|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37 |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Northam#Racist_yearbook_controversiesGiven the Democrat rush to convict Brett Kavanaugh on a mere allegation, no evidence, how much more so should there be a rush to judge Northam?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,879 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,879 Likes: 52 |
Allegations, and for a lifetime appointment there shouldn't have been a rush to seat him. And you might acknowledge that Dems are calling for the governor to step down.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37 |
If there were legitimate and credible evidence-based allegations, that might warrant a pending investigation of Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination. But at every stage, the attacks on Kavanaugh were clearly slanders and delay tactics, and given most of the allegations were immediately proven false, with the remainder (Christine Blasey-Ford) clearly having a partisan motivation for her allegationss, with abssolutely no evidence, and inconsistencies any third-rate lawyer could have ripped to shreds under cross-examination under oath. And Blasey-Ford should be in jail for perjury and lying to congress. But of course, defendant-bankrupting trials for perjury are reserved for anyone loyal to Trump, to shake down false confessions out of them. Just ask Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and George Pappadapoulos. None of whom would have ever been tried, if not for their brief association with the Trump campaign. And convicted on nothing related to Trump. Having a "D" next to your name, in contrast, means immunity and no chance of prosecution by the Hillary/Obama-loyalist comrade-commissar investigators of the FBI and DOJ, now matter how much evidence and clear guilt. And that includes both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (Obama for, at least, consciously communicating with Hillary Clinton on her illegal private e-mail server using a false name, which is the prosecutable federal crime of "gross negligence" and clear consciousness of guilt on Obama's part, to communicate under a false name.) But FBI/DOJ are too busy manufacturing crimes for their ideological opponents, to try the actual crimes committed by Obama, Hillary, and their personal mafia. Would that there were something even slightly resembling equal justice under the law.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37 |
And it should be pointed out that only a fraction of Democrats initially asked for Gov. Ralph Northam's resignation, and most of them were opportunists with presidential ambitions in the 2020 election. That doesn't even come close to compensating for all the Democrat hypocrisy on race issues, including the racist antisemitic remarks of Keith Ellison, newly seated Rep. Rashida Tlaib. And Rep Ilhan Omar, who routinely make racist/antisemitic, anti-Israel remarks, and yet still heads a House committee. The Democrats try to pretend they haaven't heard their remarks, and avoid comment, while simultaneously falsely accusing Republicans of being racist. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini...emitic-commentsThere was a comment about a week ago where Rep. Hakeem Jeffries in a speech called President Trump the "Grand Wizard in chief". That kind of incendiary rhetoric and false accusation from him and other Democrats (Sen Kamala Harris trying to get an ICE official to agree with her allegation that ICE are seen by "some people" as a terrorist group like the Ku Klux Klan) would make me delighted any day to read someday that they had been shanked to death in the street. That is clearly what their incendiary rhetoric is calculated to provoke. http://archive.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2649Born on August 4, 1970 in Crown Heights, New York, Hakeem Jeffries is the nephew of CCNY Black Studies professor Leonard Jeffries. He earned a BS in political science at SUNY Binghamton in 1992, an MA in public policy at Georgetown University in 1994, and a JD at New York University Law School in 1997. In the early '90s, Jeffries was employed in the office of Washington, DC mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly. He subsequently clerked for federal judge Harold Baer (Southern District of New York) in 1998; was an associate at the New York law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison from 1999-2003; worked as the litigation counsel for Viacom and CBS from 2003-06; and served as a Democrat in the New York State Assembly from 2006-12. During his years in state government, Jeffries favored race-based affirmative action preferences in public college admissions and public-sector hiring; supported increased government spending as a means of promoting economic growth; condemned what he called “the systematic civil rights abuses that result from the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program,” which he viewed as racist; advocated alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders; co-sponsored a Student Loan Fairness Act that advocated loan forgiveness to borrowers who made 120 monthly payments over the course of 10 years; maintained that citizens should not be permitted to carry concealed firearms; and called for the transformation of vacant luxury condominiums into “affordable homes” for low-income families. Shortly before the decennial U.S. Census in 2010, Jeffries joined forces with Al Sharpton and State Senator Eric Schneiderman in an effort to end what they termed “prison-based gerrymandering” in