HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Amaryllis » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Mon Nov 29, 2004, 10:18 PM
Number of posts: 9,463

Journal Archives

One BIG reason GOP is rushing Kavanaugh, and Orrin Hatch is in it up to his eyeballs:

THey are protecting themselves from whatever corruption charges they may be eligible for, and we know there are many. Russian money, election tampering, collusion, etc. THey want Kav on the court before this case comes up:


A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates

Gamble v. United States isn’t related to the Russia investigation. But the outcome—which one senior Republican senator has tried to influence—could still have consequences for the probe.
Natasha Bertrand
Sep 25, 2018
Mike Segar / AP

A key Republican senator has quietly weighed in on an upcoming Supreme Court case that could have important consequences for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The Utah lawmaker Orrin Hatch, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, filed a 44-page amicus brief earlier this month in Gamble v. United States, a case that will consider whether the dual-sovereignty doctrine should be put to rest. The 150-year-old exception to the Fifth Amendment’s double-jeopardy clause allows state and federal courts to prosecute the same person for the same criminal offense. According to the brief he filed on September 11, Hatch believes the doctrine should be overturned. “The extensive federalization of criminal law has rendered ineffective the federalist underpinnings of the dual sovereignty doctrine,” his brief reads. “And its persistence impairs full realization of the Double Jeopardy Clause’s liberty protections.”

Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trump’s power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldn’t be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example—he was convicted last month in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud—both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws. (Both states have a double-jeopardy law that bars secondary state prosecutions for committing “the same act,” but there are important exceptions, as the Fordham University School of Law professor Jed Shugerman has noted.) If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed, as Hatch wants, then Trump’s pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action.

If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, “the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally—but with some existing limits—can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon,” explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. “If Hatch gets his way, however, a federal pardon would essentially block a subsequent state-level prosecution.”

How to Watch Julie Swetnick Interview Online 8PM ET /PT tonight- please post if you are watching!

Please start a thread and post comments if you are watching!


Julie Swetnick, the third woman to raise sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, will speak publicly Sunday night in an interview with John Heilemann on The Circus.

The interview will be part of a 30-minute episode, which airs Sunday, September 30, at 8 p.m. ET/PT and will be broadcast on Showtime. If you don’t have cable or can’t get to a TV, you can watch a live stream of the show (or DVR it, or watch it on-demand) on your computer, phone or streaming device by signing up for one of the following cable-free, live-TV streaming services.

Does everyone know Julie Swetnick interview is on Showtime tomorrow eve at 8 with Avenatti?


I haven't seen this referenced on DU. Did I just miss it?
She is VERY credible. Check out the video clip.

Early morning conversation with checkout guy at Trader Joes about Kavenaugh & Ford

I was at Trader Joes this morning - I go often enough that the clerks recognize me, although we don't know each other by name. It was early and not very crowded, so no one was behind me in line. When the checkout guy was ringing me up, he asked how I was doing.

I said I was so happy about the turn of events poiitically yesterday - that was all I said; I didn't even specify what, and he immediately said, "Me too. I'm a survivor."

I said, "Me too."

He said there must be a lot more of us than people have any idea, and that everything coming out since Ford went public has been really triggering for him, but in spite of that, he was really glad it was happening. I said for me too, and I've heard so many other people say that.

He said that even if Kav was not guilty, his demeanor alone should disqualify him; that he was completely unqualified to be on SCOTUS. The woman who was the checker next to him who had a lull in customers to help and had overheard us joined in the conversation at that point and agreed. They talked about the stark contrast between Kavenaugh and Ford; her humility and sincerity, her honesty.

He said he hoped the culture would continue to change around this issue, and I said I think this is a major culture change and it would be impossible to go back.

I tend to be much more political that most people I know and really appreciated this conversation with people I didn't really even know, other than they've checked me out at this store before. THe impact of all this is huge. This is bringing a lot of people together.

Media and many Dems keep saying, "I dont understand why republicans..." Here's why:

Media and many Dems keep saying, "I dont understand why republicans...

1. Don't want an investigation
2. Are rushing this through without vetting - why can't they give it the time it deserves
3. Don't want others to testify (other accussers and corraborating witnesses)
4. Won't questions Mark Judge

They keep asking, "What are Rs afraid of?"

