Historic Censure Moves Forward

[imawhosure]

As far as the Supreme Court, that is on Harry Reid,

Nope. History still shows it was McConnell who changed the rule for confirming the Supreme Court nominees to allow a simple majority vote to confirm them.

LOLOLOL, then tell us oh wise one, who was it that stated as head of the senate that---------->we will NOT confirm a new SJ if you are in the last year of your term? Thus setting the precedent for denying Obama his SC-)

Tell us, quickly, or brilliant one-)

 

[Nostra]

As far as the Supreme Court, that is on Harry Reid,

Nope. History still shows it was McConnell who changed the rule for confirming the Supreme Court nominees to allow a simple majority vote to confirm them.

You can thank Harry Reid for that.

 

[imawhosure]

As far as the Supreme Court, that is on Harry Reid,

Nope. History still shows it was McConnell who changed the rule for confirming the Supreme Court nominees to allow a simple majority vote to confirm them.

You can thank Harry Reid for that.

Nostra, Nostra, quick, the Leftists can't answer it-------------->who was it that INSISTED that if a SC came up in the last year of their term, the Senate would NOT vote on it?

I know, I know, hard question. I will give his initials, HR-)

 

[BlindBoo]

LOLOLOL, then tell us oh wise one, who was it that stated as head of the senate that---------->we will NOT confirm a new SJ if you are in the last year of your term?

Why don't you tell us what exactly was said and when it was said ?

 

[BluesLegend]

SHAME ON SCHUMER
GOP pushes ahead with historic censure over SCOTUS threat


"I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."


View attachment 311322

"What the hell was I thinking?"




Schumer’s Supreme Court saga not over, as GOP presses forward on historic censure

So after complaining about the partisan impeachment, the GOP is going to do exactly the same thing? And the downward spiral continues...

The SCOTUS chief justice spanked your man Schumer fool.

 

[BluesLegend]

Do you really believe Schumer was threatening them with physical harm rather than political retaliation?

We have to assume so based on his words.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So after complaining about the partisan impeachment, the GOP is going to do exactly the same thing? And the downward spiral continues...

I'm not saying I agree with censuring, but do you feel Schumer's actions were appropriate?

Do you really believe Schumer was threatening them with physical harm rather than political retaliation?

Does it matter? And don't you think his words could encourage others to inflict physical harm?

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm not saying I agree with censuring, but do you feel Schumer's actions were appropriate?

The ambiguous words he used are exactly what the propagandist need to manipulate the dittoheads. He shouldn't have left it open ended to the negative interpretation that he must have known was coming.

Does it matter? And don't you think his words could encourage others to inflict physical harm?

Anyone deranged enough to have Chuckies word tip him over the edge would probably go over sooner than later. So I suppose they could. It's not like he points at the SC and calls them Evil People or the Enemies of State all the time.

 

[BluesLegend]

The ambiguous words he used are exactly what the propagandist need to manipulate the dittoheads.

They were not ambiguous to the SCOTUS chief justice who publicly denounced Schumer for his threats. Your attempts to spin this are quite pathetic really.

 

[Flash]

Threatening Supreme Court Justices because they won't rule like you want them to is pretty serious shit.

Of course Chucky has always been a turd. Typical turd Democrat.

 

[Care4all]

As far as the Supreme Court, that is on Harry Reid, your own guy, not us. You people thought you were slick, then it backfired, and now your bitching. He made the rule, not us! Look back before you argue.

fyi-
He did make the rule for LOWER positions that the Republicans had filibustered for over a year or two.....and NOT for the supreme court justices?

Mitch did that all on his own.

 

[task0778]

"Do you really believe Schumer was threatening them with physical harm rather than political retaliation?"

Intimidation does not have to specifically be physical harm, it can be political retaliation, or anything else that could be detrimental to someone's career, livelihood, whatever. What Schumer said was intimidating, and when he specifically named Gorsuch and Kavanaugh is where I think he crossed the line and went too far. It's one thing to ***** about the SCOTUS in general but another to go after an individual or individuals. Under the applicable statute, a threat of any kind made to influence their decisions in an ongoing case is prima facie proof of obstruction of justice. No threat of violence is required.

According to 18 U.S. Code § 115, whoever threatens a federal official, “with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished” by a fine or imprisonment of as much as ten years.

