Democrats itching for impeachments are gonna come up empty…
They can can keep talking about it…
The media loves THAT…
But senior Democrats have no plans for either…
They don’t have the votes over in the Senate and the very idea is a problem for the Democratic majority in the House which has members in Trump country….
….“Get real,” as Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) put it Monday afternoon.
“We’ve got to get beyond this ‘impeachment is the answer to every problem.’ It’s not realistic,” Durbin said. “If that’s how we are identified in Congress, as the impeachment Congress, we run the risk that people will feel we’re ignoring the issues that mean a lot to them as families.”
Except for Kavanaugh’s lone Democratic supporter, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Democratic lawmakers were livid about reports that the FBI did not thoroughly investigate two allegations against Kavanaugh. Many called for new probes into the Department of Justice, some demanded the FBI take up the matter and others hoped the House Judiciary Committee would begin some sort of investigation.
But the debate over impeachment may quickly come to a head.
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said she will file an impeachment resolution on Tuesday, arguing that “Kavanaugh’s confirmation process set a dangerous precedent. We must demand justice for survivors and hold Kavanaugh accountable for his actions.”
The two-page resolution calls on the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Kavanaugh should be impeached, according to a draft obtained by POLITICO. The resolution grants the committee subpoena power in any impeachment inquiry of Kavanaugh.
It’s going to land like a thud in the Capitol’s leadership suites and with much of the party.
“Mitch McConnell would block any impeachment. So that’s a moot point,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a former Judiciary chairman. He said the lesson to be learned is not to rush lifetime confirmations: “Don’t ever let those mistakes happen again.” Until Democrats take back the Senate, however, there’s little they can do to halt McConnell on nominations.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler similarly dismissed the idea of an impeachment inquiry, arguing in a radio interview Monday that the committee is “concentrating our resources on determining whether to impeach the president.” The New York Democrat said it’s one thing for progressives to call for impeachment but for him “it’s a consequential action, which we have to be able to justify.”
Those remarks amounted to a blow to presidential candidates, prominent liberal lawmakers and progressive activists who called for Congress to take steps to remove Kavanaugh. …
image..Slate.Com
There is no basis for impeachment proceedings in my view.
This really needs to end.
Agreed Jack…
This whole thing is just a shell game for Democrat’s who might NOT actually have enough votes with ITS OWN Caucus…..
As for the prospect of an actual impeachment vote int he House, Nadler said there is a math challenge within the Democratic caucus to get 218 votes of support for impeachment….
More…
Of course there is no basis for impeachment of Preppy Brett, but there sure is reason to look into why the FBI didn’t do a thorough investigation of the accusation that little Brett liked to wave his dick in woman’s faces.
The FBI had at least 20 people who had knowledge of Brett’s drunken behavior and the fact that he liked to shoot “Texas Stars” at women.
His faux outrage at his confirmation hearing notwithstanding, clearly an investigation was short circuited before witnesses could testify and Brett could respond to there stories.
The issue is why did they stop this investigation in its tracks?
This was merely claimed by a Bill Clinton attorney (as if they should be in a position to talk.)
This “news” of course had nothing to do with Dr. Ford. The person in question refused to be interviewed and people said she had no memory of this ever occurring.
Done deal. Which is why the NYT refused to print it last year. Suddenly, something fell thru the cracks, before they were forced to backtrack.
Interesting conversation last night, on a certain level, but one that is getting very old, redundant, and tired.
I lost my connectivity last night going through the Chunnel and when I logged in back at our apartment I found I was accused of all sorts of “crimes and misdemeanors” dating back years. I won’t even attempt to respond given that they are all bullshit from what I could see.
I suspect our friend Corey is very frustrated. He belongs and is loyal to a Party that is loyal to a sociopath and admitted pussy grabber. It must be very confusing and frustrating. But, I have an easy solution, vote for the Democratic nominee next year and remove this blight from your beloved Party. I know I will be.
Lots happening here in the UK and it is interesting to get their perspective on our politics. I always thought Boris Johnson was smart, and he is, but he’s boxed himself in at the moment.
We will be going up North here this weekend to visit our cousin’s perspective constituency since he will be most likely standing for Parliament. I will report back.
