Know why Democrats Demand 'Ethics Committee Probes' everytime one of their own get busted?

[easyt65]

Nancy Pelosi just squealed out that she demands an Ethics Committee Probe of D-John Conyers, longest-sitting politician in Congress, who was just exposed for sexual mis-conduct and stealing tax dollars to pay off his victim...

Know WHY Democrats scream for an 'Ethics Committee Probe' of their criminals instead of demanding they step down or be PERP WALKED? Because the Ethics Committee is notoriously KNOWN for their cover-ups of political scandals and crimes uncovered / perpetrated by their members!'

The Ethics Office is a JOKE...and it is NOT a secret to anyone. I will point out that the Ethics office has covered for / been extremely lenient on politicians on both sides of the aisle. Allowing Congress to be the watchdog of ethics over their own is like letting the proverbial wolf guard the hen house.

Independent, objective counsels should not be the exception but should be the rule. Politicians should not be able to 'police' their own members.

If the Conyers issue is allowed to be handled by this Committee he will walk, nothing will be done.


John Lasseter's Pattern of Alleged Misconduct Detailed by Disney/Pixar Insiders

 

[Doubledareme]

My my my, whatever happened to your innocent until proven guilty? You've already convicted him I see.

 

[Darkwind]

My my my, whatever happened to your innocent until proven guilty? You've already convicted him I see.

Well, no. The fact that he offered a settlement is kind of proof that he is paying off an accuser. Still, you have a point. He hasn't actually admitted to wrongdoing so he can't be considered pond scum.... for that.

I guess the real question is when they set up this buffer, is it written in such a way that the Member doesn't have to do anything more than say, 'cover my ass' to get them to litigate fo them?

 

[Doubledareme]

My my my, whatever happened to your innocent until proven guilty? You've already convicted him I see.

Well, no. The fact that he offered a settlement is kind of proof that he is paying off an accuser. Still, you have a point. He hasn't actually admitted to wrongdoing so he can't be considered pond scum.... for that.

I guess the real question is when they set up this buffer, is it written in such a way that the Member doesn't have to do anything more than say, 'cover my ass' to get them to litigate fo them?

No one can be covered these days. That ship has sailed.

 

[william the wie]

My my my, whatever happened to your innocent until proven guilty? You've already convicted him I see.

He has effectively been given a pardon. being untouchable by the law is a congressional norm.

 

[Doubledareme]

My my my, whatever happened to your innocent until proven guilty? You've already convicted him I see.

He has effectively been given a pardon. being untouchable by the law is a congressional norm.

Such things happen when you are the ones writing the laws but it won't matter, legally or not. This is politics not a courtroom.

 

[Darkwind]

My my my, whatever happened to your innocent until proven guilty? You've already convicted him I see.

Well, no. The fact that he offered a settlement is kind of proof that he is paying off an accuser. Still, you have a point. He hasn't actually admitted to wrongdoing so he can't be considered pond scum.... for that.

I guess the real question is when they set up this buffer, is it written in such a way that the Member doesn't have to do anything more than say, 'cover my ass' to get them to litigate fo them?

No one can be covered these days. That ship has sailed.

Let's hope so. But let's also hope that in the case of real abuse, that it is handled swiftly while the evidence is much more than unsubstantiated nonsense.

I can never get behind the concept that all it takes to convict someone, public or in a court of law, is to make an accusation. That is just morally wrong.

 

[Doubledareme]

My my my, whatever happened to your innocent until proven guilty? You've already convicted him I see.

Well, no. The fact that he offered a settlement is kind of proof that he is paying off an accuser. Still, you have a point. He hasn't actually admitted to wrongdoing so he can't be considered pond scum.... for that.

I guess the real question is when they set up this buffer, is it written in such a way that the Member doesn't have to do anything more than say, 'cover my ass' to get them to litigate fo them?

No one can be covered these days. That ship has sailed.

Let's hope so. But let's also hope that in the case of real abuse, that it is handled swiftly while the evidence is much more than unsubstantiated nonsense.

I can never get behind the concept that all it takes to convict someone, public or in a court of law, is to make an accusation. That is just morally wrong.

