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

[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.

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

One does not follow the other one at all. I am not sure how you came to such an illogical conclusion.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

My opinions are based on things I know to be true. Your opinions appear to be based on things you don't know at all. So which of us is the smart person and which is the stupid one?

 

[imawhosure]

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.

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.

Well, I can't tell you that the Republicans knew about the letter, but looooooooong before she testified, they had the letter from the ex-boyfriend. Just like the Democrats did, they didn't turn it over, they INVESTIGATED.

So, what could I tell both of you that you might not know?

Since I didn't read the whole thread, I will interject what is fact in that letter, and what has been proven-)

1. After they received the letter, they contacted the ex boyfriend, oh yes they did! They verified what was in the letter, which is why the prosecutor asked Mz Ford various questions about the polygraph test.

2. The person she helped with a polygraph test lives in a certain town in Delaware, actually a very close friend.

3. The letter Mz Ford mailed to Feinstein, was mailed from that exact town-)

4. Mz Ford did not know that the Republicans had gotten a letter from her ex at the time of her testimony, or that they had already contacted him.

AND NOW, THE PLOT THICKENS---------->

5. Now the Republicans wonder how they could possibly prove that MZ Ford might be exaggerating, or be deceiving, but they need to investigate, but they can't.

6. How do they get around this, hmmmmmmmm

7. Wait, I know, what if the DEMOCRATS insist on an FBI probe, lol.

8. But wait, what if this friend doesn't tell the truth about Mz Ford helping her with a polygraph, or other pertinent information! They know this isn't a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, which takes away their tools to try and compel anything.

AND THEN, AND THEN, AND THEN, a GREAT thing comes to light, that the Republicans and Whitehouse can NOT believe their great fortune!

9. They look into this friend of Mz Fords, and guess what they discover-)

You ready?

You sure?

She worked for the FBI from 2001, until 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I am not making this up!) SHE IS COLLECTING A PENSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

10. What happens? Well, after they interview the friend, the friend contacts MZ Ford. (who knows what was said) Mz Ford contacts her lawyers, and NOW the lawyers want to talk to the FBI ASAP. (and all the Leftist thought it was something else, lol)

Why?

Because Mz Ford PERJURED HERSELF on at least part of her testimony for sure about the polygraph, and more than likely, the retiree had to let the cat out of the bag on other things-) According to sources, this woman was interviewed for almost 9 hrs, lololololol.

11. And so, that is why they do not need to again interview Mz Ford, they have her sworn testimony, and depending upon what the friend knows, the gig is up-)

12. Now do you know why Trump said NOTHING until yesterday folks-)

In Closing, let me say, this is NOT internet rumor mill, it is fact, and you can easily look into it yourselves.

Also, all these threads on here about Mz Ford being so (believable is not the correct verb; the correct word LEFTISTS is sympathetic) SYMPATHETIC, are about to go up in smoke; but nope, they aren't going to!

Why?

Because the GOP has now been handed the sledgehammer to install Judge K. as the next Justice of the SC, which is why the FBI investigation will be given behind closed doors, lol. Either the Democrats concur, or can you imagine what WILL then be released-)

I will give you 3 guesses, and the 1st two do not count!

Cya, wouldn't want to be a Leftist right now, hehehehehehehehehehehee!

 

[CrazedScotsman]

McClatchy Newspapers has a reality check:

But there’s a big problem — regardless of who leaked the letter, it isn’t a crime, or even a violation of Senate rules.

Republicans calling for an investigalion are either dumb out doing it for show.

The letter isn’t classified information, which is a requirement for it to violate any ethics rule or law.

GOP calls for investigation of Feinstein over Ford letter. But there’s a big problem.

Isn't it illegal for Feinstein to say, "I didn't leak it and neither did my staff" during the hearing?

In other words, wouldn't she be guilty of purgery since the quote was made during an investigation?

Just wondering.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

McClatchy Newspapers has a reality check:

But there’s a big problem — regardless of who leaked the letter, it isn’t a crime, or even a violation of Senate rules.

Republicans calling for an investigalion are either dumb out doing it for show.

The letter isn’t classified information, which is a requirement for it to violate any ethics rule or law.

GOP calls for investigation of Feinstein over Ford letter. But there’s a big problem.

I haven't heard anyone say it was illegal.

It was a complete dick move though. She wanted to remain a ghost but the left knew it couldn't be used as effective ammunition in that manner. So they opted to **** HER NEEDS OR DESIRES and outed her like a criminal. Thereby placing her and her family in a very undesirable spot.

The left are scum. All for protecting women? Then why FORCE her out to public scrutiny?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

McClatchy Newspapers has a reality check:

But there’s a big problem — regardless of who leaked the letter, it isn’t a crime, or even a violation of Senate rules.

Republicans calling for an investigalion are either dumb out doing it for show.

