Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the increasing calls on both the Democratic and Republican sides for perjury investigation stemming from the Kavanaugh hearings. If both parties eagerly open the perjury box, they could find Pandora’s box looks tame by comparison. (For purposes of full disclosure, Michael Avenatti is a former student of mine from George Washington University Law School).
Here is the column:
As the midterm elections approach, both parties are ramping up calls for perjury prosecutions and impeachment proceedings to reopen the Brett Kavanaugh controversy. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has joined a growing chorus of Democrats calling for the reopening of the FBI investigation on the now sitting justice after the midterm elections. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has referred allegations of false statements against Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick and her attorney, Michael Avenatti — an act which Avenatti likens to “opening Pandora’s box.”
Of course, as with Pandora’s box, it is difficult to know what unintended perils might spill from the perjury box for both parties. We may be about to find out. The famous “box” actually was a jar, but the story is well known. Pandora was the creation of Zeus in retaliation for Prometheus stealing fire from heaven. Zeus gave the beauty to Epimetheus, brother of Prometheus, along with a jar containing all of man’s evils. Epimetheus could not resist Pandora, who promptly spilled out the jar’s contents, to humanity’s peril. The perjury box is proving equally difficult for both parties to resist, despite many warnings.
Julie Swetnick
Many Republicans are eager to see Swetnick and Avenatti forced to answer questions about her allegation that Kavanaugh effectively led a rape gang in high school – doping and attacking many girls at “multiple house parties” in high school. No witnesses have come forward to support this allegation; even some Democrats have criticized the allegation as undermining the accounts of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez.
Absent a smoking-gun discovery of an effort by Swetnick to mislead, it is difficult to see how a false-statement case could be successfully mounted. The inclusion of Avenatti (who is one of my former students) is particularly concerning, since he represents a woman who wanted to come forward. Even if her account is found to be unsupported, it is a chilling move to seek the prosecution of both alleged victims and their counsel in coming forward to Congress.
Brett Kavanaugh
The referral by the Senate will, however, succeed in one critical respect: It gives Democrats full license to carry through on their own threat to investigate Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh for his own testimony. He denied involvement in controversies tied to his service in the Bush administration as well as the meaning of references in his yearbook and his conduct in high school and college. Once Swetnick spills out, so will Kavanaugh.
There may be a hope that such a fight will not be truly mutual in its assured destruction. Kavanaugh did not deny drinking heavily but simply denied committing assaults or blacking out. That presents a more difficult challenge for investigators than an allegation of a specific act like drugging punch or leading a rape gang.
Christine Blasey Ford
Of course, if Democrats pursue Kavanaugh, Ford will not be far behind. Indeed, that process may have begun. Just as Swetnick’s counsel is facing a possible criminal investigation, Ford’s counsel are now facing their own ethics investigation in representing their client. In a letter to the Board’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Judicial Watch alleged that Ford implicated her counsel in ethical violations when she said she was never told of an offer for the judiciary committee to come to her in California due to her reported intense fear of flying. After establishing that Ford routinely flew around the world (and regularly flew to the East Coast), the committee asked why she did not accept the well-publicized offer for the committee to come to her. Ford said she was never told of the offer.
The statement was immediately flagged by some of us as raising a serious matter of legal ethics, given that the duty of counsel is to “keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” In response to the complaint, attorneys Debra Katz, Lisa Banks and Michael Bromwich confirmed that Ford was informed of the offer, but introduced a curious distinction: “Dr. Ford was advised of all of her options and made her decisions based on the information we provided her. We were never told that Senator Grassley was willing personally to fly to California to meet with Dr. Ford, and that is how she understood his ambiguous question at the hearing.”
The problem is that the question was about “the committee” and not about Chairman Grassley. Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell asked whether “it was communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that — that they offered to come out to California to do so?” Ford answered: “I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you — had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not — it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.”
Ford did not explain why, if she understood she could give a statement without flying, she did not accept the offer when the committee said time was of the essence. Moreover, her prior testimony belied the notion that she was strangely focused on whether Grassley himself was coming to California:
Prosecutor Mitchell: “OK. It’s — I ask that, because it’s been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. Is — is that true?”
Ford: “Well, I was willing — I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request. … So that was certainly what I was hoping, was to avoid having to get on an airplane, but I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends, and get on the plane.”
Ford clearly stated that she understood that “the committee” was not willing to fly to California and it was “an unrealistic request” that “they would come to me.” That is in direct contradiction of television and print stories saying the committee would go to her, due to her fear of flying.
Clearly, much will spill from the perjury jar if it is smashed after the midterm elections. Neither side will be able to object to the investigation of one but not the others. The parable is simple: Like lust, politics often is blind to looming dangers.
Notably, the only thing that did not fly from Pandora’s jar is often translated as “hope,” but a more accurate translation of the original Greek may be “deceptive expectation.” Hope can be both deceptive and destructive — something each side might consider in pledging to unleash the contents of the Kavanaugh debacle after November 6.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
The Dong Should Speak For Itself. Pandora’s box is what we call a twat.
These lying twats should be sued for libel.
If there are no consequences for fabricating a rape charge, then the behavior is encouraged. It is a fine line to tread, as we don’t want legitimate victims who merely could not prove their case to be punished.
In Swetnick’s case, she has a history of making false sexual allegations, and was sued for that very behavior. Her ex boyfriend said she propositioned him to have group sex the day she met him. There may be witnesses to her having group sex. Other victims of fabricates sexual assault claims. We also have video of her completely reversing her story on camera to a reporter. She went from Kavanaugh openly ran a gang rape ring, to, well, she saw him standing by punch and she saw guys huddled in doorways but didn’t know why they stood there. That is in another galaxy from a victim who cannot prove it.
I consider fabricated sexual assault claims to be a type of sexual assault. They need to be prosecuted as a class of assault. Based on the evidence so far, I believe that Swetnick is a predator.
One detail that NBC sat on was that the witness that Swetnick claimed had seen Kavenaugh spiking the punch and committing other acts said she never saw that take place. In fact she praised Kavanaugh and said he was a nice person who treated women well. She also said she never met Swetnick until she was over 30 years old. The witness also claimed that Avenatti was not truthful about the statement she gave him. Sure sounds like an investigation needs to be done.
