SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[tshile]

If instead of withholding a portion of the papers for review by special committee, they just deleted them without any oversight, would the left be happier?

Edited August 16, 2018 by tshile

[visionary]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

If instead of withholding a portion of the papers for review by special committee, they just deleted them without any oversight, would the left be happier?

Does that mean we get to look at his and his aides emails?  Maybe someone can leak his text messages while we're at it.

Edited August 17, 2018 by visionary

[bearrock]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

If instead of withholding a portion of the papers for review by special committee, they just deleted them without any oversight, would the left be happier?

 

Probably about as happier as person gets when they become victim of a grand larceny instead of petit larceny.  Still doesn't mean the victim of petit larceny didn't have a legitimate grievance.  

 

I do think SCOTUS nominee's background should become more transparent, not less.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

Does that mean we get to look at his and his aides emails?  Maybe someone can leak his text messages while we're at it.

Only the ones he doesn’t delete. 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[bearrock]

Why would docs be committee confidential instead of senate confidential?  Any senator voting on the nominee should be given access to everything the committee sees.

[visionary]

 

[scruffylookin]

What another liar in the long line of liars produced by comrade bonespurs? Shocked. 

 

But do not fear, the deplorables will just say “fake news” and “better than Hillary” and be perfectly okay that a proven liar is forced onto the Supreme Court. 

[Kilmer17]

If he actually lied under oath, then that's a serious offense that should be prosecuted and his name withdrawn.

 

However, Feinstein Durbin and Leahy CLAIMING they have evidence he lied isnt the same thing.  And frankly, if THEY dont have that evidence and are simply throwing political bombs, they too should be prosecuted and removed.

 

[The Evil Genius]

11 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

If he actually lied under oath, then that's a serious offense that should be prosecuted and his name withdrawn.

 

However, Feinstein Durbin and Leahy CLAIMING they have evidence he lied isnt the same thing.  And frankly, if THEY dont have that evidence and are simply throwing political bombs, they too should be prosecuted and removed.

 

 

Weren't you the same guy saying last week that his past is irrelevant since the Heritage foundation okayed him? ?

 

That said, how does one get that proof (assuming that they don't already  have it) when a large portion of his records are being withheld?

Edited August 17, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[twa]

5 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

 

 

That said, how does one get that proof (assuming that they don't already  have it) when a large portion of his records are being withheld?

 

They claim to have it, they need to do more than excerpt it though.

 

though you might note they use mislead not lied.

 

this should be fun 

[Kilmer17]

Grassley should ask the 3 Dems in the committee to present the evidence, and then take that evidence out of committee with the agreement that if he DID lie as they claim, he's gone.  But if THEY are lying about it, they must resign from their Senate seat immediately.

 

Seem fair?

 

What's really going on is that those three are just full of ****.

[The Evil Genius]

51 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Grassley should ask the 3 Dems in the committee to present the evidence, and then take that evidence out of committee with the agreement that if he DID lie as they claim, he's gone.  But if THEY are lying about it, they must resign from their Senate seat immediately.

 

Seem fair?

 

What's really going on is that those three are just full of ****.

 

Maybe. We'll see. 

[The Evil Genius]

This story isn't new though. There was a tweet from early July on it.

 

 

[Kilmer17]

Im sure this info is probably available, but I'm lazy.  What is the lie that Durbin and Co claim he told?

[The Evil Genius]

It's in the letter above. 

[Kilmer17]

So the Post writes an article that claims Kavanaugh participated in a meeting about giving US citizens deemed enemy combatants lawyers, and Durbin says that he lied about that when he told him that he wasnt involved in the selection process for a different judge who was a proponent of enhanced interrogation techniques?

 

That's an extreme stretch to even see how those two things could be related, and even if you stretch that far, calling that a "lie" is not just laughable, it's borderline crazy.  Again.  I think those three are completely full of ****.  Their claim that "he lied" shouldnt even be addressed.  **** them. 

[TheGoodBits]

3 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

So the Post writes an article that claims Kavanaugh participated in a meeting about giving US citizens deemed enemy combatants lawyers, and Durbin says that he lied about that when he told him that he wasnt involved in the selection process for a different judge who was a proponent of enhanced interrogation techniques?

 

That's an extreme stretch to even see how those two things could be related, and even if you stretch that far, calling that a "lie" is not just laughable, it's borderline crazy.  Again.  I think those three are completely full of ****.  Their claim that "he lied" shouldnt even be addressed.  **** them. 

