Mcclatchy: leaking Ford's letter not illegal, doesn't break rules

[easyt65]

I do not know which of them knew, but they had a list of 63 people ready to defend Kavanaugh with in less than 24 hours...

Much like Dems' claims that Kavanaugh had / has to be a gang rapist because he drank alcohol in high school, the 2 are unrelated and 1 is not evidence of the other ... but thanks for that.

 

[Borillar]

AS FAR AS SENTAE 'ETHICS' GOES, the President needs to demand the creation of / appointment of / needs to appoint an 'outside DC', objective Govt position that is responsible for creating / defining Government 'ETHICS', a position that has full prosecutorial powers - perhaps associated with the DOJ but who does not completely answer to / work for the DOJ / US AG.

If what Feinstein intentionally did does not constitute a breach in Senate 'Ethics' ... if John Conyers and Senate Democrats being exposed for sexual misconduct and creating a Senate Committee whose sole reason for existence was to pay for the silence of their victims over a period of 15 YEARS ... does not meet the 'definition / requirements for being in 'VIOLATION OF SENATE ETHICS RULES' then the entire Senate Ethics Committee should be fired, replaced, and the 'Ethics Rules' need to be updated / re-written!

You really expect Trump, the most unethical president in history, to demand the creation of a government entity with prosecutional powers over governmental ethics that isn't under presidential control?

Funny you consider Trump to be the most Unethical when...

...The career-long sexual Predator Clinton was Impeached and stripped of his license to practice law ...

...Barry financed / supplied / armed / defended / protected / dragged the US into w illegal wars to help terrorists - to include Al Qaeda who slaughtered 3,000 Americans / violated both Constitution and law / betrayed America several times...

Clinton was acquitted after a true witch hunt and was unlikely to practice law anyway. Obama just continued on with the wars W started, killed Osama Bin Laden, and finally ended combat operations in Iraq, never "betraying" America once.

 

[easyt65]

AS FAR AS SENTAE 'ETHICS' GOES, the President needs to demand the creation of / appointment of / needs to appoint an 'outside DC', objective Govt position that is responsible for creating / defining Government 'ETHICS', a position that has full prosecutorial powers - perhaps associated with the DOJ but who does not completely answer to / work for the DOJ / US AG.

If what Feinstein intentionally did does not constitute a breach in Senate 'Ethics' ... if John Conyers and Senate Democrats being exposed for sexual misconduct and creating a Senate Committee whose sole reason for existence was to pay for the silence of their victims over a period of 15 YEARS ... does not meet the 'definition / requirements for being in 'VIOLATION OF SENATE ETHICS RULES' then the entire Senate Ethics Committee should be fired, replaced, and the 'Ethics Rules' need to be updated / re-written!

You really expect Trump, the most unethical president in history, to demand the creation of a government entity with prosecutional powers over governmental ethics that isn't under presidential control?

Funny you consider Trump to be the most Unethical when...

...The career-long sexual Predator Clinton was Impeached and stripped of his license to practice law ...

...Barry financed / supplied / armed / defended / protected / dragged the US into w illegal wars to help terrorists - to include Al Qaeda who slaughtered 3,000 Americans / violated both Constitution and law / betrayed America several times...

Clinton was acquitted after a true witch hunt and was unlikely to practice law anyway. Obama just continued on with the wars W started, killed Osama Bin Laden, and finally ended combat operations in Iraq, never "betraying" America once.

BS.

Clinton was Impeached by the House.

Clinton was found guilty of contempt of court by the judge in his sexual assault / harassment law suit for unethically attempting to deceive the court.

Obama actively aided and abetted, protected and defended terrorists, to include Al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others...

Fail.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

leaking Ford's letter not illegal, doesn't break rules

No, but it is a really shitty, scumbag thing to do out of lust for power.

 

[Ted Frazier]

AS FAR AS SENTAE 'ETHICS' GOES, the President needs to demand the creation of / appointment of / needs to appoint an 'outside DC', objective Govt position that is responsible for creating / defining Government 'ETHICS', a position that has full prosecutorial powers - perhaps associated with the DOJ but who does not completely answer to / work for the DOJ / US AG.

