Censure Dianne Feinstein - The Senate cannot let this wrong go unaddressed.

Regardless of the fate of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, the Senate should censure the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein. Her deception and maneuvering, condemned across the political spectrum, seriously interfered with the Senate’s performance of its constitutional duty to review judicial nominations, and unquestionably has brought the Senate into “dishonor and disrepute,” the standard that governs these matters. As a matter of institutional integrity, the Senate cannot let this wrong go unaddressed.

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution provides that each House of the Congress may “punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour.” Nine times in American history the Senate has used that power to censure one of its members. Feinstein has richly earned the right to join this inglorious company.

The senior senator from California not only disgraced herself personally in the underhanded and disingenuous way she dealt with the sex-assault charge against Judge Kavanaugh, but she also misused her position on the Judiciary Committee and broke faith with her fellow committee members. She was further, to quote the San Francisco Chronicle, no less, “unfair” to Judge Kavanaugh — manipulating the public disclosure of the charge so as to maximize the adverse publicity Judge Kavanaugh received and minimize the judge’s opportunity to defend himself. Censure is appropriate in this case for the Senate to defend its procedures and institutional reputation.

By her own account, Feinstein was aware of the charge shortly after President Trump nominated Kavanaugh, nearly two months before her committee opened its hearings. She came into possession of the letter making the charge by virtue of her position on the Judiciary Committee. We don’t know what contact she had thereafter with the accuser or the accuser’s Democrat-activist Washington lawyer — but we do know that Feinstein kept the information from her Senate colleagues, ensuring it was untested and unmentioned in the committee’s hearings. This, even though the hearings were accompanied by loud complaints from Democrats that the administration’s document production was insufficient. Indeed, as this is being written, while yet another Judiciary Committee hearing has been scheduled, she still has not released the unredacted text of the letter that made the charge.

Her conduct has been condemned all across the political spectrum. Her hometown newspaper, the left-leaning Chronicle, editorialized that she chose “the worst possible course” in dealing with the charge. The Chronicle specifically noted that her treatment of the more than three-decade-old assault charge was “unfair to Feinstein’s colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — on the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Across the political aisle, her conduct was called “totally dishonest and dirty” in the pages of the Washington Examiner; the Wall Street Journal, more restrained, described her conduct as “highly irregular.”

In substance, she “deliberately misled and deceived” her fellow senators, with the “effect of impeding discovery of evidence” relevant to the performance of their constitutional duties. No one should know better than Feinstein herself that such deceptive and obstructive conduct, widely regarded as “unacceptable,” “fully deserves censure,” so that “future generations of Americans . . . know that such behavior is not only unacceptable but also bears grave consequences,” bringing “shame and dishonor” to the person guilty of it and to the office that person holds, who has “violated the trust of the American people.” These quoted words all come from the resolution of censure Feinstein herself introduced concerning President Bill Clinton’s behavior in connection with his sex scandal. She can hardly be heard to complain if she is held to the same standard.

Full story:
Post Comment

Hypothetical situation.

Hypothetical situation.

A man, lets say James and a woman lets say Carol are in a bar and enjoying each others company. They both get a little tiddly and end up leaving the bar together. We don't know what happens next but Carol claims James raped her. There are no witnesses and the police have to make a case. There is a trial and James is convicted of rape. He is given a 20 year sentence and begins serving.

James claims he is innocent. The charges against him are allegations and there is no proof of the crime ever being committed. James goes through the humiliation of the ordeal and knows he is not guilty.

James gets a lawyer and fights the charges that he is a sex offender and actually wins his argument.

James is set free. He is exonerated.

My question is this. Does Carol need to be imprisoned for falsely accusing James of a crime he didn't commit? Also how much time should she serve if she is found guilty?
Post Comment

It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s

The thing to understand, what has always been the most important thing to understand, is that Jim Comey was out in front, but he was not calling the shots.

On the right, the commentariat is in full-throttle outrage over the revelation that former FBI Director Comey began drafting his statement exonerating Hillary Clinton in April 2016 – more than two months before he delivered the statement at his now famous July 5 press conference.

The news appears in a letter written to new FBI Director Christopher Wray by two senior Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham. Pundits and the Trump administration are shrieking because this indicates the decision to give the Democrats’ nominee a pass was clearly made long before the investigation was over, and even long before key witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed.

It shows, they cry, that the fix was in!

News Flash: This is not news.

Let’s think about what else was going on in April 2016. I’ve written about it a number of times over the last year-plus, such as in a column a few months back:

On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the [criminal statutes relevant to her e-mail scandal]). The president acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated.

