steveTA84 Posted December 3, 2019 at 07:37 PM Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 07:37 PM https://www.wcia.com/news/capitol-news/geez-bill-plummer-says-brady-offered-him-ethics-post-if-hed-agree-to-back-off-ethics-reform/amp/?__twitter_impression=true SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WCIA) Senator Bill Bradys tenure as Minority Leader faces new uncertainty after Senator Jason Plummer, Bradys former 2010 gubernatorial running mate, accused Brady of offering him an appointment to sit on the Joint Commission on Ethics and Lobbying Reform in exchange for muting his criticism of Bradys side gig working to promote video gaming terminals in bars. It was said multiple times that he would not appoint me if I followed through on filing that legislation that I had worked on, or if I spoke publicly about it, Plummer told WCIA on Monday night. I was kind of surprised that he was as forward as he was. I said to him, I said, Geez, Bill.' I recall the conversation with great detail because it wasnt just one conversation, Plummer added. Several Senate Republicans, who asked to speak anonymously, said Plummers explosive allegations could make it incredibly difficult for Brady to keep enough votes in his camp to win re-election to keep his post in 2021. I tried to handle this in a professional manner, Plummer said. I went through the proper channels. On Monday, Plummer sent a letter to Brady and the Senate Republican leadership team informing them he would not comply with Bradys restrictions. Senator Brady promptly responded with a letter of his own, and replaced Plummer with Senator Dan McConchie, a Republican from Hawthorn Woods. McConchie says the appointment came as a surprise, and he claims Brady would only tell him at first that Plummer had resigned for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted December 3, 2019 at 08:03 PM Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 08:03 PM It is truly sad how at one time we wanted this guy to be our next governor as he was on board to pass a carry law that at the time was non existent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted December 3, 2019 at 08:06 PM Author Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 08:06 PM It is truly sad how at one time we wanted this guy to be our next governor as he was on board to pass a carry law that at the time was non existent. Now he actually gives money to GPAC to send mailers out for anti-gun GOP legislators that are endorsed by ICHV and MDA. Dont question him about that though..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nod Posted December 3, 2019 at 08:25 PM Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 08:25 PM I have always said that Bill Brady was a RINO, I never voted for him and never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted December 3, 2019 at 09:08 PM Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 09:08 PM It is truly sad how at one time we wanted this guy to be our next governor as he was on board to pass a carry law that at the time was non existent.Now he actually gives money to GPAC to send mailers out for anti-gun GOP legislators that are endorsed by ICHV and MDA. Dont question him about that though..... You should sue him for blocking you. Don't even bother with a lawyer, just follow the blueprint they used to force Trump to stop blocking people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted December 3, 2019 at 09:17 PM Author Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 09:17 PM It is truly sad how at one time we wanted this guy to be our next governor as he was on board to pass a carry law that at the time was non existent.Now he actually gives money to GPAC to send mailers out for anti-gun GOP legislators that are endorsed by ICHV and MDA. Dont question him about that though.....You should sue him for blocking you. Don't even bother with a lawyer, just follow the blueprint they used to force Trump to stop blocking people.I got Morrison too (for being vocal on her comment about confiscation). Both parties covered in the Senate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spu69 Posted December 3, 2019 at 10:53 PM Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 10:53 PM It is truly sad how at one time we wanted this guy to be our next governor as he was on board to pass a carry law that at the time was non existent.Now he actually gives money to GPAC to send mailers out for anti-gun GOP legislators that are endorsed by ICHV and MDA. Dont question him about that though..... Hey, isn’t an elected official blocking someone on Twitter a violation of the 1st Amendment? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted December 3, 2019 at 11:28 PM Author Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 11:28 PM It is truly sad how at one time we wanted this guy to be our next governor as he was on board to pass a carry law that at the time was non existent.Now he actually gives money to GPAC to send mailers out for anti-gun GOP legislators that are endorsed by ICHV and MDA. Dont question him about that though.....Hey, isn’t an elected official blocking someone on Twitter a violation of the 1st Amendment? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Prohttps://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/civil-rights/practice/2019/blocking-social/ Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is facing two lawsuits over blocking critics from her Twitter account, @AOC. The complaints were filed last week and allege First Amendment violations, and they came within hours of the Second Circuit’s opinion in Knight Institute v. Trump—in which the appeals court held that President Trump engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination when he blocked critics from his own Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump. As Judge Barrington D. Parker, writing for a unanimous panel, put it: “[T]he First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.” Parker went on to conclude: “[W]e remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.