In his Democratic primary challenge to Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Wesley Bell, the St. Louis County prosecutor, is raising money hand over fist — and not all of it from Democrats.

Bell's latest campaign finance filings include donations from notable sources such as Steven Tilley, a GOP former Missouri House speaker who's now a lobbyist, and Daniel Loeb, the billionaire founder of the hedge fund Third Point, who has donated millions to Republican causes.

David Steward, a billionaire tech CEO from St. Louis, has also supported Bell. Steward recently served as the finance chair of a super PAC that supported Sen. Tim Scott's (R-S.C.) run for president.

All told, Bell raised more than $65,000 from donors who also gave to one of Missouri's two Republican senators, Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt, in their most recent campaigns, or Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, the leading Republican candidate for governor.

The influx of money for Bell from donors who normally back Republicans comes after the prosecutor abandoned a Senate campaign against Hawley in order to challenge Bush.

Bell jumped races in late October, a decision he partly credits to Bush's stance on Israel's military action in Gaza. Shortly after Hamas' Oct. 7 attack, Bush introduced a resolution for a cease-fire and condemned Israel's retaliatory military action as an "ethnic cleansing campaign."

Just put that in your attack ads that he's getting money from Republicans and can't trust him

Hmm. Between corrupt Dems like her and Cuellar, maybe it's time for the party to clean house. 

 

 

 

 

Just now, Kassi said:

Hmm. Between corrupt Dems like her and Cuellar, maybe it's time for the party to clean house. 

 

 

 

 

You stan Nancy Pelosi talking about corruption 

1 minute ago, Armani? said:

You stan Nancy Pelosi talking about corruption 

What investigation is Pelosi under?   

6 minutes ago, Kassi said:

maybe it's time for the party to clean house.

14 minutes ago, Kassi said:

What investigation is Pelosi under?   

Ddd not this bragging that Pelosi has used her career to ensure her using government information for her stock portfolio remains legal. 

 

Legal =/= Ethical, fyi!

9 minutes ago, Communion said:

Ddd not this bragging that Pelosi has used her career to ensure her using government information for her stock portfolio remains legal. 

 

Legal =/= Ethical, fyi!

She doesn't trade, nor own any stocks. 

10 minutes ago, Kassi said:

She doesn't trade, nor own any stocks. 

Don't shamesely lie like that when i have seen with my own eyes many websites that give you the option to mimic her stock trades. 

Edited May 7, 20242 yr by Taylena

12 minutes ago, Taylena said:

Don't shamesely lie like that when i have seen with my own eyes many websites that give you the option to mimic her stock trades. 

SP/DC/JT Ownership Column. You may, but are not required to, indicate that a transaction involves an asset that is held by your spouse or dependent child, or is jointly held, by including an "SP" for spouse, "DC" for dependent child, or "JT" for jointly held property.

 

https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/Periodic Transaction Report (PTR) Form_CY 2020_1.pdf
 

Ex:

 

Meanwhile, Cori Bush is actually under investigation for REAL crimes.

1 hour ago, Kassi said:

Hmm. Between corrupt Dems like her and Cuellar, maybe it's time for the party to clean house. 

 

 

 

 

A Nancy Pelosi stan won't convince anyone they actually care about corruption though. People are not as dumb as you think they are.

 

Although not surprising a Pelosi stan is actually happy a Republican has a chance over a progressive and is trying to assert blame on a black left-winger who hasn't actually be accused of anything as of yet.

Edited May 7, 20242 yr by Thesedays

3 minutes ago, Thesedays said:

A Nancy Pelosi stan won't convince anyone they actually care about corruption though. People are not as dumb as you think they are.

Either cite the investigation or shut up and stay on topic. 

13 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Either cite the investigation or shut up and stay on topic. 

Pretending as if contextualizing your hypocrisy is "off topic" is quite a trick when you don't actually have any argument.

Where are her supporters? 

13 minutes ago, Thesedays said:

Pretending as if contextualizing your hypocrisy is "off topic" is quite a trick when you don't actually have any argument.

There's nothing to contextualize, Cori is under investigation while running a re-election campaign.

