Democrats as a protection racket? Ed Buck makes it a trifecta
The New York Times has been trying to dismiss the arrest of Ed Buck, a Democratic fatcat who had a thing for injecting young black men with drugs before paying them for sex, as a "small-time Democratic donor," but the facts on the ground suggest he was a rather big one. And maybe that's a function of the paper's desire to protect its masters, the Democrats. They aren't known as Democratic operatives with bylines for nothing.
Fox Business has a rundown:
While Buck once identified himself as a conservative Republican, according to the Los Angeles Times, he became a national figure when he spearheaded the effort to impeach Arizona’s Republican Gov. Evan Mecham in the 1980s. He later made large donations to Democrats, including more than $500,000 since 2007, according to court documents filed by Moore's mother in a wrongful death suit pertaining to her son.At the federal level, those include contributions to prominent Washington lawmakers as well as 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. At the local level, Buck has donated more than $51,000 to Los Angeles city and county officials, candidates, and affiliated parties dating to 2008.In 2012, Buck contributed $100 to the campaign for Jackie Lacey for Los Angeles County District Attorney, and four years later, gave $1,400 to Eric Garcetti for Mayor of Los Angeles. Both Lacey and Garcetti still hold their titles.The highest contribution was $13,000, according to the court papers, to former West Hollywood Mayor John Duran when he ran for county supervisor in 2014.
That doesn't sound too small-time to me.
And in fact, his ideological switcheroo sounds as though he found the Democrats a more suitable protection racket for his perversions than the Republicans. Who needs political beliefs when the real belief is perversion and that's what he needs protected?
It's actually part of the pattern with these scandals. Pervert with big vices donates cash to Democrats to ensure his protection from the cops. Harvey Weinstein knew it, that was what his Planned Parenthood and other woke cause donations bought for him - a capacity to prey on young actresses trying to win roles. Jeffrey Epstein knew it too, donating to leftist Bill Clinton causes in order to buy enough influence to enable him to prey on underage girls with impunity, spiriting them to his pervert island for himself along with his highly connected Democrat buddies. Both had added payoffs in that Weinstein then had the power to threaten actresses and reporters who threatened to tell on him, while Epstein had blackmail material on very powerful people which kept them on his string.
Now we have the sorry case of Ed Buck, a creep who enjoyed paying for sex with young black men while poisoning them with drugs, and then relying on his political donations to ensure the cops looked the other way. Note that quite a few of his donations were to Los Angeles local officials, all of them Democrats. Assuming this tweet's images are not manipulated, look at the range of Buck's Democrats:
abc7.com/democratic-don… Democratic donor Ed Buck arrested on drug charges after new overdose at his West Hollywood home! @realDonaldTrump @POTUS @SenSchumer @tedlieu @HillaryClinton @CBSThisMorning @GayleKing I see 3 dead people killed by Ed Buck ... WTF? @FBI @LAPDWestLA
A THIRD death in this guy's house. WTF!? Ed Buck donated money to Chuck Schumer, Ted Lieu, & Hillary Clinton... was given a free pass / no repercussions after the first two black guys died (18 months apart) from drug fueled speed & poppers homosexual parties.. @CBSNews
Combine it with media malfeasance - the mainstream media tried to turn down Ronan Farrow's report on Weinstein, it tried to pin the Epstein scandal on President Trump, and now it's trying to persuade us that Buck was just small fry, and the protection racket seems complete.
With so many of these perverts turning up in the Democrat donor base as well as organizations such as Planned Parenthood, one wonders if these are the only ones out there. Is the Democratic Party held together in no small part by freaks using politics as their 'vaccination' from scrutiny? Are their perversions and the need to protect them at the root of why these groups are so powerful and Democrats are so extreme and inflexible on issues such as abortion? Might that be why they're so out of step with even the Democratic voting public? And why are the Democrats the more hospitable party for such a sorry scenario? Why are they the party of perverts? It actually isn't just these three, it's quite a few of them as I noted here. A lot of such characters have turned up in a very, very short time and the pattern is exactly the same for each. How many more are there? What does Ted Lieu, Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats who've benefited from Buck's bucks have to say about this? And why aren't all of the Democrats confronting this?
Image credit: Twitter screen shot
SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I got rich, really, rich, selling out
my country as my husband/pimp paid out bribes to other DEM POLS so they would
keep their mouths closed about our corruption!
*
IN THE November 2006 election, the voters demanded congressional
ethics reform. And so, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Rules
Committee, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is now duly in charge of regulating the
ethical behavior of her colleagues. But for many years, Feinstein has been
beset by her own ethical conflict of interest, say congressional ethics
experts.
*
“All
in all, it was an incredible victory for the Chinese government. Feinstein has
done more for Red China than other any serving U.S. politician. “ Trevor Loudon
*
“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and
Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with
third-world hell-holes. This is the way a great country is raided by
its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan AMERICAN THINKER.com
GRIFTER AND PHONY CHARITY FOUNDATION
FRAUDSTER HILLARY CLINTON’S LONG SERVICE TO AMERICA’S MOST EVIL BANKSTERS
The judge found these
releases, together with the publication of Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall
Street banks, in which she pledged to be their representative, were “matters of
the highest public concern.” They “allowed the American electorate to look
behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United
States during a presidential election.”
