The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[BugI02]

Bad for you and me, every progressive's wet dream

 

[KG1]

The NYT deleted it because they were getting a lot of heat for the way they phrased the first paragraph.

People were raising the roof that the shenanigans described were phrased in terms as “they may seem like harmless fun”

They thought that part was trivializing the behavior that lead to an alleged sexual assault.

It also appears that the Democrats are gearing up to take another swing at Kavanaugh based on the revelations outlined in the new book.

And it also appears that the "new blockbuster allegation" in the book isn't even new. The Democrats and their disingenuous collaborators in the lame steam media will never stop. They are basing their new push to impeach Kavanaugh on previously unfounded and uncorroborated allegations that even the supposed victim of the "new blockbuster allegation" has reportedly no recollection of. But the NYT convieniently omits that part.

[FONT=&amp]Carrie Severino‏ @JCNSeverinoFollowFollow

@JCNSeverino​

More

[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]
This is the blockbuster "new allegation" against Kavanaugh. Except it's not actually new. It was shopped to Senate Democrats at the time and they apparently found it impossible to nail down, so they ignored it - the same Senators who found the "rape boat" allegations plausible.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Just some casual propaganda to help sell a book.

 

[T.Lex]

Hmmm... will the NYT start providing reviews of fanfic, then?

 

[KG1]

Just some casual propaganda to help sell a book.

That's a pretty important element that was originally omitted. All of these crooked hacks are completely devoid regarding any semblance of ethics.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

They're being pretty roundly ****-upon today. Wonder if they may have crossed a line a little too far. Maybe they'll feel some actual blowback for this.

 

[KG1]

The thing is that this 'blockbuster new allegation" excerpted from the book that they are trying to push to gin up another go at Kavanaugh isn't even new. It's old news that still hasn't changed since it was originally shopped to Congressional Democrats.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

wonder if ginsberg's health has taken a turn for all this to come up

 

[nonobaddog]

Her health and alertness is bad enough already that she should have gone to pasture years ago. It is only her lack of ethics that allows her to think she is a functioning justice.

 

[Mongo59]

wonder if ginsberg's health has taken a turn for all this to come up

How would one tell?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Her health and alertness is bad enough already that she should have gone to pasture years ago. It is only her lack of ethics that allows her to think she is a functioning justice.

Justice Ginsburg has missed oral arguments once during her time on the court, and that was for this most recent bout with cancer. I don't see how her missing oral argument one time, when others has missed more, and Justice Thomas has even suggested that oral arguments should be eliminated, puts into question her ability to serve on the court. Keep in mind that Scalia keeled over while still on the bench, and he suffered from various maladies, and just before his death, was deemed too weak to undergo shoulder surgery. Now, I know that most Justices you have to drag kicking and screaming from the bench. If your comment is in reference to all, ok, but if you're solely pointing out Ginsburg, minus any evidence of her mind being dull, then I must disagree.

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;vnVpYM7l67Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnVpYM7l67Y[/video]

 

[nonobaddog]

I think they use dogs.

 

[bwframe]

Notice the trend to different colored MAGA hats? Interesting...

Think the libs will now try to make all ballcaps "racist" ?

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;rw1klxUH1nM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw1klxUH1nM[/video]

 

[Kutnupe14]

[video=youtube;rw1klxUH1nM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw1klxUH1nM[/video]

How does one invoke executive privilege when they didn't even work in the White House?

 

[bwframe]

You should watch this debacle.

I'm thinking Lewandowski for president 2024...

 

[BugI02]

How does one invoke executive privilege when they didn't even work in the White House?

I'm pretty sure you do it the same way you stonewall congress on requested information when an ill-advised gun running program results in the death of a federal agent. You assume reality is what you say it is and let the legal chips fall where they may months or even years later when it no longer matters

The party out of power always loathes executive privilege until they come back into power, when it becomes vital to the correct functioning of government

The non-trivial answer to your question is pay attention to this case. The courts have held, post Nixon, that the executive branch can shield advice given to the administration even by non-employees of the federal government in the interest of a president being able to receive unvarnished advice without participants needing to fear being dragged before some kangaroo court by the opposition

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-475
Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Conclusion


In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court sent the case back to the D.C. Court of Appeals, arguing that the appellate court should have considered separation-of-powers claims and was wrong to conclude it lacked authority to order District Court discovery to stop. Such an order (mandamus) to stop discovery proceedings should be considered because those proceedings, "by virtue of their overbreadth," could interfere with presidential activity. Further, the appellate court misinterpreted U.S. v. Nixon to mean that the government needed to assert executive privilege for separation-of-powers objections to be considered.

 

[bwframe]

Swallwell, who would nuke us if we refuse to give up our guns, questions Lewandowski and gets owned.

Lewandowski talks about his safe around 2:20...



[video=youtube;jFWOphLsSlg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFWOphLsSlg[/video]

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm pretty sure you do it the same way you stonewall congress on requested information when an ill-advised gun running program results in the death of a federal agent. You assume reality is what you say it is and let the legal chips fall where they may months or even years later when it no longer matters

The party out of power always loathes executive privilege until they come back into power, when it becomes vital to the correct functioning of government

The non-trivial answer to your question is pay attention to this case. The courts have held, post Nixon, that the executive branch can shield advice given to the administration even by non-employees of the federal government in the interest of a president being able to receive unvarnished advice without participants needing to fear being dragged before some kangaroo court by the opposition

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-475
Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Well, the courts rejected that attempt.