are going to in credible. It's just the way it's going to be.

[RainyDay23]

One thing that I noticed about both cases is that Eric Gardner was 6'5" and George Floyd was 6'6". Very big men. I don't think that's a coincidence. When an average person comes across a person that tall, they almost seem like giants and I think that contributed to the officers being so forceful. Their height, along with health problems could had contributed to all this.

[Vod]

Eric Garner said I can't breathe 11 times, he was pronounced dead an hour later. He was accused of a petty crime and allegedly resisted arrest. There were multiple officers present and he was unarmed, so it's ridiculous that he would be killed by the police and that it would be viewed like anything other than murder.

The standard defense to that is "if you can breath, you can talk".  It's all fine if the restraint is temporary.  That officer is guilty of negligent homicide at the least and second degree murder at the worst.  The other officers will be charged for failing to stop a crime in progress, and they will defend with the unwritten rules of the brotherhood of the shield.  :/

Here's my take on how we solve this. The police are allowed to do these things because they are  supposed to protect civilians. Any abuse of that power should come with a greater penalty then that of a civillian for the simple reason of breaking that trust that we put up on them.

That is how it's supposed to be.  A judge should sentence crime from a position of trust as repeat offenders.   This officer should be charged with two consecutive life sentences for second degree murder.  But they will take into account many other factors, such as his job duties vs that of a lawyer, for example.

For example, if it's murder, and it's done by a cop the cop has to face a more severe punishment for also breaking that trust. Not fired, not suspended without pay but sent to jail for life. 

If found guilty, he'll probably get life for 2nd degree, with parole in ten years.   They will take two years off for the year it took him to get his sentence.  Then he'll be a prime candidate for an ankle bracket and confinement at home, if the public loses interest in a few years.

Yes, our American justice system is fucked up. 

[TECSHARE]

Yes, our American justice system is fucked up.

You are a Canuck. You don't speak for The United States no matter how bored you are in your frozen wasteland to the North.

[squatz1]

Eric Garner said I can't breathe 11 times, he was pronounced dead an hour later. He was accused of a petty crime and allegedly resisted arrest. There were multiple officers present and he was unarmed, so it's ridiculous that he would be killed by the police and that it would be viewed like anything other than murder.

The standard defense to that is "if you can breath, you can talk".  It's all fine if the restraint is temporary.  That officer is guilty of negligent homicide at the least and second degree murder at the worst.  The other officers will be charged for failing to stop a crime in progress, and they will defend with the unwritten rules of the brotherhood of the shield.  :/

Here's my take on how we solve this. The police are allowed to do these things because they are  supposed to protect civilians. Any abuse of that power should come with a greater penalty then that of a civillian for the simple reason of breaking that trust that we put up on them.

That is how it's supposed to be.  A judge should sentence crime from a position of trust as repeat offenders.   This officer should be charged with two consecutive life sentences for second degree murder.  But they will take into account many other factors, such as his job duties vs that of a lawyer, for example.

For example, if it's murder, and it's done by a cop the cop has to face a more severe punishment for also breaking that trust. Not fired, not suspended without pay but sent to jail for life. 

If found guilty, he'll probably get life for 2nd degree, with parole in ten years.   They will take two years off for the year it took him to get his sentence.  Then he'll be a prime candidate for an ankle bracket and confinement at home, if the public loses interest in a few years.

Yes, our American justice system is fucked up. 

I'm thinking that Chauvin is going to get charged with second degree Murder and even if he does life, the guy isn't going to survive prison. He's probably going to be murdered by someone who is doing life without parole.

Also I'm not exactly sure if those cops are going to hold that whole 'thin blue line' nonsense. Two of the four cops were still on their probationary period, they're fired and they're not going to be rehired (none of them will be) so at this point -- I'd most likely flip to save myself from a jail sentence just because some fucking asshole thought that putting his knee on someones neck was completely okay.

If I'm facing years in jail -- fuck the thing blue line and fuck all of that, I'm not getting a pension nor any benefits nor do I have a chance of being rehired -- flip and save yourself in both the public light and in your criminal case.

