Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Supreme Court Justices Impeached After Their $3M Liberal Scandal Is Revealed

Published

on

Who exactly presides over the impeachment trial of a state Supreme Court justice if the entire state Supreme Court is being impeached? It is an absurd constitutional conundrum that West Virginians are being forced to grapple with.

In an extraordinary and unprecedented move, the West Virginia House of Delegates voted to impeach all four state Supreme Court justices for spending issues and abuses of authority. The list of abuses is long and lengthy with allegations ranging from million dollar office renovations, personal use of state vehicles, lying, cheating, outright theft of state property, and a  laundry list that is as appalling as it is sad.

Five justices sit on the state Supreme Court in West Virginia. The state legislature has drafted articles of impeachment against Chief Justice Margaret Workman and Justices Robin Jean Davis, Beth Walker, and Allen Loughry. The court’s fifth justice, Menis Ketchum, retired in late July prior to articles of impeachment being drafted. He will plead guilty to two federal corruption charges on August 29, 2018.

The state House of Delegates voted to impeach Justice Allen Loughry on eight articles, setting the stage for a trial in the state Senate. He was placed on unpaid administrative leave in June after a state commission lodged a 32-count complaint against him, alleging pervasive violations of the state ethics code. He has since been indicted in federal court for 23 counts of fraud, witness tampering, and making false statements to investigators.

Trending: Kavanaugh’s Wife Puts Reporters Camped Outside Their Home to Shame – Did It With BIG Smile

The remaining three justices — Workman, Davis, and Walker — face impeachment for wasting government resources and failing to effectively administer the state courts. All three spent large sums of taxpayer dollars on lavish improvements to their chambers in the state capital, which cumulatively totaled almost $750,000, and allegedly abused state travel resources.

Walker was the final justice to be impeached when an article was approved stating all four justices abused their authority, citing failure to control office expenses, including more than $1 million in renovations to their individual offices, as well as not maintaining policies over matters such as working lunches and the use of state vehicles and office computers at home.

Davis was impeached for $500,000 in office renovations, though Walker originally dodged impeachment when lawmakers decided to overlook her $131,000 in spending on office renovations. A short time later, another article was withdrawn against Workman, who also spent $111,000 in renovations. Workman and Davis also allegedly authorized compensation for other state judges in excess of the amounts allowed by West Virginia law.

Interestingly enough, prior to this summer’s series of events leading to the mass impeachment of the entirety of the West Virginia Supreme Court, Davis was cited in the press for potential ethics violations in unrelated matters. In March 2017 a series of contributions made to her 2012 re-election campaign strongly resemble an illegal straw donation scheme entirely conducted at the behest of an attorney, Michael Fuller of the McHugh Fuller Law Group while defending a $92 million civil judgment in the state Supreme Court. That very same attorney also purchased the Davis family private jet in December 2011. Davis then, in turn, issued a ruling in 2014 preserving a large portion of Fuller’s $92 million award, as reported by the Daily Caller.

Lawmakers also approved articles of impeachment against Loughry for spending $363,000 in renovations to his office; having some $42,000 antique desk and computers all owned by the state at his personal home; lying to the House Finance Committee about taking home the desk along with a $32,000 suede leather couch also owned by the state; and for his personal use of state vehicles. Though another impeachment article was withdrawn dealing with an accusation Loughry used state money to frame personal items at his office.

Loughry, Workman, and Davis also were impeached for their roles in allowing senior status judges to be paid higher than allowed wages. Lawmakers say the overpayments violated state law and stopped when they were challenged by the Internal Revenue Service.

What is even more appalling is these four justices worked in a state where the median household income from 2012-2017 was approximately $42,644, according to the US Census Bureau. Compared to the median US household income it ranks more than $14,000 lower than the average in the rest of the nation and West Virginia is ranked as the third poorest state in the nation as a whole. Yet these people felt it appropriate to live the high life on the backs of those that have little to start with.

Delegate John Shott stated during an August 7 judiciary committee hearing -“There appears to be, based on the evidence before us, an atmosphere that has engulfed the court of cavalier indifference to the expenditure of taxpayer funds, to the protection of taxpayer-paid assets, and an almost incomprehensible arrogance that for some reason they are not a coequal branch but a superior branch of government.”