 

What about this is confusing to you? He was asked a direct question while testifying under oath before the Senate and claimed to not be involved in the meetings/discussions that it was later reported he was actually involved in. Durbin wrote that letter asking him to explain the discrepancy *11 years ago*. 

 

At the very least this is cause for additional scrutiny. Meanwhile the Senate Judiciary Committee is doing their best not to let that happen.

[twa]

3 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

 

 

At the very least this is cause for additional scrutiny. Meanwhile the Senate Judiciary Committee is doing their best not to let that happen.

 

What it is cause to demand proof of a accusation from the accusers.

 

Or are they like me?....simply asking questions 

[bearrock]

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11433231

Quote

"What was your role in the original Haynes nomination and decision to renominate him?" Durbin asked. "And at the time of the nomination, what did you know about Mr. Haynes's role in crafting the administration's detention and interrogation policies?"

 

Kavanaugh replied, "Senator, I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants, and so I do not have any involvement with that."

 

In fact, in 2002, Kavanaugh and a group of top White House lawyers discussed whether the Supreme Court would uphold the Bush administration's decision to deny lawyers to American enemy combatants. Kavanaugh advised the group that the Supreme Court's swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy, would probably reject the president's assertion that the men were not entitled to counsel. Kavanaugh had worked as a clerk for Kennedy. That meeting was first reported in The Washington Post. NPR independently confirmed the details with multiple sources.

 

I think we need to see those staff secretary records. 

 

Did Kavanaugh answer the way he did because he felt that a meeting about whether the rules would survive judicial scrutiny is not a meeting about the rules themselves?  That seems a stretch to me.  At the very least it's shading the truth during a senate testimony.  If that's the way Kavanaugh is going to approach the confirmation process, we need to see the full record of his WH tenure, especially one that may uncover perjury.

[Kilmer17]

5 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

What about this is confusing to you? He was asked a direct question while testifying under oath before the Senate and claimed to not be involved in the meetings/discussions that it was later reported he was actually involved in. Durbin wrote that letter asking him to explain the discrepancy *11 years ago*. 

 

At the very least this is cause for additional scrutiny. Meanwhile the Senate Judiciary Committee is doing their best not to let that happen.

He was asked a direct questions about one thing, the post is claiming he was part of another thing, and Durbin and Co are claiming the two things are the same and that he lied when asked about the first because the Post said he did the second.

 

That IS confusing which is precisely what Durbin et al want it to be.  Murky enough that they can call him a liar and also have the cover they need to hide their true intentions.

[TheGoodBits]

2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

He was asked a direct questions about one thing, the post is claiming he was part of another thing, and Durbin and Co are claiming the two things are the same and that he lied when asked about the first because the Post said he did the second.

 

That IS confusing which is precisely what Durbin et al want it to be.  Murky enough that they can call him a liar and also have the cover they need to hide their true intentions.

 

“ at the time of the nomination, what did you know about Mr. Haynes's role in crafting the administration's detention and interrogation policies”

 

He said no. But the answer was yes, because Kavanaugh was deeply involved in those discussions himself.

 

The disconnect between two different topics you are alluding to is not accurate.

[killerbee99]

6 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

He was asked a direct questions about one thing, the post is claiming he was part of another thing, and Durbin and Co are claiming the two things are the same and that he lied when asked about the first because the Post said he did the second.

 

That IS confusing which is precisely what Durbin et al want it to be.  Murky enough that they can call him a liar and also have the cover they need to hide their true intentions.

You know what the **** can unmurk all this crap... Release the relevant docs.... Oh wait that is too much **** to ask nowadays, while I see puff piece bull**** commercials about him here in Georgia.... They are struggling here.... Sad

[bearrock]

8 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

He was asked a direct questions about one thing, the post is claiming he was part of another thing, and Durbin and Co are claiming the two things are the same and that he lied when asked about the first because the Post said he did the second.

 

That IS confusing which is precisely what Durbin et al want it to be.  Murky enough that they can call him a liar and also have the cover they need to hide their true intentions.

Kavanaugh provided an unequivocal denial on the direct question and asserted his non-involvement in the "other thing" as the reason for his denial.  The post (and later confirmed independently by NPR) reports that he was involved in the "other thing" or at least very close to it.  If Kavanaugh just said I knew nothing of Hayne's role without explanation, that might be one thing.  But if Kavanaugh was indeed involved in the "other thing", that's perjury made during his previous confirmation hearing.  I think the American people are entitled to an answer.

[Kilmer17]

I don’t think the two things are remotely related.  And I certainly don’t think any sane individual could conclude that he lied about anything in his testimony.