Examples of GOP Leadership

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
he seems to not be involved in 1/6, at least not directly...i'm of the mind that most republicans at least had a clue about what was coming, and not one single one warned the nation, as far as i'm concerned, they're all complicit, but you still have to prove he did something impeachable, something criminal, and he seems like the kind of guy who is careful about stepping in shit...i wouldn't count on being able to make anything stick to him.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Ummmmmmm maybe not quite indict..listen to the whole thing.

I dunno. It is reprehensible, as is the silence from GOP leaders on the terminate-the-Constitution remark. But actionable? Not enough, is my guess.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I dunno. It is reprehensible, as is the silence from GOP leaders on the terminate-the-Constitution remark. But actionable? Not enough, is my guess.
I know but there's things we don't know that Cheney will avail to us just like that recording leaked..could there be more?
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
i agree that mccarthy is a dirty fuck with shit to hide, but he is also good at hiding such shit....IF he goes down, it will be after others have gone down and spilled a considerably larger pile of beans than are currently on the table.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Giuliani takes the stand in hearing over his DC law license
Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani defended his actions Monday as he faces possible sanctioning from the D.C. Bar that could result in the loss of his law license after he brought faulty election fraud claims in seeking to challenge the outcome of the 2020 election.
The discipline hearing before the D.C. Bar’s Board on Professional Responsibility (BPR) largely centered on actions Giuliani took in Pennsylvania, one of the post-election lawsuits he handled directly.

“What this case is about is that Mr. Giuliani was responsible for filing a frivolous action, asking a federal court to deprive millions of the people in Pennsylvania of their right to vote,” Phil Fox, an attorney for the BPR, said in his opening remarks at the start of the hearing.
“There was no precedent for this. In addition to the fact that there was no precedent, there was no factual basis [for the suit],” Fox added.
The Trump team filed more than 60 lawsuits in the wake of the election, failing to win a single one. While Giuliani oversaw the bulk of the litigation, he was most actively involved in the litigation in Pennsylvania, where former President Trump lost by roughly 80,000 votes.

Giuliani’s attorney John Leventhal argued that he had a reasonable basis for pursuing the fraud allegations he raised in Pennsylvania and that there was no evidence that Giuliani “intentionally violated” any of the professional conduct rules.
“The claims based on the denial of equal protection and due process were properly plead and were certainly not frivolous,” Leventhal said.
Giuliani himself took hours of questions from the bar association in the first day of a trial scheduled for the next two weeks.

He told the panel, “I really believe I’ve been persecuted for three or four years.”
“My role was to show how Pennsylvania involved the same set of eight or 10 suspicious actions — illegal actions, whatever you want to call them, irregular actions — that could not be the product of accident,” he said.
In one instance, Giuliani complained about questioning on one of the claims in his case, noting that it came just days after the election and they expected to have more time to investigate their assertions.

In another, Giuliani sparked conversation on Twitter after he looked down at his wrist, noticing he was wearing two watches.
Following the hearing, the BPR will decide whether to adopt the report prepared by Fox, though the District of Columbia Court of Appeals will ultimately decide whether to penalize Giuliani, a punishment that could range from being reprimanded by the court to losing his law license.
Giuliani has already had his New York law license suspended — a determination he is challenging — and is not the only Trump attorney to face sanctioning from the D.C. Bar over his role in challenging the 2020 election results.

Jeffrey Clark, an attorney at the Justice Department who Trump weighed installing as attorney general to investigate the fraud claims Giuliani is now being reprimanded over, is also facing disciplinary action before the board.

The suit in question at Monday’s hearing came after Giuliani claimed there were widespread irregularities in the state’s voting process, but it was quickly thrown out by a judge — a decision later upheld by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
Fox said the remedies prescribed by Giuliani ranged from asking the court to throw out anywhere from 680,000 to 7 million voters.
“No court ever in the history of the United States has ever considered anything close to that remedy. And, of course, the courts summarily refused to do so, dismissed the complaint, affirmed by the Third Circuit, because there was no basis, on fact, to do that,” he said.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Alito jokes about Black kids in KKK outfits during Supreme Court argument
Justice Samuel Alito made an apparent joke on Monday about “Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits” during Supreme Court oral arguments on a case involving a Colorado web designer who did not want to provider her services for same-sex weddings on religious and free speech grounds.
During the arguments, Alito sought to make a point about who could argue they should not have to provide a service under a Colorado anti-discrimination law by discussing a Black Santa Claus at a shopping mall.