If there are no consequences for fabricating a rape charge, then the behavior is encouraged.
You just don’t get it. Women have options. Men have obligations.
Tabby — parroting himself, again. He particularly likes this one:
Women — options, men — obligations.
But he happens to be wrong.
The Left clamored to let the FBI do it’s job. It won’t take more than a few days. The FBI did not find any supporting evidence of the claims, so now they want the FBI to do what? The only direction the FBI had was to investigate any credible claim, and to wrap it up within a week. Since Ford didn’t know where or when this party happened, and everyone she named denied it, the FBI completed its investigation in just a few days.
My impression is that the Left wants the FBI to do an 8th, 9th, 10th, n+infinity and not stop until and unless it finds something, anything, against Kavanaugh. That’s not justice; that’s a third world dictatorship abusing investigative agencies to nail political opponents.
The FBI’s investigation was apparently limited, in spite of Trump’s comments that it wouldn’t be.
He’s been investigated on six separate occasions, previously. The salient data to check would be the accounts of the other people whose names she provided. Which is what they did. It wasn’t helpful to the Democrats, so then they wanted a dumpster dive into the all the crank calls the FBI was receiving.
The investigations are (and were) rather cursory.
Strike “cursory.” “Limited” might be a better choice…
https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/oct/02/whats-fbi-background-check/
Or as the Washington Post suggests, “Curtailed” is a good description.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-fbi-background-check-of-kavanaugh-nears-its-end-probe-appears-to-have-been-highly-curtailed/2018/10/03/2fa4e93e-c72f-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html
I don’t agree that it is perjury to lie to protect one’s privacy. Where it becomes perjury is to lie about some fact material to a crime. This distinction is important. It is needed to prevent prosecutors and trial lawyers from using personal attacks on privacy as a tool in Court to intimidate, bully or discredit a witness. With a sensationalistic, prying, gossipy media for whom character assassination is a sport, it is sometime best to lie to protect privacy. If you say “That’s none of the Court’s business”, or “That’s a private matter unrelated to these Court proceedings”, that response will just fuel speculation and media attention. If lying to protect privacy deflects the prying inquisition, that’s acceptable behavior.
pbinca said, “Where it becomes perjury is to lie about some fact material to a crime.”
Yes. I agree with what pbinca said above.. Those are the exact words that I should have used in my comment downstream from here. Thanks, pbinca.
Michael Avenatti tweeted: “This is ridiculous @ChuckGrassley. How many more days do my client and I have to wait for the “criminal investigation” to get underway. I thought you had some juice? Promise me your “demand” wasn’t all for show. #Pathetic”
“Michael Avenatti
Verified account
@MichaelAvenatti
Follow Follow @MichaelAvenatti
This is ridiculous @ChuckGrassley. How many more days do my client and I have to wait for the “criminal investigation” to get underway. I thought you had some juice? Promise me your “demand” wasn’t all for show. #Pathetic
8:20 AM – 29 Oct 2018”
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1056928694374203397
Re the Avennati tweet; even if a public hearing discredits Swetnick and Avennati, they might use the exposure to launch a 2020 bid for the Democratic nomination.
An Avennati/ Swetnick ticket would be a good pairing if the Dems. want to go there.😒
Could we be so lucky? I heard that Hillary is leaving 2020 open. I would dearly love to see her attack Trump on the Russians in light of the overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing in her involvement of the sale of 1/5 of our strategic asset, Uranium, to Russia, and their subsequent shipping of uranium out of the US.
Awesome! More “Uranium One” entertainment! While you types are on the subject, where’s the additional Benghazi hearings in all this? What about the dead guy in the park, and the foreign chick with some computer stuff? Oh ya, and who could forget the “Deep State” which must be revealed (as soon as it’s discovered)? Pro tip: I approve of such fantasy postings–keep ’em comin.’
this is to “I always buy the commemorative silver coins advertised on hannity’s show” karen
uranium one, maybe comes up later.
give it some time
Marky Mark Mark – the NPC runs the Deep State script.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6330037/Stormy-Daniels-lawyer-90-95-cent-sure-hes-running-says-Clinton-adviser-backs-him.html
I was scanning the news and just saw the Daily Mail article about Avennati 2020.
He is not directly quoted in this piece, but he has been dropping heavy hints that he has a strong interest in running.
File the suits. I want the truth. We need discovery.
I fully recognize the cynicism behind these suits by both legacy parties. That cynicism is why the legal system must be called upon in this matter. (It is also why we do need real reporters to investigate.) But ultimately, this matter needs to be tested in a court of law. I also fully recognize that the rule of law is questionable at best in the US. Mostly, it is a dead letter. But it is really important to get to the truth in the matter and this is one avenue to find it.
It is up to the people to not be partisan on this matter. Let the facts come out and the truth will show itself.
Ford, Swetnick, and the other crazy women who came forward with their made up stories have no interest in pursuing this further and they won’t. That’s obvious. They could have filed legal complaints in the criminal or civil court system and they chose neither. So, there’s your “truth”: they were full of it.
The Dems are welcome to continue digging their own grave.
We absolutely crushed the Dems in the Kavanaugh fight. Time to move on unless they really want to get their collective ass kicked again.
Regardless of whether or not Ford or any of the others have ragged ends in their statements, or any of the other stuff, Kavanaugh is not SCOTUS material as the founding fathers intended. The SCOTUS was intended to be an independent body, unbiased politically, to maintain the original intentions of the Constitution as it pertains to the people of the US. The Constitution was written well over two hundred years ago in a both similar and different time. The Constitution can be interpreted in many cases in polar opposite meaning. The interpretation of the Constitution has become subject to the political bias of the judges on the SCOTUS. The system of nominating and confirming a judge is wholly tied to the desires of the dominant political party. The intentions of the founding fathers are not longer, if they ever were, possible. The system is flawed. When the system continually fails, it is time to change the system.
No more perfect example can be found in the placement of a person in the White House. The oligarchical system, dependent on money and media and not on issues and facts, offers up the worst of the worst: Clinton and Trump. The system is not what was intended and should be changed.