The letter isn’t classified information, which is a requirement for it to violate any ethics rule or law.

GOP calls for investigation of Feinstein over Ford letter. But there’s a big problem.

Trump mocking the lying *****, although a dumb move, IS NOT ILLEGAL EITHER

 

[Oldstyle]

McClatchy Newspapers has a reality check:

But there’s a big problem — regardless of who leaked the letter, it isn’t a crime, or even a violation of Senate rules.

Republicans calling for an investigalion are either dumb out doing it for show.

The letter isn’t classified information, which is a requirement for it to violate any ethics rule or law.

GOP calls for investigation of Feinstein over Ford letter. But there’s a big problem.

Isn't it illegal for Feinstein to say, "I didn't leak it and neither did my staff" during the hearing?

In other words, wouldn't she be guilty of purgery since the quote was made during an investigation?

Just wondering.

If I remember my Constitutional law, Crazed...I believe that members of Congress are protected from being charged with that if it takes place during any hearings or on the floor of the Congress.

 

[CrazedScotsman]

McClatchy Newspapers has a reality check:

But there’s a big problem — regardless of who leaked the letter, it isn’t a crime, or even a violation of Senate rules.

Republicans calling for an investigalion are either dumb out doing it for show.

The letter isn’t classified information, which is a requirement for it to violate any ethics rule or law.

GOP calls for investigation of Feinstein over Ford letter. But there’s a big problem.

Isn't it illegal for Feinstein to say, "I didn't leak it and neither did my staff" during the hearing?

In other words, wouldn't she be guilty of purgery since the quote was made during an investigation?

Just wondering.

If I remember my Constitutional law, Crazed...I believe that members of Congress are protected from being charged with that if it takes place during any hearings or on the floor of the Congress.

Oh well, maybe an investigation will be enough to remove her from office. I doubt it, but you never know. She may just decide its not worth it and retire early.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

My opinions are based on things I know to be true. Your opinions appear to be based on things you don't know at all. So which of us is the smart person and which is the stupid one?

****, you really are this stupid! I'll be damned! I thought it was an act.

If you know something is true, it is no longer an opinion, it is now a fact.

 

[JoeMoma]

Drinking beer isn't illegal for those of age.

It is if you are or were 17

Which is not of age. Thanks.

 

[JoeMoma]

Drinking beer isn't illegal for those of age.

And of course Kavanaugh wasn't legal.

Next?

When was that? And so what?

 

[Meister]

McClatchy Newspapers has a reality check:

But there’s a big problem — regardless of who leaked the letter, it isn’t a crime, or even a violation of Senate rules.

Republicans calling for an investigalion are either dumb out doing it for show.

The letter isn’t classified information, which is a requirement for it to violate any ethics rule or law.

GOP calls for investigation of Feinstein over Ford letter. But there’s a big problem.

You just circle your wagon on that one, Ted. Integrity and morality means nothing to your masters,
but it does show where you stand, son. How's the stench?

 

[Billy_Bob]

McClatchy Newspapers has a reality check:

But there’s a big problem — regardless of who leaked the letter, it isn’t a crime, or even a violation of Senate rules.

Republicans calling for an investigalion are either dumb out doing it for show.

The letter isn’t classified information, which is a requirement for it to violate any ethics rule or law.

GOP calls for investigation of Feinstein over Ford letter. But there’s a big problem.

Isn't it illegal for Feinstein to say, "I didn't leak it and neither did my staff" during the hearing?

In other words, wouldn't she be guilty of purgery since the quote was made during an investigation?

Just wondering.

If I remember my Constitutional law, Crazed...I believe that members of Congress are protected from being charged with that if it takes place during any hearings or on the floor of the Congress.

Not if it is criminal... A senator can not claim this protection if they are involved in criminal conduct.

 

[Oldstyle]

My opinions are based on things I know to be true. Your opinions appear to be based on things you don't know at all. So which of us is the smart person and which is the stupid one?

****, you really are this stupid! I'll be damned! I thought it was an act.

If you know something is true, it is no longer an opinion, it is now a fact.

You're a joke. Here is your original claim...

"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."

You didn't present that as an "opinion"...you stated it as fact! You only back pedaled to claiming it was an "opinion" when I called you on that fact and asked you to tell us which Republicans on the committee it was that knew about Ford's allegations prior to the leak!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

My opinions are based on things I know to be true. Your opinions appear to be based on things you don't know at all. So which of us is the smart person and which is the stupid one?

****, you really are this stupid! I'll be damned! I thought it was an act.

If you know something is true, it is no longer an opinion, it is now a fact.

You're a joke. Here is your original claim...

"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."

You didn't present that as an "opinion"...you stated it as fact! You only back pedaled to claiming it was an "opinion" when I called you on that fact and asked you to tell us which Republicans on the committee it was that knew about Ford's allegations prior to the leak!