New York State. Their goal was to require the state to count incarcerated persons as residents of their home communities—rather than of the locales where they were imprisoned—for purposes of tabulating the Census data upon which legislative district lines (and the districts' respective levels of political clout) would be based. In Jeffries' view, this was particularly important for communities with large black populations, given the disproportionate degree to which African Americans are incarcerated. Click here for a more detailed explanation of this issue and its ramifications. In 2012 Jeffries was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he continues to represent New York's heavily Democratic, majority-black, 8th Congressional District covering sections of Brooklyn and Queens. He is a member of both the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), and has received strong campaign support from the Working Families Party. On October 27, 2013, Jeffries and fellow CBC member Yvette Clarke were among the guest speakers at a Civic Engagement Banquet arranged by the Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA), which describes itself as a “faith-based Dawah and social service national organization.” The Muslim Brotherhood, in some of its documents, mentions MUNA as one of its component groups. In 2014 Jeffries was one of 13 House Democrats who co-sponsored a bill requiring a government agency, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to study how hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones, television, and radio may “advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate” against “vulnerable individuals.” “This legislation will mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection,” said Jeffries. Jeffries was angered by a Ferguson, Missouri grand jury's November 2014 decision not to indict a white police officer who had shot and killed an 18-year-old black male named Michael Brown in an August 9th altercation. Despite the wide circulation of wholly fraudulent reports suggesting that Brown had been shot while his hands were raised in compliant surrender, the physical, forensic, and legitimate eyewitness evidence showed conclusively that the young man was in fact shot after he had assaulted the officer and tried to steal his gun. (Click here for details of that case.) On December 1, Jeffries took to the House floor to display the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture that had become symbolic of a massive anti-police-brutality protest movement stemming from Brown's death. He characterized the gesture and its accompanying slogan as “a rallying cry of people all across America who are fed up with police violence” and with “the injustice involved in continuing to see young, unarmed African-American men killed as a result of a gunshot fired by a law-enforcement officer.” “This is a problem that Congress can't run away from,” Jeffries declared. Jeffries was outraged yet again on December 3, 2014, when a grand jury in New York chose not to indict a white police officer who, on July 17th, had been involved in a physical confrontation that resulted in the death of a 43-year-old black Staten Island resident named Eric Garner. (Click here for details of that incident.) According to Jeffries, the non-indictment “should shock the conscience of every single American who cares about justice and fair play.” In 2013 Jeffries co-sponsored the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, which called for raising the minimum wage for workers nationwide to $10.10 per hour. That same year, he voted against maintaining a work requirement for welfare recipients. In June 2017, Jeffries stood on the House floor and said that "so many folks dripping in hatred flocked to [Donald Trump's 2016 presidential] candidacy," and that Trump's election represented a racist "backlash" against "eight years of progress" in America. "Why would people that worship at the altar of white supremacy [be] drawn to Donald Trump's campaign?" Jeffries asked. "That's not to say that every American who voted for Donald Trump is a racist," he added. "We do know that every racist in America voted for Donald Trump. That's a problem." Further, Jeffries said it was unlikely that Attorney General Jeff Sessions would prosecute hate crimes, because he was "straight out of central casting" for a "good ol' boy." Rep. Jeffries is a poster-boy for the black grievance industry. And for stoking the worst divisive rhetoric in American politics. But then... so are Obama, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, on and on. It is a party of demagoguery over solutions.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,879 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,879 Likes: 52 |
Already heard the GOP talking points from the shit stain in the Oval Office. For those that were fine with Trump's birtherism, you simply have no credibility on this.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37 |
