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:

 

 

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

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:

 

 

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