If what Feinstein intentionally did does not constitute a breach in Senate 'Ethics' ... if John Conyers and Senate Democrats being exposed for sexual misconduct and creating a Senate Committee whose sole reason for existence was to pay for the silence of their victims over a period of 15 YEARS ... does not meet the 'definition / requirements for being in 'VIOLATION OF SENATE ETHICS RULES' then the entire Senate Ethics Committee should be fired, replaced, and the 'Ethics Rules' need to be updated / re-written!

You really expect Trump, the most unethical president in history, to demand the creation of a government entity with prosecutional powers over governmental ethics that isn't under presidential control?

Funny you consider Trump to be the most Unethical when...

...The career-long sexual Predator Clinton was Impeached and stripped of his license to practice law ...

...Barry financed / supplied / armed / defended / protected / dragged the US into w illegal wars to help terrorists - to include Al Qaeda who slaughtered 3,000 Americans / violated both Constitution and law / betrayed America several times...

Clinton was acquitted after a true witch hunt and was unlikely to practice law anyway. Obama just continued on with the wars W started, killed Osama Bin Laden, and finally ended combat operations in Iraq, never "betraying" America once.

BS.

Clinton was Impeached by the House.

Clinton was found guilty of contempt of court by the judge in his sexual assault / harassment law suit for unethically attempting to deceive the court.

Obama actively aided and abetted, protected and defended terrorists, to include Al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others...

Fail.

Feinstein wasn't under oath.

 

[easyt65]

AS FAR AS SENTAE 'ETHICS' GOES, the President needs to demand the creation of / appointment of / needs to appoint an 'outside DC', objective Govt position that is responsible for creating / defining Government 'ETHICS', a position that has full prosecutorial powers - perhaps associated with the DOJ but who does not completely answer to / work for the DOJ / US AG.

If what Feinstein intentionally did does not constitute a breach in Senate 'Ethics' ... if John Conyers and Senate Democrats being exposed for sexual misconduct and creating a Senate Committee whose sole reason for existence was to pay for the silence of their victims over a period of 15 YEARS ... does not meet the 'definition / requirements for being in 'VIOLATION OF SENATE ETHICS RULES' then the entire Senate Ethics Committee should be fired, replaced, and the 'Ethics Rules' need to be updated / re-written!

You really expect Trump, the most unethical president in history, to demand the creation of a government entity with prosecutional powers over governmental ethics that isn't under presidential control?

Funny you consider Trump to be the most Unethical when...

...The career-long sexual Predator Clinton was Impeached and stripped of his license to practice law ...

...Barry financed / supplied / armed / defended / protected / dragged the US into w illegal wars to help terrorists - to include Al Qaeda who slaughtered 3,000 Americans / violated both Constitution and law / betrayed America several times...

Clinton was acquitted after a true witch hunt and was unlikely to practice law anyway. Obama just continued on with the wars W started, killed Osama Bin Laden, and finally ended combat operations in Iraq, never "betraying" America once.

BS.

Clinton was Impeached by the House.

Clinton was found guilty of contempt of court by the judge in his sexual assault / harassment law suit for unethically attempting to deceive the court.

Obama actively aided and abetted, protected and defended terrorists, to include Al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others...

Fail.

Feinstein wasn't under oath.

So all of this lying, false accusations, 'Herman Cain'ing was ok because she was not under oath?

Seriously?

 

[Ted Frazier]

You really expect Trump, the most unethical president in history, to demand the creation of a government entity with prosecutional powers over governmental ethics that isn't under presidential control?

Funny you consider Trump to be the most Unethical when...

...The career-long sexual Predator Clinton was Impeached and stripped of his license to practice law ...

...Barry financed / supplied / armed / defended / protected / dragged the US into w illegal wars to help terrorists - to include Al Qaeda who slaughtered 3,000 Americans / violated both Constitution and law / betrayed America several times...

Clinton was acquitted after a true witch hunt and was unlikely to practice law anyway. Obama just continued on with the wars W started, killed Osama Bin Laden, and finally ended combat operations in Iraq, never "betraying" America once.

BS.

Clinton was Impeached by the House.

Clinton was found guilty of contempt of court by the judge in his sexual assault / harassment law suit for unethically attempting to deceive the court.

Obama actively aided and abetted, protected and defended terrorists, to include Al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others...

Fail.

Feinstein wasn't under oath.

So all of this lying, false accusations, 'Herman Cain'ing was ok because she was not under oath?

Seriously?

Read the ethics rules and tell me.

