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

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, Jumbo said:

 

 

seriously?  

 

just think "pure funny"  

Still lost.  Even Googled it.

 

 

I think that in hindsight,  the GOP shouldn't have refused to have a hearing for Garland.  Instead they should have had a few people (maybe even a kid) come out with allegations against him of sexual abuse.  Could have even spiced it up with allegations of drug abuse, beastiallity, tax fraud, and changing lanes without using his blinker.   No need for any type of proof.  Just enough allegations to tie up a nomination until the balance is in their favor.  I bet with some imagination a nomination could be investigated for 8+ years.

 

Does no one see the bad precedent trying to be set here?

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by visionary

[DogofWar1]

3 minutes ago, visionary said:

Jesus Christ.   ?

 

Avenatti, for all his faults, goes right for the neck.

 

What's interesting is how he kind of sits there and lets people make unforced errors.  "I know this stuff."  "But you can't prove it." "Oh, you sure about that?"  *insert wild flailing of target while they try to figure out what Avenatti knows*

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Which is literally what I said the White House would have to do. 

Odd that you didn't quote the rest of my post and have a response to it.

[Jumbo]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

Still lost.  Even Googled it.

 

 

I think that in hindsight,  the GOP shouldn't have refused to have a hearing for Garland.  Instead they should have had a few people (maybe even a kid) come out with allegations against him of sexual abuse.  Could have even spiced it up with allegations of drug abuse, beastiallity, tax fraud, and changing lanes without using his blinker.   No need for any type of proof.  Just enough allegations to tie up a nomination until the balance is in their favor.  I bet with some imagination a nomination could be investigated for 8+ years.

 

Does no one see the bad precedent trying to be set here?

 amigo, read your pms lol---we'll straighten it out there if this doesn't do it...short version---that top paragraph wasn't to you, the line under your quote was just me making dumbass jokes like i do

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, Jumbo said:

 amigo, read your pms lol---we'll straighten it out there if this doesn't do it...short version---that top paragraph wasn't to you, the line under your quote was just me making dumbass jokes like i do

I got it.  No worries.

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by visionary

[Bozo the kKklown]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Odd that you didn't quote the rest of my post and have a response to it.

Because it lacked relevance when all I said is that the White House would have to ask for an investigation. You agreed with that after reading the article, lol.

 

This is literally what the FBI does. It is in the name, Investigation.

[DogofWar1]

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think that in hindsight,  the GOP shouldn't have refused to have a hearing for Garland.  Instead they should have had a few people (maybe even a kid) come out with allegations against him of sexual abuse.  Could have even spiced it up with allegations of drug abuse, beastiallity, tax fraud, and changing lanes without using his blinker.   No need for any type of proof.  Just enough allegations to tie up a nomination until the balance is in their favor.  I bet with some imagination a nomination could be investigated for 8+ years.

 

Does no one see the bad precedent trying to be set here?

 

We see the bad precedent people are saying is trying to be set.

 

But it's not actually trying to be set.

 

Most Dems aren't saying he needs to withdraw because of allegations.  With regards to allegations of sexual misconduct most are saying they should be investigated fully and if found credible THEN he should withdraw.

 

Dems aren't lamenting the Dr. Ford hearing because it's happening instead of Brett just withdrawing, they're lamenting it because it's an obvious and plain sham hearing designed not to get to the bottom of things but rather simply to set it up as "he said, she said" and move on.

 

 

Now, politically, Brett absolutely should withdraw right this minute and the WH should have been figuring out who would be the best next nominee up.

 

But that's political.  GOP is on the clock.  Time is precious.

 

They already ignored document release problems, two sets of perjury issues, and a whole bunch of questions about his candor about his ideology, and plowed ahead, but the Dr. Ford allegation has basically delayed them for a week, and now they're even farther behind the 8-ball with potentially two more allegations, in addition to the stuff coming out about his drunken partying.

 

Brett shouldn't withdraw merely because of these allegations.

 

He should withdraw because he is legitimately endangering the GOP's chance to get a nominee on the court to replace Kennedy.

 

 

But, I mean, shoot, I'm good with that.  Hopefully they keep trying to plow forward and the drip drip drip keeps going until its too late, and then we'll presumably get some more Mueller evidence of Trump collusion around that time that'll make it very easy, politically, for Dems to simply say "nope, no nominees for traitor man."

Edited September 24, 2018 by DogofWar1

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Because it lacked relevance when all I said is that the White House would have to ask for an investigation. You agreed with that after reading the article, lol.

 

This is literally what the FBI does. It is in the name, Investigation.

Gotcha.  The FBI could investigate even though there is no reason to unless the WH asked them to.  

 

I think the GOP should nominate the Dem nominee for POTUS  to some BS post then not vote on him/her and direct the FBI to investigate every crevice of their life back to elementary school (though may need to go further).

 

Do you still not see or willing to admit the precedent for abuse here?

[visionary]

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Gotcha.  The FBI could investigate even though there is no reason to unless the WH asked them to.  

 

I think the GOP should nominate the Dem nominee for POTUS  to some BS post then not vote on him/her and direct the FBI to investigate every crevice of their life back to elementary school (though may need to go further).

 

Do you still not see or willing to admit the precedent for abuse here?

 

But this isn't that tho?

 

The FBI does background checks for federal confirmations. This is an allegation that could be investigated. Bush did this during the Clarence Thomas hearings, and Chuck Grasserly demanded it.

