Reply With Quote
CHARLIE KIRK: Collins stands up to Dem bullies and becomes a profile in courage
CNN's Acosta Moans About Susan Collins' Vote. Twitter Mocks Him.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36805...mpaign=dwbrand
CHARLIE KIRK: Collins stands up to Dem bullies and becomes a profile in courage
Democrats still trying to fire up the right base
Stupid to bully Collins.
She talked to him numerous times and did her HW.
Completely legit reasoning even if I do think K is a liar.
How the Democrats got outplayed on Kavanaugh
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/05/opi...www.cnn.com%2F
Good post
You were with the Dems in 2016
If she keeps this up she's not gonna win the Sydney MacCain Courage Award.
Left inevitably demonizes anyone who doesn't do their bidding.
Creative, selective wording by the liberal media:
"Ford privately shared her story with the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, but the allegation leaked."
So the allegation leaked itself out. Notice it doesn't say "the allegation was leaked" because that implies someone leaked it and that would point toward Feinstein who is mentioned in the sentence. Rest assured that, if the tables were turned, that "was" would be right in there along with some offerings of names who might have been the ones to leak it but it would be "unconfirmed".
Yep trumpAnd Avenatti should definitely stay in the public eye and run in 2020.
Would
Crush
Him
Calls for violence. Feels qualified to classify "moderate".
And he is a terrorist sympathizer.
Calls for violence. Feels qualified to classify "moderate".
damn skippy.
last time around (1991-2) there were more women elected and more sex harassment remedies. pussy hats are the least of your worries now.
Where's the call for violence, Nathan?
Calls for violence. Feels qualified to classify "moderate".
I know you want desperately to be a victim -- where is the threat to you here?
90%+ of K's doc classified, secret, what were they hiding?
more authoritarian secrecy, hiding the undisputed TINESS of K
McGhan chose K for Trump to nominate, so McGhan knew how ty K was.
F.B.I. Review of Kavanaugh Was Limited From the Start
An exasperated President Trump picked up the phone to call the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, last Sunday. Tell the F.B.I. they can investigate anything, he told Mr. McGahn, because we need the critics to stop.
Not so fast, Mr. McGahn said.
Mr. McGahn, according to people familiar with the conversation, told the president that even though the White House was facing a storm of condemnation for limiting the F.B.I. background check into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh,
a wide-ranging inquiry like some Democrats were demanding — and Mr. Trump was suggesting — would be potentially disastrous for Judge Kavanaugh’s chances of confirmation to the Supreme Court.
It would also go far beyond the F.B.I.’s usual “supplemental background investigation,” which is, by definition, narrow in scope.
the F.B.I. did not interview the two people at the center — Judge Kavanaugh and his main accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.
Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, declared the F.B.I. efforts to be “a whitewash” and vowed to open a new investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations if Democrats take control of the House in November’s elections.
“We have to assure the American people either that it was a fair process and that the new justice did not commit perjury, did not do these terrible things,” Mr. Nadler said.
the White House is always in charge of background checks and can limit the scope of the questions F.B.I. agents can ask and who they can interview.
In the case of Judge Kavanaugh,
Mr. McGahn instructed the F.B.I. to do an additional background check focused exclusively on the sexual misconduct charges leveled by three women.
some former law enforcement experts said it was an odd decision not to include the two people at the center of the controversy.
doubted that agents decided not to interview Dr. Blasey and Mr. Kavanaugh on their own.
“I don’t think that it was in the parameters of the request,” he said.
“That’s what I would assume. It would be frustrating as an investigator. The nature of investigators is to get to the bottom line. You’d want to talk to both of them.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/u...er=rss&emc=rss
iow, more info, complete info, on K would have killed him. So the WH authoritarian cabal, alraedy having classified K docs, shut it down to silly uselessness.
But Warren said the FBI did not exonerate K, and of course, a ty hard-right asshole was what the Repugs wanted, because the oligarchy paid them for pro-oligarchy compromised, ty SCOTUS.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-06-2018 at 07:25 AM.
No it’s not.
Its just plain yogurt.
She also met with rape victims, believes them as well, but did not know who to believe in the SC hearings.
She is old and dignified. She has no reason for keeping what has become a very difficult job. She probably has been through me too moments as well and shrugged them off as “the way it was”
Plenty of those from the red team as well. A constantform Lyin Ted. And not even subtle from the WH... The WSJ also pulls this stuff. The WSJ is still a great go to. You need to take the above up with the original press piece that came out. They have been adamant on Feinstein not leaking but will not release any names.
And this needs to be thoroughly investigated, as the red team has promised.
Will Feinstein bring this up?;
2016 "Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she doesn’t even “want to contemplate” a Donald Trump presidency, during a rare interview released Sunday — in which she also talked of heading “to New Zealand” if the billionaire wins.
“I can’t imagine what this place would be . . . with Donald Trump as our president,” the 83-year-old jurist said in an interview in her chambers which was published by the New York Times.
“For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that,” she said. “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
Toga Toga!
"Kavanaugh will join the Supreme Court
despite opposition from senators representing more than half the country,
despite more than half the country opposing his nomination,
despite being viewed unfavorably by nearly half the country and thanks to a president who is viewed with disapproval by more than half the country and who lost the popular vote.
He will join three other justices who, like him, were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...nl_most&wpmm=1
The oligarchy rules, unopposed, unstoppable, irreversible
Rigged, abused, fleeced, enslaved, oppressed, polluted, non-democratic America is ed and un able.
If The Rule Of Law Means Anything, Kavanaugh Must Be Impeached
If a federal judge can get away with lying to Congress, why do we even have sworn oaths?
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...Be%20Impeached
and the Repugs slandered Obama as "lawless"
Good catch, most people will read this and not even realize a person leaked the allegations.
Boos meltdowns make me laugh.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
