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

[The Evil Genius]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I cant get a feel for it. 

 

I’ve been surprised by what I hear come out of conservative women’s mouths. Someone posted a video pages and pageant ago of a panel of them. They are not the fringe. 

 

We'll see if the protests happen tomorrow but from what I've read there is going to be coordinated nationwide protests outside of certain Senate offices. I'd be surprised if this was only the beginning. I think the anger has been brewing since 2016...and in 6 weeks, hopefully, it's going to be realized.

 

I wonder if Lindsey Graham put a larger target on his back in 2020 (even from within his party) from how he's acted this past week? There has to be a non Trump sucking electable candidate there, right?

 

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[Burgold]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I cant get a feel for it. 

 

I’ve been surprised by what I hear come out of conservative women’s mouths. Someone posted a video pages and pageant ago of a panel of them. They are not the fringe. 

That panel got some criticism for misrepresenting who was on the roundtable. They were all Republican operatives vs. ordinary Republicans. (Even so, I think you are right, but I did want to make sure people knew about the panel)

https://thedailybanter.com/2018/09/23/women-who-support-brett-kavanaugh/

. In presenting these five women as average voters, CNN failed to disclose that all of them are heavily involved in Republican politics, either as fundraisers, local activists, or candidates for office.

Lourdes Castillo de la Peña, who kicked off the discussion, served on the Republican National Senatorial Committee and worked on the Ted Cruz campaign in 2016. In 2017, Miami City Councilman and congressional candidate Ken Russell revealed that he attended a Cruz fundraiser held at her home, with a suggested $1000-a-plate donation. “He asked to come to my house," said Peña. "He wanted to meet Heidi...He told me how impressed he was with her when she spoke.”

Edited September 28, 2018 by Burgold

[DogofWar1]

29 minutes ago, tshile said:

@DogofWar1

i guess the short version of why I think you’re being absurd:

impeachment if a scotus judge is going to require an immense amount of political capital. And you’ll spend all of it. And if you lose it’s gone and not coming back 

 

I don’t think they’ll have that political capital. And if they do I don’t think they’re going to spend it on that, I think they’ll spend it on trump. 

 

Ive certainly been wrong before, I just think you got a little ahead of yourself on that particular idea. 

Here's the thing though.

 

Investigations don't take much political capital.

 

The political capital needed to make a big political move decreases as the necessity of the move becomes more apparent.

 

That is to say, yes, Dems showing up on January 4th and impeaching Brett would cost a ton of political capital and probably sour things with independents.

 

But do a little investigating, find some problems with his debt, get some people from the early 2000's on the email scandal, and of course fully investigate the claims of sexual violence, and the more wrongdoing that is found, the less political capital they'll need.

 

The key is to find enough bad conduct that independents back the impeachment.  Once you hit that point, the political consequences become near to 0.

 

 

Like consider Duncan Hunter.

If Dems impeached him for nothing, it'd be costly.

But now that the guy has been charged, and especially if he gets convicted, the public will turn on him.  The cost to impeach is low.

 

Shoot, at a certain point, the cost to impeach is lower than the cost to not.

 

Imagine if Dems discovered all three allegations against Brett to be true.  Yes, even the gang-rape one.

 

What consequences are there among women if Dems then DON'T impeach?  What kind of disillusionment with Dems does that create, and depress turnout?

 

 

The key, of course, is to play it based on what is found.  If ultimately, nothing is found, you have to let it go or accept the huge political capital costs.

 

But that's the thing about Brett.  He's got skeletons.  He REEKS of shadiness.  There's fire there somewhere, it simply has to be actually looked for.

[AJ*]

8 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

We'll see if the protests happen tomorrow but from what I've read there is going to be coordinated nationwide protests outside of certain Senate offices. I'd be surprised if this was only the beginning. I think the anger has been brewing since 2016...and in 6 weeks, hopefully, it's going to be realized.

 

I wonder if Lindsey Graham put a larger target on his back in 2020 (even from within his party) from how he's acted this past week? There has to be a non Trump sucking electable candidate there, right?

 

 

 

I think it's just the opposite. Lindsey Graham has become an overnight right wing hero because of today. I think any Republican supporters wary of Graham's 180 in support for Trump were officially convinced today.

[The Evil Genius]

3 minutes ago, AJ* said:

 

I think it's just the opposite. Lindsey Graham has become an overnight right wing hero because of today. I think any Republican supporters wary of Graham's 180 in support for Trump were officially convinced today.