I would add this: it's about time politicians and others realized that freedom of speech requires some discretion. You do not threaten people, end of story. Maybe censure isn't enough, maybe Schumer ought to be the one paying a price. And what if somebody decides to take a shot at, let alone wound or even kill Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, and he/or she says I did it after hearing Schumer say what he said. I doubt that Schumer should be held legally accountable for that maybe it's about time there were real consequences for shooting your mouth off. And BTW, I do not exclude President Trump either.

 

[BlindBoo]

The ambiguous words he used are exactly what the propagandist need to manipulate the dittoheads.

They were not ambiguous to the SCOTUS chief justice who publicly denounced Schumer for his threats. Your attempts to spin this are quite pathetic really.

If they were not ambiguous, that is if he has said you will pay a political Price.... The Chief Justice would not have been able to rebuke him as he did. The propagandist would not be able to scream "physical threat" !

 

[Care4all]

"Do you really believe Schumer was threatening them with physical harm rather than political retaliation?"

Intimidation does not have to specifically be physical harm, it can be political retaliation, or anything else that could be detrimental to someone's career, livelihood, whatever. What Schumer said was intimidating, and when he specifically named Gorsuch and Kavanaugh is where I think he crossed the line and went too far. It's one thing to ***** about the SCOTUS in general but another to go after an individual or individuals. Under the applicable statute, a threat of any kind made to influence their decisions in an ongoing case is prima facie proof of obstruction of justice. No threat of violence is required.

According to 18 U.S. Code § 115, whoever threatens a federal official, “with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished” by a fine or imprisonment of as much as ten years.

I would add this: it's about time politicians and others realized that freedom of speech requires some discretion. You do not threaten people, end of story. Maybe censure isn't enough, maybe Schumer ought to be the one paying a price. And what if somebody decides to take a shot at, let alone wound or even kill Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, and he/or she says I did it after hearing Schumer say what he said. I doubt that Schumer should be held legally accountable for that maybe it's about time there were real consequences for shooting your mouth off. And BTW, I do not exclude President Trump either.

I think if he were prosecuted, he would likely get off... with a good lawyer....

only because they would have to prove he was speaking about one official case the Justices were working on that he pointed to with his threat, (maybe that is possible, but maybe it is not?)

seems like the Justices were not sitting in an official hearing or working on an official case, at the time of the alleged threat....at the protest, or were they? And we do have the right to protest and object to anything the gvt does, including Supreme court justices....

Then his lawyers would probably argue free speech, the right to protest issues of the govt's handling of things or issues.... and by the time the trial was over, there would likely be a couple of jurors that would not vote to convict, because it was not beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.... Censure is likely the best they can do..

Just my opinion....

These are all of the reasons President Trump supporters have claimed Trump can demean federal judges by name even, causing uproar with his followers against these judges that he calls out, in his tweets....

And why they did not blame trump for inciting violence by his supporters like the guy who shot up the synagogue and the anthrax threat guy, who claimed it was Trump's words that influenced them....?

Or Sarah Palin PAC with a list of Democratic senators and congress critters, with cross hairs on.... was not meant as a threat and did not really cause Gabby Gifford's attack though named on her list, who was shot and mamed forever....

Or president Trump's threat at one of his rallies, saying Hillary would take their 2nd amendment rights away if elected, but maybe some 2nd amendmenters, could take care of that problem, if she were elected.... free speech and a joke so others say...?

 

[alang1216]

SHAME ON SCHUMER
GOP pushes ahead with historic censure over SCOTUS threat


"I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."


View attachment 311322

"What the hell was I thinking?"




Schumer’s Supreme Court saga not over, as GOP presses forward on historic censure

So after complaining about the partisan impeachment, the GOP is going to do exactly the same thing? And the downward spiral continues...

Hey, wanna play by Marcus of Queensbury rules, then fine. But your side doesn't! We owe you 3 years worth, and we are just starting the repayment plan-)

Let's not forget the 11 Benghazi Congressional hearings, Whitewater, and the numerous investigations in between. Let's not forget McConnell refusing to hold SCOTUS hearings to deny Obama the seat. No, there are no innocents in Washington. Obviously no adults there either.

There will be 12 Benghazi hearings, the 11 that happened, and the 1 yet to happen. Doubt me? Watch! And that one will come out much different than the 1st eleven-)

As far as the Supreme Court, that is on Harry Reid, your own guy, not us. You people thought you were slick, then it backfired, and now your bitching. He made the rule, not us! Look back before you argue.

You know, you may be correct in hating Trump with a passion, because I have little doubt that if he gets re-elected and carries the House and Senate on his coat tails, you people are done for at least 10 years!