[Vod]

You are a Canuck. You don't speak for The United States no matter how bored you are in your frozen wasteland to the North.

You are a Yank. I have just as much right to call myself an American as you do.   I am a Canadian citizen living in America.   There are a billion of us in America.

[KonstantinosM]

That is how it's supposed to be.  A judge should sentence crime from a position of trust as repeat offenders.   This officer should be charged with two consecutive life sentences for second degree murder.  But they will take into account many other factors, such as his job duties vs that of a lawyer, for example.

Are you brushing up on qualified immunity? I'm not immersed in legalese, only just learned of the term on Last Week tonight.

It sounds like you understand the legal system a lot better then most of us. Is qualified immunity just a cop thing? What if you're a chef at a restaurant and serve some old seafood, or some food contaminated with allergens, (when you knew the food was bad or contaminated) and someone dies. Do you get to claim qualified immunity?

And let's go with a nazi themed analogy since we're on the internet and think about the Nuremberg trials, if we applied our legal system, would they all get qualified immunity?

[squatz1]

That is how it's supposed to be.  A judge should sentence crime from a position of trust as repeat offenders.   This officer should be charged with two consecutive life sentences for second degree murder.  But they will take into account many other factors, such as his job duties vs that of a lawyer, for example.

Are you brushing up on qualified immunity? I'm not immersed in legalese, only just learned of the term on Last Week tonight.

It sounds like you understand the legal system a lot better then most of us. Is qualified immunity just a cop thing? What if you're a chef at a restaurant and serve some old seafood, or some food contaminated with allergens, (when you knew the food was bad or contaminated) and someone dies. Do you get to claim qualified immunity?

And let's go with a nazi themed analogy since we're on the internet and think about the Nuremberg trials, if we applied our legal system, would they all get qualified immunity?

I'd say that is partially brushing up on Qualified Immunity and partially brushing up on the fact that when you're sitting in front of a jury, and your lawyer is explaining that you've dedicated your career to public service and talk about all of the good in you (even if you did kill someone) -- the jury will be a bit nicer to you, alongside the judge, as they've been shown to feel pity for a public servant who made a mistake (not to take away from the horrid act done to Floyd just pointing that out)

Also - the judges who are going to be setencing you are most likely going to want / need the police unions endorsement when it's election time. Just another great part of our democracy, elected judges, lol.

Qualified Immunity btw is something that shields government officials from liability, see here:

Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—like the right to be free from excessive police force—for money damages under federal law so long as the officials did not violate “clearly established” law.

Can read through the link if you want, tad confusing. But a 2020 retuers report summed up how it related to Police Brutality - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-immunity-scotus-snapshot/six-takeaways-from-reuters-investigation-of-police-violence-and-qualified-immunity-idUSKBN22K1AM

[TECSHARE]

I'd say that is partially brushing up on Qualified Immunity and partially brushing up on the fact that when you're sitting in front of a jury, and your lawyer is explaining that you've dedicated your career to public service and talk about all of the good in you (even if you did kill someone) -- the jury will be a bit nicer to you, alongside the judge, as they've been shown to feel pity for a public servant who made a mistake (not to take away from the horrid act done to Floyd just pointing that out)

Also - the judges who are going to be setencing you are most likely going to want / need the police unions endorsement when it's election time. Just another great part of our democracy, elected judges, lol.

Qualified Immunity btw is something that shields government officials from liability, see here:

Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—like the right to be free from excessive police force—for money damages under federal law so long as the officials did not violate “clearly established” law.

Can read through the link if you want, tad confusing. But a 2020 retuers report summed up how it related to Police Brutality - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-immunity-scotus-snapshot/six-takeaways-from-reuters-investigation-of-police-violence-and-qualified-immunity-idUSKBN22K1AM

Technically that is true. In reality, qualified immunity is used as almost a total shield from liability for law enforcement. As civil asset forfeiture was originally designed to confiscate proceeds from drug dealers and other criminals, it eventually became a "legal" method of robbing innocent people, much like qualified immunity has become almost a total shield from responsibility for police negligence.