With the SCOTUS, the judges, as they come from within the judicial system, should be nominated from within the judicial system. They should be confirmed by a super majority of the Senate. If the qualifications for a Supreme Court Judge is that they apply the Constitution to today’s America without political or ideological bias, then it follows they should not arrive before a decision of the Senate via a President who invariably has political and ideological bias. It also follows that if the design of a SCOTUS is to apply the Constitution to the laws of the US, its judges should be confirmed by more than just a one vote difference of opinion. Take out the political and ideological bias and a super majority would be more likely.
If ever there was an argument for changing systems, it is the deplorable quality of leadership that is presented to the people in today’s polarized oligarchy.
IBK, it’s amazing how you are so much smarter than the Founding Fathers. Please expound on the “impeachment clause”. Surely the Clinton disaster showed us how that clause was stupidly crafted. AND then, how should the Separation of Powers be rewritten, as Obama’s “phone and a pen” usurption of Congress’s power demonstrated what idiots the Fathers were.
I can only wish that you had been one of the Founding Fathers; you would have kicked their asses with your insightful intellect.
Fascinating. You don’t find Ginsberg politicized?
She is politicized, and also she was never fully vetted in confirmation hearings.
Where is Ginsburg’s High School annual!!??
You really want to start to fix the broken? Support repeal of the 17th amendment. Return the Senate to the States. Think it through, it’s not crazy talk.
IMO, FWIW, (IANAL), a criminal charge of perjury ought not to be alleged for any false statement that does not conceal an underlying crime besides the false statement in question. For instance, If Kavanaugh lied about the extent of his involvement in the confirmation process for Judge Pryor, then Kavanaugh ought not to be charged with perjury for lying about something that is not, itself, a crime. Likewise, if Dr. Blasey-Ford lied about the extent of her fear of flying, then she ought not to be charged with perjury for lying about something that is not, itself, a crime. A criminal charge of perjury ought to be about preventing the perpetration of frauds upon the courts, or, in this case, a Senate hearing.
Perhaps my use of the term “fraud” is technically incorrect. [Gee. That’s too bad.] However, the way I see it, the spirit of the law against perjury is best exemplified by the alternative to perjury; namely, an invocation of one’s Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself.
No one would invoke The Fifth to avoid admitting that one may have overstated one’s fear of flying nor understated the extent of one’s involvement in the confirmation process for some other Judge. Whether such understatements or overstatements might constitute the perpetration of a fraud on a court or a Senate hearing seems equally out of keeping with the spirit of the law. The oath that witnesses swear does not include the words “I swear not to exaggerate nor to minimize the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
The last I checked the people posing the questions to the witness don’t get to testify in lieu of the witness’s testimony.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – Chrissy has a lot more to worry about then her fear of flying.
In order to prove in a court of law that Dr. Blasey-Ford willfully lied in her Senate testimony, the prosecution will have to allow the defendant pre-trial discovery. Are you sure you want that? Are you really sure that Kavanaugh wants that???
PC Schulte,…
Re the statement and question below “Are you sure you want that? Are you really sure Kavanaugh wants that???”.
This is in reference to prosecuting Blasey-Ford for perjury.
Given her “sporadic” memory of events, her prepping by counsel, her “misunderstanding” of offers to interview her in CA., etc., I don’t
think it’s likely that perjury charges would stick.
If this farce does continue, via Congressional investigations and/ or criminal charges, do Dr. Ford, Swetnick, and Avennati really want that?
Leaving aside questions of criminal liability, I don’t think any of the above would come out looking very good in an open, public, and aggressive investigation.
The Senate Judiciary Committee was mostly a batch of softball intermittent questioning, posturing, and statements; if this issue is revived, I wouldn’t count on a repeat of that muted, deferential handling of witnesses.
Go read pbinca’s comment above. She got the lawyer talk exactly right. Perjury has to be a willful lie about a fact material to a crime.
The Kavanaugh hearing was not a criminal trial. Blasey-Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh was never subjected to prosecutorial discretion, let alone any grand jury probe. If you want to apply the criminal rules of procedure to Blasey-Ford, you’ll have to go back all the way to square one and investigate Kavanaugh and his prep-school buddies in order to eliminate any evidence that might exculpate Blasey-Ford on criminal a charge of [perjury] willfully lying about a fact material to a crime [sexual assault].
In some circles that is known as attempting to prove a negative. Otherwise, the best you can get is that the allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh is uncorroborated or, if you prefer, unsubstantiated. Guess what? Corroboration and substantiation are issues with which prosecutors and grand juries deal. There was no prosecutorial discretion nor any grand jury probe at work in the Kavanaugh hearing. But there might have to be prosecutorial discretion and a grand jury probe before Blasey-Ford could be charged with perjury.
I guess you missed the part where I stated that “I don’t think it’s likely that criminal charges would stick” in Ford’s case.
Or the part where I later said “Leaving aside questions of criminal liabilty, I don’t think any of the above would come out looking very good in an open, public, and aggressive investigation”.
My point, which I touched on in my last paragraph, is that if this Kavanaugh-Ford-Avennati-Swetnick issue in revived in Congressional hearings….if this circus goes into a second act…don’t count on “a repeat of that muted, deferential treatment of witnesses”.
But thanks anyway for replying to the comments that I didn’t make.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – Chrissy committed perjury and she can be charged with that.
What’s the foundation for your assertion that Blasey-Ford willfully lied about a fact material to a crime? About what material fact did she lie? To what crime is that fact material? You do understand that the statement “Chrissy lied” is not materially equivalent to the statement “Chrissy committed perjury”; don’t you?
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – you do understand that all Chrissy has to do is lie to the committee to make it perjury. And she lied about that 2nd door to her home. She lied about her polygraph. She lied about her assault.
The supposed lie about the sexual assault is the only one that could have been a lie about a fact material to a crime. But the Senate confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh was not a criminal trial. And a prosecutor would still have to prove that Blasey-Ford’s allegation against Kavanaugh was a “willful lie” in order to get a guilty verdict on a perjury charge. Simply impeaching the credibility of a witness is just not the same thing as proving that the witness willfully lied about a fact material to a crime. Do you really want criminally to punish accusers for perjury whenever there is reasonable doubt about the truth of the accusation?????
