Mark, at this point, it would be wise to just say "no comment."
Boughton said Friday that his campaign staff had no way of knowing that third-party donors were acting as conduits for Galante contributions.
"We've accepted thousands of donations from thousands of contributors and we assume that the name on the check is the person that donated the money," Boughton said. "In fact, we send a personal thank-you letter to each person. I was absolutely unaware that there was anything wrong with any donations."
Look people, although I've been blogging for about two years, I've been a resident of Danbury for over 20 years and I can tell you something without blinking an eye...IT'S VERY UNUSUAL TO RECEIVE A PERSONAL DONATION FOR 1,000 DOLLARS and when you do receive a donation in that amount YOU NEVER FORGET IT. In other words, what the last honest man in Danbury is saying makes NO sense and I those who know politics AREN'T BUYING HIS EXCUSE.
If you simply look at the People over Politics PAC finance report it's crystal clear that something was up because there were ONLY EIGHT PEOPLE who gave a donation of 1,000 in the report in question.
EIGHT...that's it.
Hell, I'm still scanning all of Boughton's reports now... here a challenge for you.
Go and check ALL the People over Politics PAC and see how many people gave a PERSONAL donation of 1,000. Now, look at all the other donations...notice the difference in the amount of money donated individually?
For Boughton to claim that he's accepted "thousands of donations from thousands of contributors" means NOTHING. Ask ANY LOCAL POLITICIAN and they'll tell you that YOU REMEMBER PEOPLE WHO GIVE LARGE DONATIONS and you DEFINITELY remember people who give the maximum amount of monetary donation by law (which is 1,000 dollars).
Now if someone like me can detect Boughton's dishonesty, imagine what people with knowledge (like the Chief State's Attorney's office) are thinking about Boughton's and his excuses right now.
This blurb in the Courant should give you a clue...
As Danbury's mayor, Boughton has worked closely with Galante, whose network of trash-related businesses is a major presence in the city. In particular, the Boughton administration worked with Galante on issues related to the rehabilitation of a city ice rink where Galante's minor league professional hockey team, the Danbury Trashers, played. Boughton dismissed local critics who said the city bent rules to rush approval of an occupancy permit for the rink. Boughton also said he is not close to Galante socially.
"Boughton said he is not close to the Galante socially"...ah, yeah right. Maybe everyone was seeing things when they look up and saw who was sitting with who in the box seats during the Trasher's games.
Oh, the past is finally coming back to haunt Mr. People over Politics...it's just a matter of time now...
Mark my words, if you think last week was bad for team Boughton, wait till you see what goes down next week.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
Mark, at this point, it would be wise to just say "no comment."
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