The answer is obvious. They desperately need Kavanaugh on SCOTUS to protect themselves since so many of them are complicit in so much corruption, not the lease of whicfh is the attack on the election, Russian colllusion, etc. And potential blackmail fodder from Russian hacking. They didnt just hack Dems.

And now there is the info about the upcoming SCOTUS case Gamble v. United States. "Gamble v. United States. isn’t related to the Russia investigation. But the outcome—which one senior Republican senator has tried to influence—could still have consequences for the probe."


THere are a few Dems who will go to the logical conclusion, but very few, at least publically - with some exceptions like Auntie Maxine. Most just keep asking what are they afraid of, and talking about how Rs are doing it to make their base happy so they can win the election. No, this is much deeper, much more serious than that. THis is cover up to save themselves from eventual investigation and all that comes with that.

Who heard Avenatti on Rachel just now, the most watched show on cable? He just blew it all up.

His involvement could be a game-changer. Millions of people watch her. Rachel read his email RE gang rapes, trains.

Avenatti kept hammering on what's the rush; there needs to be an investigation and all witnesses need to be heard. THey discussed that this is potentially criminal activity.

And just before the break, she started talking about another new development - a letter from Ford's new attorney to the committee about a number of issues her attorneys were contesting.

Avenatti up on Rachel next! She just read his email about gang rape/ trains.

He's on next and will talk about this.

Remember RAchel is the most watched cable show in the country. THis will bust it wide open.

She just said that NBC has not verified it yet, but she is reading the whole thing and talking about his client going public.

Wonder how soon Avenatti will release names of those with evidence of more assaults...

one would think before Thursday. That would be a game changer, especially if he has more than one. Maybe Christine won't have to testify.

What's wrong with the "just a teen" Kavanaugh defense, according to a psychologist


Here’s what we know about teen perpetrators and victims of sexual assault.

The recent sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have raised many questions, but by far one of the most discussed is the relevance of age. As described by Christine Blasey Ford, Kavanaugh was 17 and she was 15 at the time of the alleged incident. Now both are in their 50s. (Kavanaugh denies the alleged assault occurred.)

Do events that happened during adolescence still matter to a person well into adulthood? How should we think about sexual assault from a person’s teenage years decades later? Political commentators have been weighing in on this question in relation to the allegations against Kavanaugh. As articulated by opinion columnist Jonathan Zimmerman in USA Today, “Kavanaugh was a teenager at the time. Of course he was different then; he was a third of the age he is now. And teens do stupid, dangerous and destructive things.”

As a violence researcher, journal editor, and psychologist, I am one of the many scientists who have been studying these kinds of questions for decades. Misunderstandings and assumptions about patterns of behavior in adolescence have been flourishing in the discourse around Kavanaugh’s alleged actions. It’s worth looking at what we know from decades of investigating these topics.

Teen victims of assault can experience trauma for a lifetime

On the victimization side, the answer is a clear “yes.” It is well-established that childhood and young adult victims of sexual assault experience lifelong impacts. The impact includes not only higher risk of psychological problems, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, substance abuse, and suicidality, but also greater likelihood of physical health problems such as obesity, and social consequences such as school dropout. The evidence now indicates that every victimization experience — especially those that happen in childhood — adds to the total burden or “dose” of adversity, and you can see the health impacts of childhood abuse well into adulthood.

The reasons for this long-term impact are still being explored, but most evidence points to the physiological effects of toxic stress. Toxic stress can lead to the excessive release of stress hormones and other physical responses that can cause permanent damage to many bodily systems, including victims’ metabolism, heart health, and immune systems.
For teen perpetrators, the science is still developing. But here’s what we know.

(More at link)

Senate Judiciary Committee contacts Ford's friend about party (CNN a few minutes ago)

THey are definitely doing an investigation on Christine and trying to discredit her. Wonder if people will be afraid to come forward in her defense. Death threats are not an appealing incentive.


Washington (CNN)As the Senate Judiciary Committee staff negotiates with attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a past sexual assault, over a potential hearing on Thursday, Republican staffers are working to interview those who may have information about the alleged incident.

CNN has learned that the committee has reached out to a longtime friend of Ford named Leland Ingham Keyser.

On Saturday night, her lawyer, Howard Walsh, released a statement to CNN and the Senate Judiciary Committee..

"Simply put," Walsh said, "Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."

The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford's.
Keyser is the latest person alleged to be at the party to say she has no recollection of it.
"I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article," a committee staffer wrote Keyser earlier this week.

Go to Page: 1 2 Next »