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – when you accuse a man of sexual assault everything is on the table.
If you’re referring to any type of criminal charges, your statement is false, but thanks for playing, “counselor.”
this is to “but the wackjob on Pravda Faux News pinky-swore she was a baddie” paulie – georgie
Marky Mark Mark – the NPC runs the Pravda News script.
An uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegation is not the same thing as a willful lie about a fact material to a crime. Fear of flying is not a crime. In order to prove that Blasey-Ford willfully lied about her fear of flying, a prosecutor would have to prove that it is a matter of fact that Blasey-Ford is not afraid of flying. And even then that putative fact would remain immaterial to any crime. Impeaching the credibility of a witness need not result in a criminal charge of perjury, either.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – they had her damn flight records. She flies all over the world to surf and for conferences.
It’s entirely possible for someone who is afraid of flying to fly on a plane and still be afraid of flying. It could happen more than once, more than twice, or even more than thrice, and that person could still be afraid of flying.
Besides, your entire procedure amounts to nothing more than merely impeaching the credibility of the witness. That’s just not good enough for a criminal charge of perjury.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – it would be a jury decision. Same as the door. Same as the polygraph.
Don’t go down the rabbit hole with these cretins. “Perjury” requires inter alia that the statement was “material.”
to late for dinner
That sounds like sage advice. Thanks, Mark M.
But if they keep on popping their heads up from out of their mole holes, can I still whack them with my Nerf mallet, anyhow?
Right. The message never gets through. Ha-ha!
Marky Mark Mark – in which the NPC pretends to be a lawyer and have an ally.
Again, craven false equivalence. The notion Kavanaugh ‘lied’ is a Democratic talking point. It has no reality in meatspace. There is no doubt the Blasey, Swetnick, and Avenatti are guilty guilty guilty.
TTP:
Avenatt’s situation has all the earmarks of a life in dissary: messy divorce with allegations of nonsupport; bankruptcy filings; multi-million dollar judgments against him by business partners claiming betrayal; tax liens and now a criminal referral by a Senate committee for perjury or subborning it. Hell, even JT now refers to him as a “former student” and not his prior moniker as his “research assistant.” Looks like a race car heading for the wall and still accelerating.
Turley wrote, “Even if her account is found to be unsupported, it is a chilling move to seek the prosecution of both alleged victims and their counsel in coming forward to Congress.”
In this case I agree with Turley. Charging the accuser with perjury has the potential to turn rape shield laws into the sort of non-disclosure agreements of which Trump is so fond. That’s utterly perverse. It also constitutes a clear case of burden shifting. The accuser has to prove the allegation true in order to avoid a guilty verdict on a charge of perjury. This wasn’t even a criminal trial. It was a confirmation hearing. Kavanaugh can sue Swetnick and Avenatti for defamation. There’s no need for criminal penalties to be imposed upon Swetnick or Avenatti. Why can’t anybody content themselves with their victories anymore? Sore winners are the biggest losers.
mespo – yes, I saw that JT had halfway thrown him under the bus. The end is nigh.
“Hell, even JT now refers to him as a “former student” and not his prior moniker as his “research assistant.”” So says mespo727272.
JT referred to him as his “former student” back in April of this year, so maybe mespo’s point is off the mark.
Isn’t mespo that guy who was shouting “false flag” this past week, before the Florida guy was arrested? (Maybe he’s feeling some professional jealousy? Something to consider.)
https://jonathanturley.org/2018/04/18/turley-and-avenatti-to-appear-at-gw-event/
“Today I will have the pleasure of joining my former student Michael Avenatti for an event moderated by Dean Blake D. Morant.”
SAVE…COMMENTS ON FALLOUT FROM FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF SWETNICK/ AVENATTI CLAIMS.
Anonymous:
“JT referred to him as his “former student” back in April of this year, so maybe mespo’s point is off the mark.”
***********************
Or not. Certainly wouldn’t expect you to have any research skills, so thanks for the chance to put it back in your face:
“One interest [sic] development was the move by Daniels’ counsel (𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭) Michael Avenatti to get a new judge in the Daniels case.” (emphasis mine)
https://jonathanturley.org/2018/03/15/the-ultimate-loser-in-the-stormy-daniels-saga-could-prove-to-be-trumps-lawyer/
That was a month or so before your citation (and my first recall of any mention of him) and well before his recent antics, but you knew that already, right?
To mespo72…
I said that “maybe” your claim is off the mark, and I stand by that. In any case, I wouldn’t make too much of that “omission” and use it to claim that JT is distancing himself. Maybe he is and maybe he isn’t, but I’d want to hear it from him.
“Michael Avenatti’s Past Won’t Stop Him From Running in 2020”
October 25th, 2018
http://time.com/5434317/michael-avenatti/
“Avenatti applied to law school at George Washington University in D.C. but was waitlisted and entered the night-school program in 1996 instead. His first-year torts professor, the legal scholar Jonathan Turley, saw a rare gift in him. “We can teach many things in law school,” Turley says. “What we cannot teach is instinct.””
Michael Avenatti: A Profile Of The Media-Savvy Attorney
May 31, 20187:30 AM ET
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/31/615738375/michael-avenatti-a-profile-of-the-media-savvy-attorney
CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: From his earliest days in law school, Michael Avenatti was hard to miss.
JONATHAN TURLEY: Michael did, in fact, stand out in his class.
JOHNSON: Professor Jonathan Turley remembers Avenatti as one of the best students at George Washington University Law School. He was also, Turley says, a guy in a hurry.
TURLEY: He first spoke to me about his desire to join a litigation team in his first year. And I joked that he might want to find out where his locker is before he joined a litigation team.
JOHNSON: Avenatti is the first person in his family to graduate from college. He put himself through school by doing opposition research for political candidates, Democrats and Republicans. This year, those two paths have converged, the political and the legal, in spectacular fashion. Avenatti has managed to take a boring fight over a nondisclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels and turn it into a vehicle to attack Michael Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer and the president himself.