 

[Oldstyle]

The "big problem" would be for the Democrat on that commission who leaked the letter despite Ms. Ford's desire to be anonymous! Who cares if it was legal...that was never the issue! The issue is holding it back until the last moment and then using Ford like disposable tissue to try and stall the confirmation vote! Whoever it was that did that and then sat on that stage and praised Ford's bravery for coming forward is going to be revealed as one AMAZINGLY two faced poseur.

The interesting thing is that the Repubs on the committee knew about it prior to the "leak" and did nothing but get people lined up to support Kav.

Some fucked up politicking going on

Who on the GOP side knew about it prior to it being published and if they did...when was it that they learned of what the Democrats were going to hit Kavanaugh with?

I do not know which of them knew, but they had a list of 63 people ready to defend Kavanaugh with in less than 24 hours...

You just claimed that Republicans on the committee knew about the Ford allegations prior to their being leaked...so either tell us which Republicans knew...or walk your claim back.

The fact that 63 people defended a man with a rather spectacular 26 year career as a judge surprises you? I'm sure if they needed many more than 63 it wouldn't have been a problem!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You just claimed that Republicans on the committee knew about the Ford allegations prior to their being leaked...so either tell us which Republicans knew...or walk your claim back.

The fact that 63 people defended a man with a rather spectacular 26 year career as a judge surprises you? I'm sure if they needed many more than 63 it wouldn't have been a problem!

Bite me, I am not walking anything back. I gave my opinion and it has not changed.

I am not surprised 63 people defended him, I am surprised it happened so quickly.

If you do not agree with my assessment, I really do not give a shit.

 

[Oldstyle]

You just claimed that Republicans on the committee knew about the Ford allegations prior to their being leaked...so either tell us which Republicans knew...or walk your claim back.

The fact that 63 people defended a man with a rather spectacular 26 year career as a judge surprises you? I'm sure if they needed many more than 63 it wouldn't have been a problem!

Bite me, I am not walking anything back. I gave my opinion and it has not changed.

I am not surprised 63 people defended him, I am surprised it happened so quickly.

If you do not agree with my assessment, I really do not give a shit.

So you claimed that Republicans on the committee knew...but then when you're challenged to back up that claim...your response is that you "really do not give a shit"?

Why should anyone really "give a shit" about your opinion from here on out, GG?

 

[Oldstyle]

Bite me?

I just had a Junior High School flashback!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You just claimed that Republicans on the committee knew about the Ford allegations prior to their being leaked...so either tell us which Republicans knew...or walk your claim back.

The fact that 63 people defended a man with a rather spectacular 26 year career as a judge surprises you? I'm sure if they needed many more than 63 it wouldn't have been a problem!

Bite me, I am not walking anything back. I gave my opinion and it has not changed.

I am not surprised 63 people defended him, I am surprised it happened so quickly.

If you do not agree with my assessment, I really do not give a shit.

So you claimed that Republicans on the committee knew...but then when you're challenged to back up that claim...your response is that you "really do not give a shit"?

Why should anyone really "give a shit" about your opinion from here on out, GG?

I gave my opinion that the Repub knew about it before it was made public. I am standing by that opinion.

That opinion is based upon the speed at which the 63 people were located and responded to the call for defending.

The fact that I cannot name a name is totally irrelevant.

Oh, I do not really give a shit what you think of my opinion, that is sort of the nature of opinions.

 

[Asclepias]

Drinking beer isn't illegal for those of age.

It is if you are or were 17

 

[Lesh]

Drinking beer isn't illegal for those of age.

And of course Kavanaugh wasn't legal.

Next?

 

[Oldstyle]

You just claimed that Republicans on the committee knew about the Ford allegations prior to their being leaked...so either tell us which Republicans knew...or walk your claim back.

The fact that 63 people defended a man with a rather spectacular 26 year career as a judge surprises you? I'm sure if they needed many more than 63 it wouldn't have been a problem!

Bite me, I am not walking anything back. I gave my opinion and it has not changed.

I am not surprised 63 people defended him, I am surprised it happened so quickly.

If you do not agree with my assessment, I really do not give a shit.

So you claimed that Republicans on the committee knew...but then when you're challenged to back up that claim...your response is that you "really do not give a shit"?

Why should anyone really "give a shit" about your opinion from here on out, GG?