 

Does that change though if the GOP gets routed in 2018? Because it's explicity due to Trump that this blue wave is expected to happen.

Edited September 28, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[StillUnknown]

13 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

I wonder if Lindsey Graham put a larger target on his back in 2020 (even from within his party) from how he's acted this past week? There has to be a non Trump sucking electable candidate there, right?

 

 

 

He's in SC, lots of MAGA's around those parts

 

if anything, his actions will prevent him from being primaried

 

sad to see him sell his soul, I genuinely respected that man at one point despite being completely different politically

[Fergasun]

If you are GOP -- you believe Ford is a fraud, so wouldn't you want the FBI to investigate, roll back the blue tide coming and show that this was just a Clinton hack job!

Go for it GOP... you have nothing to lose with a full on investigation that will expose the Democrats and Ford!!

[bearrock]

32 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

N00B question here, when are their votes due?  

Committee vote is scheduled for tomorrow morning.  Even if committee votes him down, Majority Leader can bring the vote to the whole senate.  Motion to proceed has been set for Saturday, so they can invoke closture (end filibuster) and vote by probably Tuesday.

[DogofWar1]

Oh, he scared.

 

 

Mark Judge seems like the kind of guy who would crack in about 12 seconds under questioning from Harris.

 

I will enjoy him being dragged in front of the House next year.

[tshile]

25 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Do you have any proof she gave it to anyone?  The reporter said it wasn't Feinstein, so there needs to be another transaction, and we have no proof or info of such a transaction.

 

She received a letter and was asked not to tell anyone

 

everyone knows about it now

 

its just not that hard to figure out

[DogofWar1]

 

P.S.

 

Rudy Giuliani is absolutely senile and belongs in a home.

 

 

We need some sort of mechanism to put these old politicians shuffling around ****ing up our country in homes.

 

Like, recall votes, but instead of just getting kicked out of office, they get stuck in an old folks home and are put on house arrest until they die.

[The Evil Genius]

What would the ABA know anyways.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[DogofWar1]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

She received a letter and was asked not to tell anyone

 

everyone knows about it now

 

its just not that hard to figure out

 

Are we just ignoring the whole ethics committee thing I cited?

[tshile]

Just now, DogofWar1 said:

 

Are we just ignoring the whole ethics committee thing I cited?

 

I find it fascinating what you pick and choose to believe. 

 

Feinstein is not responsible for a letter she received asking her to not tell anyone, becoming public knowledge

 

but the dems will have an easy time impeaching a scotus judge. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

If you are GOP -- you believe Ford is a fraud, so wouldn't you want the FBI to investigate, roll back the blue tide coming and show that this was just a Clinton hack job! 

Go for it GOP... you have nothing to lose with a full on investigation that will expose the Democrats and Ford!!

 

They've got nothing to gain either

 

Majority of people outraged about this didn’t like Kav to begin with. And aren’t going to suddenly have a sympathetic ear to the GOP’s ideas. 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[DogofWar1]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I find it fascinating what you pick and choose to believe. 

 

Feinstein is not responsible for a letter she received asking her to not tell anyone, becoming public knowledge

 

but the dems will have an easy time impeaching a scotus judge. 

 

It's not about believing.  Look at what has been reported.

 

The reporter who first broke the letter story said, point blank, Feinstein didn't do it.

 

We also KNOW, for a fact, she sought to investigate it while keeping Ford anonymous by talking to ethics people about it, while not revealing the name or contents.

 

Here's the intercept article:

 

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/12/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-dianne-feinstein/

 

Key passage below, highlights mine.

 

Quote

The letter took a circuitous route to Feinstein, the top-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. It purportedly describes an incident that was relayed to someone affiliated with Stanford University, who authored the letter* and sent it to Rep. Anna Eshoo, a Democrat who represents the area.

Different sources provided different accounts of the contents of the letter, and some of the sources said they themselves had heard different versions, but the one consistent theme was that it describes an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school.  Kept hidden, the letter is beginning to take on a life of its own.

Eshoo passed the letter to her fellow Californian, Feinstein. Word began leaking out on the Hill about it, and Feinstein was approached by Democrats on the committee, but she rebuffed them, Democratic sources said. Feinstein’s fellow senators want their own opportunity to gauge whether or not the letter should be made public, rather than leaving it to Feinstein to make that call unilaterally. The sources were not authorized to speak on the record, and said that no senators on the committee, other than Feinstein, have so far been able to view the letter.

