Spatial Ed

Kaven-No?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Actually, whatever the GOP does at this point will be inconsequential. Kavanaugh has given the Dems enough to initiate impeachment, and if they lack the votes to remove him in the Senate, the Dems can enlarge the court and pack it with liberals who will negate any decision he may make in the future.

What are you saying, BL?  That the Ds are going to change the rules to change the makeup of the SCOTUS?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I think the allegations of perjury can do him in, add his statement about not prosecuting a sitting president, something that would have undone him a few years ago. his position on torture is a disqualification as well. I'm sure there are more once we get a gander at all the un-released documents.

I don't think you listened to what he said about any of that.  What "position on torture"?  Did you read his answer when asked the question about "not prosecuting a sitting President"? Based upon your comment, I don't think so. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What are you saying, BL?  That the Ds are going to change the rules to change the makeup of the SCOTUS?  

they'd just be following the constitution which allows for impeachment of a Supreme Court justice. Indeed, one has been impeached before, though he was acquitted by the Senate.

If there's something that stinks, it's how much Republicans were willing to overplay the "great family guy card" wrt to Kavanaugh. You don't pack the audience with kids without reason, and imo, there's not much of a good reason for these kinds of props.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What are you saying, BL?  That the Ds are going to change the rules to change the makeup of the SCOTUS?  

I'm only saying that they could. I have no evidence that they will go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to be payback for denying Judge Roy Moore his Senate seat. The GOP is going to ram this so far up the ass of the Democrats, that they'll be smelling shit and GOP dick every time they sneeze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't think you listened to what he said about any of that.  What "position on torture"?  Did you read his answer when asked the question about "not prosecuting a sitting President"? Based upon your comment, I don't think so. 

 

Very little has been released of the documents of Kavanaugh's stay in the White House. We do know from that small amount of what has been released, that he misled when he said he was not involved with detainee issues at all. We clearly needed to learn more, but will not be allowed to by this Judiciary Committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I'm only saying that they could. I have no evidence that they will go there.

Thanks for clarifying, and if they get a majority, you're right, they COULD, but, I would much rather see the rules go back to where they previously stood rather than to change to furhter erode the minority's ability to impact legislation and appointments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Very little has been released of the documents of Kavanaugh's stay in the White House. We do know from that small amount of what has been released, that he misled when he said he was not involved with detainee issues at all. We clearly needed to learn more, but will not be allowed to by this Judiciary Committee.

I listened to and read transcripts of much of the hearings, and I came away with a different understanding.   I think that your opinion might be based more upon the opposition interpretation than the testimony itself - but, as they say, perception matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

they'd just be following the constitution which allows for impeachment of a Supreme Court justice. Indeed, one has been impeached before, though he was acquitted by the Senate.

If there's something that stinks, it's how much Republicans were willing to overplay the "great family guy card" wrt to Kavanaugh. You don't pack the audience with kids without reason, and imo, there's not much of a good reason for these kinds of props.

 

I think exposing kids to this kind of proceeding is entirely appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I listened to and read transcripts of much of the hearings, and I came away with a different understanding.   I think that your opinion might be based more upon the opposition interpretation than the testimony itself - but, as they say, perception matters. 

What percentage of previous records would need to be released in order to be able to fully evaluate the choices and decisions Kavanaugh has made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mike G said:

What percentage of previous records would need to be released in order to be able to fully evaluate the choices and decisions Kavanaugh has made?

I thnk all of 'em - but, as was mentioned during the confirmation hearings - there are several orders of magnitude more documentary history that were admitted into the hearings for Judge Kavanaugh than for any other nominee in history.   Is the intent of the hearings to establish the character & suitability of the nominee, or to perform an anal cavity search looking for a disqualifying polyp?  

IMHO, the confirmation process has become so personally intrusive, so much more about finding something for the opposition to spin, that I think that many potential nominees who'd be excellent in the position ( not just SCOTUS ) that are disinclined to accept a nomination because they don't want to endure the shitshow of the confirmation hearings.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it essential that he be seated immediately? There was a 400 day vacancy after Scalia died.... Why the rush to seat Kavanaugh when Kennedy only retired in late July?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard that Republicans have set for examining a potential Supreme Court Justice will turn to great angst and disgust when Democrats do the same to appoint a 28 year old Latina to the Supreme Court. Maybe fairplay should be the standard and honest examination should rule the day? This game-playing will undo us faster than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Is it essential that he be seated immediately? There was a 400 day vacancy after Scalia died.... Why the rush to seat Kavanaugh when Kennedy only retired in late July?

