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

[visionary]

NSFW

[mistertim]

So what will the GOP's new strategy be now, since they got caught red handed trying to intentionally limit the investigation with the WH and it's now much more open? Just hope they can't find enough in 1 week, ignore the findings they DO come up with and rush for a vote on Friday? 

[Koala]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

NSFW

lool.

 

Well heres CNBC.replay of the committee hearing.  Im not sure why the link says its an SNL skit...

 

[The Evil Genius]

2 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

Chalk up another lie.

 

There is a pattern to his BS and deception and it all revolves around his drinking problem, temperament and lewd behavior.

 

This isn’t ****ing rocket science. It’s the obvious truth staring everyone in the face.

 

That's an actual lie under oath btw.

[skinsmarydu]

9 hours ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

Should be disqualifying, but we have a President who puts ketchup on steak.

Noticed one of my coworkers do that last week. 

He's a trumper...who has failed the bar exam 5 times. ?

[Popeman38]

6 hours ago, Koala said:

I cant get over how ridiculously weak the Democrats are.  I cant believe they as re gonna just let this sham one week investigation. 

 

They need.to raise hell about this.  Squeeze the FBI politically, say this kinda thing bring into question serious reservations about the FBIs background check process, which appears to have failed.to.pick up potentially important information, tell the American people that this a serious lapse that.must be resolved before going forward, and until then demand a temporary one month suspension of all federal background checks pending a senate investigation into the entire.process.  

 

Go nuclear man, do not let this.come to.vote.at all costs.  If need be, boycott the vote, no democrats showup for the vote in solidarity of women and victims of abuse.  The republicans are.playing for keeps you idiots, this is the checkmate play --  not the Midterm elections, which become almost meaningless if Trump gets the SCOTUS in his pocket cause he will have the ultimate ...wait for it.. TRUMP CARD

The Democrats suggested the week long investigation. That’s what they wanted. You would think that after claiming the FBI could have the investigation done in a week, multiple times on national TV, the narrative that a week long investigation wasn’t possible wouldn’t be the new talking point. It’s unbelievable how a demand is met, and then suddenly the demand changes. As soon as the limitd duratuon, limited scope investigation was announced (and Feinstein is ON RECORD as wanting this), the complaining about time and scope began. 

 

Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. I am not defending him. But this political BS of demanding something and then throwing your hands in the air and complaining you are only getting what you asked for has to stop. And the Reps would be doing the same thing if roles were reversed. Both parties only care about one thing - power. 

[Llevron]

7 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

 

Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. I am not defending him. But this political BS of demanding something and then throwing your hands in the air and complaining you are only getting what you asked for has to stop. And the Reps would be doing the same thing if roles were reversed. Both parties only care about one thing - power. 

 

Stop bruh. They are not the same here. Republicans are trying to force through a judge that has been caught lying under oath multiple times. Dems are trying to stop that. One side does not equal the other here no matter how much you try to make it so. Your consistantly preaching on the matter is getting annoying at this point. 

 

I know you see the problem here in the FBI only talking to the 4 people that the GOP and the White House seem nessesary. I know you are smart enough to see how that is a conflict of interest. Stop the bull****. 

[twa]

7 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Or maybe he's just got so much **** to say that they couldn't get it all in one sitting?  I hope that's the case, anyway.

 

most likely have more questions after interviewing others like Swetnik

 

for those talking about the texts....the NYer story included a denial from him right?

Which means they clearly contacted him in advance

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

17 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 

for those talking about the texts....the NYer story included a denial from him right?

Which means they clearly contacted him in advance

SO, HE LIED TO CONGRESS.  A FELONY. 

[twa]

2 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

SO, HE LIED TO CONGRESS.  A FELONY. 

 

no, it means the timing is explained

 

have some coffee .

[skinsmarydu]

30 minutes ago, twa said:

 

no, it means the timing is explained

 

have some coffee .

He testified under oath that he read about her allegation in the NYorker story. 

His texts are revealing something...different...from what he testified under oath to. 

Have some more coffee. 

[Kilmer17]

Just now, skinsmarydu said:

He testified under oath that he read about her allegation in the NYorker story. 

His texts are revealing something...different...from what he testified under oath to. 

Have some more coffee. 

No he didn’t.  There is plenty of real issues to push forward.  There is no reason to exaggerate. 

[skinsmarydu]

7 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

 

7 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

No he didn’t.  There is plenty of real issues to push forward.  There is no reason to exaggerate. 

Yes, he did. They've shown it on MoJoe probably half a dozen times since I got up.