This is an opinion forum, what we offer is opinion unless supported by some sort of link or such. If there is no support offered I take everything as an opinion.

I am glad it seems you have finally figured out the difference between a fact and an opinion. I am happy to have imparted just a small bit of education onto you.

No charge this time.

 

[Oldstyle]

McClatchy Newspapers has a reality check:

But there’s a big problem — regardless of who leaked the letter, it isn’t a crime, or even a violation of Senate rules.

Republicans calling for an investigalion are either dumb out doing it for show.

The letter isn’t classified information, which is a requirement for it to violate any ethics rule or law.

GOP calls for investigation of Feinstein over Ford letter. But there’s a big problem.

Isn't it illegal for Feinstein to say, "I didn't leak it and neither did my staff" during the hearing?

In other words, wouldn't she be guilty of purgery since the quote was made during an investigation?

Just wondering.

If I remember my Constitutional law, Crazed...I believe that members of Congress are protected from being charged with that if it takes place during any hearings or on the floor of the Congress.

Not if it is criminal... A senator can not claim this protection if they are involved in criminal conduct.

Senators have protection from speech or debate that they make on the floor of the Senate or in hearings. It's Article 1, section 6 in the Constitution. They can pretty much say anything they please and you can't bring charges against them.

 

[Oldstyle]

My opinions are based on things I know to be true. Your opinions appear to be based on things you don't know at all. So which of us is the smart person and which is the stupid one?

****, you really are this stupid! I'll be damned! I thought it was an act.

If you know something is true, it is no longer an opinion, it is now a fact.

You're a joke. Here is your original claim...

"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."

You didn't present that as an "opinion"...you stated it as fact! You only back pedaled to claiming it was an "opinion" when I called you on that fact and asked you to tell us which Republicans on the committee it was that knew about Ford's allegations prior to the leak!

This is an opinion forum, what we offer is opinion unless supported by some sort of link or such. If there is no support offered I take everything as an opinion.

I am glad it seems you have finally figured out the difference between a fact and an opinion. I am happy to have imparted just a small bit of education onto you.

No charge this time.

You're the one who seems confused between a fact and an opinion, Gator! You stated something not as your opinion but as a fact and then ran from it when you couldn't back up your contention.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

My opinions are based on things I know to be true. Your opinions appear to be based on things you don't know at all. So which of us is the smart person and which is the stupid one?

****, you really are this stupid! I'll be damned! I thought it was an act.

If you know something is true, it is no longer an opinion, it is now a fact.

You're a joke. Here is your original claim...

"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."

You didn't present that as an "opinion"...you stated it as fact! You only back pedaled to claiming it was an "opinion" when I called you on that fact and asked you to tell us which Republicans on the committee it was that knew about Ford's allegations prior to the leak!

This is an opinion forum, what we offer is opinion unless supported by some sort of link or such. If there is no support offered I take everything as an opinion.

I am glad it seems you have finally figured out the difference between a fact and an opinion. I am happy to have imparted just a small bit of education onto you.

No charge this time.

You're the one who seems confused between a fact and an opinion, Gator! You stated something not as your opinion but as a fact and then ran from it when you couldn't back up your contention.

No little one, I gave my opinion like I do on here 100 times a day. You are the only one stupid enough not to know the difference.

You are trying way too hard and yet are too stupid to every succeed.

 

[Oldstyle]

My opinions are based on things I know to be true. Your opinions appear to be based on things you don't know at all. So which of us is the smart person and which is the stupid one?

****, you really are this stupid! I'll be damned! I thought it was an act.

If you know something is true, it is no longer an opinion, it is now a fact.

You're a joke. Here is your original claim...

"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."

You didn't present that as an "opinion"...you stated it as fact! You only back pedaled to claiming it was an "opinion" when I called you on that fact and asked you to tell us which Republicans on the committee it was that knew about Ford's allegations prior to the leak!

This is an opinion forum, what we offer is opinion unless supported by some sort of link or such. If there is no support offered I take everything as an opinion.

I am glad it seems you have finally figured out the difference between a fact and an opinion. I am happy to have imparted just a small bit of education onto you.

No charge this time.

You're the one who seems confused between a fact and an opinion, Gator! You stated something not as your opinion but as a fact and then ran from it when you couldn't back up your contention.

No little one, I gave my opinion like I do on here 100 times a day. You are the only one stupid enough not to know the difference.

You are trying way too hard and yet are too stupid to every succeed.

Does your "opinion" actually count for anything? Or do you simply pull things out of your ass...state them as fact...and then get pissy when someone actually asks you to back up what you've claimed?

 

[Oldstyle]

On what exactly did you base your "opinion" that GOP members of the Judiciary Committee knew about Ford's allegations before they were leaked by the Democrats?