Balloon Juice has a writeup and links about how Justice Thomas seems to have changed his stance on some major issues after getting cozy with the Koch network. In short, Quid Pro Clarence hung out with a bunch of billionaire and then changed his stance on some significant shit that benefitted his buddies.
Yeah, I know. In that the Supremes have tightened up the law on proving corruption to the point that you need to show bags of cash were given for a specific action, good luck showing enough of a link to prosecute that alleged corrupt fuck for anything.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Funny how you fixate on Clarence Thomas and his unproven collaborations for money, but comp0letely ignore Joe's selling of his office (and the country) for cash money.
but then again, if you didn't have double standards you'd have none at all, would you?
Are standards really different in your mind if the person committing a crime is a Liberal vs Conservative? Are the standards for proof different as well? How do you justify that?
You can cry "Whataboutism" all you want, doesn't change the facts that you judge others differently (and hold them to a higher standard)when you disagree with their ideology.
Sad, what it says about your integrity.
I'm wondering if you will let this post, really.
Oh, of course I'll let your comment stand. I just love it when conservatives identify themselves as engaging in evidence-free bullshit. You clowns on the Right have been alleging corruption on Biden's behalf and yet there has been not a single shred of evidence.
As for Hunter, a Republican prosecutor, hired by the TOFF, has been investigating him for five years and all he could come up with is a bullshit lying on ATF Form 4473 charge.
Considering that you apparently had no trouble with the Spawn of Trump jetting around the world and making deals while he was in in office, with Ivanka getting fast-tracked patents from the Chinese for her handbags, and with her husband getting a $4B slush fund from the Arabs, yeah, we know where you stand, B:
"It's OK If Your a Republican" is apparently your motto.
Let's compare, B.
Thomas, confirmed receipt of cash, gifts and similar items...changed rulings.
Biden, alleged receipt of cash or gifts that investigation has NOT found any confirmation of at all...is currently supporting an independent county that Russia attacked, much to Putin and Trump's dismay.
Trump's spawn, confirmed receipt of cash, gifts, and business benefits...actions shown to have aided gifting entities.
Hunter Biden, a charge of a gun offence that is currently likely to be ruled unconstitutional by Thomas, et al...savor the irony.
Trump, four separate inditements and is demanding the prosecutions be stopped, because he has no defense since he has admitted to the violations in TV interviews.
Can we call this the Karen move?
Sad, what it says about your integrity.
I'm wondering if you will let this post, really.
Thank you Comrade for letting B speak. It's very fair to hear both sides of a subject. It does read like the same as the cut and paste comments on the articles that come up on the MSN Browser page that those of us how use Windows10 or 11 can read. And now the victim's side has spoken with the same litany as the those other self-proclaimed conservatives repeat ad nauseum.
b: State a fact, then follow with some nonfact to make it sounds real.
Then double down of ad hominen attack on the host to get your echo
chamber noise posted.
You pile it on by talking about you whataboutism like its justified
and add a further attack.
Really...
Eck!
Dan, the problem with a fair number of "conservatives" who come on here is that they can't refrain from personal attacks. The House Rules are pretty clear about that being out of bounds. I've seen some comments that have several paragraphs of reasonable argument, but then they end in utter nastiness. Since I can't (and wouldn't if I could) edit comments, they get deleted.
There are a couple of real low-wattage clowns who keep trying to post such crap and I delete them. I presume that they aren't such stupid bastards in meatspace, because they would have their faces repeatedly stove in if they were. Some people's kids, you know.
B, what would be proof enough for you of Clarence's graft? Wouldn't you also need such proof for President Biden, or is innuendo enough to convict him? From what I read, there seems to be more proof of Clarence's wrongdoing than Biden's. And don't bring Hunter into this, he isn't our president.
w3ski
Another thing: Given the sheer amount of corruption surrounding the TOFF and his family, it’s amazing to me that conservatives would even think about playing a game of Whataboutism.
Amusingly, TOFF was looking at a Glock in a gun shop in South Carolina…and said he wanted to buy it. A social media post by Steven Chung, a Trump spokesman, said he bought it, that post suddenly disappeared and another spokesman clarified he didn’t buy it. So we have several possibilities, involving perhaps an ATF 4473 violation (that sounds familiar), a purchase violation (indicted for felony, no buying a gun), or a transfer violation (same) by the shop. If he didn’t buy it (most likely), it’s just more pandering to his base to fondle it and say he likes it.
Pandering. The shop wasn't stupid enough to sell the TOFF a gun on camera, given that he's a FL resident. Beyond that, I have seen nothing to show that the TOFF has ever fired a gun in his life.
So, other than innuendo and suspicion, where's the proof on Clarence Thomas?
We have the First Son enriching himself with help from Daddy, we have him boasting of helping corruption in Ukraine, we have all the data from the laptop that says that Daddy was getting 10% WHILE IN OFFICE as VP.
Of course, the Feebs won't actually investigate the stuff from the abandoned laptop, in fact, they tried to hide it for over a year, but don't let that fact dissuade you from attempting to shy away from Biden's malfeasance.
Like election fraud, one has top actually, you know, look for it, and investigate the claims, rather than just say "no standing, nothing to see here, we aren't gonna investigate" and then claim that it is a false claim. I am all for investigating Thomas as long as we actually investigate the entire Biden family finances at the same time.
BUt keep those double standards in the forefront so y'all will have some standards.
Ah, more unproven innuendo from the Right. Your guy, the TOFF, filed over sixty court cases alleging election fraud and lost how many, again? Your party controls a number of states where your side is alleging fraud and found...nothing. You've got your trolls in Congress running bullshit investigations that find....nothing.
Meanwhile, your pet justices on the Supreme Court keep "amending" their financial disclosure forms to report free trips and vacations.
Your side, on the other hand, only has moronic conspiracy theories and allegations. Your side has no proof after years and years of investigations.
You have nothing! You have proven nothing! You lose!
Good day, sir.
There was no laptop:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/09/26/hunter-biden-threatens-to-make-robert-costellos-dalliance-with-rudy-giuliani-even-more-costly/
Just cause I THINK you’re an animal fucker doesn’t make it true (at least I hope not). For me to go around saying you are one and you’re not, I would be liable for damages. But if I were to say that you are AND I have video evidence of the veracity of the statement, then I could show the evidence and yell it from the rooftops
Just because you THINK the 2020 election was stolen doesn’t make it so. Now if you HAVE evidence of that to be true, you’d have to show it to be able to make that claim without being liable. Every case that was presented to the court system was based on an “I THINK” premise. When asked to provide the evidence to support their claim, none was forthcoming. Therefore the cases were dismissed. Don’t know how much simpler the history can be presented.
The same goes for the Biden’s and Thomas. Just cause you THINK there’s some shenanigans doesn’t make it true. Now if something arises that requires more in depth investigation, the you follow the trail. If it’s a dead end with no proof, you can’t continue to investigate based on someone’s feelings. It really is quite simple.
Hope you can see the reasoning.
Dale
So, the three yeses and then the apples and oranges comparison shuck?
Apples and oranges is chapter 2.5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AXyeKbw3tU
Post a Comment