maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:38 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 983 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 ... 99  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Kavanaugh Supreme Court nominee
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:07 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11960
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 15961
jwilkerson wrote:
It could be that an impeachable offense is whatever the house wants it to be. So I think impeachment is technically easy if the party wanting to impeach has a majority in the house.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#Process
Quote:
The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".[32] Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor", especially since Nixon v. United States stated that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant.[33] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."[34]


The legislators may get to temporarily enjoy the illusion that "Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a 'high crime or misdemeanor'," . . . but like I said. If EITHER party were to impeach based on proof which was not sufficiently compelling to the majority of the population, they risk civil war. That much applies in general and it is frankly OUR right as citizens to overthrow their asses if they stray from clear due process, empiricism, and fairness, because the impeachment of a sitting President would ostensibly represent the reversal of popular will. In sum, IF a one-party dominated legislature impeaches on frivolous grounds, it is our natural right to overthrow said legislature, just as much as IF a sitting President turns Idi Amin it is our natural right to overthrow said President.

You see Nero: this is why we refuse to give our weapons. We the People, i.e., the vast majority of us, hold the ultimate reigns of power: everyone "below" us is just serving at our discretion, and if they fuck up bad enough, we'll kick their asses out just like we kicked out King George's minions.

Given the present circumstances, I would say that if the Democratic bucket of scum in particular were to (a) win a house; (b) bring impeachment on whatever bullshit they got in their grubby little paws right now; and (c) over the protestation of the Republican bucket of puke, then they would most certainly be risking civil war.

Too many Americans are sick of their shit, including large majority fractions of the military and law enforcement, i.e., not the segments of the population you want to have on the "opposing side" when you set out to execute a coup d'etat.

If they got good, solid, compelling proof of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" well fine and dandy: lets see 'em. Otherwise they can STFU and in fact are wise to do so because with the amount of damage they have already done to their credibility NOT shutting up is likely to see them completely dis-empowered at the Federal level.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kavanaugh Supreme Court nominee
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:26 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 10463
Location: Eskridge, KS
Reputation points: 14677
But realize, "impeachment" by the house has no consequences ... willie cliton got impeached .. nothing happened to him ... because the next step in the process is the senate "tries" the case and votes to convict or acquit. It requires 2/3rds to convict ... else the result is acquittal. willie cliton was impeached but he was acquitted ... hence no consequences ... thus impeachment does not necessarily have any consequences.

_________________
Go trumpf Go !!!
(will the resident return to being the President?)
(will the rainbow shack return to being the White House?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kavanaugh Supreme Court nominee
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:55 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 27707
Reputation points: 20000
Successful impeachment of either Trump or Kavanaugh is magical thinking.

A surprise announcement of Russian "collusion" by Mueller is LESS likely than winning the Powerball.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kavanaugh Supreme Court nominee
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:59 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 27707
Reputation points: 20000
A surprise announcement of that Trump and Horseface have a love child is 10x as likely as a conviction of Trump in the senate.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kavanaugh Supreme Court nominee
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:13 am 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 16212
Reputation points: 13228


An older video 2013 that shows the extremes the women's movement goes to to fight the Patriarchy.

It's almost laughable.

The girl's handlers lose money by Paul's actions and have him jailed.

What does the Anglican bishop make of it?

_________________
“Political Language… is Designed to Make Lies Sound Truthful… and to Give an Appearance of Solidity to Pure Wind.” — George Orwell


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kavanaugh Supreme Court nominee
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:31 am 
Offline
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:09 am
Posts: 1659
Location: On the beach
Reputation points: 8527
The point would be not to actually impeach him (which is pretty much impossible due to the Senate) but to create such a shit storm as to force him to resign... ala Richard Nixon.

_________________
"In this present crisis, Government is not the solution to our problem; Government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

"Because in America, we don't worship Government; we worship God." - Donald Trump


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kavanaugh Supreme Court nominee
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:41 am 
Offline
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:09 am
Posts: 1659
Location: On the beach
Reputation points: 8527
Meanwhile...

Cory Booker Allegedly Assaulted a Gay Man in a Bathroom in 2014



There doesn't seem to be any corroborating evidence, but then again Booker recently said that there doesn't have to be corroborating evidence to investigate.

_________________
"In this present crisis, Government is not the solution to our problem; Government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

"Because in America, we don't worship Government; we worship God." - Donald Trump


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kavanaugh Supreme Court nominee
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:20 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 31325
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
Lava wrote:
Meanwhile...

Cory Booker Allegedly Assaulted a Gay Man in a Bathroom in 2014



There doesn't seem to be any corroborating evidence, but then again Booker recently said that there doesn't have to be corroborating evidence to investigate.


Quote:
There doesn't seem to be any corroborating evidence, but then again Booker recently said that there doesn't have to be corroborating evidence to investigate.

And perhaps that is WHY such an uncorroborated allegation comes out. ;-)

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kavanaugh Supreme Court nominee
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:04 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 27707
Reputation points: 20000
Lava wrote:
Meanwhile...

Cory Booker Allegedly Assaulted a Gay Man in a Bathroom in 2014



There doesn't seem to be any corroborating evidence, but then again Booker recently said that there doesn't have to be corroborating evidence to investigate.


Is this Booker's "gladiator moment"?

The gladiator part is at about 1:41


_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kavanaugh Supreme Court nominee
PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:58 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 31325
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... gh-n924596

Quote:
New questions raised about Avenatti claims regarding Kavanaugh

"I do not like that he twisted my words," one woman says of lawyer Michael Avenatti.


