General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsspanone
(135,958 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Your move Grassley.
Alhena
(3,031 posts)so they are fired up for the elections.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)Response to pbmus (Original post)
brush This message was self-deleted by its author.
HAB911
(8,957 posts)Maybe if Grassley was actually a lawyer that knew something about the law, he would realize what he has done. He just opened up Pandoras box as it relates to Justice Kavanaughs conduct. It is Christmas in October!
Link to tweet
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Watch for some real dirt on Grassley to pop.
shanny
(6,709 posts)I think he's about to open a can of whoopass on his own self.
Please Proceed.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Does he know what discovery means?
onenote
(42,885 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Do you honestly think Avenatti can be convicted if his client lied to him? And there is PLENTY of discovery once any retarded indictment comes down.
onenote
(42,885 posts)But that's only true if DOJ pursues the matter and indictments are returned, which could happen a long time from now or never.
I've read the letter Grassley sent to DOJ and I don't think it builds a particularly strong case for indictment. But I don't see how its a dumb move by Grassley since even if it doesn't result in any indictment, it lays out a very negative portrayal of Avenatti and Swetnick in terms of their credibility. And if there is an indictment of Avenatti and/or Swetnick, there will be an opportunity to seek discovery of the witnesses upon whose investigative statements DOJ relies. That could include Kavanaugh, but the scope of discovery is going to be very narrow -- limited to whether the specific statements made by Swetnick and Avenatti were misleading or not.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)of Avenatti? And I disagree that it isn't stupid by Grassley - it keeps the very unpopular supreme court pick and accused attempted racist in the news.
onenote
(42,885 posts)So, in theory, Avenatti could be indicted for conspiring with Swetnick to mislead the Committee.
I don't see such an indictment as likely, but that's at least one way they could go after Avenatti.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)laugh it out of court. Talk about bogus court cases.
onenote
(42,885 posts)MagickMuffin
(15,985 posts)this should be fun!
yellowcanine
(35,707 posts)And I suspect the Justice Dept is going to tell Grassley "no way."
zentrum
(9,866 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 25, 2018, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)
....guys made were highly coordinated and centralized and choreographed. So I don't quite see Grassley as out there on his own. I can't quite figure out what's going on.
Racerdog1
(808 posts)GrASSley gonna get his ass handed to him. This old moron barely remembers his name.
hostalover
(447 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)"Potential conspiracy to provide materially false statements" to Congress is a crime? How about directly providing materially false statements to Congress? Or, as it used to be known, lying under oath or perjury. Is that still a crime, Sen. Grassley?
PaulX2
(2,032 posts)You are the one guilty of conspiracy dude.
onenote
(42,885 posts)marieo1
(1,402 posts)Grassley just needs to go back to Iowa and shut up!!! Go Mr. Avenatti!!