Grassley playing checkers with Avenatti...gonna lose

[pbmus]

Link to tweet

[spanone]

1. K&R...

[Iliyah]

2. Yes, let's investigate.

Your move Grassley.

[Alhena]

3. He just wants his base to keep thinking of Kavanaugh

so they are fired up for the elections.

[zentrum]

11. Good point.

[HAB911]

5. Avenatti sez

Maybe if Grassley was actually a lawyer that knew something about the law, he would realize what he has done. He just opened up Pandora’s box as it relates to Justice Kavanaugh’s conduct. It is Christmas in October!

Link to tweet

[Wellstone ruled]

8. Chuckie going to lose biggly.

Watch for some real dirt on Grassley to pop.

[shanny]

6. I concur.

I think he's about to open a can of whoopass on his own self.

Please Proceed.

[leftynyc]

7. Dumb move, grassley

Does he know what discovery means?

[onenote]

17. There is no pre-indictment discovery.

[leftynyc]

18. So what?

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]

21. Posters are celebrating this as a dumb move by Grassley because it opens the door for discovery

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]

22. HOW can there be an indictment

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]

23. One of the statutory provisions cited in the letter is 18 USC 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense

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]

25. I think any judge would

laugh it out of court. Talk about bogus court cases.

[onenote]

26. As I said, I doubt DOJ would even seek an indictment of Avenatti for conspiracy.

[MagickMuffin]

9. As Sen. Cory Booker would say "BRING IT"

this should be fun!

[yellowcanine]

10. "Discovery" can be a wonderful thing.

And I suspect the Justice Dept is going to tell Grassley "no way."

[zentrum]

12. I thought all the moves these

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.

[triron]

14. Caution.

[Racerdog1]

13. Can't fix stupid.

GrASSley gonna get his ass handed to him. This old moron barely remembers his name.

[hostalover]

15. Please let it happen!

[gratuitous]

16. So that's a crime?

"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]

19. And How Many Times Did Kavanaugh Lie To Congress Over The Years Chuckie?

You are the one guilty of conspiracy dude.

[onenote]

24. Grassley letter to Sessions and Wray:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-25%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Swetnick%20and%20Avenatti%20Referral)_Redacted.pdf

[marieo1]

20. Investigations

Grassley just needs to go back to Iowa and shut up!!! Go Mr. Avenatti!!