Check out some similar questions!

Wondergirl · Sep 16, 2019, 05:44 PM

V7, I'm known here as WG!!!! (easier to type)

I never belonged to a union. My husband was a CWA member (Western Electric/AT&T/Lucent) and had good things to say about it back in the day. He dropped out of the U of Illinois, and received great training at Western Electric so that he eventually became a senior 5ESS installer. (Don't ask me what that means.) His pension and my library one keep us fed and housed.

jlisenbe · Sep 17, 2019, 05:07 AM

The New York Times, once an honorable newspaper, runs a completely bogus story concerning a supposed sexual incident involving a young Brett Kavanaugh. Several leading democrat presidential contenders, including Warren, Harris, and Beto, immediately issued a call for his impeachment. Sadly amazing. I can't imagine an America with one of those individuals as president. There is still such a thing as justice.

talaniman · Sep 17, 2019, 02:01 PM

Did you mean this story?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/u...45tion=topNews

The

bureau pledged to look into the Ramirez allegations

, but Justice Kavanaugh’s detractors pointed to the Coons letter as evidence that her claims were given short shrift, and that corroborating witnesses were ignored. The F.B.I. declined to comment on Monday, but pointed to Mr. Wray’s testimony last year before Congress, where he defended the bureau’s handling of the supplemental investigation into Justice Kavanaugh, noting that it had been directed by the White House, which had asked for a narrow inquiry. Under standard protocol, the bureau responds to background investigation requests from the White House, not members of Congress.

More corruption and obstruction by the dufus?

jlisenbe · Sep 17, 2019, 02:46 PM

No, but this one. "The New York Times was reeling on Monday after its Opinion section fumbled a high-profile story about an allegation of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, drawing widespread criticism and condemnation of the newspaper."

When CNN says the Times "fumbled" a story, then that is significant. Much worse, however, is the eagerness of the dem candidates to jump on the story and call for an impeachment of Kavanaugh when they had no idea of the veracity of the story. It is nauseating and politics at its ugliest.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/media...ugh/index.html

talaniman · Sep 17, 2019, 02:59 PM

Politics during silly season, trying to get elected. Anything goes. What's new? I'm more nauseated by the WH interference in the confirmation investigation. which I called a sham when it was current.

jlisenbe · Sep 17, 2019, 03:02 PM

Anything goes.

What a statement.

Athos · Sep 17, 2019, 03:07 PM

Lewandowski's outrageous behavior today should have been cited for contempt and thrown in jail. At least overnight before Barr DOJ freed him as soon as they knew.

Nadler was ineffective. At least the public could discern that the Democrats were seeking the truth while the Republicans delayed, stalled, and obfuscated every chance they could. It was a disgraceful performance. Now up to 16, the number of Republicans leaving Congress by next election. The shame is getting to them.

talaniman · Sep 17, 2019, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

What a statement.

Anything does go and Exhibit A is the words, actions and behavior of the dufus to get elected, and after he was elected. If that doesn't nauseate you, I honestly don't see how a badly edited NY times story could.

Originally Posted by Athos

Lewandowski's outrageous behavior today should have been cited for contempt and thrown in jail. At least overnight before Barr DOJ freed him as soon as they knew.

Nadler was ineffective. At least the public could discern that the Democrats were seeking the truth while the Republicans delayed, stalled, and obfuscated every chance they could. It was a disgraceful performance. Now up to 16, the number of Republicans leaving Congress by next election. The shame is getting to them.

I disagree a bit here as a clear case to obstruct a congressional investigation was quite evident, and the WH, and Lewandowski are co conspirators in that obstruction. The process of law often does not yeild instant results, but putting together a case is why lawyers charge the big bucks. Contempt may be the least of Lewandowski's worries.

jlisenbe · Sep 17, 2019, 03:53 PM

Anything does go and Exhibit A is the words, actions and behavior of the dufus to get elected, and after he was elected. If that doesn't nauseate you, I honestly don't see how a badly edited NY times story could.

If, as you said, "anything goes", then why are you upset?

If you can justify six dem candidates for pres calling for the impeachment of a sitting Supreme Court justice on the basis of a pathetic, misleading article, then I guess "anything goes' pretty much describes it.

Copied the following off of Facebook. Pretty well summarizes it.

"Does anyone else find it strange—even comical—that the Democrat questioners are concerned about a meeting that wound up not occurring between Lewandowski and Sessions, yet are are completely OK with an extremely inappropriate meeting that did take place between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch aboard an airplane. �� Where exactly is the continuity of thought?"

Good question.

Athos · Sep 17, 2019, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

I disagree a bit here as a clear case to obstruct a congressional investigation was quite evident, and the WH, and Lewandowski are co conspirators in that obstruction. The process of law often does not yeild instant results, but putting together a case is why lawyers charge the big bucks. Contempt may be the least of Lewandowski's worries.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I think we're saying the same thing. Let's hope that contempt is the least of his worries.

Vacuum7 · Sep 17, 2019, 05:28 PM

I saw and read about the Congressional Hearing today: The TRUTH was not the objective of this hearing, not at all. This was simply about occupying air space to prevent Trump from occupying it...that is it. The Democrats have nothing on Trump, whatsoever....now, even if Trump is the biggest fetid festering sewer of a man possible, but you have ZERO in terms of evidence to continue the persecution, at some point you just have to stop chasing and ACTING like you are pursuing justice: Clearly you aren't pursuing Justice.

paraclete · Sep 17, 2019, 05:52 PM

just a good ole Salem witchhunt, problem is they treed a witch

talaniman · Sep 17, 2019, 06:00 PM

Lewboy ALREADY testified in the Mueller Report under oath to what the dufus did which in layman's terms was an attempt to obstruct the special counsel investigation by the dufus. What we got in the hearing was LEWBOY admitting, also under oath, he could not answer any questions before the congress because the WH told him not to. That was my point of disagreement with you Athos.

Sorry Vac, and JL, not just because you didn't read, or understand what you read, in the report, but you also missed the pertinent point that was before you.

I think I would just have made Lewboy read what he told Mueller though, and still slapped him with contempt, which was why they served him with a subpoena instead of asking him to appear voluntarily. They still can. As well as hold the other two witnesses subpoenaed to appear but didn't show, in contempt.

That's just the parts I saw.

jlisenbe · Sep 17, 2019, 06:47 PM

Sorry Vac, and JL, not just because you didn't read, or understand what you read, in the report, but you also missed the pertinent point that was before you.

I think I would just have made Lewboy read what he told Mueller though, and still slapped him with contempt, which was why they served him with a subpoena instead of asking him to appear voluntarily. They still can. As well as hold the other two witnesses subpoenaed to appear but didn't show, in contempt.

When six dem candidates behave despicably, it just goes down to "anything goes". When there is a suspicion of wrong-doing by Trump, then it must be pursued and hunted down, but not with Lynch and Clinton on the tarmac. Why the difference?

talaniman · Sep 17, 2019, 07:11 PM

The dufus has engaged in possible criminal acts. Lynch recused herself to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. and turned the thing over to the FBI. Of course I don't expect you to understand the nuance of law, which sort of explains your hate of HC over Bengahzi, that was investigated to death by repubs with NO findings. You didn't understand that either. It's a false equivalency.

Back to Lewboy

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c48171...ns-lewandowski

I can deal with anything goes, why can't you?

jlisenbe · Sep 17, 2019, 07:51 PM

The dufus has engaged in possible criminal acts. Lynch recused herself to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. and turned the thing over to the FBI. Of course I don't expect you to understand the nuance of law, which sort of explains your hate of HC over Bengahzi, that was investigated to death by repubs with NO findings. You didn't understand that either. It's a false equivalency.

So it's not possible that Lynch and Clinton engaged in a criminal act? That meeting, so far as I know, was never investigated, and it certainly is a great big zero as far as you are concerned. She recused herself after it became known that she met IN PRIVATE for nearly an hour with the husband of a person under active FBI investigation which absolutely stinks to high heavens.

And "nuance of law"? What law school did you attend? That's what bothers me about this mess. The "dufus" has possibly engaged in criminal acts, but all of the democrats are innocent because, after all, those mysterious "nuances of law", that one must evidently be a real genius to understand, gets them off the hook.

I can deal with anything goes, why can't you?

But you are not dealing with it!! You are complaining and griping that Trump must be brought to justice, so plainly your law of "anything goes" only applies to democrats that you agree with, also known as blatant hypocrisy.

talaniman · Sep 17, 2019, 08:20 PM

You know the rules! You holler the dems are so ruthless, then show the evidence. Now excuse me while we gather our evidence to get your criminal dufus! You had your chances, and you FAILED! What are you going to do? Torture me until I confess my sins or something?

paraclete · Sep 17, 2019, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

You know the rules! You holler the dems are so ruthless, then show the evidence. Now excuse me while we gather our evidence to get your criminal dufus! You had your chances, and you FAILED! What are you going to do? Torture me until I confess my sins or something?

You could liken these hearings to the Spanish Inquisitions, obviously those holding the hearings have a fixed view and they don't want to hear anything that offers a different truth, even the truth that what they allege didn't happen. This is like employing the rack, ultimately you will have to execute the witness

Athos · Sep 17, 2019, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

...obviously those holding the hearings have a fixed view and they don't want to hear anything that offers a different truth, even the truth that what they allege didn't happen.

There is no different truth. The truth alleged has already been established. It's all in the Mueller Report.

The hearings are for the benefit of the public who haven't read the report. Their purpose was served when Lewandowski admitted that Trump asked him to obstruct justice when he (Trump) told him to bring the message to Sessions and fire him if he couldn't get Sessions to listen.

Lewandowski didn't last long when confronted with the skilled questioner in the second half who was not limited to 5 minutes.

jlisenbe · Sep 18, 2019, 04:17 AM

You know the rules! You holler the dems are so ruthless, then show the evidence. Now excuse me while we gather our evidence to get your criminal dufus! You had your chances, and you FAILED! What are you going to do? Torture me until I confess my sins or something?

Consistency, my friend. Perhaps what is needed is an insistence on at least some level of moral/legal/ethical behavior by those we pay to make decisions, no matter what party they affiliate with.