 

This is literally a background check for a job. That is how these things work. I am not sure what you are arguing here since you agreed with my only point.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

But this isn't that tho?

 

The FBI does background checks for federal confirmations. This is an allegation that could be investigated. Bush did this during the Clarence Thomas hearings, and Chuck Grasserly demanded it.

 

This is literally a background check for a job. That is how these things work. I am not sure what you are arguing here since you agreed with my only point.

My point is that expecting the FBI to investigate any claim no matter the lack of evidence and not vote until it is done sets a precedent that the corrupt GOP (and Dems) will exploit until they are in power.  And you are supporting this.  I am not.  AMD that is our difference.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

nm...

Edited September 24, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[bearrock]

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Gotcha.  The FBI could investigate even though there is no reason to unless the WH asked them to.  

 

I think the GOP should nominate the Dem nominee for POTUS  to some BS post then not vote on him/her and direct the FBI to investigate every crevice of their life back to elementary school (though may need to go further).

 

Do you still not see or willing to admit the precedent for abuse here?

Greatbuzz, I think you are overreading this.  FBI typically does not have jurisdiction in non federal matters.  Civil harassment.  State sexual assault case.  College party gone awry.  These are not within the purview of the bureau.  They literally could not care less whether allegations in these areas are true.

 

But when those allegations involve a federal nominee, it becomes a different question.  They include those allegations in the nominee's background file and hands it over to the WH.  If the WH wants to find out whether the allegations have legs, they instruct the FBI to investigate.  That's exactly what happened with Anita Hill's allegations.  At the end of the day, majority of the Senate did not feel that the allegation was true, so they confirmed.

 

When you accept the nomination for the federal bench, you are consenting to the background check process.  FBI wouldn't be doing anything wrong nor would Trump be doing anything wrong by ordering the FBI to investigate.  

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

My point is that expecting the FBI to investigate any claim no matter the lack of evidence and not vote until it is done sets a precedent that the corrupt GOP (and Dems) will exploit until they are in power.  And you are supporting this.  I am not.  AMD that is our difference.

 

Just wanted add my response to this.  Investigation of an uncorroborated allegation may be short, but investigated nontheless.  If I report a murder to the police and they can't find anything to back up my story, it will be an extremely brief investigation, but they will investigate the veracity of my report.  The threshold should be assuming the allegation is true, will we care.  Not all investigation will lead to the nominee stepping down.  FBI may well very come back and say we don't see anything to support this allegation.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

34 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think that in hindsight,  the GOP shouldn't have refused to have a hearing for Garland.  Instead they should have had a few people (maybe even a kid) come out with allegations against him of sexual abuse.  Could have even spiced it up with allegations of drug abuse, beastiallity, tax fraud, and changing lanes without using his blinker.   No need for any type of proof.  Just enough allegations to tie up a nomination until the balance is in their favor.  I bet with some imagination a nomination could be investigated for 8+ years.

Cool. Can we make this your signature if it turns out that these allegations are credible?

[thegreaterbuzzette]

I believe the point that you guys are talking past each other is what the result of the FBI's investigation would be. It is my understanding that if the WH asks the FBI to investigate, the result would be a "memo" or some sort of literature. It would not yield a court case, lead to potential conviction or sentencing. A background investigation results in a finding not a ruling of guilty/innocence. 

 

[justice98]

37 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Still lost.  Even Googled it.

 

 

I think that in hindsight,  the GOP shouldn't have refused to have a hearing for Garland.  Instead they should have had a few people (maybe even a kid) come out with allegations against him of sexual abuse.  Could have even spiced it up with allegations of drug abuse, beastiallity, tax fraud, and changing lanes without using his blinker.   No need for any type of proof.  Just enough allegations to tie up a nomination until the balance is in their favor.  I bet with some imagination a nomination could be investigated for 8+ years.

 

Does no one see the bad precedent trying to be set here?

 

Bad precedents and SCOTUS nominations seem to be a thing.

 

But there's still nothing stopping the GOP from confirming him before the midterms.  Just like Lindsay Graham said, he's gonna vote to confirm him regardless.  If the GOP cant hold the votes, that's on them.

 

But somehow, the party with the majority not getting something done will be the fault of someone else.  What else is new.

[visionary]

Righhhht.

[Springfield]

He’s gonna get voted in and regardless of whether or not the allegations are true it’s going to be a bad look for republicans.

[justice98]

The thing is about any potential investigation is, it would take a week, maybe 2, tops.  When they investigated Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas, it took a week. I think people have this idea it would drag on for weeks past the midterms.  

 

If they just went ahead and did it and got it over with, they could still vote with time to spare. 

 

If it "never happened", you would think Kavanaugh would be screaming for an investigation.  Instead, he wants to play the "he said/she said" game and hope for the best.  It doesn't seem weird to anybody that the person making the claim wants the investigation and the person denying the allegations is not interested?

Edited September 24, 2018 by justice98

[Bozo the kKklown]

48 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

These entitled, gross, scumbags were out here G'ing girls.  Man, wtf.

 

I never understand why dudes even run trains. Disgusting.

[B&G]

He will be voted in because there will be no truthful corroborated evidence against him.

This is a shameful exercise by the Democrats proving there is nothing beneath them when it comes to blocking Kavanaugh or resisting President Trump.

They and those who blindly follow them are despicable but all their hateful efforts will fail.  Kavanaugh will be confirmed after all is said and done.