I gave my opinion that the Repub knew about it before it was made public. I am standing by that opinion.

That opinion is based upon the speed at which the 63 people were located and responded to the call for defending.

The fact that I cannot name a name is totally irrelevant.

Oh, I do not really give a shit what you think of my opinion, that is sort of the nature of opinions.

So you have ZERO proof that any Republican knew about Ford's allegations...do you? Yet you made the charge anyways? The fact that you can't name a name is about as relevant as it gets because it shows how much your opinion is worth.

As for the 63 people who defended Kavanaugh? Locating character references when you KNOW that the opposition is going to attack the character of any nominee is simple common sense. I would imagine those names were being collected from the moment that Brett Kavanaugh was named to Trump's short list of candidates.

 

[Lesh]

You just claimed that Republicans on the committee knew about the Ford allegations prior to their being leaked...so either tell us which Republicans knew...or walk your claim back.

The fact that 63 people defended a man with a rather spectacular 26 year career as a judge surprises you? I'm sure if they needed many more than 63 it wouldn't have been a problem!

Bite me, I am not walking anything back. I gave my opinion and it has not changed.

I am not surprised 63 people defended him, I am surprised it happened so quickly.

If you do not agree with my assessment, I really do not give a shit.

So you claimed that Republicans on the committee knew...but then when you're challenged to back up that claim...your response is that you "really do not give a shit"?

Why should anyone really "give a shit" about your opinion from here on out, GG?

I gave my opinion that the Repub knew about it before it was made public. I am standing by that opinion.

That opinion is based upon the speed at which the 63 people were located and responded to the call for defending.

The fact that I cannot name a name is totally irrelevant.

Oh, I do not really give a shit what you think of my opinion, that is sort of the nature of opinions.

If that's true then Kavanaugh likely DID assault that woman

 

[Oldstyle]

Drinking beer isn't illegal for those of age.

And of course Kavanaugh wasn't legal.

Next?

For those of you who didn't live through the 70's and early 80's...when the drinking age went from 21 down to 18...it was a party! Drinking by High School students during that area was wide spread. Declaring that anyone who DID drink as an underage person back in those days should be banned from jobs now is SO ridiculous as to preclude a response! My guess is the majority of Congress would have to resign their jobs if that is the new standard.

 

[Oldstyle]

You just claimed that Republicans on the committee knew about the Ford allegations prior to their being leaked...so either tell us which Republicans knew...or walk your claim back.

The fact that 63 people defended a man with a rather spectacular 26 year career as a judge surprises you? I'm sure if they needed many more than 63 it wouldn't have been a problem!

Bite me, I am not walking anything back. I gave my opinion and it has not changed.

I am not surprised 63 people defended him, I am surprised it happened so quickly.

If you do not agree with my assessment, I really do not give a shit.

So you claimed that Republicans on the committee knew...but then when you're challenged to back up that claim...your response is that you "really do not give a shit"?

Why should anyone really "give a shit" about your opinion from here on out, GG?

I gave my opinion that the Repub knew about it before it was made public. I am standing by that opinion.

That opinion is based upon the speed at which the 63 people were located and responded to the call for defending.

The fact that I cannot name a name is totally irrelevant.

Oh, I do not really give a shit what you think of my opinion, that is sort of the nature of opinions.

If that's true then Kavanaugh likely DID assault that woman

Did you want to provide any proof of that? Or are you another Gator...content to level charges with no proof?

 

[Asclepias]

Drinking beer isn't illegal for those of age.

And of course Kavanaugh wasn't legal.

Next?

For those of you who didn't live through the 70's and early 80's...when the drinking age went from 21 down to 18...it was a party! Drinking by High School students during that area was wide spread. Declaring that anyone who DID drink as an underage person back in those days should be banned from jobs now is SO ridiculous as to preclude a response! My guess is the majority of Congress would have to resign their jobs if that is the new standard.

How about not hiring because he lied on his application?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So you have ZERO proof that any Republican knew about Ford's allegations...do you? Yet you made the charge anyways? The fact that you can't name a name is about as relevant as it gets because it shows how much your opinion is worth.
.

You are not a very smart person are you? If I had proof then it would no longer be an opinion, that is sort of the nature of an opinion. Yes, I stated my opinion despite the lack of proof, because that is what a ******* opinion is.

Are you really this stupid or do you just play this way on the internet.