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

[Kilmer17]

5 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

He defintely has **** to hide. 

Does every nominee that prepped have **** to hide? That would include, well, everyone appointed to every Circuit Court and higher in the US.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[Kilmer17]

20 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

its the lack of empathy.

The Senate should bring her in to testify as well as Judge.  Under oath.

[LadySkinsFan]

The standard Republican passing the buck.

 

I am so sick of these assholes ****ting on our Republic for their own enrichment.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

The Senate should bring her in to testify as well as Judge.  Under oath.

 

This is exactly why the FBI should investigate BEFORE any sworn testimony by anyone.

Edited September 19, 2018 by LadySkinsFan

[PleaseBlitz]

Just to look at this from a slightly different perspective, I'm not sure if I think the Democrats are handling this extremely poorly, or extremely shrewdly.

 

Poorly

 

Very likely, all evidence in this case is both decades old and the witnesses are going to just contradict each other which won't be satisfactory for anyone, and Dr. Ford is going to pay the price and Kavanaugh will get confirmed anyways.  

 

Shrewdly

 

Dems gotta think that his confirmation was going to happen either way, just based on the math.  Making it happen this way lets them salvage a win by forcing Republicans to either (1) not clean up Trump's mess (depressing R voters) or (2) confirm a man credibly accused of attempted rape without even looking into it, 2 months before a major election (further goosing women voters and people that think, hey, maybe they should at least look into it first).  

[NoCalMike]

I am sure the spin on that letter will be "She was in love with Mark Davis and he turned her down, this is her revenge!"

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

The standard Republican passing the buck.

 

I am so sick of these assholes ****ting on our Republic for their own enrichment.

 

 

 

This is exactly why the FBI should investigate BEFORE any sworn testimony by anyone.

They've declined, and there's no way Trump is going to order them to do so, and even if he did, there's nothing making them abide by that order.

 

This is what we have.  Ds and Rs asking questions.

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Just to look at this from a slightly different perspective, I'm not sure if I think the Democrats are handling this extremely poorly, or extremely shrewdly.

 

Poorly

 

Very likely, all evidence in this case is both decades old and the witnesses are going to just contradict each other which won't be satisfactory for anyone, and Dr. Ford is going to pay the price and Kavanaugh will get confirmed anyways.  

 

Shrewdly

 

Dems gotta think that his confirmation was going to happen either way, just based on the math.  Making it happen this way lets them salvage a win by forcing Republicans to either (1) not clean up Trump's mess (depressing R voters) or (2) confirm a man credibly accused of attempted rape without even looking into it, 2 months before a major election (further goosing women voters and people that think, hey, maybe they should at least look into it first).  

It could also be both.

[Popeman38]

2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Or let's just take the practical reason, Donald Trump is under active criminal investigation for financial and conspiracy with a foreign government and was an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal act that resulted in a guilty conviction.

 

That person is not fit to name Supreme Court justices, especially when the one he has nominated wants the president to be king.

Can you back up the bolded? Because I have seen nothing from anyone stating the President himself was under criminal investigation. For anything.

 

Additionally, as long as he is the President, he is fit to nominate people for any vacant position the office is responsible for nominating. Just because people don't like him (me included) does that mean he doesn't get to fully fill the office to which he was elected.

[Hersh]

27 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Does every nominee that prepped have **** to hide? That would include, well, everyone appointed to every Circuit Court and higher in the US.

 

Are they all prepping for **** they did in high school? Would you have to prep for that?

[PleaseBlitz]

58 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Also I dont get why its unreasonable to believe that him practicing for these questions isnt a sign he has something to hide but her not wanting to answer these questions means she does. That's kinda effed to me. 

 

 

Disagree.  I am in favor of people that come prepared.  I spent 40 hours last week prepping 3 people for depositions.  This is the standard way it works, I don't think there is anything nefarious about preparation.  

[Bozo the kKklown]

2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Can you back up the bolded? Because I have seen nothing from anyone stating the President himself was under criminal investigation. For anything.

 

Additionally, as long as he is the President, he is fit to nominate people for any vacant position the office is responsible for nominating. Just because people don't like him (me included) does that mean he doesn't get to fully fill the office to which he was elected.

I guess you won't bold the unindicted co-conspirator portion?

 

And I am not sure what Robert Mueller is doing but investigating what Trump did.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, Hersh said:

 

Are they all prepping for **** they did in high school? Would you have to prep for that?

I would think that they prep for everything they can think may come before them.  

 

I doubt BK prepped for this before, but it would be dumb for him to not be ready for as many questions as possible.  

 

The Dems are going to ask him “did you do it”. It will be far more involved than that.  I expect questions about previous judicial rulings to be a big part

[Llevron]

7 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Disagree.  I am in favor of people that come prepared.  I spent 40 hours last week prepping 3 people for depositions.  This is the standard way it works, I don't think there is anything nefarious about preparation.  

 

I guess my point is that neither should be viewed negatively for how they handled it, though my comparison is admittedly poor. 

