George Soros Under Fire as 7,785 Pages of Documents Exposes How He & Dems Violating US Constitution

Let the information speak for itself, there's already a ton of people who already know this, but somehow it seems the rest require constant reminders to keep these things in mind.

George Soros is under scrutiny following the release of 7,785 pages of documents that allege his influence over U.S. prosecutors is violating the U.S. Constitution.

A new report from the Media Research Center (MRC) has raised significant concerns about George Soros and his son Alex, alleging that they have undermined the U.S. justice system through a network of radicalized prosecutors

As reported by The Post Millennial on Friday, August 16, 2024, the MRC's investigation, based on 7,785 pages of documents including emails and text messages, reveals how Soros and his affiliated groups have influenced prosecutors across the nation to defy local laws in favor of their leftist agendas.

According to the MRC, Soros has heavily funded district attorney races nationwide, investing $40 million in at least 75 races by January 2023.

Soros & Dems are Anti Constitutional

Nothing changes until, every thing is changed.

a reply to: ADVISOR

Anyone doubt that he has already laid the ground work for his defense team?

a reply to: CosmicFocus

Why would he even need a defense?
He literally owns the world's prosecutors...

Who's going to press charges against the guy paying them millions?

a reply to: ADVISOR

That was what I said.

We've seen countless documented examples. We've seen exposures actually get elected officials recalled too. It's the tip of the iceberg. ⚠️

a reply to: ADVISOR

We’re not going to talk about George Soros

a reply to: Myhandle

George Soros is fight club. That is all.

a reply to: ADVISOR

Now find an attorney to charge him.

Folks don't want to realize how effective this evil is.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Now find an attorney to charge him.

For what, exactly? What would that indictment look like?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Conspiracy, sedition, extortion, racketeering etc.

Do you approve of Soros' actions?

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Do you approve of Soros' actions?

Based on the non-evidence provided on the OP's article, I don't see anything illegal.

Do you approve of Soros' actions?

About as much as I approve of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. Money is speech and corporations are people. Dark money in politics and money, dark or light, affecting policies and laws is not only legal, it's the status quo.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Based on the non-evidence provided on the OP's article, I don't see anything illegal.

That's nice. I doubt either of us is in a position to prosecute anyway.

About as much as I approve of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. Money is speech and corporations are people. Dark money in politics and money, dark or light, affecting policies and laws is not only legal, it's the status quo.

Got it. Because you see it as a benefit, it's okay in your opinion. But when it's not in your benefit or politically expedient, you'll screech.

Noted

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Now find an attorney to charge him.

For what, exactly? What would that indictment look like?

RICO

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Because you see it as a benefit, it's okay in your opinion

I didn't say I think it's okay. I said, thanks to SCOTUS, it's not illegal. That is, according to the non-evidence provided in the linked article.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Now find an attorney to charge him.

For what, exactly? What would that indictment look like?

RICO

RICO isn't a crime. ask AOC.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Now find an attorney to charge him.

For what, exactly? What would that indictment look like?

RICO

Great. So let's also indict the Kochs, the Murdocks, the Adelsons, et al, on RICO charges.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Because you see it as a benefit, it's okay in your opinion

I didn't say I think it's okay. I said, thanks to SCOTUS, it's not illegal. That is, according to the non-evidence provided in the linked article.

So then you don't think it's okay.

You dont approve of Soros' actions?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Now find an attorney to charge him.

For what, exactly? What would that indictment look like?

RICO

Great. So let's also indict the Kochs, the Murdocks, the Adelsons, et al, on RICO charges.

why not indict all who are guilty. Or is that (D)ifferent?

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Because you see it as a benefit, it's okay in your opinion

I didn't say I think it's okay. I said, thanks to SCOTUS, it's not illegal. That is, according to the non-evidence provided in the linked article.

So then you don't think it's okay.

You dont approve of Soros' actions?

I don't approve of the Supreme Court's standard set by their Citizen's United ruling that allowed any old rich person to unfairly influence our politics, policies and laws. I am against Citizen's United, which gives Soros the power to use his money towards things you hate.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Now find an attorney to charge him.

For what, exactly? What would that indictment look like?

RICO

Great. So let's also indict the Kochs, the Murdocks, the Adelsons, et al, on RICO charges.

why not indict all who are guilty. Or is that (D)ifferent?

Indict them all, if they are guilty. But I think they're ALL shielded under Citizens United.