A_Guy would lament that the delay happened, but now we should all just go-along-to-get-along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I thnk all of 'em - but, as was mentioned during the confirmation hearings - there are several orders of magnitude more documentary history that were admitted into the hearings for Judge Kavanaugh than for any other nominee in history.   Is the intent of the hearings to establish the character & suitability of the nominee, or to perform an anal cavity search looking for a disqualifying polyp? 

Maybe that comes with nominating someone who was a political animal for decades generating reams of documentary evidence to his perfidy?

Has anyone explained how Kavanaugh made $60-200k of debt vanish between May of 2017 and July of 2018? I'm still baffled at that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Maybe that comes with nominating someone who was a political animal for decades generating reams of documentary evidence to his perfidy?

Exactly.  That's why you don't nominate team players, who your side loves and the other side hates.  You nominate people who have pissed everyone off at one time or another, because they follow the Constitution instead of a party.  Even the people you like are supposed to piss you off time and again, look at Roberts and his vote on SocialismCare.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I thnk all of 'em - but, as was mentioned during the confirmation hearings - there are several orders of magnitude more documentary history that were admitted into the hearings for Judge Kavanaugh than for any other nominee in history.   Is the intent of the hearings to establish the character & suitability of the nominee, or to perform an anal cavity search looking for a disqualifying polyp?  

IMHO, the confirmation process has become so personally intrusive, so much more about finding something for the opposition to spin, that I think that many potential nominees who'd be excellent in the position ( not just SCOTUS ) that are disinclined to accept a nomination because they don't want to endure the shitshow of the confirmation hearings.   

You think they all should be released, but Grassley says it's 7%.  Then they dumped 42k more at the 12th hour.  

And they're not releasing a 35 month period that Kavanaugh himself called “among the most interesting and most formative”

 

It's obvious they're hiding something.  And it's obvious that they're pushing this forward because of the upcoming election.

Dirty Pool.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

Has anyone explained how Kavanaugh made $60-200k of debt vanish between May of 2017 and July of 2018? I'm still baffled at that one.

He paid it off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merrick Garland is an example of the right type of nomination.  The hard left was not happy about him.  

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/merrick-garland-supreme-court-progressives-220882

And nobody on the right was going to give him so much as an interview because of who nominated him.  

 

I will be interested in seeing the sworn testimony on this, and if anyone asks Judge K if there are any other incidents that we need to know about.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mike G said:

You think they all should be released, but Grassley says it's 7%.  Then they dumped 42k more at the 12th hour.  

And they're not releasing a 35 month period that Kavanaugh himself called “among the most interesting and most formative”

 

It's obvious they're hiding something.  And it's obvious that they're pushing this forward because of the upcoming election.

Dirty Pool.

Like my Daddy used to say - "if you're looking for a reason to be pissed off, you'll usually get what you're after"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:

How do you do that when all you earn is $209,000?

Out of savings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mike G said:

You think they all should be released, but Grassley says it's 7%.  Then they dumped 42k more at the 12th hour.  

And they're not releasing a 35 month period that Kavanaugh himself called “among the most interesting and most formative”

 

It's obvious they're hiding something.  And it's obvious that they're pushing this forward because of the upcoming election.

Dirty Pool.

A group of women who went to Christine Blasey Ford’s high school are circulating a letter to show support for the woman who has alleged that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh tried to sexually assault her while they were in high school.

“We believe Dr. Blasey Ford and are grateful that she came forward to tell her story,” says a draft letter from alumnae of Holton-Arms, a private girls school in Bethesda, Maryland. “It demands a thorough and independent investigation before the Senate can reasonably vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

Great! Then why haven't we seen proof of that?

I don't know that anyone asked for it. I was responding to Jiblet who doesn't understand how debt can be discharged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Out of savings?

per his disclosure, he didn't have enough saved to cover the debt. so - dog, lying sack of shit trying to distract - how do you discharge debt with money you don't have when you aren't earning that much (comparatively) and you are spending lots of it? Like $80-100k for a country club membership lots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

I don't know that anyone asked for it. I was responding to Jiblet who doesn't understand how debt can be discharged.

Apparently he does. See#227

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

per his disclosure, he didn't have enough saved to cover the debt.

What was his debt ($60 - $200) is a broad range) and what was his savings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

What was his debt ($60 - $200) is a broad range) and what was his savings?