Alito, a conservative justice who authored the summer ruling overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, asked if that Santa would be required to take a picture with a child dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit under the Colorado law in question.
He did so after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised the question of whether it would be permissible for a Santa at a mall to refuse to take pictures with children who are not white.

“So if there’s a Black Santa at the other end of the mall and he doesn’t want to have his picture taken with a child who’s dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, that Black Santa has to do that?” Alito asked Eric Olson, Colorado’s solicitor general, who was defending the state law at issue in the case.
“No, because Ku Klux Klan outfits are not protected characteristics under public accommodation laws,” Olson responded.

Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s liberals, then asked, “And, presumably, that would be the same Ku Klux Klan outfit regardless of whether the child was Black or white or any other characteristic?” Alito then cut in to say, “You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits, right? All the time. All the time.”

In audio from C-SPAN, laughter can be heard before Kagan asks if she can proceed with her line of questioning.
Sherrilyn Ifill, former president and director council for the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, tweeted Monday afternoon that the comments were “really upsetting.”
“The joke about Black kids in KuKluxKlan outfits? No Justice Alito, these ‘jokes’ are so inappropriate, no matter how many in the courtroom chuckle mindlessly,” Ifill said.

Earlier in the proceedings, Alito implied that Kagan was familiar with a dating website designed for people who wish to have affairs.
Alito asked Olson if under the Colorado law, an unmarried Jewish person who wanted a Jewish photographer to take a photograph for the website Jdate would be required to do so.
“Jdate … is a dating service, I gather, for Jewish people,” Alito said.

Kagan, who is Jewish, jumped in to say, “It is.”
Alito then responded, “Maybe Justice Kagan will also be familiar with the next website I’m going to mention. … Next, the Jewish person asks the Jewish photographer to take a photograph for his AshleyMadison.com dating profile.”
Alito said he wasn’t suggesting Kagan knew the website.

“I’m not suggesting — I mean, she knows a lot of things. I’m not suggesting — OK, does he have to do it?”
After a slight pause, Olson said, “It depends.”
“What Colorado looks to is what services the photographer makes available to the public, and if the photographer makes that service available to others, taking pictures for use on websites, then probably yes, but it depends,” said Olson.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Alito jokes about Black kids in KKK outfits during Supreme Court argument
Justice Samuel Alito made an apparent joke on Monday about “Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits” during Supreme Court oral arguments on a case involving a Colorado web designer who did not want to provider her services for same-sex weddings on religious and free speech grounds.
During the arguments, Alito sought to make a point about who could argue they should not have to provide a service under a Colorado anti-discrimination law by discussing a Black Santa Claus at a shopping mall.

Alito, a conservative justice who authored the summer ruling overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, asked if that Santa would be required to take a picture with a child dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit under the Colorado law in question.
He did so after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised the question of whether it would be permissible for a Santa at a mall to refuse to take pictures with children who are not white.

“So if there’s a Black Santa at the other end of the mall and he doesn’t want to have his picture taken with a child who’s dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, that Black Santa has to do that?” Alito asked Eric Olson, Colorado’s solicitor general, who was defending the state law at issue in the case.
“No, because Ku Klux Klan outfits are not protected characteristics under public accommodation laws,” Olson responded.

Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s liberals, then asked, “And, presumably, that would be the same Ku Klux Klan outfit regardless of whether the child was Black or white or any other characteristic?” Alito then cut in to say, “You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits, right? All the time. All the time.”

In audio from C-SPAN, laughter can be heard before Kagan asks if she can proceed with her line of questioning.
Sherrilyn Ifill, former president and director council for the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, tweeted Monday afternoon that the comments were “really upsetting.”
“The joke about Black kids in KuKluxKlan outfits? No Justice Alito, these ‘jokes’ are so inappropriate, no matter how many in the courtroom chuckle mindlessly,” Ifill said.