Covfefe, anyone? 

They're showing it again now. 

Edited October 2, 2018 by skinsmarydu

[Kilmer17]

No he didn’t.  He said this-  

 

“In the last — in the period since then, the New Yorker story.”

 

 

thats not not the same thing as claiming he read it in the New Yorker. 

[Llevron]

2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

No he didn’t.  There is plenty of real issues to push forward.  There is no reason to exaggerate. 

 

What's the exaggeration?

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

 

What's the exaggeration?

That he “read” it in the New Yorker.  The article itself claims that he denied it which means they talked to him before publication

 

getting the info from the New Yorker is not the same thing as reading it in the New Yorker.  The latter makes it seem like he had no idea before it was published.  He never claimed that. 

[Llevron]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

That he “read” it in the New Yorker.  The article itself claims that he denied it which means they talked to him before publication

 

getting the info from the New Yorker is not the same thing as reading it in the New Yorker.  The latter makes it seem like he had no idea before it was published.  He never claimed that. 

 

He made it seem like he found out when the article was dropped. His exact words, you quoted, literally mean "after the new Yorker" 

 

Its quite possible he meant something other than what he said. But that's what he said. 

[Kilmer17]

Just now, Llevron said:

 

He made it seem like he found out when the article was dropped. His exact words, you quoted, literally mean "after the new Yorker" 

 

Its quite possible he meant something other than what he said. But that's what he said. 

After the New Yorker now means he read it in the New Yorker and not after he talked to them when he denied it?

 

either way. He didn’t say what folks inn the left are claiming he said.  

[Burgold]

The saddest thing about the above conversation, and the one that makes you know that games are being played, is how we're trying to lawyer up every sentence. Sentences don't mean what they sound like if you read it this way... I guess it all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

 

That strategy, and there are quite a few other examples, is only really in use when you know you're dealing with either a liar or someone deliberately trying to contort and distort the truth. Should we, the public, be trying to bend over backwards to reinvent the human language to find a way to force his words to sound innocent?

 

Okkam's Razor. 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

That strategy, and there are quite a few other examples, is only really in use when you know you're dealing with either a liar or someone deliberately trying to contort and distort the truth. Should we, the public, be trying to bend over backwards to reinvent the human language to find a way to force his words to sound innocent?

Should we be doing it to force his words to sound guilty?

 

funny you only have a problem with one way of lying

[Llevron]

2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

After the New Yorker now means he read it in the New Yorker and not after he talked to them when he denied it?

 

You mean to tell me that a life long judge/prosecutor was unaware he had to make a distinction such as that? And you believe it? Lol 

 

2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

either way. He didn’t say what folks inn the left are claiming he said.  

 

You and your buddies always want to make this a left and right issue but the fact is he was either intentionally misleading or flat out lied about it. Neither is good. And the problem isnt "the left" as much as it is him bull****ting on during his confirmation and your willingness to accept it. 

2 minutes ago, Burgold said:

The saddest thing about the above conversation, and the one that makes you know that games are being played, is how we're trying to lawyer up every sentence. Sentences don't mean what they sound like if you read it this way... I guess it all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

 

That strategy, and there are quite a few other examples, is only really in use when you know you're dealing with either a liar or someone deliberately trying to contort and distort the truth. Should we, the public, be trying to bend over backwards to reinvent the human language to find a way to force his words to sound innocent?

 

Okkam's Razor. 

 

Thats my entire point. We all know he is lying. But we want to play these games so we can shift blame. Its stupid. 

 

Fact is the Republicans are trying to force through a obvious liar and people are willing to make any excuse to ignore that fact. 

[Kilmer17]

You’re right.  He only read about it after it was published.  He didn’t know about it when the New Yorker contacted him about it when he denied it prior to publication. And is now purposefully lying about it. 

[justice98]

7 hours ago, mistertim said:

So what will the GOP's new strategy be now, since they got caught red handed trying to intentionally limit the investigation with the WH and it's now much more open? Just hope they can't find enough in 1 week, ignore the findings they DO come up with and rush for a vote on Friday? 

 

If I'm them, sounds like a plan to me. 

 

If they didnt already think he shouldn't be confirmed with everything already known, I cant see any brand new, conclusive evidence coming out in a week to change their mind.

[Kilmer17]

Just now, justice98 said:

 

If I'm them, sounds like a plan to me. 

 

If they didnt already think he shouldn't be confirmed with everything already known, I cant see any brand new, conclusive evidence coming out in a week to change their mind.

This is all about the GOP 3.  Nobody else is changing from their teams side