Debt $60-200k, savings/investments disclosed as $30-75k. It baffled other people back in the past too https://www.marketwatch.com/story/brett-kavanaugh-has-saved-almost-nothing-so-does-he-actually-understand-business-2018-07-11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Debt $60-200k, savings/investments disclosed as $30-75k. It baffled other people back in the past too https://www.marketwatch.com/story/brett-kavanaugh-has-saved-almost-nothing-so-does-he-actually-understand-business-2018-07-11

If  his income was $209K per BL then he earned $244K in the time period you cite. And if his debt was $60K he could pay it off out of earnings and have $184,000 to get by on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

If  his income was $209K per BL then he earned $244K in the time period you cite. And if his debt was $60K he could pay it off out of earnings and have 180,000 to get by on.

Dog forgets about taxation when it's convenient for him.

anyways, this was just a little dog-sideshow, now back to the main ring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Dog forgets about taxation when it's convenient for him.

No I didn't. People do manage to get by on less than $184,000 gross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh will not get a vote this week:

 

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump on Monday praised Judge Brett Kavanaugh as "one of the finest people that I've ever known" in his first public comments since the Supreme Court nominee was publicly accused of sexual assault, and he criticized Democrats for not releasing information about the allegation sooner.

While he heaped praise on his nominee, Trump said he supports going "through a full process"to "hear everybody out" on the matter and accepted the possibility that Kavanaugh's nomination could be delayed as a result.
"Judge Kavanaugh is one of the finest people that I've ever known. He's an outstanding intellect, an outstanding judge, respected by everybody. Never had even a little blemish on his record," the President said. "If it takes a little delay, it'll take a little delay. It shouldn't, certainly, be very much."
"It will, I'm sure, work out very well," Trump added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White House sources: FBI is being blocked from vetting Kavanaugh sexual assault claims because Trump won’t order it 

17 Sep 2018 at 15:49 ET 


President Donald Trump’s administration reportedly has not asked the FBI to vet accusations that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a girl while in high school. 

Two sources told Bloomberg News on Monday that the White House has not given a green light for the FBI to investigate Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations that Kavanaugh groped and assaulted her. The sources said that the FBI can not move forward with an investigation without the permission of the White House. 
.................................... 

“The FBI is basically working for the White House,” Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund President Ronald Hosko explained to Bloomberg. “Their job is to dig into the details and let the White House counsel know if there is derogatory information.” 

................................. 
Trump, on Monday, was asked if he would withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination. 

“What a ridiculous question,” the president replied........................................

Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/white-house-sources-fbi-blocked-vetting-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-trump-wont-order/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

If Democrats had concerns about this matter they should have been aired during the hearings. Pulling a disgraceful stunt like this days before the vote is a corruption of the system and the country is worse off for it. That said and given where the Democrats have put us I think it best that the hearings be reopened to have her testify and be subjected to questioning.

We should not forget however that allegations are cheap and in these circumstances even a false and contrived allegation can be used to political advantage. We should also take steps to head off these kind of tactics in the future.

I thought the treatment of Garland was wrong but given the toxic atmosphere in Washington I'm starting to think it was humane.

Thanks for your answer. I think that it should be tag team testimony - Kavanaugh and his bud from back in the day and the woman and her shrink. Lets get it all out on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The San Francisco Cronicle weighs in....

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s treatment of a more than 3-decade-old sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was unfair all around. It was unfair to Kavanaugh, unfair to his accuser and unfair to Feinstein’s colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Feinstein, a California Democrat, took the worst possible course by waiting until almost a week after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing was completed to ominously announce that she had turned over “information from an individual” about Kavanaugh to the FBI, and adding that she would be honoring the woman’s “strongly requested” confidentiality.

Feinstein has been around Washington long enough to know that her opaque statement guaranteed that the contents of the letter, sent by a Stanford law professor on behalf of the accuser, would be pursued and publicized in short order. And they were…

In concealing the accusation she had received in July, according to reports, Feinstein did a disservice to her Judiciary Committee colleagues, who might have wanted to determine if corroborating accounts were available, or at least question Kavanaugh about the accusation in a closed session.

Instead, Feinstein’s colleagues were left in the dark".

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-A-disturbing-11th-hour-allegation-13230890.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

The San Francisco Cronicle weighs in....

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s treatment of a more than 3-decade-old sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was unfair all around. It was unfair to Kavanaugh, unfair to his accuser and unfair to Feinstein’s colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Feinstein, a California Democrat, took the worst possible course by waiting until almost a week after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing was completed to ominously announce that she had turned over “information from an individual” about Kavanaugh to the FBI, and adding that she would be honoring the woman’s “strongly requested” confidentiality.