Already heard the GOP talking points from the shit stain in the Oval Office. For those that were fine with Trump's birtherism, you simply have no credibility on this. No need for further comment, your apoplectic uncivility and hatred for Trump is clear, despite that he is solving problems both parties have let metastacize for over 30 years. The guy you demonize is solving those problems, despite obstruction from both sides. And Trump did not invent the birther movement, Hillary Clinton and her campaign did in 2008. (And invented the same birther allegation against McCain in 2008.) All Trump said to Obama is if you have nothing to hide, show us your birth certificate. Which Obama finally did, because Trump's media exposure on the issue was hurting Obama in the polls. So again, where no one else could leverage Obama to release his birth certificate in over 6 years, Trump was able to make happen what no one else could. And your demagoguery is not unique to Trump, you would use the same vile demagoguery for ANY Republican who was nominated or became president. EXAMPLES: Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr., Gingrich, George W. Bush, McCain, Romney, and now Trump, HAVE >>>>ALL<<< been demonized by the Democrat left as greedy, evil, elitist, rich, entitled white guys who are incompetent and only achieved office by entitled privelege. Trump is no different for you guys. Whatever Republican who replaces him will be THE NEW hated face of ultimate evil for you guys. Just like all these other Republicans were, for 50 years now. Don't pretend otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37 |
Twitter post: "If you're a Virginia Democrat and have not worn black-face, please contact us."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37 |
N Y TIMES APOLOGIZES FOR OFFENSIVE TWEET DESCRIBING ALLEGED BRETT KAVANAUGH BEHAVIOR AS "HARMLESS FUN" The Democrat/Left never ceases to make clear they are the most unprincipled and vicious people on the planet. Even when trying to front themselves as responsible journalists, they just can't even pretend to hide how unprincipled they truly are. There is nothing Brett Kavanaugh did to warrant this kind of treatment, the guy's record is absolutely spotless. You could go through mine or someone else's high school and college days and find some wild drunken escapades, or if you interviewed all the girls in my past maybe find one or two I got a little fresh with on a date (although most women I've run into years later actually told me I wasn't aggressive enough and didn't take the liberties that I could have.) I'm a really nice guy, but you could maybe find stuff in my past to smear my reputation if I were a public figure up for a Senate nomination. But Brett Kavanaugh is spotless. And that's why they have to manufacture this kind of lurid crap to even touch him. ALL FOUR of Kavanaugh's accusers have been exposed as liars with a clear Democrat partisan motive to destroy him. ALL FOUR. and it's a complete mystery to me why they haven't been tried for perjury. ALL FOUR. What further pisses me off is how Democrats nationwide endorse these slander tactics, even after the last shred of plausibility has been wiped away. Vicious pieces of excrement like Bill Maher who wish for a recession so the Democrats can beat Trump. Or use nicknames like "Moscow Mitch" and call the Republican Senate majority leader a traitor and "Russian asset" based on absolutely no evidence, when it is in truth their party that has undermined U.S. national security and secretly conspired with the Russians for decades. Ted Kennedy and the Democrats were secretly negotiating behind Ronald Reagan's back in the 1980's to discourage them from making a peace deal and nuclear arms reduction with Reagan. Since 1945, the Democrats have consistently been the "Russian asset" party, enabled Russian spies during the FDR and Truman years, sided against the U.S. during the Vietnam war, sided against the U.S. during the Persian Gulf war, blamed the U.S. for 9-11-2001, sided against the U.S. during the Iraq and Afghan wars, and are currently siding with China as Trump attempts to stop their 30 years of fleecing the United States in economic trade and cyber-theft. The same Democrats who would still have an incredibly corrupt Hillary Clinton over Trump. Hillary Clinton, who was already exposed as the most corrupt candidate before Nov 2016, and incredibly, they still favor her after all that's been revealed about her criminality over the last 2-plus years. The same Democrats who would support any of the current crop of DNC Bolsheviks in 2020, to complete the destruction of U.S. sovereignty that Obama and Hillary began. Their policies are the equivalent of the Chinese cultural revolution, and would fling open our borders, cripple our economy and kill millions of jobs, and complete the destruction of our military. The rhetoric they unleash on Kavanaugh is the same they unleash on 15 year old Nicholas Sandmann and his entire Covington Catholic High School class, as they increasingly reveal they would like to unleash on all Republican/conservative Americans, as most recently exposed in the twitter posts of Deborah Messing and co-star Eric McCormack they would if they could launch a Nazi-like purge of Republicans, deny them the ability to work, deny them the ability to eat in restaurants, and deny them police protection and the right to free speech, just because they disagree with their conservative views. How do you reason with these people? Again, I'm concerned this is leading toward a Kristallnacht-like purge. Certainly there is no obstacle in the liberal media, or in the Democrat leadership's rhetoric that encourages turning down the rhetoric. And by not calling for restraint only encourages further escalation of liberal rhetoric, liberal intolerance and liberal violence.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,879 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,879 Likes: 52 |
Why are you assuming Kavanaugh didn't do anything? Seems like these allegations were ignored and not investigated by the FBI. This will continue to follow him.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37 |