TURLEY: He put a series of tripwires in front of the president’s lawyer. And Michael Cohen literally tripped over every one of them.
Avenatti routinely disregards the Rules of Professional Conduct concerning publicity.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_6_trial_publicity/
on the plus side, his big mouth carves out a wider space for the rest of us
Anonymous:
“I said that “maybe” your claim is off the mark ….”
********************
Hoisted on your own petard — “maybe.” Rest assured if I said it, I can prove it. It’s a legal blawg, you know.
Some chest-thumping by mespo72…, even when there’s no reason to engage in said behavior. I’d expect nothing less.
One thing about Avenatti:
As an able attorney — according to Jonathan Turley in the recent Time mag article, posted above — Avenatti obviously has better and more important things to do than to hang out on Jonathan Turley’s blog, posting comments.
And that JT has omitted “research assistant”, on occasion, means nothing. But when you’ve verified your original claim with JT, let us know.
Anon………Avenatti has better and more important things to do than hang out here?
How many strip clubs can an average sleazeball visit in a 24 hr period? I guess if you add-on weekly visits to communicable disease clinics, it does begin to stack up.
“Anon………Avenatti has better and more important things to do than hang out here?” So says Cindy
Yep. He does.
(And let’s not forget that Trump may have had unprotected sex with Stormy.)
“And let’s not forget that Trump may have had unprotected sex with Stormy.”
Anon….Oh honestly! What a Gossipy Gus! How would you know anything for a fact?!
Said by Cindy about Avenatti:
“How many strip clubs can an average sleazeball visit in a 24 hr period? I guess if you add-on weekly visits to communicable disease clinics, it does begin to stack up.”
Take your own words to heart, Little Cindy:
Oh honestly! What a Gossipy Gus! How would you know anything for a fact?!
Who knows, but it’s been reported:
Excerpt:
https://www.vox.com/2018/3/24/17151786/stormy-daniels-explained
May 2011: Daniels gave an interview discussing Trump to In Touch’s Jordi Lippe-McGraw, which the magazine declined to publish until the scandal broke in January 2018, with the promise of $15,000 in compensation. In the interview, Daniels went into great detail about their sexual encounter at the Lake Tahoe golf tournament in July 2006, their subsequent communications, and the Beverly Hills Hotel encounter.
Her friend Randy Spears and ex-husband (boyfriend at the time of the alleged Trump affair) Mike Moz corroborated her story to the magazine.
May 19, 2011: As part of her cooperation with In Touch, Daniels agreed to take a polygraph test to back up her statements. Seven years later, her polygraph examiner Ronald Slay signed a sworn affidavit stating that Daniels truthfully answered “yes” to three questions:
Around July 2006, did you have vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump?
Around July 2006, did you have unprotected sex with Donald Trump?
Did Trump say you would get on The Apprentice?
For what it’s worth, most serious researchers consider polygraph tests basically useless.
Anonymous – If, and I do mean if, Trump had unprotected sex with Stormy Daniels, he is the bravest man in the world, bar none. He is MY President. 🙂
Oh….STORMY said so? Well then of course it’s true! Hooker-stripper-pole dancers never lie……..
i am an able attorney. But no big shot.
I am a humble small town one in flyover not a publicity hound. So I like to post on Turley’s blog for free. I waste a little time every day at that. That’s my free choice. But I am not trying to race cars and be a jet setter like Avenatti. Sorry that is disappointing.
I am better looking than him however, and I pay my debts. I am ok being me.
Anonymous – and what would you say Avenatti’s instinct is for?
“…and what would you say Avenatti’s instinct is for?” Paul asks.
For life and living?. For justice, perhaps?
But you’d have to ask him. About 2020 and his aspirations, in a tweet earlier today:
“Michael Avenatti
I haven’t decided what I am going to do yet. That is the truth. But I do know three things – I love this country, I am deeply worried about its future, and if we want to displace Trump and save this republic, we are going to have to fight like hell.”
“Avenatti quietly builds 2020 machine”
“With the help of a group of veteran Democratic advisers, the attorney for Stormy Daniels is deep into presidential campaign planning.”
By NATASHA KORECKI 10/29/2018 05:02 AM EDT Updated 10/29/2018 06:03 PM EDT
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/29/michael-avenatti-2020-election-campaign-944994
We’ll see.
you can kneel before him and service him all you like anon. get in line with the other chumps. sad!
“Kneel before him and service him?” -Mr. Kurtz
“Get in line with the other chumps?” -Mr. Kurtz
Wow, Mr. Kurtz.
And just when I was thinking about saying something nice to you in response to another recent comment of yours. Thanks for setting me straight.
Anonymous – I think he needs to pay his bills before he plans for the future.
Paul:
Whorishness- real and media? Bankruptcy proceedings?
Sleaze? All of the above?
I see Avenatti as Willie Stark in “All the Kings Men”:
“Yeah,” I said, “I heard the speech. But they don’t give a damn about that. Hell, make ’em cry, make ’em laugh, make ’em think you’re their weak erring pal, or make ’em think you’re God-Almighty. Or make ’em mad. Even mad at you. Just stir ’em up, it doesn’t matter how or why, and they’ll love you and come back for more. Pinch ’em in the soft place. They aren’t alive, most of ’em, and haven’t been alive in twenty years. Hell, their wives have lost their teeth and their shape, and likker won’t set on their stomachs, and they don’t believe in God, so it’s up to you to give ’em something to stir ’em up and make ’em feel alive again. Just for half an hour. That’s what they come for. Tell ’em anything.”
mespo – that is a great movie. 🙂 Great quote. 🙂
It’s my favorite political book. I see Willie Starks everywhere these days in all colors and varieties. And the author, Robert Penn Warren, knew a thing or two about people and their fights:
“…a man does not die for words. He dies for his relation to them.”
~Robert Penn Warren
mespo…….my paternal grandfather, my Papaw (in Louisiana ) was a good friend of Huey’s. And Huey asked him to drive “sound trucks” for him all over Louisiana for his campaigns… in fact Papaw’s trucks were supposedly the first political sound trucks in the country.. i don’t know who came up with the idea of loud speakers on top of a truck…..but supposedly they were the first, or some of the first.
