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

[Larry]

13 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

 

The fact that you are okay with someone who could be a Supreme Court justice committing perjury is baffling. It speaks to his character and it goes against the principles of the judicial system. 

 

 

So does whether he ever got a speeding ticket, or failed to return a library book, or under-reported the tips he got. 

 

If "speaks to his character" is your standard, there is nothing that is too trivial to be used for political fodder. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[bearrock]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

So does whether he ever got a speeding ticket, or failed to return a library book, or under-reported the tips he got. 

 

If "speaks to his character" is your standard, there is nothing that is too trivial to be used for political fodder. 

 

Perjury for a judge is different.  Honest testimony is a gigantic underpinning of the entire legal system.  If a judge cannot abide by that in any setting, it is totally disqualifying.  Appointing a proven perjurer as justice on the highest court in the land is farcical.

[visionary]

 

[Spearfeather]

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Didn't get the power dynamic lesson, did you?

 

For some reason I don't think you would have minded at all being " ruled " by this " angry " white guy.

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by visionary

[Hersh]

16 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

So does whether he ever got a speeding ticket, or failed to return a library book, or under-reported the tips he got. 

 

If "speaks to his character" is your standard, there is nothing that is too trivial to be used for political fodder. 

 

That's laughably dumb and it makes you look really bad.  

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Perjury for a judge is different.  Honest testimony is a gigantic underpinning of the entire legal system.  If a judge cannot abide by that in any setting, it is totally disqualifying.  Appointing a proven perjurer as justice on the highest court in the land is farcical.

 

I'm baffled by his position cause he normally comes across as a reasonable person. Even if I've disagreed with him on any particular issue. 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Hersh

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by visionary

[Hersh]

1 hour ago, Spearfeather said:

 

I wouldn't label Lindsay Graham as an " Angry White Man ".

 

As far as Kavanaugh, he certainly displayed stretches of anger during his testimony, but it's funny how being falsely accused of rape, and participating in drug-fueled gang rape parties could downright piss a guy off.

 

You didn't say IF nor does this imply saying IF

[Voice_of_Reason]

I haven't been paying full and complete attention to this, mostly because I'm pretty sure I already know the outcome due to our completely broken political system.  However, has it been confirmed GOP is going nuclear again on this one, and only needs 51 votes? 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

You guys thought they were gonna let the FBI speak to whoever they wanted to? Come on. This one is signed sealed and delivered. Shameful stuff.

[Hersh]

8 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I haven't been paying full and complete attention to this, mostly because I'm pretty sure I already know the outcome due to our completely broken political system.  However, has it been confirmed GOP is going nuclear again on this one, and only needs 51 votes? 

 50 cause Pence can break the tie. 

[Spearfeather]

5 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

You didn't say IF nor does this imply saying IF

 

 I used the word could to imply if that was happening to him that would be an understandable reaction. Would you like me to go back and put " if " in my post ?

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hersh]

1 minute ago, Spearfeather said:

 

 I used the word could to imply if that was happening to him that would be an understandable reaction. Would you like me to go back and put " if " in my post ?

 

I don't care but it certainly completely changes what you said. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Popeman38]

Apparently, “limited in time and scope” meant completely unlimited and free to proceed as long as possible. The Dems on the Judiciary Committee agreed to a week and limited to credible accusations. Not quite sure why all the outrage at the “limited time and scope.”

[Hersh]

5 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

 

All Jeff Flake has to do is say that these limits are unacceptable and that will change. It's all on him. 

[Spearfeather]

3 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

I don't care but it certainly completely changes what you said. 

 

This is silly Hersh. Anyway, its there now to clarify it for you and it's what was always implied.

[bearrock]

20 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I haven't been paying full and complete attention to this, mostly because I'm pretty sure I already know the outcome due to our completely broken political system.  However, has it been confirmed GOP is going nuclear again on this one, and only needs 51 votes? 

 

That rule change is now permanent.  Honestly, not necessarily a bad thing.  It has been too easy to block all levels of judicial nominees.

[Hersh]

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

Apparently, “limited in time and scope” meant completely unlimited and free to proceed as long as possible. The Dems on the Judiciary Committee agreed to a week and limited to credible accusations. Not quite sure why all the outrage at the “limited time and scope.”

 

I don't think it's that it's not unlimited, though some may state that, I think it's more that it appears to be limited even as it relates to facts surrounding Dr. Ford's allegation as an example. They seem to be limiting it so it can't be shown how much he lied on Thursday about his drinkings and things like that. 

[Burgold]

49 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

So does whether he ever got a speeding ticket, or failed to return a library book, or under-reported the tips he got. 

 

If "speaks to his character" is your standard, there is nothing that is too trivial to be used for political fodder. 

You’d think perjury would sit pretty high on the qualities you’d never want to find in a judge. 

[DogofWar1]

4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Apparently, “limited in time and scope” meant completely unlimited and free to proceed as long as possible. The Dems on the Judiciary Committee agreed to a week and limited to credible accusations. Not quite sure why all the outrage at the “limited time and scope.”

 

That's not true at all.  The FBI was instructed to deliver a result within a week.

 

As for scope limitations, the entire purpose of the FBI is to determine what is and isn't credible.  You determine credibility by investigating.  You cannot competently determine credibility by pre-judging an investigation.

 

It's utterly ridiculous and the height of  corruption that Trump is literally saying they can't talk to relevant witnesses.

 

That'd be like telling a detective investigating a bank robbery that he can't talk to anyone who was at the bank OR check the cameras.

 

It's insane.

 

 

I can only conclude that the allegations are true, at this point.  If you have nothing to hide, you don't tell them you can't look at specific allegations.

 

****, Trump/Kav should want them chasing Swetnick if its false, since it would waste time and resources.  That they are specifically barring that AND also limiting the investigation into Blasey Ford's allegation by preventing the FBI from gathering corroborating evidence really only suggests that Kav is guilty and the White House is trying to block off places they think corroborating evidence would come forth.

[bearrock]

One way avenatti has to force the issue is to call a press conference and lay all his cards on the table.  I feel like he's under delivered so far compared to his claims that he had corroborating witnesses lined up.

[DogofWar1]

I'm really hoping NBC has bad info.