Why are you assuming Kavanaugh didn't do anything? Seems like these allegations were ignored and not investigated by the FBI. This will continue to follow him. I'm not "assuming". Based on the available facts, Brett Kavanaugh cannot be proven to have done anything wrong, and all four of his accusers are proven liars, with a proven and clearly stated Democrat-partisan motivation to destroy his Supreme Court nomination. And failing in that, to put an "asterisk" of slanderous doubt to his professional and personal life from 2018 forward. All four of these women are clearly guilty of perjury and slander. They should be prosecuted. Because only by prosecution are similar slanders deterred in the future. Likewise the crimes of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, John Brennan, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Sally Yates, James Clapper, Bill Priestap, Susan Rice, Robert Mueller, James Rybacki, Stefan Halper, Rod Rosenstein, and Andrew Weissman, and possibly many others up to and including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Former CIA official Tony Shaffer said, in a previous interview I posted, that on far less significant FISA surveilance several years ago, Shaffer had to brief the White House on what he was doing. How much more authorization would be needed, to run surveillance on Trump and his officials during his presidential campaign, during the transition period as president elect, and surveillance that continued on during the early months of Trump's presidency? Absolutely, beyond question, Obama was aware of the illegal FISA surveillance. What did he know and when did he know it? Likewise Lois Lerner and the weaponization of the IRS against Tea Party, religious conservatives and other grassroots Republican groups in advance of the 2012 election. That IRS Koskinin visited the White House over 150 times to coordinate, leading up to the 2012 election. To leave these crimes unprosecuted is just to invite the Democrat Bolsheviks to make even bolder abuses of federal power. The free pass Lois Lerner got (able to retire with a ridiculously generous 6-figure annual pension, rewarding her crimes with tax dollars of those she abused!) is what further invited the coup attempt in 2016, with Democrat agentss in the FBI and DOJ boldly abusing the FISA court, falsifying evidence against Trump, planting spies in the Trump campaign, and obstructing the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation so Hitlery could remain a 2016 candidate. It''s obscene, all these abuses have to be prosecuted.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,879 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,879 Likes: 52 |
This latest round of accusations involve more than four women. There are now a number of witnesses from his college days alleging behavior that should have made him ineligible for a lifetime appointment on the SC if true.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37 |
This latest round of accusations involve more than four women. There are now a number of witnesses from his college days alleging behavior that should have made him ineligible for a lifetime appointment on the SC if true. The key words there: if true. Slanderous wild accusations, completely unsubstantiated. See what I linked above, about penises in faces and "harmless fun", from the New York Times, no less! These are not serious allegations with anyone willing to go on the record against Kavanaugh. It's a pseudo-credible smear. Even less credible than the proven lies of the four women who accused him a year ago. The best revenge Kavanaugh can have is to, like Clarence Thomas before him, stay on the Supreme Court for 40 years. Thomas was even better, because he is a decisive hardline conservative. You should be pleased with Kavanaugh, since he is a rule-of-law guy, who rules overwhelmingly in favor of the law, even when the law doesn't support his own conservative beliefs. Even the liberal clerks who served under Kavanaugh praise his nonpartisanship and respect for the rule of law. As opposed judges like Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, whose ideological biases take a high priority for them above the rule of law. For example, Ginsberg when she participated in a ruling that advanced gay marriage nationally, was later revealed to have conducted a gay marriage herself within weeks of the ruling. With her bias, she should have recused herself from that decision. But she's a social justice warrior, which has a higher priority for her than being a neutral judge.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,879 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,879 Likes: 52 |
So we have multiple witnesses that remember Kavanaugh that are saying similar things. I suspect if he was a liberal you than would find that not slanderous but a pattern of behavior. And it's not about how he votes on the court WB. It was always going to be a conservative nominee given the President and the hard right controlling the Senate. Now when you lose the Senate the WH though Kavanaugh might end up being impeached.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37 |
That false narrative is already falling apart, M E M. NY Times updates Kavanaugh 'bombshell' to note accuser doesn't recall alleged assaultThe New York Times suddenly made a major revision to a supposed bombshell piece late Sunday concerning a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — hours after virtually all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates had cited the original article as a reason to impeach Kavanaugh.