This is precisely the reasoning that Comey relied on in ultimately absolving Clinton, as I recounted in the same column:

On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey publicly stated that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The director acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved.

Full story:
Post Comment

Yearbook photos completely destroy credibility of Ford’s story


Watch as Alex Jones covers Christine Blasey Ford’s apparent high school yearbook photos, filled with references to drunken promiscuous parties where the attendees were not able to remember what happened, which someone was trying to scrub from the Internet.

A whopping five high school yearbooks show that not only did Ford attend wild parties that make Animal House look tame, but she was a prominent participant and even a leader.

These shocking developments, including a celebration of drinking to amnesia, completely impeach her already baseless claims against Brett Kavanaugh.

Post Comment


George Carlin on the use of unnecessary words.
Some are a bit salty.

Post Comment

Did Kavanaugh Accuser Send SAME Letter About Gorsuch

Tsk Tsk Tsk Tsk Democrats. Caught ya !!!!

Let’s face it, the Democrats pick bad poster children.
Michael Brown, Jr is the face of the Black Lives Matter movement. And Hillary Clinton ,the wife of a rapist appears to be the mother of the modern-day Women’s Movement. Porn star Stormy Daniels heads up the #MeToo movement, while her porn attorney plans for a presidential run on the Democratic ticket.

And now they have a new poster child, this one part of the plot to bring down men. Professor Christine Blasey Ford finally came forward as “anonymous” to accuse Judge Brett Kavanaugh of s*xual assault 36 years ago, when she was 15 and he 17.

Interestingly, you can’t provide details except to say the event happened at a party. Based on an interview by her attorney, there were 4 boys (including Kavanaugh), and two girls. For me, this constitutes more of a get-together than a party.

Her attorney said that it was investigators’ duty to get the particulars. While I can’t remember who was at the last party I attended three months ago, the #MeToo frauds expect a man to recall a party he supposedly attended 36 years ago, where he may have felt up a 15-year old h*rny girl.

Oh hell yes, she was h*rny. And don’t try to pull the sanctimonious feminist bullshit. If anything happened, it was likely the 15-year old girl wanting to impress the 17-year old, and not the other way around.

Ford has this and a host of other issues that don’t pass the smell test for this former h*rny teenager, however there may be more pertinent news.

According to this tweet, Ford may have sent the same letter about s*xual abuse about Gorsuch?

Post Comment

The Swill Pit unknown to the good of the world but wallowed in by the Left Wing

How do you prepare to defend yourself for s*xual abuse allegations that supposedly happened 36 years ago? If you are a good honorable person you can't. You can't because you don't hang around the same swill pit the left does when they try to destroy a good honorable person. This is what is going on right now with the left's latest attempt to disrupt the judicial hearings for Judge Kavanaugh. The left doesn't know how to do the right thing and question the good judge, they have to destroy his reputation for the rest of his life for political reasons. This is what they did to Justice Thomas when they brought in Anita Hill to try and discredit him. He still was confirmed but has had to wear that stigma on his good name for the rest of his life as Judge Kavanaugh will now have to also.

You see when the left no longer has the arguable ammunition to defeat their opposition, they choose to slander and slime their target to get their way.

This is what we are dealing with.
Post Comment

This poor kid

This poor kid doesn't realize he's just burned any chance he had of being on the Supreme Court.

Post Comment

Why do liberals hate Donald Trump? I'll tell you why.

Why do liberals hate Donald Trump?

I'll tell you why.

They hate him because he is a deal maker.
They hate his family.
They hate him because he abandoned Democrats.
They hate him because he is more important than any celebrity.
They hate him because he makes them mad.
They hate him because so many women voted for him.
They hate him because unions supported him.
They hate his ever popular 'Trump' rallies.
They hate celebrities that are pro Trump.
They hate when he exposes the media as the fraud that they are.
They hate him because Republicans are in charge.
They hate him because he is not 'Their President'
They hate him because he doesn't always act presidential.
They hate him because he wants to secure the borders.
They hate him because he speaks his own mind.
They hate him because he is against global warming.
They hate him because he is putting America first.
They hate his vocabulary.
They hate him because of his 'Tweets'.
They hate him over Planned Parenthood.
They hate him because he is winning over Blacks.
They hate him because he is winning over some Democrats.

And finally they hate him because he finally brings leadership back to the White House.

Liberals have been throwing a thermonuclear temper tantrum ever since Hillary lost the election.
Post Comment

Illegal immigrants and our borders

We have got to do a better job protecting our borders. Too many illegals in this country. They have killed some of our citizens. Some of our elected officials would rather protect the illegals than protect our citizens. The absurd comment by Nit Wit Senator Elizabeth Warren proves this out.