She said he said will never go away. What should go away, eyewitness testimony. We know it's for shit.

And when the pattern is clear you don't need videotape.

 

[Darkwind]

My my my, whatever happened to your innocent until proven guilty? You've already convicted him I see.

Well, no. The fact that he offered a settlement is kind of proof that he is paying off an accuser. Still, you have a point. He hasn't actually admitted to wrongdoing so he can't be considered pond scum.... for that.

I guess the real question is when they set up this buffer, is it written in such a way that the Member doesn't have to do anything more than say, 'cover my ass' to get them to litigate fo them?

No one can be covered these days. That ship has sailed.

Let's hope so. But let's also hope that in the case of real abuse, that it is handled swiftly while the evidence is much more than unsubstantiated nonsense.

I can never get behind the concept that all it takes to convict someone, public or in a court of law, is to make an accusation. That is just morally wrong.

She said he said will never go away. What should go away, eyewitness testimony. We know it's for shit.

And when the pattern is clear you don't need videotape.

He said/She Said is just as morally ambiguous. Sorry, but no one's life, reputation, or livelihood should be on the block on the basis of just an accusation. There is a reason we say you have a right to confront your accuser. Far to many abuses have occured in the past, and will occur in the future if we dont' nip this in the bud.

 

[jc456]

My my my, whatever happened to your innocent until proven guilty? You've already convicted him I see.

Well, no. The fact that he offered a settlement is kind of proof that he is paying off an accuser. Still, you have a point. He hasn't actually admitted to wrongdoing so he can't be considered pond scum.... for that.

I guess the real question is when they set up this buffer, is it written in such a way that the Member doesn't have to do anything more than say, 'cover my ass' to get them to litigate fo them?

No one can be covered these days. That ship has sailed.

Let's hope so. But let's also hope that in the case of real abuse, that it is handled swiftly while the evidence is much more than unsubstantiated nonsense.

I can never get behind the concept that all it takes to convict someone, public or in a court of law, is to make an accusation. That is just morally wrong.

She said he said will never go away. What should go away, eyewitness testimony. We know it's for shit.

And when the pattern is clear you don't need videotape.

except when you have the photo and everyone still covers for it. yeah I like that one.

 

[Doubledareme]

My my my, whatever happened to your innocent until proven guilty? You've already convicted him I see.

Well, no. The fact that he offered a settlement is kind of proof that he is paying off an accuser. Still, you have a point. He hasn't actually admitted to wrongdoing so he can't be considered pond scum.... for that.

I guess the real question is when they set up this buffer, is it written in such a way that the Member doesn't have to do anything more than say, 'cover my ass' to get them to litigate fo them?

No one can be covered these days. That ship has sailed.

Let's hope so. But let's also hope that in the case of real abuse, that it is handled swiftly while the evidence is much more than unsubstantiated nonsense.

I can never get behind the concept that all it takes to convict someone, public or in a court of law, is to make an accusation. That is just morally wrong.

She said he said will never go away. What should go away, eyewitness testimony. We know it's for shit.

And when the pattern is clear you don't need videotape.

except when you have the photo and everyone still covers for it. yeah I like that one.

You have a photo of someone molesting a child?

 

[jc456]

Well, no. The fact that he offered a settlement is kind of proof that he is paying off an accuser. Still, you have a point. He hasn't actually admitted to wrongdoing so he can't be considered pond scum.... for that.

I guess the real question is when they set up this buffer, is it written in such a way that the Member doesn't have to do anything more than say, 'cover my ass' to get them to litigate fo them?

No one can be covered these days. That ship has sailed.

Let's hope so. But let's also hope that in the case of real abuse, that it is handled swiftly while the evidence is much more than unsubstantiated nonsense.

I can never get behind the concept that all it takes to convict someone, public or in a court of law, is to make an accusation. That is just morally wrong.

She said he said will never go away. What should go away, eyewitness testimony. We know it's for shit.

And when the pattern is clear you don't need videotape.

except when you have the photo and everyone still covers for it. yeah I like that one.

