Posted on 06/10/2010 1:30:25 PM PDT by Chet 99
After privately meeting with mystery Senate candidate Alvin Greene at a Columbia television station this afternoon, South Carolina State Rep. Bakari Sellers came away believing that Greene is sincere but perhaps misguided in his much-scrutinized bid for Senate.
"I don't believe he's a plant," Sellers told TPMmuckraker in an interview after his meeting with Greene. "I think he just kind of doesn't know what he's getting into."
Sellers added: "I don't think there's anything nefarious going on. I think he actually did save his money," a reference to the $10,440 candidate filing fee the unemployed Greene paid in March. (Greene has said he used savings from his military days.)
(Excerpt) Read more at tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com ...
Who did Clyburn vote for?
“SC Dem State Rep: I Do Not Believe Greene Is A Plant”
Grunthor: I do not believe that Greene is a vegetable.
Then when he filled out the form in the criminal porn case, disclosed his assets and got a public defender, he lied about his finances. If he had $10K in the bank, he wouldn’t have gotten a PD.
More popcorn please.
That's probably true. While I'm not familiar with the specific SC rules, all the other jurisdictions have guidelines that probably have disqualified this kid. While he may have qualified as "indigent" because he lives as an adult with his parents and was unemployed, he did have at least some access to financial resources, which should have been disqualifying.
For a number of reasons, there's a chance that he could have disclosed that money and still qualified. But, that's a small chance, in my estimation.
http://www.sccid.sc.gov/indigent-defense-faq.cfm
Doesn’t seem like there are firm guidelines. Lots of wiggle room.
Yep. I read the statute from your link and it's remarkably loosey-goosey. Most of the others that I'm familiar with have some fairly specific guidelines, like less than "x" amount in cash, under "x" percentage of the poverty line if employed, or unemployed, etc etc.
I would add though, that it's clear from the statute that he had to file an affidavit detailing all his assets. If he didn't note that $10K, he could be looking at a perjury charge, in addition to his other problems. It does happen, although it's rare.
The sad part of it all is that he will still get 40% of the vote.
It is easy to exploit the above facts. Two possibilities:
1. DeMint saw the chosen Dem candidate was white, and guessed that he could find any easy to beat black guy and sponsor him to win in the primary. It is the SC black's own fault for voting by color.
2. Another possibility is this guy Green saw the prizes offered to Dem Senate candidates to 'withdraw' and figured that he could get some of that pie by beating the Dem candidate because he knows how blacks tend to vote.
Whatever reason, now we get to watch the Dem Chicago machine try to get this guy off the ballot without looking like bribery AND without looking like the racists they are, especially to blacks.
South Carolina is beautiful,
and still voting for Lindsey poophead Graham.
nuff said.
Rutherford, an attorney, said that if Greene were his client, he would move for a mental evaluation.
Hey, this is what they did in the old Soviet Union if you disagreed with them and were too famous to disappear: they declared you insane and locked you up in an insane asylum and threw away the key. Looks like the S.C. Rats are taking a page from the playbook of the Soviet Politburo. If you don't agree with them, then they lock you up.
Still, it makes you wonder how incompetent and clueless the Rats and their voters must be to elect Mr. Greene over their officially anointed nominee. Wish the Rats were this discombobulated this much everywhere else.
What the Dems are really afraid of is that this guy’s magnetic personality will make him the Majority Leader of the Senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.