The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no comment about the episode.
The only firsthand statement concerning the supposed attack in the original piece, which was published on Saturday, came from a Clinton-connected lawyer who claimed to have witnessed it.
The Times' revision says: "Editors' Note: An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article."
The update came only after The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway, who reviewed an advance copy of the book, first flagged the article's omission on Twitter — prompting other commentators to press the issue.
The Times did not immediately respond to an email from Fox News seeking comment.
The paper's editors' note, meanwhile, did little to stem a torrent of criticism late Sunday.
Should I be surprised at this point that the NYT would make such an unforgivable oversight?" asked RealClearInvestigations' Mark Hemingway.
Wrote the Washington Examiner's Jerry Dunleavy: "Crazy how the 'one element' that wasn’t included in the [New York Times'] original article was the part where the alleged victim’s friends said she doesn’t remember it happening." "It’s important to point out that this correction almost certainly would have never occurred if conservative media folks like @MZHemingway and others hadn’t obtained the copy of the actual book itself the same day the excerpt/article was released," author James Hasson said.
Throughout the day on Sunday, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, Cory Booker and Julian Castro, among others, declared that Kavanaugh "must be impeached," citing the allegation.
The revitalized, longshot push to get Kavanaugh removed from the high court came as Democrats' apparent effort to impeach President Trump has largely stalled. Trump, for his part, suggested Sunday that Kavanaugh should sue for defamation.
The Times piece by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, adapted from their forthcoming book, asserted that a Kavanaugh classmate, Clinton-connected nonprofit CEO Max Stier, "saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student."
The Times did not mention Stier's work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier's legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a "respected thought leader."
According to the Times, Stier "notified senators and the FBI about this account" last year during the Kavanaugh hearings, "but the FBI did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly."
However, the Times' article also conspicuously did not mention that Pogrebin and Kelly's book found that the female student in question had denied any knowledge of the alleged episode.
"The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event," observed Mollie Hemingway. "Seems, I don’t know, significant."
The book reads: "[Tracy] Harmon, whose surname is now Harmon Joyce, has also refused to discuss the incident, though several of her friends said she does not recall it."
"Omitting these facts from the @nytimes story is one of worst cases of journalistic malpractice that I can recall," wrote the National Review's Washington correspondent, John McCormack, on Twitter.
McCormack wrote separately: "If Kavanaugh’s 'friends pushed his penis,' then isn’t it an allegation of wrongdoing against Kavanaugh’s 'friends,' not Kavanaugh himself? Surely even a modern liberal Yalie who’s been to one of those weird non-sexual 'naked parties' would recognize both the female student and Kavanaugh are both alleged victims in this alleged incident, barring an additional allegation that a college-aged Kavanaugh asked his 'friends' to 'push his penis.'"
The Times went on to note in the article that it had "corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier," but the article apparently meant only that the Times had corroborated that Stier made his claim to the FBI. No first-hand corroboration of the alleged episode was apparently obtained.
Nevertheless, Democrats announced a new effort to topple Kavanaugh. Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono -- who infamously said last year that Kavanaugh did not deserve a fair hearing because he might be pro-life -- said the Senate Judiciary Committee should begin an impeachment inquiry to determine whether Kavanaugh lied to Congress.
Impeaching Kavanaugh would require a majority vote in the Democratic-controlled House, and a highly unlikely two-thirds vote in the GOP-majority Senate would then be needed to remove him from the bench. No Supreme Court justice or president has ever been convicted by the Senate, although eight lower-level federal judges have been.