Until then, got to go. But, it is clear for anyone who wants to look, both Clarence and the Preppy Brett are totally unqualified to be sitting on the highest court in the land. I hope the House investigates the lack of clarity in the investigation to Brett’s sexual misconduct and alcohol dependency. The FBI really dropped the ball on that one, unless they were told to drop it of course.
One reason that it won’t end is that it’s a terrific tool for fund-raising among the angrier activists, just as similar no-hope attacks on Barack Obama and several of his appointees were a terrific fund-raiser on the Right.
Agreed DSD…
I cannot recall an equivalent situation though to what has been done to Clarence Thomas and even more so what was done to Brett Kavanaugh.
A host of Democrat Presidential contenders chimed in to call for Kavanaugh to be impeached. The people they want money from demand no less so these Democrat candidates are willing to act like clowns and whores for that campaign money.
All over a supposed tidbit in a book that the New York Times reported, while omitting a crucial detail, that they were later embarrassingly forced to clarify.
Justice Kavanaugh and his family have been done a great disservice. Maybe one day people will let it go.
I think any impeachment eff0rt against Kavanaugh is a waste of time.
He’s a rich entitled prick who likely got away with stuff rich entitled pricks do.
I’m not going to go after him. But I’ll leave defendung him to Republicans like Trump and CG.
One can be a “rich entitled prick” and not be a criminal. The left reaches to new lows to try to portray him as a criminal without any evidence.
I don’t know how much of a prick he ever really was though. Just about everyone who knew him throughout his life had good things to say about him. Scott of course has a background as a suburban frat boy as well.
Well everyone except Dr. Ford.
Even Republican women I know believe her.
That being said what’s done is done.
This one time suburban frat boy (at a state university on Pell Grants–a far cry from pampeered Brett) is moving on.
Maybe CG agrees with his fellow Republican Trump that Kavanaugh should sue.
There is simply no evidence from any person that Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh were ever in the same room ever at any point in their life.
I assume you and your cadre of Republican women friends also believe that Justin Fairfax, who remains in office, is a serial rapist.
I think we need to be sure that the allegations against him, which are denied, are actually collaborated by evidence too.
Fairfax will face the voters– Or not–in the next election in VA.
I don’t aupport impeaching him either.
He should sue the NY Times if anything, but I doubt he will.
Justice Kavanaugh has shown tremendous grace in stating that he has no ill will towards Dr. Ford.
The above could have been a Trump tweet that was corrected of spelling and grammatical mistakes.
Back when those of us in the Republican Party expected him to crash and burn in due time, I used to compose Trump Tweets all the time with great accuracy.
Good one Scott. Corey’s post does sound exactly like it came from the top Republican.
He should be so lucky to sound like me.
A lawsuit?
Hahahahahaha!
Yeah – Incredibly naïve comment by Corey. incredible.
As if there is 0.0001% chance that Kavenaugh would be open to people testifying in a well-publicized court case as to what they saw and heard. He would find himself at the recipient role in the devils triangle.
I don’t think Kavanaugh is going to sue or should sue the NYT, but the NYT did embarrass itself journalistically in this instance.
Yep Zreebs, that old “Devil’s Triangle” would get him in the end. Another lie he told during his hearing.
Of course Scott, only the most indoctrinated Republican could possibly believe that there was nothing to investigate with little Brett. His whole “Preppy Persona” screams entitled white boy who can get away with sexual assault without consequences.
I would hope that the House Democrats would stop wasting there time with Corey Lewandowski, another female abuser, and focus on why the FBI pulled the plug on the Brett investigation.
And, I would hope Kavanaugh would sue the Times, the discovery would be amazing. Can you imagine asking Brett about his drinking habits. I would pay money to be there as he melted down again.
Really, how far have we fallen? First Clarence and now this.
So clearly, Keith disagrees with the strategy that the rest of you are advocating for the Democrats.
He wants 2020 to be about Kavanaugh. After all, that worked out so well for Democrats in the Senate elections in 2018.
Yeah that lawsuit will happen the day Trump can go 24 hours without telling a lie,ie,Never!
In 2019, Keith is able to judge someone to be a criminal because they are a white guy with a “preppy persona.”