You have a photo of someone molesting a child?

just molesting a woman. you know the victim? so it's ok if it isn't 14 years old? interesting your thought pattern.

 

[Doubledareme]

My my my, whatever happened to your innocent until proven guilty? You've already convicted him I see.

Well, no. The fact that he offered a settlement is kind of proof that he is paying off an accuser. Still, you have a point. He hasn't actually admitted to wrongdoing so he can't be considered pond scum.... for that.

I guess the real question is when they set up this buffer, is it written in such a way that the Member doesn't have to do anything more than say, 'cover my ass' to get them to litigate fo them?

No one can be covered these days. That ship has sailed.

Let's hope so. But let's also hope that in the case of real abuse, that it is handled swiftly while the evidence is much more than unsubstantiated nonsense.

I can never get behind the concept that all it takes to convict someone, public or in a court of law, is to make an accusation. That is just morally wrong.

She said he said will never go away. What should go away, eyewitness testimony. We know it's for shit.

And when the pattern is clear you don't need videotape.

He said/She Said is just as morally ambiguous. Sorry, but no one's life, reputation, or livelihood should be on the block on the basis of just an accusation. There is a reason we say you have a right to confront your accuser. Far to many abuses have occured in the past, and will occur in the future if we dont' nip this in the bud.

The reason you can confront them is because of she said he said. If there was other evidence you wouldn't need that as you'd being tying to fight the evidence not the accuser. The type of evidence you want would make rape a crime nearly everyone could get away with, not to mention murder. You'd need film at 11 in nearly all case.

We have your DNA. Yeah, but it was consensual rough sex. She likes it. Oh okay, have a nice day.

 

[Doubledareme]

No one can be covered these days. That ship has sailed.

Let's hope so. But let's also hope that in the case of real abuse, that it is handled swiftly while the evidence is much more than unsubstantiated nonsense.

I can never get behind the concept that all it takes to convict someone, public or in a court of law, is to make an accusation. That is just morally wrong.

She said he said will never go away. What should go away, eyewitness testimony. We know it's for shit.

And when the pattern is clear you don't need videotape.

except when you have the photo and everyone still covers for it. yeah I like that one.

You have a photo of someone molesting a child?

just molesting a woman. you know the victim? so it's ok if it isn't 14 years old? interesting your thought pattern.

Show us the photo?

 

[Darkwind]

Well, no. The fact that he offered a settlement is kind of proof that he is paying off an accuser. Still, you have a point. He hasn't actually admitted to wrongdoing so he can't be considered pond scum.... for that.

I guess the real question is when they set up this buffer, is it written in such a way that the Member doesn't have to do anything more than say, 'cover my ass' to get them to litigate fo them?

No one can be covered these days. That ship has sailed.

Let's hope so. But let's also hope that in the case of real abuse, that it is handled swiftly while the evidence is much more than unsubstantiated nonsense.

I can never get behind the concept that all it takes to convict someone, public or in a court of law, is to make an accusation. That is just morally wrong.

She said he said will never go away. What should go away, eyewitness testimony. We know it's for shit.

And when the pattern is clear you don't need videotape.

He said/She Said is just as morally ambiguous. Sorry, but no one's life, reputation, or livelihood should be on the block on the basis of just an accusation. There is a reason we say you have a right to confront your accuser. Far to many abuses have occured in the past, and will occur in the future if we dont' nip this in the bud.

The reason you can confront them is because of she said he said. If there was other evidence you wouldn't need that as you'd being tying to fight the evidence not the accuser. The type of evidence you want would make rape a crime nearly everyone could get away with, not to mention murder. You'd need film at 11 in nearly all case.

We have your DNA. Yeah, but it was consensual rough sex. She likes it. Oh okay, have a nice day.

That simply is not true. We have been, for at least 30 years, teaching women that if you are abused or raped, go to the cops and get the evidenced documented.

I simply disagree with the notion that all it takes to ruin someone is an accusation.

 

[jc456]

Let's hope so. But let's also hope that in the case of real abuse, that it is handled swiftly while the evidence is much more than unsubstantiated nonsense.