 

The story is consistent with the ethics committee check, which given the vagueness of the information provided there I don't think I would consider a "leak," leading to people on the hill thinking there was some underlying thing there Feinstein was keeping under wraps. 

 

There has not been any evidence that Feinstein or her staff ever passed the letter, or knowledge of it, off to anyone EXCEPT through the check via the ethics committee, and then only in a heavily redacted fashion.

 

 

So again, this is not a matter of "belief."

 

I've done the legwork here.  If you've got something showing she leaked/disseminated it out, please show it.

[The Evil Genius]

This about sums it up for me.

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[skinny21]

Thanks for posting all of that @DogofWar1, the outraged Senators on the right had me thinking she handled it poorly/wrongly - not that I’ve flipped on that position, but that takes a lot of wind out of those sails, IMV.  

 

 

[Dan T.]

The bottom line.  A teenaged, drunk Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted 15-year old Christine Blasey Ford in the summer of 1982. Yet that will not matter to those Republicans who will vote for him.

[NoCalMike]

I have been gone for at least 5-6 pages worth so forgive me if this point was already brought up, but part of Ford's testimony, she did mention that she attempted to contact the Senate (perhaps Feinstein?) before Kavanaugh was the nominee.  She stated that she initially saw him come up on a list of possible nominees and that is when she made the first attempt.

 

Now, I am not sure if there is a way to prove that, but she did in fact state it under oath.  So that kind of blows up the idea that she waited until the last second, and also the even more ludicrous idea that she was going to just make up this accusation regardless of who the nominee was.

 

Honestly, I am tired of arguing about this.  This thread has been at least civil for the most part but I made the mistake of arguing on some FB threads and I really am at a loss for people who straight up think she completely made this up 100%....and their evidence is their own personal "BS Meter"   They have completely ignored or don't care about the little things Kavanaugh has been lying about, or at least trying to evade answering about.

 

The more I look back at his testimony the more it looked like him successfully filibustering legitimate questions by talking nonsense or just ignoring the question and wasting the entire time of said Senator by just running on and on about nothing.   He didn't come off well or anything, but it did seem like a strategy to limit how many questions he would be faced with by each Senator.

[Renegade7]

31 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

The bottom line.  A teenaged, drunk Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted 15-year old Christine Blasey Ford in the summer of 1982. Yet that will not matter to those Republicans who will vote for him.

True, but its gonna matter to someone

 

[Dan T.]

5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I have been gone for at least 5-6 pages worth so forgive me if this point was already brought up, but part of Ford's testimony, she did mention that she attempted to contact the Senate (perhaps Feinstein?) before Kavanaugh was the nominee.  She stated that she initially saw him come up on a list of possible nominees and that is when she made the first attempt.

 

 

 

She called the office of her Representative in Congress, Anna Eshoo, as well as the Washington Post tipline in early July, when Kavanaugh was named on the short list of potential candidates but not yet the nominee.  That is a fact, and it lays bare the farce that she was part of some conspiracy to deny him a seat on the Court. She told her husband that she had been assaulted by Kavanaugh in 2012.

[NoCalMike]

2 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

She called the office of her Representative in Congress, Anna Eshoo, as well as the Washington Post tipline in early July, when Kavanaugh was named on the short list of potential candidates but not yet the nominee.  That is a fact, and it lays bare the farce that she was part of some conspiracy to deny him a seat on the Court. She told her husband that she had been assaulted by Kavanaugh in 2012.

 

Right. I knew about the 2012 & 2013 stuff, but I didn't know (before her testimony) that she actually did try to reach out before he was the chosen nominee.  Stuff like that is just brushed off by guys like Lindsey Graham who seemed to prefer to play Trump Jr.  I like how the term "seek & destroy" was pre-planned since Trump was tweeting the same term immediately after. 

[Hersh]

The ABA definitely gave the 3 GOP votes and the couple of Dem votes the cover they need to demand the FBI investigate before deciding. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

Just want to point out, the accuser can’t remember many of these details.

Another reason why you guys need to elect me...

 

KAVANAUGH: She can’t remember many of the details.

 

SACKS: And? You don’t seem to remember it at all.

 

KAVANAUGH: I wasn’t there.

 

SACKS: How do you know? Maybe all that weed you smoked erased your memory.

 

KAVANAUGH: This is ridiculous?

 

SACKS: Tell me judge, have you ever... pooped a balloon?