Earlier in the proceedings, Alito implied that Kagan was familiar with a dating website designed for people who wish to have affairs.
Alito asked Olson if under the Colorado law, an unmarried Jewish person who wanted a Jewish photographer to take a photograph for the website Jdate would be required to do so.
“Jdate … is a dating service, I gather, for Jewish people,” Alito said.

Kagan, who is Jewish, jumped in to say, “It is.”
Alito then responded, “Maybe Justice Kagan will also be familiar with the next website I’m going to mention. … Next, the Jewish person asks the Jewish photographer to take a photograph for his AshleyMadison.com dating profile.”
Alito said he wasn’t suggesting Kagan knew the website.

“I’m not suggesting — I mean, she knows a lot of things. I’m not suggesting — OK, does he have to do it?”
After a slight pause, Olson said, “It depends.”
“What Colorado looks to is what services the photographer makes available to the public, and if the photographer makes that service available to others, taking pictures for use on websites, then probably yes, but it depends,” said Olson.
there are a lot of dangerous people in America, and Alito is number fucking one with a bullet...he NEEDS to be disbarred, he's a bigot and a self described originalist...trump is small beans compared to this monster he built and then turned loose on the American people.
 

Budzbuddha

Well-Known Member
Rudy the Rat Bastard


71EF5748-897B-4A98-A527-DC3E90694AE3.jpeg

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani appeared Monday as the first witness in his own attorney misconduct hearing, but the proceedings quickly grew combative as the opposing counsel dinged Giuliani for failing to answer straightforward questions and frequently meandering off course.

The ethics case, brought by the Washington, DC Bar's Office of Disciplinary Counsel, zeroes in on Giuliani's effort to overturn the 2020 election results in Pennsylvania when he was then-President Donald Trump's personal attorney. Specifically, the ODC alleges that the former New York mayor filed a "frivolous" lawsuit seeking to nullify Pennsylvania's presidential election results, despite the fact that there was "no factual or legal basis" for Giuliani's claims of widespread voter fraud.

By filing the lawsuit, the ODC said, Giuliani violated the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and "engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice."

On Monday, disciplinary counsel Hamilton Fox said in his opening arguments that Giuliani "weaponized his law license" in an effort to undermine the Constitution.

"Mr. Giuliani was responsible for filing a frivolous action asking a court in Pennsylvania to deny millions of people the right to vote," Fox said during the virtual hearing.

Fox grew increasingly frustrated with Giuliani as the proceedings went on. At one point, he was trying to get more details from Giuliani about his role in litigating the Pennsylvania case, but the former mayor repeatedly veered off course and started airing nonsense allegations of voter fraud in other states.

"Mr. Giuliani, I am trying to find out what your role was in writing — in drafting — the initial complaint in Pennsylvania," Fox said. "I'm asking you what time it is, and you're telling me how to make a watch."

:wall:

"Well, you know, I really do think you should let me answer the question, so I can get the context in which I was operating," Giuliani said. "So you don't create the false impression that all my time and attention was given to one matter when that was not the case."

Later in the proceedings, Giuliani was again reminded that he was there to answer questions as a witness when he started opining on a 5-2 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling about voting procedures in the state.

"I recall this very, very clearly," Giuliani said of the ruling. "This is a very debatable opinion."

Fox ignored Giuliani and pointed out that the ruling held that election observers "be permitted to remain in the room where the ballots are being counted."

"So you would agree that my position is reasonable, since it was the same position as ... the dissenters," Giuliani said. "It was hardly —"

Fox then interjected, saying, "Mr. Giuliani, I ask the questions."

Robert Bernius, a retired lawyer who presided over the hearings, also tried multiple times to rein Giuliani in.

"Mr. Giuliani, I understand your frustration, but this is not the point at which you should argue your claims," he said. "Just answer the questions. Thank you."

Earlier in the day, Bernius interrupted another long-winded rant from Giuliani to remind him that he was testifying as a "witness."

The former mayor then said that he had been "persecuted for three or more years" and that his actions were taken out of context.

"You've been a trial lawyer for a long time, and you understand how the process works," Bernius said. "The process is regularized."
 
Top