In answer to the question of who presides over the impeachment trial when entire state Supreme Court is being impeached, the answer lies within West Virginia’s constitution. It provides that the chief justice shall preside over impeachment trials in the state Senate. However, as Chief Justice Workman herself is also subject to impeachment, she is therefore ineligible to preside, as are the rest of her colleagues.

In that vein, Workman appointed Cabell County Circuit Judge Paul Farrell to the high court on an interim basis late Friday. Farrell will serve in Loughry’s seat, pending the election of a successor in November. Farrell will also preside over impeachment proceedings in the legislature, although Walker disputes his power to do so.

Walker argued against Farrell’s installation as the presiding officer for impeachment issuing a short statement late Friday, stating – “I believe it is improper to designate any justice as acting chief justice for impeachment proceedings in which I or my colleagues may have an interest and that have not yet commenced in the Senate.”

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

After Major Upset In Texas Election, The 2018 Wave Is Confirmed

Published

on

So much for the so-called “Blue Wave” in the November midterms!

So it seems like the scheme the left had of planting illegal immigrants in dark red strongholds all over America in the hopes of turning the whole nation into a far left socialist cesspool, like Cuba or Venezuela, is starting to show signs of failure.

100 Percent FedUp reported that earlier this week Democrats all over the nation, along with their complicit mainstream media and Hollywood celebrities, got what can be considered a knock out blow when Pete Flores, who is a Hispanic Republican and newcomer to the world of politics, won handily in a district that has been solidly blue for 139 years.

That’s right, a Hispanic Republican took over a district that has voted Democrat for the past 139 years. Texas voters elected Flores to the Texas State Senate and in turn, flipped the district red. An event which has cemented the Republicans supermajority in the chamber ahead of the November elections.

Peter Flores thanks his supporters after his victory over Pete Gallego in a special election to succeed former state Senator Carlos Uresti, on Sept. 18, 2018. Bob Daemmrich for The Texas Tribune

Here is more via the Texas Tribune:

“Republican Pete Flores’ upset victory in a Democratic-friendly Texas Senate district Tuesday night has spurred GOP jubilation and Democratic soul-searching with less than two months until the November elections.

“All this talk about a ‘blue wave’? Well, the tide is out,” Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick proclaimed at Flores’ election night party in San Antonio.

“Flores beat Democrat Pete Gallego, a former U.S. representative, by 6 percentage points in the special election runoff for Senate District 19, where state Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, resigned earlier this year after 11 felony convictions. The win made Flores the first Hispanic Republican in the Texas Senate and grew the GOP majority there to 21 members, a key addition as the caucus heads toward November looking to retain its supermajority.

“Democrats moved quickly Tuesday night to blame Gov. Greg Abbott for scheduling the special election at a time when turnout was expected to be low and would favor his party. But they were nonetheless demoralized Wednesday, trying to figure out how they let a valuable seat flip in a district where Uresti repeatedly won re-election by double digits and that Hillary Clinton carried by 12 in 2016.

“Gallego’s campaign said that at the end of the day, it was not able to motivate its voters as much as Flores did.

“Our investment was in the grassroots and trying to increase the number of Democratic voters in the densest precincts where people hadn’t turned out and trying to cut through the clutter of all the other campaigns going on targeting November … and it proved to be a lot more difficult to get people tuned in to the fact that an incredibly important race was happening today,” Gallego strategist Christian Archer said.

“The relative enthusiasm for Flores was evident in the district’s biggest Republican counties — places like Medina County, where he routed Gallego with 80 percent of the vote. Flores’ margins in the red counties were more than enough to offset Gallego’s advantage in vote-rich Bexar County, which gave Gallego a modest 54 percent of the vote.

“Flores’ campaign said it benefited from a number of factors throughout the race, starting with the deep Democratic divide that unfolded as Gallego battled state Rep. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, ahead of the eight-way July 31 special election. Gutierrez, who won Bexar County then, never endorsed Gallego in the runoff, and on Wednesday, the two sides had different accounts of how much of an effort, if any, Gallego made to court Gutierrez.

“But Flores also had to prove himself within his own party and emerge as the consensus candidate on July 31, when two other, lesser-known Republicans were on the ballot. Flores pulled that off with just days to spare, earning late endorsements from a who’s who of top Texas Republicans, starting with U.S. Sen. John Cornyn and then Patrick, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, and Abbott.

“We knew that if we could get in the runoff, we’d have additional help because the stakes would be clear … and the value of winning would be obvious,” said Matt Mackowiak, Flores’ consultant.”