Well, I guess that’s not that different from 1989 Keith who claimed that inner city African-American males should be assumed to be dangerous criminals who posed a risk to others.
Oh my God, give it up. You will make a great long suffering wife someday Corey. Like a dog with a bone that is passed its sell date.
As I said, the FBI abbey asked why they stopped investigating little Preppy Brett and his apparent proclivity for shoving his dick in women’s faces.
And, frankly, if we want to go back thirty years that’s a subject the Federal Agencies should have investigated for a life time appointment.
Right?
You seem to have this talent of judging someone based on the color of their skin alone. It’s a constant in your life, when you have a political point to make.
When you were getting a paycheck from the white Machine Democrats, you went out and did their racist bidding. Now, that you associate with woke leftists, you claim that you know someone is guilty of sexual assault simply because they are a preppy white guy.
Ah yes 2018. The day Mr. Never Trumper CG said he would be “forced to” vote for Trump lackey Republican Senate candidates because Democrats were so mean to Brett Kavanaugh.
Yes Scott, those mean Democrats asking Brett about the time he grabbed Dr. Ford’s tits. Corey thinks that doing one’s job when there is a lifetime appointment at stake is being mean to an entitled member of the extended Bush family.
But, it’s called doing their jobs, something Joe Biden should have done when the “Porn King” Clarence Thomas was up for his hearing. They all faded when he threw out the word “lynching.”
Just think we might have another Justice who actually asks questions if they had pursued old Clarence’s porn obsession.
But, they didn’t and they failed with Brett too. But that doesn’t mean they can ask the FBI why they didn’t do there due diligence.
Joe Biden didn’t believe Anita Hill. Neither did Ted Kennedy.
Joe Biden will lie and say now that he believed her because he needs Keith’s money.
Odd that the person who flooded Politics1 with porn images and videos would claim that someone else had a “porn obsession”, but that seems par for the course with Keith.
Whatever weaknesses or problems he knows he has, he tries to pawn off on other people.
When all else fails just make shit up, right Corey?
My reference, and it was spot on, is that politicians usually think of what’s best for them in making these decisions.
There is no doubt in my mind that Biden and Kennedy believed Hill, just as I have no doubt that Collins believed Dr. Ford, they all made political decisions.
The outcome, two extremely flawed human beings sit on the Court. Justices brought to you by the Bush boys.
No wonder Trump has taken over the GOP, mediocrity rules.
Biden told his colleagues at the time that he didn’t believe Hill.
Dennis DeConcini in a new interview said that he didn’t either and that Ted Kennedy told him his theory was that Hill and Thomas were involved, had a bad breakup, and she went after him for that reason out of jealousy.
I believe Thomas that he was never involved with Hill in any way beyond professionally.
The “political decision” of Biden and others at the time was to vote to deny confirmation to Clarence Thomas, even though they confided to each other that they did not believe Anita Hill.
Source?
Fox News Special Report showed clips yesterday of interviews with DeConcini, Orrin Hatch, John Danforth and Alan Simpson in advance of a special they say is airing this week.
I don’t believe that Keith flooded P1 with porn. You just don’t like Keith and I suspect would believe any rumor about him, I assume that the P1 moderator (forgot his name) would have banned Keith if he did that.
Ron Gunzburger–who is now in the employ of Maryland Governor Larry Hogan–moderated P1
I also do not believe that about Keith.
and Stuart Varney believes Donald Trump never tells a lie.
Let the record also reflect that not a single other person who worked with Clarence Thomas had any memory or knowledge of him talking about porn either or mistreating anyone in anyway.
Look up Lillian McEwen
Looked it up. Zreeebs has mentioned her before. There is no evidence she ever knew Thomas. Did she produce a photograph of the two ever taken together or a letter or anything like that?Zreebs could claim that years ago he dated Paulina Porizkova, but we know better.
So, not necessarily someone who might have credibility. They could have dated a long time ago I suppose and she could have ulterior motives now. None of it bears any relevance to what would have been his fitness for the Supreme Court in 1991. Of course, she stayed silent in 1991.
It was Anita Hill’s former law student, who in 1991 came forward and claimed that she had in class made reference to “Long Dong Silver” and coke cans, but I suppose it is possible that the former law student was lying as well.
In any event, she said nothing in 1991 when this was going on and never claimed to have worked with Thomas in a professional setting, where he was accused of wrongdoing.
She said she dated him and that he liked porn. That’s not exactly illegal, if true, though I doubt he ever knew her. She never claimed that their relationship would have been anything but consensual.
When it comes to the left and their fear of conservative Justices (even though Kavanaugh has already voted on a couple of things in a way that should make them happy), there is simply no straw they will not grasp.
The gist of an interview that Lillian gave to Larry King in 2010 (long after Thomas was on the Supreme Court) was that when she first met him he wan an alcoholic who liked porn….. then, she says he gave up drinking and at that time, become “angry.”
So, she seems to be saying she liked him better as a drunk. Kinda odd.
She was trying to sell a book about this and found no takers. Hardly a surprise when she couldn’t even prove they had met.
In the meantime, Al Franken is on camera literally groping a sleeping woman while he has a demented look on his face (this is putting aside all the young female Democrats who later came forward to say he was inappropriate with them), and many on the left, such as Keith, think it was just fine what Franken did.
Looking up Lillian some more, since Zreebs asked me to, and I am seeing what I remember from last time.
She also said that she believed Anita Hill had a consensual sexual relationship with Clarence Thomas and that they both lied in 1991.
So, she and Ted Kennedy were on the same page if nothing else.
Anybody who wants to sanctify Anita Hill though shouldn’t be pointing to Lillian.
Every article seems to take it as a given that Clarence and Lillian were once a thing, which I wonder about from a journalistic standpoint without confirmation. Wouldn’t there have been at least one photo of two together at some DC social event for instance?
Anyways, years after her Larry King interview, Lillian came forward again, this time to gush about Clarence Thomas’s manscaping ability and his “wonderful odor.”
Something maybe seems a bit off with her?
Looks like she did eventually get a book published, once she made it into a heavily sexualized account of him and their time together. (He is described in pretty laudatory terms there.)
I guess the enemies of Clarence Thomas enjoy themselves some porn too. Maybe you can get it at the library.
Her book, “DC: Unmasked and Undressed” apparently only has a few pages about her having sex with Clarence Thomas. The rest is about her getting it on with other people according to media accounts.
Have you actually read this book Zreebs?
I suppose in the sequel she will have done a Devil’s Triangle with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Sure he did. The evidence was overwhelming. Especially his use of the word “pronto” and the name “John Striker” which he carried over onto this site too. Coincidence?
There were thousands of comments on many posts. Ron wouldn’t ban anyone.
You don’t need to be Zreebs Huckabee Sanders.
I don’t recall “John Striker” – either on P1 or Pdog. And I don’t understand the significance of the word “pronto”. But the truth is that I don’t have a lot of confidence in anything you say. Hell, look at you have mischaractized what I said tonight.
Funny thing, I don’t remember that at Politics1, either.
And I’m hardly an unqualified defender of Keith; I found one of the things he did at Politics 1 to be unforgivable (and Corey, despite his own views on traditional morality, agreed with me then, as did Moderate Mark).
Those posts would often get deleted after the fact as I remember. That was probably all Ron was able to do. There were of course a ton of issues there with people stealing other handles and acting as imposters, etc.
It would have been hard to trace to one person. Remember, he was doing all this on public taxpayer time at a government computer.
There were plenty of examples of these sort of posts though. I always suspected it was him but was not sure until he started talking about John Striker on here too.
Even if he never did any of that, and it’s just a huge coincidence. his entire behavior there was deplorable.
CG is quite obsessed.
Beyond the Senators who said on camera for the Fox special that Biden personally told them at the time that he did not believe Hill, Arlen Specter also said Biden told him this at the time in his 2000 memoir.
Biden never took issue with this claim if Specter was wrong and strongly endorsed Specter for the U.S. Senate a decade later, and vouched for his integrity.
We need to back off the personal stuff guys.,.
Cut it out….
He practically called me Esther Williams!
Even Biden would have apologized for that.
Corey you need a show on FOX or some other right wing outlet. Other than your personal dislike of Trump you obsess over the same rabbit hole shit people like Hannity or Mark Levin do.