So, That’s where I get my passion for politics. I’ve got some great stories about Huey!
Cindy:
Who doesn’t love the Kingfish?
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-avenatti-thinks-hollywood-would-back-him-president-2020-1137345
You’re missing the big picture, Mespo…..he’s headed for the 2020 nomination.
With “Hollywood” behind him, how can he miss?😀
I look forward to our man on the ground in Hollywood and the HHNN news flashes to keep us informed on Avennati’s quest for the nomination.😂
Not with this political equivalent of black-face in his closet:
“But when it comes to the party’s presidential nominee in 2020, Avenatti thinks in different terms. ‘I think it better be a white male,’ he says. He hastens to add that he wishes it weren’t so, but it’s undeniable that people listen to white men more than they do others; it’s why he’s been successful representing Daniels and immigrant mothers, he says. ‘When you have a white male making the arguments, they carry more weight,” he says. ‘Should they carry more weight? Absolutely not. But do they? Yes.'”
~Time Magazine(October 25, 2018)
Context is everything:
Avenatti, in his own words:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqmPFbdWsAIKOKn.jpg
Avenatti:
1/2 – For days, I have been calling on Time to release the FULL transcripts of the interviews I gave to @mollyesque over many mos. They refuse. Why? Because they purposely misquoted my words and took them out of context. A complete hatchet job. I want the transcripts released…
2/2 – Just as an example, look at the excerpt below re my efforts representing women. You will see a portion of the quote they used in the story but not the entire quote. They also fail to include the question for context. I have nothing to hide. Time is hiding the truth. #Basta
Here are links to his tweets:
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1056533863852326912
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1056533864699645952
Avenatti’s complaint has a familiar ring to it….it’s like he’s claiming “fake news” from an
established MSM publication ( TIME).
The “fake news” meme is a dangerous one — though we know that misinformation and disinformation exist and are also dangerous.
Avenatti was misquoted — something that’s gone on forever in the news biz. It isn’t good and corrections should be issued, when necessary, but we have to be careful about shouting “fake news” and ranting about the press being “an enemy of the people.”
Anonymous – OMG, Time, Mag. has fake news about Avenatti?
A lot of folks believe that sort of thing. I regard it as foolishness
Professor, you are forgetting the “second women” who also signed a declaration prepared by counsel Avenatti containing some of Swetnick’s salacious allegations about Kavanauh drugging girls, who then recanted to the press after her declaration was released (at one point saying Avenatti “put words in my mouth” – apparently an accusation of subornation or at least knowingly misleading a committee of congress. Then she issued a formal statement apparently crafted by Avanatti – recanting the recantation, but days later was again accusing Avenatti of misrepresenting what she told the porn lawyer.
This is the new information that is not only omitted from your post, it is the precipitating reason for Grassly’s criminal referral.
At a minimum, Avenatti played fast and loose with the truth for his own gain in the form of more time in the limelight. At worst, he knowingly mislead congress and/or suborned perjury.
Good comment Stepheng. Sins of omission are still sins. Avenatti looks like he’s circling the drain.
Do you think that a prosecutor can prove that Swetnick’s accusation against Kavanaugh was, in fact, a willful lie? That would require extensive investigation of all things “exculpatory” (a.k.a. all things Kavanaugh). And it would be a criminal investigation at that. Chances are that after a cursory investigation a prosecutor practices prosecutorial discretion and deposits Grassley’s criminal referral in the old circular file.
If & that’s big “IF”, Julie Swetnick & Michael Avenatti can produce some hard core evidence of alleged gang rapes in high school.
That would be criminal complaints filed at the local law enforcement office, complaints filed at the high school, testimony from parents of raped girls, teenage pregnancies that were the result of alleged gang rapes.
Better chance of “hard core evidence” of Bigfoot.
L4D and TJ,…
– In the unlikely event that the circus continues ( whether in the form of Congressional “investigations”, or perjury/other criminal charges), it seems to me that Ms. Swetnick would be at risk.
Based on what has been published, her attendance as a college student at multiple drug/rape parties of high school students, concealment of her “knowledge” of drug/ rape events, apparent participation at multiple events, etc. would put her on thin ice.
That’s IF her Twilight Zone tales are true.
I think it’d take a great leap of faith to believe her story, and it’d be interesting to see how she and Ace Avennati would handle aggressive questioning of her allegations.
Ptom Gnash is now a genius lawyer just like Mespo. Ptom thinks someone can prosecute Swetnick for lying about gang rapes and criminally facilitating the same gang rapes about which she supposedly lied. Brilliant! Gnash has got Swetnick coming and going. And, therefore, Gnash refuse to pick one and stick with it.
I stated in the first sentence that it was unlikely that this circus will continue.
Either in Congressional hearings or perjury/ criminal charges.
For nitpickers with a knack for “misunderstanding” and distorting the comments of others, I’ll put a finer point on this.
Additional Congressional hearings are unlikely, criminal charges are extremely unlikely.
Now, IF, in that UNLIKELY scenario where criminal charges were pursued, Swetnick’s sworn statements, flip-flopping and contradicting herself in at least one televised interview, and her SWORN statement submitted to Congress, could at least theoretically put her at risk for prosecution.
Now if she firmly stood by her story that she was at multiple “drug/ rape” gathering with minors ( while she was in college), she looks more like a participant and enabler at those alleged functions.
Always a pleasure spending more much time reviewing what was actually said than time spent writing the comment you spin, rinse, and distort.
It’s a friggin game with you, and you excel at it, L4D,
Have fun with your hobby.
Your disclaimers do not render your the remainder of your comments null and void.
That’s my job.
You view your “job” here as playing games, distorting the comments of others, and lying through your teeth.
I give you full credit for your obvious dedication to your job.
I take a constructive approach and ignore her. I’ve suggest Darren ban her alter egos and limit her to one handle, but he doesn’t seem inclined to do that.
Maybe Mr. Smith knows that you’re wrong about the sock-puppet gibe. Do you think? No. Seriously. Do. You. Think.