Feinstein has been around Washington long enough to know that her opaque statement guaranteed that the contents of the letter, sent by a Stanford law professor on behalf of the accuser, would be pursued and publicized in short order. And they were…

In concealing the accusation she had received in July, according to reports, Feinstein did a disservice to her Judiciary Committee colleagues, who might have wanted to determine if corroborating accounts were available, or at least question Kavanaugh about the accusation in a closed session.

Instead, Feinstein’s colleagues were left in the dark".

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-A-disturbing-11th-hour-allegation-13230890.php

If they were left 'in the dark' how did they generate 65 letters in just a couple of days?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice"

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sean said:

 

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice"

Of course the American people should...but not the democRATS.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Snore said:

First this is WTF is wrong with Congress.  Instead of releasing this in a timely manner and let the FBI investigate- they grandstand it for political mileage— f’n leaches.

 

Second, what moves the accusation  from a he-said, she-said situation is supporting information.  

1)  she has no one saying that she told them about it when they were kids.  This is something  I CAN understand, as she may have been so upset she did not tell anyone.

2) the therapist from 2012’s notes.   And the ability to investigate the second item has been tainted by the D’s Decision to grandstand the release of the information.  

Sure would be nice if the assholes could put Country before party!

  

So... is this sort of like the Republicans withholding tens of thousands of pages of information on Kavenaugh until the night before the hearings?  Or does the pendulum of truth only swing in one direction on your planet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dog said:

The San Francisco Cronicle weighs in....

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s treatment of a more than 3-decade-old sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was unfair all around. It was unfair to Kavanaugh, unfair to his accuser and unfair to Feinstein’s colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Feinstein, a California Democrat, took the worst possible course by waiting until almost a week after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing was completed to ominously announce that she had turned over “information from an individual” about Kavanaugh to the FBI, and adding that she would be honoring the woman’s “strongly requested” confidentiality.

Feinstein has been around Washington long enough to know that her opaque statement guaranteed that the contents of the letter, sent by a Stanford law professor on behalf of the accuser, would be pursued and publicized in short order. And they were…

In concealing the accusation she had received in July, according to reports, Feinstein did a disservice to her Judiciary Committee colleagues, who might have wanted to determine if corroborating accounts were available, or at least question Kavanaugh about the accusation in a closed session.

Instead, Feinstein’s colleagues were left in the dark".

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-A-disturbing-11th-hour-allegation-13230890.php

And you're the second person I'll say the same thing to.  Did you scream when tens of thousands of documents were withheld until the night before the hearings began.... or is fairness and truth dependent on party affiliation for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grrr... said:

And you're the second person I'll say the same thing to.  Did you scream when tens of thousands of documents were withheld until the night before the hearings began.... or is fairness and truth dependent on party affiliation for you?

That's a silly question. You're talking to Dog, not someone with honour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could be interesting -

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/17/cyrus-sanai-federal-court-employees-attempted-to-come-forward-to-chuck-grassley-and-dianne-feinstein-neither-responded/

Excerpt -

THE TOP REPUBLICAN and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee were both approached in July by an attorney claiming to have information relevant to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The attorney claimed in his letter that multiple employees of the federal judiciary would be willing to speak to investigators, but received no reply to multiple attempts to make contact, he told The Intercept.

Cyrus Sanai made his first attempt to reach out to Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in a letter dated July 24.

Sanai told the committee leadership that “there are persons who work for, or who have worked for, the federal judiciary who have important stories to tell about disgraced former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and his mentee, current United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I know that there are people who wish to speak out but fear retaliation because I have been contacted by more than a half-dozen such persons since Judge Kozinski resigned in disgrace.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sean said:

This could be interesting -

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/17/cyrus-sanai-federal-court-employees-attempted-to-come-forward-to-chuck-grassley-and-dianne-feinstein-neither-responded/

Excerpt -

THE TOP REPUBLICAN and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee were both approached in July by an attorney claiming to have information relevant to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The attorney claimed in his letter that multiple employees of the federal judiciary would be willing to speak to investigators, but received no reply to multiple attempts to make contact, he told The Intercept.

Cyrus Sanai made his first attempt to reach out to Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in a letter dated July 24.

Sanai told the committee leadership that “there are persons who work for, or who have worked for, the federal judiciary who have important stories to tell about disgraced former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and his mentee, current United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I know that there are people who wish to speak out but fear retaliation because I have been contacted by more than a half-dozen such persons since Judge Kozinski resigned in disgrace.”