 

I just dont feel like her wanting an investigation into it before her testimony is a sign of anything nefarious either. Am I wrong on that too? (Asking for opinion, not sure there is previous example to point to)

[DogofWar1]

If these were more sane times, the FBI would absolutely be investigating this, because a more sane President would order the FBI to investigate.

 

Jurisdictional boundaries are important.  We don't want law enforcement poking its nose where it doesn't belong or where another enforcement force has jurisdiction, and we shouldn't take their denying of having jurisdiction as a willful denial to investigate.

 

Indeed, if she were making it up, it would be a couple steps too bold to ask the FBI to investigate, as she has.  There are consequences to leading the FBI on a manufactured goose chase.

 

Nonetheless, I fully expect no investigation to be ordered.  If that's the case, unfortunately we're in a tough spot.

 

 

What I think would be prudent is for her and her husband to come, and maybe even her therapist.  Try to find that lady who wrote about the high school gossip about it too, and have her come.  Have them all say they are willing to testify, and have them sit in the front row.

 

And for theatrics, leave a chair open with a sign that says "Mark Judge."

 

Then if/when Grassley doesn't call them, the hearing will be exposed as the sham it is.  Then if Brett is pushed through this will, at a minimum, be a black mark on him, and at worst it will lead to potential impeachment (along with all the other stuff).

Edited September 19, 2018 by DogofWar1

[visionary]

 

1 hour ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

I would hope there would be questions about his friend and that friends two autobiographies in which he bragged about the copious amounts of drinking, partying, and women in high school. I would hope they'd ask if Kavanaugh thought that was an accurate protrayal and if he was a participant in ha.  I would also hope they would have had time to locate classmates who could confirm that Kavanaugh wasn't at these parties. I'd also ask if he thinks he is the Bart O'kavanaugh in his friends book.

[bearrock]

23 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Disagree.  I am in favor of people that come prepared.  I spent 40 hours last week prepping 3 people for depositions.  This is the standard way it works, I don't think there is anything nefarious about preparation.  

 

Do their last names rhyme with Lord, O'Kavanaugh, and Fudge?  Blink once if yes, twice if no.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by visionary

[PleaseBlitz]

37 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I guess my point is that neither should be viewed negatively for how they handled it, though my comparison is admittedly poor. 

 

I just dont feel like her wanting an investigation into it before her testimony is a sign of anything nefarious either. Am I wrong on that too? (Asking for opinion, not sure there is previous example to point to)

 

No, I think an investigation is totally reasonable and I think Republicans are being ****es about trying to jam this through quickly for no good reason.  

[Fresh8686]

56 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

They've declined, and there's no way Trump is going to order them to do so, and even if he did, there's nothing making them abide by that order.

 

This is what we have.  Ds and Rs asking questions.

It could also be both.

Where do you see the FBI has declined?

 

There is a tweet from the FBI where they specifically say that they were never asked by the president to investigate it, but none I saw where they declined.

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

Please tell me this isn't a common conservative viewpoint.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-accusations-should-be-ignored/

 

Quote

•  

A third reason is feminism’s weakening of the American female (and male, but that is another story). A generation ago, a drunk teenager at a party groping a teenage girl over her clothing while trying to remove as much of her clothing as possible would not have been defended or countenanced. But it would not have been deemed as inducing post-traumatic stress disorder either.

This weakening of the female is perfectly illustrated by the statement released by Susanna Jones, head of Holton-Arms School, the private preparatory school for girls in Bethesda, Md., that the accuser attended. “As a school that empowers women to use their voices, we are proud of this alumna for using hers,” Jones said.

 

“Empowers women”? Please.

Edited September 19, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[bcl05]

28 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My god, this story is horrifying.  It is also remarkably well written.  I implore everyone to read it.  

[Hersh]

7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Please tell me this isn't a common conservative viewpoint.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-accusations-should-be-ignored/

 

 

I'm shocked an old white male would say that. Shocked I tell ya. 

 

In all seriousness, what an ignorant imbecile. 

 

 

[Popeman38]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I guess you won't bold the unindicted co-conspirator portion?

 

And I am not sure what Robert Mueller is doing but investigating what Trump did.

You're not sure?  The Special Counsel is investigating:

Quote

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

 

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

 

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

 

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

The Special Counsel is investigating interference in the election, and any crimes discovered through the investigation.  He has carte blanche, but that does not mean the investigation is focusing on the President criminally.

 

Does that Mean Donald Trump is being investigated? There is no comment on the record from anyone in the Mueller camp indicating that the President himself is under criminal investigation. None. It is all speculation and inferences. Anyone saying otherwise is wrong. You can speculate all you want, but the President of the United States is fully qualified to nominate people to fill positions for which the Office of the President is responsible

 

Donald Trump being an unnamed co-conspirator means that he hasn't been charged. Meaning it is alleged. Meaning there is no guarantee a charge is ever brought. It does not mean that Donald Trump is a co-conspirator. No matter how much you wish it does.

[DogofWar1]

 

Now yes, the accuser is different than a potential witness, BUT it clearly sends the message that the Senate is not fully investigating nor are they interested in fully investigating, which naturally is a major problem.