Tabby’s clearly not as smart and insightful as he believes himself to be.
i like his posts. he is witty.
he doesn’t like mine. I think a cabal of ex CiA thugs killed JFK. he thinks Oswald was a lone nut and an incredible crack shot.
i can forgive Tab for this.
Tabarrok to the Pillory is, indeed, the utmost formidable adversary on Res Ipsa Loquitur.
Don’t tell him I said that. He’s trying to be constructive by simultaneously ignoring me and recommending disciplinary action against me.
Ha-Ha! According to Tabarrok, disciplinary action is the echt public good.
He wasn’t an incredible crack shot. You can turn on Youtube and see instructors making shots at that distance at your leisure. That aside, try a thought experiment in re all the things which have to be staged quite precisely to frame Lee Harvey Oswald.
While we’re at it, how do you know it was the President he was aiming at? Per people who were acquainted with him at the time, his vociferous complaints were in re Gov. Connolly, who he blamed for his dishonorable discharge from the Marines.
A six to one advantage is not good enough for Trump supporters. What a bunch of whiners.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – FB and Twitter are trimming out fake accounts, why not yours?
Just plain silly, Paul.
Yep. “Whiners”, indeed, L4D.
I whine about nothing other than Mark M intentionally, falsely, and maliciously defaming and slandering me that “I watch hannity and bag his balls”
I find it interesting that a supposed liberal progressive would accuse me of homosexual conduct; does that qualify as homophobic? I would not know but it is clearly malicious.
i am a heterosexual and i have never met Hannity, but, more importantly just a humble person who does not deserve to be slandered and defamed because someone disagrees with me
that’s what Mark M said about me, for the record. i’ll whine about that a little if I like
Yet more proof that slavish adherence to hannity’s sideshow stunts one’s cognitive faculties. Not once have I ever posted anything here that could reasonably be considered coming from a “liberal progressive.” On the contrary, I routinely ridicule wackjob-wingnuts from every side of bedlam.
this is to “hannity swears that ‘libertarians’ are really ‘liberal progressives'” kurtzie
Marky Mark Mark – the NPC runs the script wherein it denies it was written by a progressive programmer and tries to claim that its script attacks people on all sides as proof. Except it doesn’t attack people on all sides, it only attacks people on the right.
Ubi Pablito is forgetting Mark M.’s frequent ad hominems against Jill and Autumn–neither of who are right-wingers, but both of whom stray into nut-job territory from time to time.
P. S. I suspect that Mark M. uses the term Libertarian as a synonym for civil libertarian–as in someone like Turley, for instance.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – stop enabling the NPCs.
Tab,..
Since internet trolls like her have become common as dirt, it is a time-saver to simply disregard the BS that they post.
Maybe 1% of the time I will comment on, maybe even to, a few of the biggest pests here.
Even that 1% reply rate reminds me how time-consuming and non-productive that is.
Except that, occasionally, I think it’s appropriate to give them credit for working so hard to prove that they are jackasses.
Right back atcha, Gnash — to use L4D’s appropriate “name” for you.
Plenty of jackasses, here, to be sure.
He’s making flimsy excuses for having failed to knock me off the most frequent commenters list.
Gnash let team Trump down. And Ptom knows that team Trump knows that Gnash let team Trump down.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – you think way to highly of yourself. There is no way to tell when the big bell will ring to have JT do the stats. You would have to know when the end date was and then plan in advance. And remember Miss Clueless, it is based on hits on the site. There are 66,000 people who control how fast or slow we move to the next bell.
Senor Eschoolbus said, “you think way too highly of yourself.”
I sweat bullets every time I click the post comment button. I’m sweating bullets right now. Here goes another click OMG OMG OMG:
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – I do hope you have sweat pads on your chair.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – Swetnick signed a statement under penalty of perjury about the gang rapes. Then when interviewed she backed away from it. Damn right she can be prosecuted for perjury.
From an article at CNN about the scope of the FBI’s Kavanaugh investigation:
“And for Julie Swetnick — who among other allegations accused Kavanaugh of sexually aggressive behavior at alcohol-fueled parties when he was in high school — the accusation was deemed not credible by the White House, so it was not part of what the FBI was instructed to look at, according to a source briefed on the investigation.”
The FBI never interviewed Swetnick. There are no 302s for Swetnick. Ubi Pablito must be referring to media interviews with Swetnick. Otherwise, Senor Eschoolbus is just making stuff up.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – she signed an initial statement and is now under criminal referral.
She was interviewed by the media–not the FBI. If her statements to the media are inconsistent with her sworn affidavit, then she can always pull a Trump and claim that lying to the media is not a crime. BTW, lying to the media is not a crime. Otherwise, Trump would’ve been charged with perjury long ago.
P. S. I strongly suspect that you’re misinterpreting TJ’s position on this issue. Go back and double check TJ’s comment.
Whether the likes of you and your ilk believe her story is of no importance. The only response she should be counseled to give to “aggressive questioning” (whatever tomfoolery that may be) is “I refuse to answer based on the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution” or something similar. If and when such matters are raised in a civil suit, the strategy would of course change.
To “we still waterboard here, right?” tommie
Whatever, Mr. Muntz.
Earl “The Madman” Muntz may have lost money on The Jet. But der dang in sich was, and still is, a work of art.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntz_Jet
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Yellow_1950_Muntz_Jet.jpg/220px-Yellow_1950_Muntz_Jet.jpg
On second thought, and in fairness to The Bournemouth Garbler, perhaps a clever investigator or prosecutor could use the threat of a criminal facilitation charge against Swetnick to elicit a confession from Swetnick that she lied about the spiked-punch gang-rape parties that she alleged against Kavanaugh and his prep-school buddies.
However, the investigator or prosecutor at issue would have to have some credible evidence against Swetnick to back up that threat of a criminal facilitation charge against Swetnick. And that would require a criminal investigation of the alleged spiked-punch gang-rape parties that Swetnick alleged against Kavanaugh and his prep-school buddies.
P. S. Auto-correct fails to change pre-school to prep-school, nor perp-school to prep-school. So be careful with your typing fingers, Ptom.