Flores is a retired game warden. He went on to defeat U.S. Representative Pete Gallego for the Senate District 19 seat after receiving support from some of the state’s most prominent politicians. Some of which were Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, and both U.S. Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz.

According to the Texas Secretary of State’s website, Flores won with a whopping 53 percent of the vote to Gallego’s 47 percent with 44,487 total ballots cast. Flores and Gallego both competed in Tuesday’s runoff after emerging from an eight-candidate field in first and second place in July’s special election to replace former Senator Carlos Uresti.

The longtime Democrat lawmaker was forced to resign his seat in June after being convicted of 11 felony charges.

Continue Reading

Democrats Just Set Washington Swamp On Fire With Supreme Court Confession

Published

on

At the very last moment on the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings for his appointment to the Supreme Court, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) produced a letter from an alleged victim who was claiming that she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has ardently denied this and the whole story is just full of holes and unfounded accusations meant to stall his nomination.

Professor Christina Blasey Ford and the Democrats have caused a national outcry over their machinations here concerning an alleged incident that occurred 36 years ago while Kavanaugh and Ford were in high school. It is more than highly suspicious that this woman would show up now and with no attendant evidence or witnesses who are willing to confirm her accusation.

In fact, at least one witness is saying that this never even happened. The man identified as the witness in an alleged sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in the 1980s is claiming he has “no memory” of the incident.

“I did not ask to be involved in this matter nor did anyone ask me to be involved,” Mark Judge, a former high school friend, and classmate of Kavanaugh said in a statement Tuesday afternoon. “The only reason I’m involved is because Dr. Christine Blasey Ford remembers me as the other person in the room during the alleged assault.”

“I have no memory of the alleged incident,” Judge said in a statement. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

Ford can’t seem to remember any specifics of the incident either. She can’t recall the exact year, where it happened or even who exactly was present at the time. She also doesn’t know how she got there or how she got home and she doesn’t know who threw the party. Sounds less than credible to me.

It will also not surprise you that Ford is a Democrat who has marched against President Trump. She is also opposed to Kavanaugh on political grounds.

Sixty-five women who knew Judge Kavanaugh in high school are now speaking up for his character. They have written a letter supporting Kavanaugh to the Senate Judiciary Committee defending his character. The letter stated that Judge Kavanaugh has always “treated women with respect.”

From the Patriot Journal:

“But many on the Left do not care about these facts and have already decided that Kavanaugh is guilty.

“They are now demanding that Kavanaugh’s nomination be denied, despite the fact that in America we have a right to due process and the presumption of innocence.

“Interestingly, not all on the Left seem convinced that Ford’s story is accurate, and one prominent Democrat just outright admitted that she doesn’t know if Ford is telling the truth.

“There you have it. If Senator Feinstein really thought this claim of Ford’s were true, she would have released Ford’s letter when she received it months ago.

“Instead Feinstein sat on this information and released it at the 11th hour in a desperate attempt to stop Kavanaugh from being nominated.

“Feinstein also stated that Ford “did not want to go public” with her accusation, further casting doubt on Ford’s credibility.

“For his part, Kavanaugh is stating he has never even met his accuser.”

Feinstein can’t have it both ways here. On the one hand, she accuses Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, while stating that she can’t vouch for everything Ford is saying as truthful. Obviously, Feinstein knows it isn’t or would not be confessing her doubt here. Her statement did set the Washington swamp on fire though.

This is very reminiscent of the Clarence Thomas mess when he had to go through his hearings to become a Supreme Court Justice. Anita Hill accused Justice Thomas of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearing back in 1991. She claimed it happened years before that though… not decades like Ford is stretching for here. This is sheer desperation and obstructionism on the Democrats’ part.

Thomas was painted as some kind of monster back then with lies and contradictions. But it didn’t stick and Thomas is now arguably the strongest constitutional originalist on the Supreme Court.

I expect Kavanaugh will be confirmed before the midterm elections. Grassley has offered a public or private hearing to Ford. At first, she refused, then she insisted on an FBI investigation and now she is demanding more witnesses. The ones I have heard are not doing her any favors but who knows who could be dredged up and convinced into saying whatever here.

Let’s hope that Ford follows Hill into disgraced obscurity. Kavanaugh does not deserve this unwarranted attack and the Democrats should be deeply ashamed over this.

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend