Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

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?

I am agreeing with you, for what it's worth. 

Ewsieg is arguing the technicality which, OK, is correct. The evidence, compelling as it is, is still circumstantial.

But that isn't gonna stop people from looking at the situation and assessing the improbability that Clarence Thomas has zero knowledge of the sorts of political activities that his wife engaged in. To say that would be hard to believe would be an understatement.

Nothing will come of this, of course... Thomas isn't resigning nor will he recuse himself of any case that involves elections on account of this. But in my view, having a member ruling on cases of that nature given his proximity to someone who worked so hard to overturn the results of the last election, it hits at the credibility of the court and makes a mockery of it, frankly.

[chasfh]

8 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I am agreeing with you, for what it's worth. 

Ewsieg is arguing the technicality which, OK, is correct. The evidence, compelling as it is, is still circumstantial.

Don’t they have the actual texts in hand? 

[pfife]

eswieg is merely pretending even giving the appearance of conflict of interest isn't an issue.   My private company trains us on this yearly and apparently plebs like me get a higher standard than trumpers like him, in other words same ol shit

And spouses and other family members are included.

Then he turns around and uses Hunter Biden as some sort of retort even though there's only speculation that he and joe were in some sort of cahoots which is the entire technicality he's trying to exploit with "justice" thomas

seems super trolly to me, in other words same ol shit

Edited March 26, 2022 by pfife

[mtutiger]

3 minutes ago, pfife said:

eswieg is merely pretending even giving the appearance of conflict of interest isn't an issue.   My private company trains us on this yearly and apparently plebs like me get a higher standard than trumpers like him, in other words same ol shit

And spouses and other family members are included.

This is a fair point and matches my experience...

[mtutiger]

5 minutes ago, pfife said:

Then he turns around and uses Hunter Biden as some sort of retort even though there's only speculation that he and joe were in some sort of cahoots which is the entire technicality he's trying to exploit with "justice" thomas

seems super trolly to me, in other words same ol shit

I always find it interesting that the people that keep ****ing the chicken on the whole Hunter Biden (thin as as any evidence is) thing never say anything about the Trump kids profiteering off the last administration... including one of them who actually was a government employee.

It just makes it easy to question whether these folks are actually concerned about good government or whether it is simply partisan politics (rhetorical)

[CMRivdogs]

I remember having to report any possible conflict of interest to HR. 

Then there was a time when one of the all news stations in Chicago had me banned from doing reports on their station because my wife worked for the competition. Their reasoning was I could discern all their secrets by listening to the station 6 hours a day....

[CMRivdogs]

4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I always find it interesting that the people that keep ****ing the chicken on the whole Hunter Biden (thin as as any evidence is) thing never say anything about the Trump kids profiteering off the last administration... including one of them who actually was a government employee.

It just makes it easy to question whether these folks are actually concerned about good government or whether it is simply partisan politics (rhetorical)

A government employee who couldn't get security clearance without daddy in law interfering. 

[Tiger337]

I think I took that test at work too.  I take so many tests for HIPAA, human subjects research, equity, etc and I forget the details five minutes after taking the tests.  The tests are so boring and the hard part is that you actually have to pass the tests or else you have to keep on doing it which keeps you from getting your real work done.  The thing is though, I don't need to take these tests to know that I would get in big trouble if a family member used data to which I had access for nefarious purposes.  I know that's probably not a great analogy, but I needed to relate it to my work.  

[Archie]

11 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I always find it interesting that the people that keep ****ing the chicken on the whole Hunter Biden (thin as as any evidence is) thing never say anything about the Trump kids profiteering off the last administration... including one of them who actually was a government employee.

It just makes it easy to question whether these folks are actually concerned about good government or whether it is simply partisan politics (rhetorical)

There is a huge difference between Hunter Biden and the Trump kids.  Maybe not so much Don Jr. but the others.  Eric and Ivanka are intelligent and successful in business.  Yes, they've had help because of who they are but they fend for themselves.  Ivanka's husband played a big part in the peace deals between Israel and Arab countries that no one else had accomplished and the same ones liberals and people here want to sweep under the rug.  Don Jr. is more of a chip off the ole block of his father but still nowhere near as bad as Hunter. 

Hunter is a whore chasing drug addict who biggest accomplishment in life is having sex with his brother's wife.  Everything he has done is because of his father and his father's name.  Does anyone really think he could sell one of those paintings if his father wasn't Joe Biden?  Would he be making millions in Ukraine and China if his father didn't get him those jobs?  

[pfife]

lol

[oblong]

Ivanka’s a whore. The whole family is a bunch of whores and skanks. The only one I give a pass to is the kid. 
 

[pfife]

I was really impressed how Jared brokered peace among nations already at peace.   It really took his skill to do that

[mtutiger]

10 minutes ago, Archie said:

There is a huge difference between Hunter Biden and the Trump kids.  Maybe not so much Don Jr. but the others.  Eric and Ivanka are intelligent and successful in business.  Yes, they've had help because of who they are but they fend for themselves.  Ivanka's husband played a big part in the peace deals between Israel and Arab countries that no one else had accomplished and the same ones liberals and people here want to sweep under the rug.  Don Jr. is more of a chip off the ole block of his father but still nowhere near as bad as Hunter. 

Hunter is a whore chasing drug addict who biggest accomplishment in life is having sex with his brother's wife.  Everything he has done is because of his father and his father's name.  Does anyone really think he could sell one of those paintings if his father wasn't Joe Biden?  Would he be making millions in Ukraine and China if his father didn't get him those jobs?  