The long odds didn't stop 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls from joining in on the effort.
"I sat through those hearings," Harris wrote on Twitter. "Brett Kavanaugh lied to the U.S. Senate and most importantly to the American people. He was put on the Court through a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice. He must be impeached."
During the hearings, Harris strongly implied that she knew Kavanaugh had improperly discussed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's then-ongoing probe with a Trump-connected lawyer.
Harris provided no evidence for the bombshell insinuation, which went viral on social media and sent the hearing room into stunned silence, even as she directly accused Kavanaugh of lying under oath.
Castro and Warren echoed that sentiment and said Kavanaugh had committed perjury.
It’s more clear than ever that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath," Castro wrote. "He should be impeached. And Congress should review the failure of the Department of Justice to properly investigate the matter."
Warren wrote: "Last year the Kavanaugh nomination was rammed through the Senate without a thorough examination of the allegations against him. Confirmation is not exoneration, and these newest revelations are disturbing. Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached."
O'Rourke claimed to "know" that Kavanaugh had lied under oath, and falsely said that the new accuser was not known to Senate Democrats or the FBI last year.
"Yesterday, we learned of another accusation against Brett Kavanaugh—one we didn't find out about before he was confirmed because the Senate forced the F.B.I. to rush its investigation to save his nomination," O'Rourke said. "We know he lied under oath. He should be impeached."
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted in part, "This new allegation and additional corroborating evidence adds to a long list of reasons why Brett Kavanaugh should not be a Supreme Court justice. I stand with survivors and countless other Americans in calling for impeachment proceedings to begin."
Amy Klobuchar stopped short of calling for impeachment, and instead posted a picture of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford with the words, "Let us never forget what courage looks like."
Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, said he backed getting rid of Kavanaugh by any legal means available: "The revelations today confirm what we already knew: During his hearing, Kavanaugh faced credible accusations and likely lied to Congress. I support any appropriate constitutional mechanism to hold him accountable."
As the calls mounted, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., shot back Sunday afternoon on Twitter -- and made clear that Kavanaugh wasn't going anywhere.
"The far left’s willingness to seize on completely uncorroborated and unsubstantiated allegations during last year’s confirmation process was a dark and embarrassing chapter for the Senate," McConnell wrote. He added: "Fortunately a majority of Senators and the American people rallied behind timeless principles such as due process and the presumption of innocence. I look forward to many years of service to come from Justice Kavanaugh."
The Times' piece also stated that well before Kavanaugh became a federal judge, "at least seven people" had heard about how he allegedly exposed himself to Deborah Ramirez at a party.
Ramirez had called classmates at Yale seeking corroboration for her story, and even told some of her classmates that she could not remember the culprit in the alleged episode -- before changing her mind and publicly blaming Kavanaugh "after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney," the New Yorker reported last year in a widely derided piece.
[][][]The Senate Judiciary Committee, then led by Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote in an executive summary of its investigation that it contacted Ramirez’s counsel "seven times seeking evidence to support claims made in the New Yorker," but that "Ms. Ramirez produced nothing in response and refused a Committee request for an interview."[][][]
Late Sunday, Grassley's office called out the Times for omitting key details in the story published this weekend.
"@NYTimes did not contact Sen. Grassley’s office for this story. If they had, we would've reminded them of a few key public facts they omitted," Grassley's team wrote. "Despite 7 attempts by staff, Ms. Ramirez' lawyers declined to provide documentary evidence referenced in the article/witness accounts to support the claims. They also declined invitations for Ms. Ramirez to speak with committee investigators or to provide a written statement."
Additionally, the FBI separately reached out to nearly a dozen individuals to corroborate the allegations by Ford and Ramirez, and ultimately spoke to ten individuals and two eyewitnesses, but apparently found no corroboration.
The agency's investigation began after then-Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., called for a one-week delay in Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings so an independent agency could look into the claims against him. Flake said the FBI's probe needed to be limited in length to avoid derailing the proceedings with endless claims and probes going back to Kavanaugh's high school years.
Kavanaugh, predicted by Democrats during his confirmation process to be a hardline conservative, often sided with liberal justices during the Supreme Court's last term.