 

Either talk about the investigation, her campaign, or her primary competitor.  
 

Your conspiracy theories are completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.

6 minutes ago, Kassi said:

There's nothing to contextualize, Cori is under investigation while running a re-election campaign.

 

Either talk about the investigation, her campaign, or her primary competitor.  
 

Your conspiracy theories are completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.

Since the topic is about Republican money pouring into Cori Bush's opponent's campaign, not about the investigation, we can only assume, based on your own argument, that you're a hypocrite and also an enabler of the hard-right and the Republican donors' goals.

22 minutes ago, Thesedays said:

Since the topic is about Republican money pouring into Cori Bush's opponent's campaign, not about the investigation, we can only assume, based on your own argument, that you're a hypocrite and also an enabler of the hard-right and the Republican donors' goals.

Insufferable.  This thread is about her campaign. She's drawing attention to her opponents campaigns funds, meanwhile she has an open investigation into her own campaign funds. These are all in the same world. 

 

Pelosi is not. What's not clicking?  

Just now, Kassi said:

Insufferable.  This thread is about her campaign. She's drawing attention to her opponents campaigns funds, meanwhile she has an open investigation into her own campaign funds. These are all in the same world. 

 

Pelosi is not. What's not clicking?  

So you think she having an investigation into her campaign funds means 1. she's guilty and 2. the fact Republican donors are funding her opponent is irrelevant? 

 

Also, do you believe if there's no open investigation about it, it means there's no argument over someone's long record of unethical behavior?

 

Very unintelligent of you, but entirely as expected.

30 minutes ago, Thesedays said:

So you think she having an investigation into her campaign funds means 1. she's guilty and 2. the fact Republican donors are funding her opponent is irrelevant? 

 

Also, do you believe if there's no open investigation about it, it means there's no argument over someone's long record of unethical behavior?

Yes. There's a good chance she's guilty. Too many character flaws.

 

Who Republican donors fund is their business. Democrats did the same in 2022 to push MAGA candidates in Republican primaries who they thought would (and did) lose in the general. So it could be a rat-******* operation, it could be genuine support, it could be a side deal… Regardless, I have no doubt that 99% of challengers would be more productive members of Congress than posers like Cori Bush.

 

This thread has nothing to do with Pelosi.  If there's a "long record of unethical behavior", then by all means go ahead and make a thread about it. 

1 minute ago, Kassi said:

Yes. There's a good chance she's guilty. Too many character flaws.

 

Who Republican donors fund is their business. Democrats did the same in 2022 to push MAGA candidates in Republican primaries who they thought would (and did) lose in the general. So it could be a rat-******* operation, it could be genuine support, it could be a side deal… Regardless, I have no doubt that 99% of challengers would be more productive members of Congress than posers like Cori Bush.

 

This thread has nothing to do with Pelosi.  If there's a "long record of unethical behavior", then by all means go ahead and make a thread about it. 

Well, at least you admit you don't think Republicans funding a candidate is a big deal or say much about the candidate.

 

This P.O.V. is entirely in line with your character. You pretending as if you care about corruption isn't.

1 minute ago, Thesedays said:

Well, at least you admit you don't think Republicans funding a candidate is a big deal or say much about the candidate.

 

This P.O.V. is entirely in line with your character. You pretending as if you care about corruption isn't.

Citizens donating to campaigns isn't corruption.

If these donors feel like Bush's district is too blue for their preferred Republican to win, they're allowed to back a less radical (and corrupt) Democrat to take her seat.   

Just now, Kassi said:

Citizens donating to campaigns isn't corruption.

If these donors feel like Bush's district is too blue for their preferred Republican to win, they're allowed to back a less radical (and corrupt) Democrat to take her seat.   

Yes, claiming to believe Republican billionaires are concerned about "corruption" is also very in line with your character. If you genuinely believe that, you're foolish. If not, you're just a dishonest person using ingenious arguments to mask your true beliefs because you're fully aware they're too shameful to be explicitly stated. Either of those things is exactly what anyone would expect of a Pelosi supporter.