[BADecker]

I'd say that is partially brushing up on Qualified Immunity and partially brushing up on the fact that when you're sitting in front of a jury, and your lawyer is explaining that you've dedicated your career to public service and talk about all of the good in you (even if you did kill someone) -- the jury will be a bit nicer to you, alongside the judge, as they've been shown to feel pity for a public servant who made a mistake (not to take away from the horrid act done to Floyd just pointing that out)

Also - the judges who are going to be setencing you are most likely going to want / need the police unions endorsement when it's election time. Just another great part of our democracy, elected judges, lol.

Qualified Immunity btw is something that shields government officials from liability, see here:

Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—like the right to be free from excessive police force—for money damages under federal law so long as the officials did not violate “clearly established” law.

Can read through the link if you want, tad confusing. But a 2020 retuers report summed up how it related to Police Brutality - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-immunity-scotus-snapshot/six-takeaways-from-reuters-investigation-of-police-violence-and-qualified-immunity-idUSKBN22K1AM

Technically that is true. In reality, qualified immunity is used as almost a total shield from liability for law enforcement. As civil asset forfeiture was originally designed to confiscate proceeds from drug dealers and other criminals, it eventually became a "legal" method of robbing innocent people, much like qualified immunity has become almost a total shield from responsibility for police negligence.

Qualified immunity, or a form of it, is almost exactly the thing that Hitler's minions tried to use at the Nuremberg trials. But it didn't work for them. Why not? Because they were called out at Nuremberg as men, not as government officials.

Originally in the USA, people were always called out as people, not in their legal person capacity. Certainly it was mentioned that they were ACTING in their legal person capacity. But it was [wo]men who were doing the act that they did. And as [wo]men, what they did was based on how they harmed someone who didn't deserve it, or at least didn't deserve the quality/quantity of harm done to them.

Innocent until proven guilty. Certainly government people, especially law enforcement, need to restrict and restrain people who are harming others. The question is, how much? The restraint must match the resistance. If a man is harming other people, and he resists restraint, he must be restrained with the same force that he is resisting with.

A person who is guilty, is not assumed to be guilty just because it looks like he is guilty. That's Old West law. String him up. Mob rule.

We have better ways through the courts. The trick that government has learned to use, so that they can get away with restricting and restraining people far more than necessary, is they have taken the focus off the majority of the basic law, and placed it onto a sliver of law that is called legal law. This part of law doesn't recognize the rights of people... at least not enough of the time.

We need to get back into focusing on the rest of the law - the law that holds around the world - do no harm. If anybody harms someone else, the focus must be on the harm he did, like in the Nuremberg trials... not the governmental position he holds.

[squatz1]

I'd say that is partially brushing up on Qualified Immunity and partially brushing up on the fact that when you're sitting in front of a jury, and your lawyer is explaining that you've dedicated your career to public service and talk about all of the good in you (even if you did kill someone) -- the jury will be a bit nicer to you, alongside the judge, as they've been shown to feel pity for a public servant who made a mistake (not to take away from the horrid act done to Floyd just pointing that out)

Also - the judges who are going to be setencing you are most likely going to want / need the police unions endorsement when it's election time. Just another great part of our democracy, elected judges, lol.

Qualified Immunity btw is something that shields government officials from liability, see here:

Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—like the right to be free from excessive police force—for money damages under federal law so long as the officials did not violate “clearly established” law.

Can read through the link if you want, tad confusing. But a 2020 retuers report summed up how it related to Police Brutality - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-immunity-scotus-snapshot/six-takeaways-from-reuters-investigation-of-police-violence-and-qualified-immunity-idUSKBN22K1AM

Technically that is true. In reality, qualified immunity is used as almost a total shield from liability for law enforcement. As civil asset forfeiture was originally designed to confiscate proceeds from drug dealers and other criminals, it eventually became a "legal" method of robbing innocent people, much like qualified immunity has become almost a total shield from responsibility for police negligence.