Oct. 25, 2018 / 6:53 PM EDT

By Kate Snow and Anna Schecter

When Sen. Chuck Grassley referred attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick to the Justice Department for criminal investigation Thursday, he cited Swetnick's interview with NBC News as evidence the two were trying to mislead the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In the NBC News interview that aired on Oct. 1, Swetnick back-tracked on or contradicted parts of her sworn statement where she alleged she witnessed then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of boys."

NBC News also found other apparent inconsistencies in a second sworn statement from another woman whose statement Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in a bid to bolster Swetnick's claims.

In the second statement, the unidentified woman said she witnessed Kavanaugh "spike" the punch at high school parties in order to sexually take advantage of girls. But less than 48 hours before Avenatti released her sworn statement on Twitter, the same woman told NBC News a different story.

Referring to Kavanaugh spiking the punch, "I didn't ever think it was Brett," the woman said to reporters in a phone interview arranged by Avenatti on Sept. 30 after repeated requests to speak with other witnesses who might corroborate Swetnick's claims. As soon as the call began, the woman said she never met Swetnick in high school and never saw her at parties and had only become friends with her when they were both in their 30s.

When asked in the phone interview if she ever witnessed Kavanaugh act inappropriately towards girls, the woman replied, "no." She did describe a culture of heavy drinking in high school that she took part in, and said Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were part of that group.

In a statement Thursday about his referral of Swetnick and Avenatti for a criminal investigation, Grassley said, "When a well-meaning citizen comes forward with information relevant to the committee's work, I take it seriously….But in the heat of partisan moments, some do try to knowingly mislead the committee. That's unfair to my colleagues, the nominees and others providing information who are seeking the truth."

Avenatti responded in a statement to NBC News saying, "Senator Grassley has just made a major mistake. Let the investigation into Kavanaugh and his lies begin."

Kavanaugh and Judge denied the allegations leveled by Swetnick and other women. Avenatti, asked about the inconsistencies within the second woman's account, said: "It is a sworn declaration that she read and signed and repeatedly stood behind."

According to the second woman's declaration that Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, she said: "During the years 1981-82, I witnessed firsthand Brett Kavanaugh, together with others, 'spike' the 'punch' at house parties I attended with Quaaludes and/or grain alcohol. I understood this was being done for the purpose of making girls more likely to engage in sexual acts and less likely to say 'No.'"

The statement also said that Kavanaugh was "overly aggressive and verbally abusive to girls. This conduct included inappropriate physical contact with girls of a sexual nature."

But reached by phone independently from Avenatti on Oct. 3, the woman said she only "skimmed" the declaration. After reviewing the statement, she wrote in a text on Oct. 4 to NBC News: "It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone spike the punch...I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one."

When pressed about abusive behavior towards girls, she wrote in a text: "I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence. Male or female."

Shortly after tweeting out the woman's allegations on Oct. 2, Avenatti confirmed to NBC News that it was the same woman interviewed by phone on Sept. 30. But when questioned on Oct. 3 about the discrepancies between what she said in the phone interview and the serious allegations in the sworn declaration, Avenatti said he was "disgusted" with NBC News. At one point, in an apparent effort to thwart the reporting process, he added in the phone call, "How about this, on background, it's not the same woman. What are you going to do with that?"

After NBC News received text messages from the woman refuting some of the claims in the declaration, NBC reached out again to Avenatti, who defended the declaration.

"I have no idea what you are talking about," he said in a text. "I have a signed declaration that states otherwise together with multiple audio recordings where she stated exactly what is in the declaration. There were also multiple witnesses to our discussions."

He sent a follow-up message moments later: "I just confirmed with her yet again that everything in the declaration is true and correct," Avenatti said. "She must have been confused by your question."

Roughly five minutes later, the woman sent a formally-worded text backing Avenatti. "Please understand that everything in the declaration is true and you should not contact me anymore regarding this issue," the text read.

But when reached by phone minutes later, the woman again insisted that she never saw Kavanaugh spike punch or act inappropriately toward women. She said she's "been consistent in what she's told Michael."

In a subsequent text on Oct. 5, she wrote, "I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti. I do not like that he twisted my words."

Kate Snow
Kate Snow is a national correspondent for NBC News.

Image:
Anna Schecter
Anna Schecter is a producer for the investigations unit of NBC News.




Quote:
In the NBC News interview that aired on Oct. 1, Swetnick back-tracked on or contradicted parts of her sworn statement where she alleged she witnessed then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of boys."



Quote:
But reached by phone independently from Avenatti on Oct. 3, the woman said she only "skimmed" the declaration. After reviewing the statement, she wrote in a text on Oct. 4 to NBC News: "It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone spike the punch...I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one."


Quote:
In a subsequent text on Oct. 5, she wrote, "I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti. I do not like that he twisted my words."


So as of Oct 1., NBC was already aware that there were inconsistencies in the allegations regarding Swetnick.
On Oct 3 the unidentified woman who was supposedly corroborating Swetnick's story told NBC that she had (not read) only skimmed her declaration.
On Oct 4 the unidentified woman told NBC that she never saw Kavanaugh (or anyone for that matter) spike the punch.

The Judiciary Committee voted on Sept. 28.
The Full Senate began discussion on the confirmation on October 5, 2018.
A motion to invoke cloture was held on the Oct 5.
The full Senate vote on the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh took place on October 6, 2018.

So NBC had information that the Swetnick story was questionable, and they were aware of this on Oct 1, 4 days BEFORE the Senate began discussion on the nomination, 4 days BEFORE the cloture vote, and 5 days BEFORE the full Senate vote, but they are only revealing all this on Oct 25th.

This is utter BULLSHIT.
Granted, NBC committed no crime by withholding this information, but it reveals them as being complicit in attempting to derail a Supreme Court nomination with knowingly unsubstantiated allegations.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 983 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 ... 99  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mac and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group