And when he doesn't have to worry about re-election, I can only imagine the "can of whoop a**" he opens on you people for fooling around through his 1st term. I almost pity you, but not quite-)

I admire your child-like innocence: but they started it!

 

[alang1216]

Let's not forget the 11 Benghazi Congressional hearings, Whitewater, and the numerous investigations in between. Let's not forget McConnell refusing to hold SCOTUS hearings to deny Obama the seat. No, there are no innocents in Washington. Obviously no adults there either.

Benghazi:
Hillary and the State Department hired a security firm that had never provided protection in a combat zone and had never carried weapons before to protect Americans surrounded by Al Qaeda. When every other nation pulled their people out Hilary and the State Department left the Americans there. It was Gadaffi's ex-military who served in the military Obama used US military to help Al Qaeda defeat and give Al Qaeda its own country. During the attack the Obama administration refused to allow a Quick Response Force (QRF) Team go in (I and several others have direct knowledge) and secure the Embassy, declaring the situation was changing and the team had no clue what they were heading into
-- Here's a clue for people too stupid to know this: WE DON'T GIVE A F* WHATWE ARE GOING INTO. WE GET BRIEFED ENROUTE, & OUR JOB IS TO KILL ANY 'BAD GUYS' ON US TERRITORY (THE US EMBASSY / OUTPOST), SECURE THE SITE, AND RESCUE AMERICANS - THAT MEANS SECURING THE DEAD BODIES. No one ws allowed in until DAYS / a Week or more later....That's BULLSHIT!

Hillary F*ING LAUGHED about the more than 50 times the State Department was asked for help -she actually said she thought the request was part of the Ambassador's SENSE OF HUMOR'...and then stated the infamous line, 'AT THIS POINT, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE'?!

The horrific lessons learned, the fact that these Americans could have been saved -this is what snowflakes continue to claim is part of the NOTHING that came out of the hearings.

Whitewater:
ALL of the Clinton cohorts were found guilty and sent to jail....except them.....

'Nothing to see here'....

Snowflakes even believe that attempting to destroy thousands of subpoenaed classified official govt documents that consisted of thousands of counts of violations of the FOIA and FRA was 'perfectly legal' ... FOR HILLARY....and that 'being ignorant of the law' - or in Hillary's case being too stupid to know she was breaking laws' is an actual valid legal defense....FOR HILLARY.


They believe what they are told and they spread the lies / propaganda because their Masters tell them to.....


View attachment 311339
Hillary has never committed a crime...Trump - he
is Impeached FORVEVER....who needs a crime,
evidence, or a witness......Bwuhahahahahahaha!

I guess that is a fundamental difference between us, I want the madness to end and you want it to continue.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm not saying I agree with censuring, but do you feel Schumer's actions were appropriate?

The ambiguous words he used are exactly what the propagandist need to manipulate the dittoheads. He shouldn't have left it open ended to the negative interpretation that he must have known was coming.

There is no "interpretation" of his words. He was very clear when speaking them

 

[MacTheKnife]

Well I certainly hope they do because the asshole truly deserves and has earned it. It's long past time to reign in congressional irresponsibility and behaviour, especially when out in public. It has gotten totally out of hand.

He Deserves more than Censure

Exactly...he needs to be executed for treason...and when Trump declares martial law that will be possible.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

SHAME ON SCHUMER
GOP pushes ahead with historic censure over SCOTUS threat


"I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."


View attachment 311322

"What the hell was I thinking?"




Schumer’s Supreme Court saga not over, as GOP presses forward on historic censure

what makes it historic?

 

[lantern2814]

So after complaining about the partisan impeachment, the GOP is going to do exactly the same thing?

How do you figure, snowflake?

After 4 years the Democrats Impeached without a crime, without any evidence, and without any witnesses.

Schumer - on tv in front of the world - pointed to the USSC Building, called out the Justices by name - 'I am telling YOU, Gorsuch, I am telling YOU, Kavanaugh' - ad told them they would 'pay a price' and 'would never know what HIT them'.

You sound as stupid as Schumer who tried to claim when the backlash hit that he was NOT talking to the USSC Justices.....

REALLY?!

'I am telling YOU, Gorsuch, I am telling YOU, Kavanaugh'

REALLY?!

Bwuhahahahahaha!

Do you really believe Schumer was threatening them with physical harm rather than political retaliation?

Political retaliation? You do know that SCOTUS appointments are for LIFE right? They aren’t elected. Therefore there is NO political retaliation for them . He was obviously inciting violence and threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by name.