It's almost as if we need a Committee to investigate the Committee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dog said:

The San Francisco Cronicle weighs in....

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s treatment of a more than 3-decade-old sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was unfair all around. It was unfair to Kavanaugh, unfair to his accuser and unfair to Feinstein’s colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Feinstein, a California Democrat, took the worst possible course by waiting until almost a week after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing was completed to ominously announce that she had turned over “information from an individual” about Kavanaugh to the FBI, and adding that she would be honoring the woman’s “strongly requested” confidentiality.

Feinstein has been around Washington long enough to know that her opaque statement guaranteed that the contents of the letter, sent by a Stanford law professor on behalf of the accuser, would be pursued and publicized in short order. And they were…

In concealing the accusation she had received in July, according to reports, Feinstein did a disservice to her Judiciary Committee colleagues, who might have wanted to determine if corroborating accounts were available, or at least question Kavanaugh about the accusation in a closed session.

Instead, Feinstein’s colleagues were left in the dark".

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-A-disturbing-11th-hour-allegation-13230890.php

Imagine someone here defending Feinstein. Imagine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

And you're the second person I'll say the same thing to.  Did you scream when tens of thousands of documents were withheld until the night before the hearings began.... or is fairness and truth dependent on party affiliation for you?

No, I don't believe I commented on that but I will point out that providing information in advance of the hearings provided at least 4 days before the close of hearings to raise any issues and as such is preferable to providing information after the hearings have been closed.

How many people have you questioned who screamed about the late provision of documents just prior to the start of hearings but are silent on the timing of the disclosure of this accusation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PredictIt has gone from about a 10% chance of Kavanaugh getting 49 or less votes, to just about 50/50. In the last 24 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

per his disclosure, he didn't have enough saved to cover the debt. so - dog, lying sack of shit trying to distract - how do you discharge debt with money you don't have when you aren't earning that much (comparatively) and you are spending lots of it? Like $80-100k for a country club membership lots.

Probably the same way I did - Close family member dies and there is an inheritance.  By the way did anyone happen to ask him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Imagine someone here defending Feinstein. Imagine!

Imagine someone here accused others of defending Feinstein. Imagine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

How many people have you questioned who screamed about the late provision of documents just prior to the start of hearings but are silent on the timing of the disclosure of this accusation?

She sent her letter to Anna Eshoo on July 30th. Is that so late? He was only nominated by Shitstain on July 9th.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/13/brett-kavanaugh-letter-dianne-feinstein-anna-eshoo-fbi/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

Probably the same way I did - Close family member dies and there is an inheritance.  By the way did anyone happen to ask him?

That's not his answer, but I'm glad I gave you a chance to bullshit. Shut up drunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

No....So why did Feinstein sit on it until after the hearings closed?

Probably to have max impact, and get back at the games being played by Republicans.

Looks like it worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Probably to have max impact, and get back at the games being played by Republicans.

Looks like it worked.

Hearing upended, an act of pure genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

No....So why did Feinstein sit on it until after the hearings closed?

The letter wasn’t addressed to Feinstein but rather the writer’s Critter, Anna Eshoo. It came to light on September 12. Feinstein was pressured into releasing it at all. She’s probably right of Jeff Flake and would have almost certainly voted to confirm.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article218542315.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fun part for me is that both sides will be ... wait for it ... UNDER OATH!!!!!!!!!!  Yeah that's the ticket. I was kinda sorta thinking K was already under oath. No?

The punch bowl is getting drained, turd by turd. Everyone feeding on the govt teats should be routinely polygraphed imo starting by seniority anyway.

Most folks can't fool a polygraph. Rewarding rather than persecuting whistle blowers would root out the genuine psychopaths who can.

We'd have to do this slowly, otherwise we wouldn't have a quorum.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, albanyguy said:

Bent - does this standard apply to Bill Shorten? ;)

Yes. It applies to everyone. Never defended nor voted for the guy either. Not exactly sure why you thought that would be a "gotcha", but keep fishing.

You'd think the whole "but he was such a nice guy" routine the yanks trot out would have died with the whole Bill Cosby thing. :rolleyes: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

The fun part for me is that both sides will be ... wait for it ... UNDER OATH!!!!!!!!!!  Yeah that's the ticket. I was kinda sorta thinking K was already under oath. No?

The punch bowl is getting drained, turd by turd. Everyone feeding on the govt teats should be routinely polygraphed imo starting by seniority anyway.