Elizabeth Warren dismisses illegal's murder of Mollie Tibbetts, says 'real problems' are family separations

Hard to believe she doesn't care about who comes into their country.I think Senator Warren should become a host family on her dime and expose her children to people like this....
Post Comment

The Media's Latest Poll Dance

With the midterms less than two months away and the economy firing on all cylinders, the Democrats, and their handlers, also known as the American media, are entering the panic zone. The midterms are the last chance for the left to stop the Trump train.

Robert Mueller's investigation is shooting blanks. Mueller's Deep State cronies in the FBI and DOJ may be facing legal troubles of their own. Trump's popularity remains solid despite Hurricane Florence-strength media attacks against him each and every day.

CNN and MSNBC are currently at Category 4 hurricane strength against President Trump. Expect to see this ratchet up to Category 5 in the upcoming weeks before the midterms. Ninety percent of Trump's media coverage is negative. This will increase to approach 100 percent if Mueller can't find or fabricate the smoking gun that will send The Donald slinking back to Trump Tower.

Since Stormy Daniels's pole dances haven't damaged President Trump, big media are using their own "poll dance," specifically opinion polls, to create the narrative that no one likes the president. They hope to dispirit Trump voters, damping the enthusiasm of November 2016, to pick off enough House seats to shift House control to Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters.

At the least, these polls can further the media fable that everyone is embarrassed by Trump and won't support him, causing some of his supporters to abandon the president so their friends and families stop calling them racist, sexist Nazis.

The latest poll is a Quinnipiac University poll. CNN's Brian Stelter wasted no time in gleefully tweeting out the results.

In choreographed synchrony, worthy of Olympic synchronized swimming, MSNBC, dance partner of CNN, had its own tweet.

Full story:

Post Comment

Dirtiest Trick In U.S. History Comes Into Focus

The almost unnoticed fact in the latest Democratic assault on the Trump administration is that it is based entirely on charges of confusion, the circus, incoherence, and nastiness. These themes never have to be hammered very long before the faithful take up the incantation about impeachment, but these aren’t impeachable, even if the charges were true.

The Resistance has abandoned the accusation of impeachable offenses. The press barely noticed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s acceptance of written answers to questions about collusion, or Rudolph Giuliani’s assertion that there would be no discussion of obstruction of justice, that there has been no obstruction, and that if Mr. Mueller thinks he has evidence of any, he should present it.

Everyone now knows that the entire Trump-Russian collusion argument was a complete fabrication on the basis of the Steele dossier, which was a pack of lies from A to Z, and, of course, was commissioned and financed by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, through a law firm and Fusion GPS. In terms of ingenious political treachery, Mrs. Clinton and her entourage scored an immense success in subverting high levels of the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department and FBI to pursue this canard with the zeal they did.

On what has emerged to date, fanatically anti-Trump figures in Justice and the FBI swallowed Mr. Steele’s story and invested in it so heavily they severely compromised the institutions that employed them. Once Mr. Trump was elected, instead of letting the ruse die quietly, they swallowed harder and set out to claim that the election result was fraudulent because of the illegal Trump-Russian collusion.

Former national intelligence director James Clapper announced just two months ago that he believed the Russians had determined the election result, contradicting James Comey’s view. Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, proclaimed 18 months ago that a thousand Russian canvassers had swung Wisconsin to Trump. The apparently thoroughly Trump-deranged John Brennan, former CIA director, has been routinely accusing the president of treason for almost two years.

The 2016 Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, mused about whether the president’s son, son-in-law, and former campaign manager were guilty of treason because they met with a Russian lawyer who wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act (nothing to do with the election).

Hillary Clinton must have been serenely confident that the source, quality, and funding of the Steele dossier would never see the light of day. In her memoir of the election, “What Happened” (not a question), she directly blames former FBI director James Comey for “shivving” her three times (two of the occasions were exonerations of her questionable appropriateness), and Donald Trump’s semi-treasonable collaboration with the Russian government, and she quoted Mr. Steele in support of this.

When the fact came to light that her campaign had funded this nonsense for about $9 million, she breezily said that it was “campaign information” but accurate anyway. (Treason applies only when collaboration is with a country with which the betrayed country is at war.)

Full story:

Post Comment

This is a list of Willy3411's Blogs. Click here for Willy3411's Blog List

back to top
"Dating and Statistics"(meet us in the articles)
We use cookies to ensure that you have the best experience possible on our website. Read Our Privacy Policy Here