Next up, calls to impeach “the wise Latina” and jail time for her many lies about her lesbian sex tapes with minors and those times she gave perjured testimony during her confirmation hearing…….or so I heard from a friend whose carpool buddy overheard it from a guy sitting in a coffee shop talking about it on his cell phone in May or August of 2011 or 2014.
I had to read that 3 times.
LOL
Many thanx.
Pandora is longer than a moment, Jonathan Turley.
The Pandora myth is quiet similar to the story of Eve.
Maybe this helps explain the difficulty of women’s rights.
Quite!
D£¥n autocorrect!
Ceteris Paribus & on the average they are weaker than men, but they make up for it with cleverness and guile.
Which gets them into trouble, and men must be forewarned and forearmed against it.
That’s most of what you need to know about Eve and Pandora in a nutshell, boys.
Congress needs to learn how to properly choose its battles. It fails most of the time and we suffer the consequences. (“We” being often much of the world)
Congress runs like a 17th century windmill with cellphones.
Zeus had the last laugh?
I believe it would be appropriate for Avenatti to be investigated by his State Bar. Putting forth a witness in a Congressional investigation is analogous to bringing a case in federal court, where Fed’l Rule of Civ Pro 11 requires a reasonable investigation of the facts and a good faith belief of the merits of your position. Swetnick’s story is so outlandish that without some evidence or corroboration, I think Avenatti could and should be sanctioned.
Good information.
I’ve said this before. Suppose the Dems want to impeach Trump and they are not successful. Can you imagine how obnoxious The Donald will be after he beats the rap? Same with Kavanaugh. As long as he is on the Supreme Court he will never forget the process he was forced to go through.
Ind. Bob, –You asked “Can you imagine how obnoxious The Donald will be after he beats the rap?”
– I can’t imagine Trump ever being obnoxious under any circumstances.😄😂
All joking aside, if this Ford-Kavanaugh-Avenatti-Swetnick Pandora’s Box is opened, we’ll see those headlines overwhelming the headlines of any developments in the Mueller investigation.
We’ve seen, just in these comment threads, what deprivation of Special Counsel headlines can do to some people; it’ll be truly tragic to see complete unraveling of those so reliant on the kind of news they hope (and need) to see.
Tom Nash – sex trumps Russian collusion any day. 😉
You can see from the commenters here that Trump could not possibly be more obnoxious to those who are still mega butthurt over losing the election.
Also, I disagree with Professor Turley. The Democrats have a lot more to fear from opening the perjury box than the Repubs, because it was so blatantly intentional by their players.
its just a big waste of time. there is serious business to be accomplished in government and all the he said she said nonsense is a distraction.
Haha. Rich. Thanks for checking in with today’s Pravda Faux News talking points, comrade.
Unfortunately for you, your fellow Russian trolls, the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabes, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make, as soon as the new Congress is sworn in, Mssr. Kavanaugh (and many, many others) will have an appointment with at least one committee. Get your popcorn ready and sharpen a pencil for the indictment scorecard.
This is to “ya know, we Russians only want what’s good for Merica” trotty
The above is of course my craft.
We can tell it’s your craft by your fresh, brilliant, original prose.
“Objection, Pravda Faux News, Hannity, or haha” must be devastating to opposing counsel.
Marky Mark Mark – as an NPC you have neither craft nor art. You are pre-programmed. You only say what you have been programmed to say.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eOifa1WrOnQ
It’s amazing to see the that the same words, phrases, etc. can be used hundreds of times by the Muntz brothers…Nelson or Mark Muntz ( Mark M.), and yet they are both so articulate that the endless repetition of garbage never gets tiresome or seems obnoxious.😂😒
Poor Ptom. You know, Mark M. didn’t make the top seven most frequent commenters list. And Gnash failed to displace L4D from the seventh position on that list. If Ptom is a champion of the underdog standing up to the big bad bully (ha-ha), then . . . well, maybe Gnash could enlist the help of the six top most frequent commenters each of whom is a Trump supporter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Muntz
L4D was the one who raised the “bullying” charge a few days ago.
I don’t care if I’m in the “most frequent commentators” category or not.
A certain path to getting there would be commenting to L4D….then, play her game of making the next 10 comments about what was actually said in the first comment.
By the time she gets through with speaking out of both sides of her mouth and playing word games, the subsequent comments won’t advance the discussion.
But it’s a way of racking up frequent comment points.
When obfuscation and distortion and lying are her favorite method of “debate”, it inevitably turns into a friggin waste of time.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – and you worked so hard to be number one.
I’m not falling for your stupid blawg tricks anymore, Ubi Pablito–like getting me to reply to your claim that I’m trying hard to be the number one most frequent commenter so that you can then point to that reply as supposed evidence that I’m trying hard to be the number one most frequent commenter.
I’m on to you. Wily E.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – you already admitted you worked hard not to get knocked out of the top seven. I do not think I am so far from the mark.
If L4D had been working hard to keep the number seven spot on the most frequent commenter list, then L4D would have posted comments on all of the numerous threads that have had nothing whatsoever to do with Trump versus Mueller. Since Mueller has been studiously observing the rule against taking any overt actions within 60 days of an election, there have been far fewer threads about Trump versus Mueller over the course of the past 54 days. Theoretically, Gnash should have knocked L4D off the list. But Ptom doesn’t post much on threads that are not about Trump versus Mueller either. Ha-Ha! Only six days left before the 60-day rule runs out and Mueller and crew come running out of the penalty box lacrosse sticks flailing about wildly like blue-faced Scotsmen. Ha-Ha!
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – if Mueller had some rule he would have waited until the election was over to refer the charges on the alleged sex charges against him.
Hail Trump! The great leader today says he will end the travesty of tourists and illegals winning American citizenship for their kids by good timing and guile.
It’s probably just another campaign gimmick.
If Trump signs the EO before the election, then it might cost Trump the incumbent Senator from Texas and possibly a few other Republican Senate seats as well. Or not. Can the “Rule of Law Party” survive as the “Constitutional Abrogation Party”, instead??? Stay tuned.
Marky Mark Mark – the NPC tries to hide but his verbiage give him away as he plays the klan wannabes script.
Says the blog’s resident five-year-old.