Not a work, easier to convey thought...
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
When I press for clarity you fail to provide it. There are clear differences between general conflicts of interest, and perpetuating a fraud leading to the direct enrichment personally and/or of family members. When I asked for proof of how Thomas' spouses actions was a violation of the code, the point was dismissed.
|
She is involved in willfully supporting, through funding and lobbying action, the partisan attack on a piece of legislation already adopted. Couple with that her eyebrow raising comments. Weiner said it best, "His wife has already taken nearly $700,000 from health care opponents and now openly advertises herself as a crack lobbyist with the “experience and connections” to overturn the law of the land."
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Again, if you ever decide to get serious, let me know.
|
Your hardly one to talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
You keep going back to the spouses activities.
|
She is relevant, as she was also involved. She makes some statements that raise questions for more than just a few people. They profit off of it at a decent level and he supposedly is ignorant to it all. It makes no difference to me what you believe. I see no issue in simply making sure everything is as it "appears to be" given the ramifications and odd behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Then be clear and say it in plain language. Judges and politicians, in your view should be held accountable for the behaviors of others. I disagree.
|
Now that i have time let me be clear. Judges and politicians should be held accountable for thier actions, actions of those they directly influence to act, or accomplices to the fact. They should also be held in regard of thier character not to exclude those they associate with and allow to influence them. This is not outside reason. Specifically in this case: If he tried to hide the activity, which means he willfully was doing so, he needs to step down. If he participated in it and/or he is one of the "connections" he needs to serve time. If he wasnt aware, which i find in this instance incredibly far fetched (impossible), then he must recuse himself from any cases regarding the constitutionality of the health care reform law. That is what i am saying. This is not selling a car, this is about money in politics, possible abuse of the justice system, etc. It raises questions that need to be answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
But, a judge does not represent clients they represent the Constitution and the laws of the land.
|
They dont really do "people" vs cases, however, what i was saying to clarify is that I cannot nor can she be in litigation against any client they represent because its a conflict of interest. He took an oath and your right about what he represents. This is all about legislation that will be determined lawful or not and whether it will be repealed. His involvement or lack of involvement, especially in light of statements made, in that lobbying needs to be revealed... investigated. She needs to prove her intent and meaning by that statement and he needs to prove that he was not involved, his position makes it an imperative. Either way at the very least he should not be sitting for any of those cases.
Everything else you said was either too subjective, loaded, nonsense, or just not worth addressing. Especially the multiple times you accused someone of something you were doing. Good luck with all of that.