The president, meanwhile, accused the media of trying to influence Kavanaugh. He also went on to say that Kavanaugh should go on the offensive and take on the media for false statements.
"Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue. The lies being told about him are unbelievable. False Accusations without recrimination. When does it stop? They are trying to influence his opinions. Can’t let that happen!" he tweeted.
Grassley sent several criminal referrals to the Justice Department related to alleged lies submitted to Senate investigators during Kavanaugh's confirmation process -- which could be what the president meant when he wrote Sunday that the DOJ "should come to [Kavanuagh's] rescue."
One of those referrals was for now-disgraced attorney Michael Avenatti and one of his clients, Julie Swetnick, regarding a potential "conspiracy" to provide false statements to Congress and obstruct its investigation. Swetnick's credibility took a hit as she changed her story about Kavanaugh's purported gang-rape trains, and her ex-boyfriend went public to say she was known for "exaggerating everything."
Swetnick and Ramirez were just two of several women who had accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct during his confirmation process. Christine Blasey Ford notably testified that Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her at a party when they were teens, and dubiously asserted that the memory was "indelible" in her "hippocampus" -- although no witnesses could corroborate her ever-changing story -- even her close lifelong friend, Leland Keyser, who Ford said had attended the party.
Keyser, according to the Times reporters' new book, did not believe Ford's story -- and refused to change her mind, despite pressure from progressive activists and Ford's friends.
"It just didn't make any sense," Keyser said, referring to Ford's explanation of how she was assaulted at a party that Keyser attended, but could not recall how she got home.
Ford's attorney, Debra Katz, was quoted in a new book as saying that Ford was motivated to come forward in part by a desire to tag Kavanaugh's reputation with an "asterisk" before he could start ruling on abortion-related cases.
"In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court," Katz said. "He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important.
"It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine."
The Federalist reported last week that Ford's father privately supported Kavanaugh's confirmation, and approached Ed Kavanaugh on a golf course to make his support clear.
Some claims that surfaced during Kavanaugh's confirmation fell apart within days. For example, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., received a call from an anonymous constituent who claimed that in 1985, two "heavily inebriated men" referred to as "Brett and Mark" had sexually assaulted a friend of hers on a boat.
The Twitter account belonging to the accuser apparently advocated for a military coup against the Trump administration. The constituent recanted the sexual assault claim on the social media site days later.
While a long piece, I chose to quote the complete article, because it demonstrates that allegation after allegation has proven with the slightest investigation to be outright lies, to have a Democrat-partisan malicious motive to slander and destroy Kavanaugh's nomination and ongoing reputation while on the Supreme Court, or "witnesses" who cannot substantiate what they are alleged to say, or do not even recall the public allegations they are alleged to have made. Bottom line with the new "bombshell" allegations: 1) Tracy Harmon-Joyce does not even recall the things she is alleged to have said about Kavanaugh, and neither her OR HER FRIENDS have any memory of the alleged incident. 2) Max Stier is a Democrat-partisan Hillary Clinton lawyer, who has animosity and a grudge toward Kavanaugh going back to their being on opposing sides in the Whitewater investigation. 3) Because of Mollie Hemingway and other reporters calling them on it, the New York Times is exposed as smearing Kavanaugh with easily disproven unsubstantiated "sources", and the N Y Times made a desperate attempt to salvage their bankrupted credibility with a revision of the story. But the N Y Times are already proven liars who clearly and deliberately got the story wrong. At a real newspaper, the reporter would be fired. 4) Every last one of the 2020 presidential Democrat primary candidates has leaped on this story and trashed Kavanaugh, most calling directly for Kavanaugh's removal, based on no facts. For me, their doing so, *bypassing the constitutional rule of law* should disqualify them as presidential candidates. They've telegraphed the abuse of power they would engage in, if they ever gained presidential power. Slander, intimidation, violence. The way of the Bolshevik party. The way of the Democrat party.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,272 Likes: 37 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,310 Likes: 26
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,310 Likes: 26 |
Trump will win in a landslide both in the popular vote and the electoral college.
"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?" [center] [/center] [center] [/center]
|
|
|
|
|