Yup, you're right in regards to it becoming into a total shield for all police misconduct and negligence. The attorneys for these police departments have taken Qualified Immunity, which should've been a somewhat OKAY thing to have -- and have changed it into an all encompassing shield.

I don't blame them, as they're obviously going to want to ensure that their own guys are getting into trouble. The judiciary / legislative branch is going to have to change how they look at qualified immunity and fix it.

I've seen some articles saying that the Supreme Court may take up the issue relating to qualified immunity soon. As there are currently 8 pending cases relating to qualified immunity waiting at the SC (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/870165744/supreme-court-weighs-qualified-immunity-for-police-accused-of-misconduct) Two justices have called for changes see below:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, arguably the court's most liberal justice, has repeatedly dissented when her colleagues have excused police misconduct in police brutality cases. In one dissent, she said the court "displays an unflinching willingness" to reverse lower courts when they refuse to grant qualified immunity to police officers. In contrast, she said, the court "rarely intervenes" when lower courts wrongly grant qualified immunity to police officers. This "one-sided approach" transforms qualified immunity into "an absolute shield for law enforcement officers," she wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's most conservative member, has also called for revisiting the doctrine of qualified immunity. He has written that the doctrine was simply invented by judges without any historical basis.

[BADecker]

State governments are actually going against the Nuremberg Trials Code of Ethics that came about because of those Trials. Are States really trying to be as bad as Hitler?


New York State Barr Association proposes mandatory COVID-19 vaccine, in violation of Nuremburg code, medical ethics, informed consent

A chilling new report from the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) demands that all United States residents be inoculated with upcoming coronavirus vaccinations. The May 13 report, published by more than 24,000 lawyers, demands: “When the efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine has been confirmed, enact legislation requiring vaccination of each person unless the person’s physician deems vaccination for his or her patient to be clinically inappropriate.”

The NYSBA committee believes that “for the sake of public health, mandatory vaccinations for COVID-19 should be required in the United States as soon as it is available.” Their stated goal is “to shape the development of law.”

Lawyers make call to suspend human rights for wide-scale medical experimentation

NYSBA believes that a majority of Americans will want the vaccine, even though polls show Americans are very distrustful of a potential coronavirus vaccination. The group understands that “some Americans may push back on the COVID-19 vaccination for religious, philosophical or personal reasons,” but believe that all individual freedom, body autonomy, parental rights, religious beliefs, and personal objections to scientific experiments should be suspended for the sake of “public health.”

By forcing everyone to succumb to mandatory injections, the association believes there will be a “public benefit” that far outweighs individual rights and individual immunity.

[PopoJeff]

Do yourselves a favor and look up the term - excited delirium.
Then look up another one - positional asphyxiation.

Put the two together and you'll see what cops face every day.
  
Then find the Minneapolis PD policy on use of force.  You'll see that the neck restraint is still an approved tactic. It finally got pulled after this incident (20 years behind most other departments)

Now, with the three things above, you should be able to deduce that :
People in Floyd's condition can fight right up until they code. They have amazing strength while under the influence. Tasers are often ineffective in this scenario. Suggested procedure for excited delirium is contain and restrain until EMS arrives. The antiquated neck restraint policy suggests MPD officers have been using it for a long time without issue.  (Most other departments have removed that policy for the very reason it's in the spotlight today). The officers on scene failed to consider positional asphyxiation.  They kept Floyd face down. The inability to breath wasn't due to the officer at the neck, it was due to the officer on his back restricting the expansion of Floyd's chest.

This was the perfect storm of drugs, criminal, resisting arrest, bad Department policy, and oblivious cops.


Then, if you are ready for even more education, go to the Black Lives Matter website.  Click on the donate button.  You'll be redirected to ActBlue who will accept your donation. Then take a look at where ActBlue sends the money. ( a simple google search reveals everything).

This isn't about race guys. Police departments around the world deal with excited delirium every day. This one went wrong, as they can easily do.

It's all politics. There's an election to influence.