*
“Clinton also
failed to mention how he and Hillary cashed in after his
presidential tenure to make themselves multimillionaires, in
part by taking tens of millions in speaking fees from Wall Street bankers.”
///
VIDEO:
THE FRAUDULENT CLINTON FOUNDATION EXPOSED.
PAY-TO-PLAY FROM THE FIRST DAY!
Is it a signal
that she's back in the game because she's selling her president-ability to the
world's global billionaire crowd and laying the groundwork for more
funds? There are all kinds of ways for foreign billionaires to get
money to the U.S. without consequences, after all. What's more, it's
pretty much the biggest base of support she has, which is at least one reason
why she lost the 2016 election.
*
“The couple
parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public service”
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes.
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes.
The basic components of the operation are lavishly paid
speeches to Wall Street and Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign
contributions, and donations to the ostensibly philanthropic Clinton
Foundation.”
"But what the
Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the
American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it
to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal.
Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to
every person on the planet by now." ---- Patricia McCarthy -
AMERICANTHINKER.com
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S
BILLIONAIRES’ GLOBALIST EMPIRE requires someone as ruthlessly dishonest as
Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to be puppet dictators.
http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2018/09/google-rigged-it-so-illegals-would-vote.html
1.
Globalism: Google
VP Kent Walker insists that despite its repeated rejection by electorates
around the world, “globalization” is an “incredible force for good.”
2.
Hillary Clinton’s Democratic party: An
executive nearly broke down crying because
of the candidate’s loss. Not a single executive expressed anything but dismay
at her defeat.
3. Immigration: Maintaining
liberal immigration in the U.S is the policy that Google’s executives discussed the
most.
Joe Biden and his son Hunter can’t keep their Ukraine story straight
Did Joe Biden discuss his son’s Ukraine business deal with him? Joe said “No” Friday when Fox News Channel’s Peter Doocy caught up with him at an appearance in Iowa.
“Mr. Vice President, how many times have you ever spoken to your son about his overseas business dealings?” Doocy asked.“I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Biden said, and as Doocy tried to follow up, the former VP cut him off.“And here’s what I know, I know Trump deserves to be investigated,” Biden said. “He is violating every basic norm of a president. You should be asking him the question, why is he on the phone with a foreign leader trying to intimidate a foreign leader, if that’s what happened, that appears to be what happened, you should be looking at Trump.”
Biden pressing the flesh in Des Moines (YouTube screen grab, cropped)
A flat denial followed by going on the offense and then switching subjects. Why is Biden so testy? The answer is not hard to find. Scottt Morefield of The Daily Caller:
Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed he never discussed Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine. However, a July article from The New Yorker belies that contention. (snip)The New Yorker article, titled “Will Hunter Biden Jeopardize His Father’s Campaign?” is an in depth look at Hunter Biden’s life and business dealings. It also contains a segment where Hunter apparently recalled discussing Ukrainian natural-gas producer Burisma “just once.”In December, 2015, as Joe Biden prepared to return to Ukraine, his aides braced for renewed scrutiny of Hunter’s relationship with Burisma. Amos Hochstein, the Obama Administration’s special envoy for energy policy, raised the matter with Biden, but did not go so far as to recommend that Hunter leave the board. As Hunter recalled, his father discussed Burisma with him just once: “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do.’ ”
David Martosko of the UK Daily Mail was apparently the first to catch Joe’s inconsistency with his son’s account:
Here's a problem: Joe Biden *did* discuss overseas business with his son Hunter, at least once. This is from The New Yorker, about 2 months ago. twitter.com/dmartosko/stat…
There’s nothing quite like a public lie to signal to the public that they are being deceived. As the purported whistleblower scandal plays out in the days ahead, all of the media hysteria over alleged Trump improprieties will blow back onto Biden, now exposed as covering up something.
What do you do when unemployment is under 4% and the economy is doing well? Well, the answer is that you desperately look for this or that to distract a population happily employed.
The latest Ukraine scandal is such a distraction but one that Democrats may grow to regret. In other words, this may not be the story Mr. Biden wants to be explaining over the next few months.
The Hunter Biden story has been around for a while, as we see in this report from Politico:
Despite the outrage that greeted reports of the president's actions, Biden's immediate response was no simple matter.His son Hunter Biden's lucrative contracts with Ukraine — at the same time the vice president was in charge of U.S. policy toward the country raised — raised the prospect of fueling a narrative with downside political risk for Biden."This puts him on the ropes over having to talk about this," said Patrick Murray, a pollster with Monmouth University. "He certainly doesn't want to talk about this, his family."
That's right! There is no pretty way to explain how the son got lucrative contracts from the country that the father was overseeing.
It does not pass the smell test. You cannot explain this as a coincidence. The public will connect dots and figure it out.
What's the Ukraine story? I don't know, but I'm convinced that President Trump builds a trap, and the Democrats fall right into it.
No comments:
Post a Comment