Over at HHR, they say I would be a perfect on MSNBC as one of their Trump Derangement specialists.
I’m flattered that everyone thinks I would be great on television but alas… I try to avoid cameras in general.
You should direct them to this thread. You atecrailing against all us libruls like any AM warrior.
You need to understand the difference between sarcasm and praise!
CG, The reason I said Lillian McEwan is because you incorrectly stated that NOBODY Thomas worked with ever said he was disrespectful or talked about porn. She confirmed he did both.
No, I did not read her book. Did you?
I would have doubts about the credibility of anyone who dated Thomas, but it is not as if she was the only one to say those things.
She never worked with him. She claimed to and may have dated him. So, it’s exactly as I said. Nobody else in a professional setting said Thomas unprofessional.
She mentioned porn 19 years later. Long after it was part of the narrative. I don’t see the relevance. Sometimes adult couples enjoy porn together. As long as it was nothing of the illegal variety, it’s a private matter that has no relevance for the Supreme Court or your job or anybody else’s.
You cited her as some grand source on the matter though, perhaps forgetting she also said that she believed Anita Hill had an affair with Clarence Thomas and also committed perjury.
No – you misread what I wrote. I cited her name because you made an incorrect statement; they met at work, she dated him, she said he was addicted to porn, and that he often said inappropriate things to women.
But you are correct. But I suspect that anyone who dated Thomas has issues themselves.
Where does it say they met at work? She claimed to have dated him, not worked for him. I also do not see the word “addicted.” Instead, she seemed to make a point of saying that Thomas stopped drinking and porning and became worse, somehow. Where did it say he said inappropriate things to women? She claimed he was mean to his son.
Regardless of if any of that is true or not, it had no relevance. She made a claim many years later.
I know that Clarence Thomas has been happily married for many years. It is said that at some point he re-committed himself to his Catholic faith. Nobody has led a perfect life at all times, but he seems to have lived a very inspiring life, rising from nearly nothing, and is a great role model for all sorts of people.
None of that has anything to do with if somebody likes or dislikes his legal decisions.
She claims to have met him on Capitol Hill in 1979 and that they became friends after that.
She never claimed that they ever worked together at the same place. It would likely be a matter of public record had they ever worked together at any point and would give some credence to the belief that they actually knew each other. She says they dated for five years but there are no photos and nobody seems to have had any knowledge of them as a couple.
I am not going to keep playing this game. They both worked on Capital Hill. I never said they worked closely together. Thomas declined to comment when he was asked about the accuracy of her book. We know how you would respond if a Democrat declined to comment on something that their former girlfriend said.
Weird, comments are now appearing from before that were not showing up in the recent comment list.
No, you said they worked together. They did not. Working on Capitol Hill (which I don’t even know was the case at the time for both) does not mean they were co-workers. It’s a big place. So, she would have had no idea how he interacted professionally with co-workers.
Capital Hill is a big place, but it is my understanding they were both prominant staffers at the time. I work with over 100 people, but people at higher levels work with even more than that. I’m pretty sure they didn’t meet on Capital Hill while on vacation.
Thousands of people work on Capitol Hill.
In 1979, Thomas began a job there as a Legislative Assistant for John Danforth.
Unless this woman also worked in that office for Danforth or for the Senate Commerce Committee, they were not co-workers. She would not have at any exposure to how he interacted with co-workers while on the job.
She said they were merely friends at first and did not become intimate until several years later. By 1981, Thomas was working in the Executive Branch.
She claims that when she met him in 1979, they were both staffers, and part of a group of black Hill staffers who would meet occasionally at a bar after work.
That of course is very different than working together.
They were both married at the time and were friends. She claims their relationship changed in 1981.
It’s a shame that Zreebs and others cannot see what happened in 1991 for what it was. I understand that they want the Court to ideologically adhere to one side, which is their right, but trying to destroy people personally is a very unworthy exercise.
It was an orchestrated effort to perpetuate the historic slander that a dark-skinned black man had an out of control libido which put women in danger.
“High-tech lynching” was exactly the right comment.
When Hill accused Thomas, both were asked to take a lie detector test. Hill had a lot to lose if she was lying, and little to gain if she was telling the truth. Hill passed her test. Thomas refused to take it. Several other women who have known Thomas said similar things. and the same was true with Ford and Cavenaugh.