[TECSHARE]

Do yourselves a favor and look up the term - excited delirium.
Then look up another one - positional asphyxiation.

Put the two together and you'll see what cops face every day.
  
Then find the Minneapolis PD policy on use of force.  You'll see that the neck restraint is still an approved tactic. It finally got pulled after this incident (20 years behind most other departments)

Now, with the three things above, you should be able to deduce that :
People in Floyd's condition can fight right up until they code. They have amazing strength while under the influence. Tasers are often ineffective in this scenario. Suggested procedure for excited delirium is contain and restrain until EMS arrives. The antiquated neck restraint policy suggests MPD officers have been using it for a long time without issue.  (Most other departments have removed that policy for the very reason it's in the spotlight today). The officers on scene failed to consider positional asphyxiation.  They kept Floyd face down. The inability to breath wasn't due to the officer at the neck, it was due to the officer on his back restricting the expansion of Floyd's chest.

This was the perfect storm of drugs, criminal, resisting arrest, bad Department policy, and oblivious cops.


Then, if you are ready for even more education, go to the Black Lives Matter website.  Click on the donate button.  You'll be redirected to ActBlue who will accept your donation. Then take a look at where ActBlue sends the money. ( a simple google search reveals everything).

This isn't about race guys. Police departments around the world deal with excited delirium every day. This one went wrong, as they can easily do.

It's all politics. There's an election to influence.

I will simplify it for everyone...

"Donations, Including International Funding, to BlackLivesMatter.com Go Directly to the DNC – This Is Money Laundering"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/exclusive-donations-including-international-funding-blacklivesmatter-com-go-directly-dnc-money-laundering/

[nutildah]

Then, if you are ready for even more education, go to the Black Lives Matter website.  Click on the donate button.  You'll be redirected to ActBlue who will accept your donation. Then take a look at where ActBlue sends the money. ( a simple google search reveals everything).

Not quite. The money goes to ActBlue Charities which gives solely to 501(c)(3) non-profits. ActBlue PAC is the PAC and does not receive donations from BLM.

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/actblue-charities/

ActBlue Charities is a pass-through organization created to facilitate donations to left-of-center 501(c)(3) nonprofits. It is the 501(c)(3) affiliate of the 501(c)(4) nonprofit ActBlue Civics and 527 political action committee ActBlue.

ActBlue is a fundraising platform composed of three separate entities that was created to service left-wing nonprofits and political action committees. ActBlue Charities was formed in 2015 as a complementary platform to the liberal fundraising platform ActBlue designed to provide fundraising services to organizations organized as public charities.

If the money collected by ActBlue Charities was found to be going to ActBlue PAC, then yes, that would be a violation of campaign finance laws.

This one went wrong, as they can easily do.

That's the problem. Solutions need to be found in order to lessen the potential for things to go wrong so easily.

[TECSHARE]

Then, if you are ready for even more education, go to the Black Lives Matter website.  Click on the donate button.  You'll be redirected to ActBlue who will accept your donation. Then take a look at where ActBlue sends the money. ( a simple google search reveals everything).

Not quite. The money goes to ActBlue Charities which gives solely to 501(c)(3) non-profits. ActBlue PAC is the PAC and does not receive donations from BLM.

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/actblue-charities/

ActBlue Charities is a pass-through organization created to facilitate donations to left-of-center 501(c)(3) nonprofits. It is the 501(c)(3) affiliate of the 501(c)(4) nonprofit ActBlue Civics and 527 political action committee ActBlue.

ActBlue is a fundraising platform composed of three separate entities that was created to service left-wing nonprofits and political action committees. ActBlue Charities was formed in 2015 as a complementary platform to the liberal fundraising platform ActBlue designed to provide fundraising services to organizations organized as public charities.

If the money collected by ActBlue Charities was found to be going to ActBlue PAC, then yes, that would be a violation of campaign finance laws.

This one went wrong, as they can easily do.

That's the problem. Solutions need to be found in order to lessen the potential for things to go wrong so easily.

https://secure.actblue.com/content/fineprint

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cmte=C00401224&cycle=2020