This post is the Mona Lisa of hypocrisy 

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

I am agreeing with you, for what it's worth. 

Ewsieg is arguing the technicality which, OK, is correct. The evidence, compelling as it is, is still circumstantial.

They have the texts in hand, so what’s the circumstantial part?

[chasfh]

15 minutes ago, oblong said:

Ivanka’s a whore. The whole family is a bunch of whores and skanks. The only one I give a pass to is the kid. 
 

He may well grow up to be the worst of the bunch because his mother is closer to the shit than the other kids’ mothers were. 

[mtutiger]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

They have the texts in hand, so what’s the circumstantial part?

Do the texts directly implicate Clarence Thomas?

My understanding is that we don't know that. But maybe I'm mistaken?

[chasfh]

13 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Do the texts directly implicate Clarence Thomas?

My understanding is that we don't know that. But maybe I'm mistaken?

My point is that the texts shouldn’t have to directly implicate Clarence Thomas for it to be an integrity issue. Just the proximity is enough, in the same way it was enough for Pete Rose. Or at least the proximity should be enough.  

 

 

[pfife]

 

[mtutiger]

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

My point is that the texts shouldn’t have to directly implicate Clarence Thomas for it to be an integrity issue. Just the proximity is enough, in the same way it was enough for Pete Rose. Or at least the proximity should be enough.  

 

 

It's definitely an integrity issue in my view. 

I'm just making the point that it still is circumstantial that he knew or was directly involved. Its a thin reed that conservatives will hang onto, but it is a reed nonetheless 

[chasfh]

4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

It's definitely an integrity issue in my view. 

I'm just making the point that it still is circumstantial that he knew or was directly involved. Its a thin reed that conservatives will hang onto, but it is a reed nonetheless 

I get where you’re coming from. I don’t believe theirs to be even a defensible point.

[gehringer_2]

30 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

It's definitely an integrity issue in my view. 

I'm just making the point that it still is circumstantial that he knew or was directly involved. Its a thin reed that conservatives will hang onto, but it is a reed nonetheless 

and it wouldn't be so bad if  Thomas hasn't spent so much time extolling what a close couple they are. It  can't help but appear absurd to do that and then turn around and say you have a firewall between your professional lives. Not to mention that the two of them *appear* at ideologically charged conservative events *together* - so again, by his own actions he feeds the narrative that he sits on the court with a partisan ax to grind in union with her, but then demands to be treated like he is some kind of Solon above the fray. He's just another example of Washington narcissism/entitlement. Thomas' case just has the added twist that if you accuse him of anything he throws out the "I'm being hi-tech lynched" defense.

Edited March 26, 2022 by gehringer_2

[ewsieg]

2 hours ago, pfife said:

eswieg is merely pretending even giving the appearance of conflict of interest isn't an issue.   My private company trains us on this yearly and apparently plebs like me get a higher standard than trumpers like him, in other words same ol shit

And spouses and other family members are included.

Then he turns around and uses Hunter Biden as some sort of retort even though there's only speculation that he and joe were in some sort of cahoots which is the entire technicality he's trying to exploit with "justice" thomas

seems super trolly to me, in other words same ol shit

Speculation?  Please, it's obvious Joe was a silent partner in a company that worked with Chinese interest.  As stated by others, there is nothing illegal with it.  I'd just like to know if Joe either proved he got out of it before becoming president or if he noted it on his financial documents.  No one in the MSM is asking that though. 

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

I always find it interesting that the people that keep ****ing the chicken on the whole Hunter Biden (thin as as any evidence is) thing never say anything about the Trump kids profiteering off the last administration... including one of them who actually was a government employee.

I hope you're not referring to me when saying this.  It is true I don't consistently point out things the Trump kids have done, but that's because 99% of this board is adamant to compete to share that type of information first.  

Note - This Thomas thing is a huge COI, I do think the technically I raised would make it tough to prove any official means to remove Thomas from the bench, but we all know it's bullshit.  My complaint and sarcastic response to this is due to the response i've been given in regards to Hunter/Joe Biden.  Is the conflict of interest with Hunter/Joe over Ukraine, or the conflict of interest with Joe/China investment to the level of Trump, absolutely not.  Not even close, but just because it doesn't come up to the level of Trump, IMO, doesn't mean it should be ignored.  That's really been my only point in regards to Joe/Hunter and Joe/China.

[ewsieg]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

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?

My understanding is that as Ginni sent from her personal device and it wouldn't have been covered in the documents that the State was asking to be released when Thomas voted no anyway.

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

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.

I'm still for a subpoena though, her texts, whether her husband was involved or not, clearly show that she was involved in the attempted coup.  Rather she was nothing but a cheerleader from the sidelines that just had access to high level folks or directly involved in the decision making is worth finding out. 

[gehringer_2]

33 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

My understanding is that as Ginni sent from her personal device and it wouldn't have been covered in the documents that the State was asking to be released when Thomas voted no anyway.

she doesn't have any official government position - so it any device she has would be 'personal.' It was Meadows' device that was at question wasn't it? So only communications to Meadows from other 'official' devices?

Edited March 26, 2022 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

Speculation?  Please, it's obvious Joe was a silent partner in a company that worked with Chinese interest.  As stated by others, there is nothing illegal with it.  I'd just like to know if Joe either proved he got out of it before becoming president or if he noted it on his financial documents.  No one in the MSM is asking that though. 

lol "it's obvious that....." and then a bunch of not evidence, and an admission that you actually don't know whether or not it mattered.   total snoozer per yoosh