Progressive ‘Justice’ in One Tweet

 

From my favorite “Progressive” Twitter accounts, @stopbigmoney, the multimillionaires at Mothership Strategies:

First, we find her guilty … then we get the investigation! We are through the Looking Glass, no?

Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first—verdict afterwards.’

‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly.

Lewis Carroll  

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 17 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    Show me the person and I’ll show you the process crime. 

    –Roger Stone of the future

    • #1
  2. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Stop big money??  Are they calling for a government shutdown?  

    • #2
  3. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    I saw this on Facebook.  Those folks are crazy.  I unfriended a couple of people today.

    • #3
  4. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I saw this on Facebook. Those folks are crazy. I unfriended a couple of people today.

    These are the folks you want in power, Gary.

    • #4
  5. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    The ReticulatorStop big money?? Are they calling for a government shutdown?

    Everyone should be aware of Mothership Strategies and the trio of Greg Berlin, Charles Starnes and Jake Lipsett. These characters created both Mothership Strategies as a “consulting” firm and End Citizens United as a PAC. They are their own best client. Their screaming tweets with ALL CAPS thrown around, phony polls and petitions (We need just 87 more signatures to wish Jimmy Carter a HAPPY BIRTHDAY and STOP THE ATTACK ON ABORTION!) are a churn and burn operation where they keep an above industry average of 15% of everything they raise. In the last two election cycles ECU paid Mothership a combined $6M. The WaPost reported that each of these guys have bought huge, multi-million dollar homes in the DC suburbs.

    Remember Jon Ossoff and his wildly expensive Georgia special election in 2017? Ossoff spent $22M in his loss for a House seat and almost $4M went to Mothership. These guys have no intention of stopping big money. They want it to keep rolling in. 

     

    • #5
  6. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Wonder if they are going to campaign to stop that big money from Bloomberg, 100 million in anti Trump ads?

    • #6
  7. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Apparently I’m missing some information. Who has found Kellyanne Conway of violating an election ethics law, and which one, and why is it an “important” election ethics law?

    • #7
  8. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Back in June the Office of Special Counsel accused Conway of violating the Hatch Act because she criticized Democrats in the Alabama Senate race. But under the Act, any discipline is supposed to be handled by her immediate supervisor and that is some guy named “Trump.”

    • #8
  9. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    As to the source of the tweet: Should I assume that “End Citizens United” is a single individual human being? Because if it is a group or collection of people, then ending (or more accurately overruling) the Citizens United decision would give the government the power to silence a group calling itself “End Citizens United,” which I presume a group calling itself “End Citizens United” would consider bad news. No group of people would be so stupid as to argue for the government to ban that very group, would they? 

    • #9
  10. Phil Turmel Coolidge
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    As to the source of the tweet: Should I assume that “End Citizens United” is a single individual human being? Because if it is a group or collection of people, then ending (or more accurately overruling) the Citizens United decision would give the government the power to silence a group calling itself “End Citizens United,” which I presume a group calling itself “End Citizens United” would consider bad news. No group of people would be so stupid as to argue for the government to ban that very group, would they?

    I’ve noticed that lefties and logic don’t mix well.

    • #10
  11. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    EJ,

    Will these woketards go after Bloomberg when he tries to buy 100 million dollars in anti-Trump ADs? I just love to ask these rhetorical questions.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #11
  12. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Apparently I’m missing some information. Who has found Kellyanne Conway of violating an election ethics law, and which one, and why is it an “important” election ethics law?

    Is there such a thing? An election ethics law? Sounds like a compound oxymoronic statement. Election, ethics and law all in the same sentence.

    • #12
  13. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    As to the source of the tweet: Should I assume that “End Citizens United” is a single individual human being? Because if it is a group or collection of people, then ending (or more accurately overruling) the Citizens United decision would give the government the power to silence a group calling itself “End Citizens United,” which I presume a group calling itself “End Citizens United” would consider bad news. No group of people would be so stupid as to argue for the government to ban that very group, would they?

    Well, if Citizens United were overturned, ECU would sort of lose its reason for existence, wouldn’t it?  How many think it would actually close up shop?

    • #13
  14. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    As to the source of the tweet: Should I assume that “End Citizens United” is a single individual human being? Because if it is a group or collection of people, then ending (or more accurately overruling) the Citizens United decision would give the government the power to silence a group calling itself “End Citizens United,” which I presume a group calling itself “End Citizens United” would consider bad news. No group of people would be so stupid as to argue for the government to ban that very group, would they?

    Well, if Citizens United were overturned, ECU would sort of lose its reason for existence, wouldn’t it? How many think it would actually close up shop?

    I think MoveOn.org might know.

    • #14
  15. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Randy Webster : How many think it would actually close up shop?

    Does MoveOn.org still exist? The March of Dimes? 

    • #15
  16. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Randy Webster : How many think it would actually close up shop?

    Does MoveOn.org still exist? The March of Dimes?

    MoveOn.org is still very much alive and kicking. One of the morbidly amusing ironies is that MoveOn.org is a big proponent of the effort to impeach President Trump. Ironic because the “move on” on which MoveOn.org was founded was to “move on” past the effort to impeach President Clinton, and get on with the real business of the country. Yet here they are trying to stop the business of the country to focus on the impeachment of a different president.

    • #16
  17. Vance Richards Member
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    Your Honor, in lieu of actual evidence we would like to submit our retweets.

    • #17
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.