And Ford had a lot to lose if she failed the lie dtetector test. But she passed it. Kavenaugh refused to take the test.
I tend to believe most women when they say they were sexually assaulted. These women know they will be attack relentlessly by people who really don’t care about fairness or the truth (people like you).
It seems the only women you believe are telling the truth are those who accused Bill Clinton – and you believe all of them. They are probably telling the truth too, but their case is less convincing than Thomas or
Kavenaugh.
And her lie detector tests were released when exactly?
Have you seen the documents? You just choose to believe that narrative.
The Ford lie detector turned out to be a bit of a sham. She was not even asked the questions she claimed to have been asked.
I don’t necessarily believe every woman who has made a claim of harassment or assault against Clinton, but there is a clear pattern of behavior there as well as an impossible to deny history of womanizing and lying about that. Clinton also chose to pay money to one of his accusers, which is sorta damning and different than the situations you are mentioning.
What Clinton is accused of having done is needless to say far more brutal than anything Clarence Thomas was accused of.
One could ponder (with the realization that times have changed in regards to these things since then), that even if everything Hill said was true, should it have had any bearing on if he should be on the Supreme Court or not?
She voluntarily followed him from one job to another and then stayed in contact with him after they stopped working together. She never claimed her career was harmed because she didn’t go out with him or whatever.
I think actual evidence is quite important when accusations are made and that would certainly go for those accusing Justin Fairfax as well. Do you think he is guilty? He has two accusers telling virtually the same story and with far far far more detail and specificity than anything Dr. Ford was able to recall.
I think every situation is different. I believe Donald Trump and other Republicans have acted inappropriately with women and that is not ok just because they are Republicans. I believe false accusations have been made against Democrats too and I specifically have cited the claim a woman made that Al Gore raped her. Her story did not seem to add up.
It seems like you just want Republicans to be guilty all the time and for Democrats to be innocent all that time.
Another difference with the three Clinton accusers is that people have gone on record to say they were told what happened by the women right after they claim it happened.
I am not going to keep playing this game. They both worked on Capital Hill. I never said they worked closely together. Thomas declined to comment when he was asked about the accuracy of her book. We know how you would respond if a Democrat declined to comment on something that their former girlfriend said.
She said Thomas would sometimes ask women about their bra size. I consider that inappropriate.
Where is the source for that?
And was it “ask them” or “discuss them” with her?
I don’t think even you really consider Lillian very credible on any of this.
Huffington Post – look it up yourself.
The fact that you won’t link it says all there is to know.
Next, you will reference Angela Wright, who once worked as an underling under Thomas and has since made claims about him.
She was fired for calling another co-worker a “faggot.”
Was Thomas right to fire her for that?
Yes. Angela Wright worked directly for Thomas and she said similar things as Thomas’s former girlfriend
I am not aware of why she was fired, but even if that is true, not all homophobes are liars. I would be surprised if Thomas himself never used that word.
She was fired for calling a male co-worker a “faggot” (Armstrong Williams if you are wondering), and vowed revenge.
Thomas did the right thing in firing her, especially considering the fact that they all worked at the EEOC.
Ms. Wright had also been fired by a Congressman and lost various jobs for erratic behavior. Thus Senate Democrats in 1991 concluded she was Ms. Wrong and did not want her to testify.
Search bra size Lillian mcewen
She says Thomas was a boob man and would discuss with her women’s bra sizes. That is a bit different than him asking people that directly, is it not?
Then, she says he stopped drinking and became “asexual” and was suddenly more interested in things like jogging and Republican politics, so that turned her off.
It seems odd that she would say that her happiest time with him was when he was drinking too much and making her watch porn with him.
I am asking you to link the source on that.
All I see is that she claimed he discussed people’s bra size with her. That’s very different of course than you what you said.
So, where’s the source?
Tired of arguing.
Anyway, I will be in Chicagoland for most of the next two weeks.
Go Bears
They had a good monday night with Odell…
“Go Bears”
Finally, Zreebs delivers a strong post!!!
and we also can’t forget the Cubs, especially in their home-stretch time of need….