I can never get behind the concept that all it takes to convict someone, public or in a court of law, is to make an accusation. That is just morally wrong.

She said he said will never go away. What should go away, eyewitness testimony. We know it's for shit.

And when the pattern is clear you don't need videotape.

except when you have the photo and everyone still covers for it. yeah I like that one.

You have a photo of someone molesting a child?

just molesting a woman. you know the victim? so it's ok if it isn't 14 years old? interesting your thought pattern.

Show us the photo?

 

[jc456]

No one can be covered these days. That ship has sailed.

Let's hope so. But let's also hope that in the case of real abuse, that it is handled swiftly while the evidence is much more than unsubstantiated nonsense.

I can never get behind the concept that all it takes to convict someone, public or in a court of law, is to make an accusation. That is just morally wrong.

She said he said will never go away. What should go away, eyewitness testimony. We know it's for shit.

And when the pattern is clear you don't need videotape.

He said/She Said is just as morally ambiguous. Sorry, but no one's life, reputation, or livelihood should be on the block on the basis of just an accusation. There is a reason we say you have a right to confront your accuser. Far to many abuses have occured in the past, and will occur in the future if we dont' nip this in the bud.

The reason you can confront them is because of she said he said. If there was other evidence you wouldn't need that as you'd being tying to fight the evidence not the accuser. The type of evidence you want would make rape a crime nearly everyone could get away with, not to mention murder. You'd need film at 11 in nearly all case.

We have your DNA. Yeah, but it was consensual rough sex. She likes it. Oh okay, have a nice day.

That simply is not true. We have been, for at least 30 years, teaching women that if you are abused or raped, go to the cops and get the evidenced documented.

I simply disagree with the notion that all it takes to ruin someone is an accusation.

report it always report it. In the event it is useful to getting the filth put away.

 

[Doubledareme]

She said he said will never go away. What should go away, eyewitness testimony. We know it's for shit.

And when the pattern is clear you don't need videotape.

except when you have the photo and everyone still covers for it. yeah I like that one.

You have a photo of someone molesting a child?

just molesting a woman. you know the victim? so it's ok if it isn't 14 years old? interesting your thought pattern.

Show us the photo?

Since he didn't touch her and she's wearing a flack jacket, please try again.

 

[Doubledareme]

No one can be covered these days. That ship has sailed.

Let's hope so. But let's also hope that in the case of real abuse, that it is handled swiftly while the evidence is much more than unsubstantiated nonsense.

I can never get behind the concept that all it takes to convict someone, public or in a court of law, is to make an accusation. That is just morally wrong.

She said he said will never go away. What should go away, eyewitness testimony. We know it's for shit.

And when the pattern is clear you don't need videotape.

He said/She Said is just as morally ambiguous. Sorry, but no one's life, reputation, or livelihood should be on the block on the basis of just an accusation. There is a reason we say you have a right to confront your accuser. Far to many abuses have occured in the past, and will occur in the future if we dont' nip this in the bud.

The reason you can confront them is because of she said he said. If there was other evidence you wouldn't need that as you'd being tying to fight the evidence not the accuser. The type of evidence you want would make rape a crime nearly everyone could get away with, not to mention murder. You'd need film at 11 in nearly all case.

We have your DNA. Yeah, but it was consensual rough sex. She likes it. Oh okay, have a nice day.

That simply is not true. We have been, for at least 30 years, teaching women that if you are abused or raped, go to the cops and get the evidenced documented.

I simply disagree with the notion that all it takes to ruin someone is an accusation.

Most don't report and you can disagree all you like but that won't change a thing. The reality is what it is.

 

[jc456]

except when you have the photo and everyone still covers for it. yeah I like that one.

You have a photo of someone molesting a child?

just molesting a woman. you know the victim? so it's ok if it isn't 14 years old? interesting your thought pattern.

Show us the photo?

Since he didn't touch her and she's wearing a flack jacket, please try again.

didn't need to, he already admitted it. so you're wrong. BTW, a fairly popular photo today.

it shows the hypocrisy of the left. and you fall into that.