Jump to content

Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)


chasfh

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

 

 

Unless someone can prove that Ginni told her husband she was sending texts to the inner Trump circle than this really is a non-story.  You guys always get so hung up on conflict of interest stories with nothing but circumstantial evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, pfife said:

False.  Conflicts of interest also cover the appearance of conflict of interest.  It's about confidence in the institution.

What?!?!?! 

29 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

Conversely, the side that said the Hunter Biden laptop was fake news, until it was proven to be true, yet still doubled down that some of the information obtained from it should be ignored now suddenly feel family members actions should be tied to the public official (as it always should if that information indicates any potential COI).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

What?!?!?! 

Conversely, the side that said the Hunter Biden laptop was fake news, until it was proven to be true, yet still doubled down that some of the information obtained from it should be ignored now suddenly feel family members actions should be tied to the public official (as it always should if that information indicates any potential COI).

what office did Joe Biden hold when the morons were barking about Hunter's laptop?  What policy decision do you think he made was influenced by his son?  I'll hang up and listen.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, oblong said:

what office did Joe Biden hold when the morons were barking about Hunter's laptop?  What policy decision do you think he made was influenced by his son?  I'll hang up and listen.

Him running the US portion of the Ukraine delegation combatting against a prosecutor that was bribing companies, when his son was a board member of a major Ukraine company certainly was a COI.  Him having a 10% interested in an investment firm partnered with Chinese interest definitely sounds like it has the potential to be another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Unless someone can prove that Ginni told her husband she was sending texts to the inner Trump circle than this really is a non-story.  You guys always get so hung up on conflict of interest stories with nothing but circumstantial evidence.

Tell us exactly what you would need to see to be convinced that Ginni Thomas did something inappropriate or compromising to the Justice here. Because If this is your actual position, then you either believe that January 6 was merely legitimate political discourse and not at all an assault on the core of our Constitutionally-guaranteed transfer of power, or that her reported involvement in enabling it is simply legally-protected political action, and allowable as long as she didn’t personally ram the business end of a flagpole through a Capitol officer’s throat.

I suppose a third option is that you believe everything being reported about Ginny Thomas’s involvement is a lie, at which point I would love to hear your counterevidence on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Unless someone can prove that Ginni told her husband she was sending texts to the inner Trump circle than this really is a non-story.  You guys always get so hung up on conflict of interest stories with nothing but circumstantial evidence.

Theoretically, sure, maybe they never talk about this stuff at home. And legally there ain't enough there to prove it.

But given all of the reporting that has been done on Ginni Thomas and her nuttery, the idea that she was communicating this stuff with the Trump Team is maybe the least surprising thing I've heard all week. And one would have to believe that if, in fact, her husband did not know, he may live under a rock or may simply be the most oblivious human on the planet. 

Again, not enough to prove in a court of law. He's not resigning, I get it. But I can't blame Chas or others from seeing the reporting on Ginni Thomas and coming to their own conclusions on this. 

Edited by mtutiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Him running the US portion of the Ukraine delegation combatting against a prosecutor that was bribing companies, when his son was a board member of a major Ukraine company certainly was a COI.  Him having a 10% interested in an investment firm partnered with Chinese interest definitely sounds like it has the potential to be another.

no it wasn't it just appeared that way because you can't prove they orchestrated anything and you literally said appearance of conflict of interest is "what????????????"

try having consistent standards regardless of political party next time

Edited by pfife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Theoretically, sure, maybe they never talk about this stuff at home. And legally there ain't enough there to prove it. 

But do we even need proof positive, as though that would even be possible, that Ginni told Clarence that she sent the text? Isn't the mere proximity close enough? Isn't the danger that she could have involved and influenced him in it, either before the text or else during a Supreme Court vote on the transition question, enough to act to stop it? Do we really need a fucking audio recording of her saying the exact words being required here before we act?

This reminds me very much of the Pete Rose slappies who like to say he should be reinstated by Baseball and placed into the Hall because, even though he clearly broke Rule 21(d) by betting on games in which he had a duty to perform, and eventually even admitted doing so, what he did is still not a threat to the integrity of the game because there's no reported evidence that he bet on his team to lose.

But in the end, it doesn't matter whether Pete Rose never bet on his team to lose. The point is that he put himself in the position of betting on his team to lose, by betting on games in which he had a duty to perform at all. Baseball doesn't need to dig through piles of evidentiary minutiae to determine whether he crossed the fine line between betting to win and betting to lose. That's why regardless of whether someone with a duty to perform bets on his own team to win or lose, they are still declared permanently ineligible just for the act itself. By setting it up that way, the Pete Roses of the world can't beat the gambling rap on a technicality.

And that's why Ginni Thomas must be subpoenaed and, if found guilty of exactly this behavior, appropriate justice served her, whatever that might be, because she put herself in the position of directly compromising the integrity of a Supreme Court justice. And Clarence Thomas himself must be made to resign his justiceship because of the proximity. Because they shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to get away with undermining our democracy on a fucking technicality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      285
    • Most Online
      625

    Newest Member
    Hinchman11
    Joined
  • Recently Browsing

×
×
  • Create New...