Most folks can't fool a polygraph. Rewarding rather than persecuting whistle blowers would root out the genuine psychopaths who can.

We'd have to do this slowly, otherwise we wouldn't have a quorum.

 

 

Agreed.  K was under oath during his hearings, but not when issuing his categorical denial.  Swear them in and let them provide answers.  

The more I read what she alleges, the less this looks like childhood stuff.  She is describing a crime of violence.  Whoever is lying needs to be publicly hammered, and relieved of the capacity to ever exercise any power over other people ever again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will defend Feinstein.

After what seems like forever and a day, the Democrats have freaking FINALLY realized they have been bringing plastic cutlery to a gunfight and she decided to totally forget about doing the "right" thing and time it for maximum damage and disruption. As the Rs would have FOR FUCKING SURE if they were in the same position.

General warning to Rs - Getting Trump in there and stealing a Supreme Court nomination was some great work, but you just may have Pearl Harbored yourselves and woken some people up. We shall see...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Conterpoint - you would indeed do that if you knew in advance that the oppostion was going to paint the nominee as a mysoginistic SOB intent on overtunring Roe V Wade, and you wanted to highlight the nominee's professional history of promoting equality and fairness in the workplace. 

You don't go back to high school year colleagues for that. What fifty three year old nominated to SCOTUS thought about Roe vs Wade in high school is irrelevant and the GOP are not that stupid that they'd present to the public girls that knew him in high school to talk about his teenage views.

That's the thing that makes their ability to immediately counter the accusation suspect. What he thought and how he acted in high school is not something you'd prepare to deal with, unless you were already aware of an issue there. His views on women in high school aren't going to convince people that he is for or against Roe vs Wade... but oddly enough he didn't rape lots of women that knew him then, and they're conveniently lined up ready to release a letter stating that. That's extremely odd and the only reason this looks like more than politically motivated shit slinging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to derail a good thread but the power these critters have could be somewhat curtailed with:

Term Limits! 

Can I get a fucking AMEN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Agreed.  K was under oath during his hearings, but not when issuing his categorical denial.  Swear them in and let them provide answers.  

His categorical denial was caveated with "as an adult"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/kavanaugh-denies-making-unwanted-sexual-advances-as-an-adult/2018/09/16/137a19b6-b9db-11e8-adb8-01125416c102_video.html?utm_term=.27dd8f087af4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue Crab said:

Not to derail a good thread but the power these critters have could be somewhat curtailed with:

Term Limits! 

Can I get a fucking AMEN?

that just gives the aides & K-street more power. the power to curtail rests solely with the voters so be educated and get out and vote.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

That one was during a hearing, so he was sworn.  There's another from the last couple of days, since this accusation came out, with him speaking out about it.  

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5835049718001/?#sp=show-clips

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

And people wonder why we see smoke around this. Weasel wording denials under oath and preprepared testimonials of good standing for how a fifty-three year old acted in high school. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

And people wonder why we see smoke around this. Weasel wording denials under oath and preprepared testimonials of good standing for how a fifty-three year old acted in high school. 

Shit, Kavanaugh knew this was coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

FTFY

which begs the question - because he got access to the Dem talking points like he illegally did in the past, or because he thought someone would bring up Bart o'kavanaughs dissolute past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As an adult"............was this language ever used anyplace else - EVER?

I am thinking the Rs knew damn well what was coming and hoped to be quick enough to get ahead of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kavan-NOPE!

He won't get a vote.   In the #metoo movement, right before the mid-terms, this is toxic.  Women are paying attention.  Toss this shitbag into the heap of Trump toxic waste.  Candyman, the Mooch, etc. etc. etc.  KavanWho?

I do love how the democRats played this.  Brilliant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Not to derail a good thread but the power these critters have could be somewhat curtailed with:

Term Limits! 

Can I get a fucking AMEN?

Not from me. I think voters need to be held more accountable and to that point, I have a modest proposal.

In Europe, but not in the US, if your team sucks then they get relegated. Maybe from Series A, The Show, down to series B, regional theater. Not only do the players and the owners suffer but the fans get raked over as well. But if you win in Series B you can get promoted.

So I propose that if your Critter gets arrested and convicted then y'all lose your congressional district vote. Don't like it? Pay more attention and don't vote for charlatans. I could imagine that Greater San Diego would be without Congressional representation for long stretches of time.

Promotion is a little harder. Maybe relegation is like a prison sentence for a certain number of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Not from me. I think voters need to be held more accountable and to that point, I have a modest proposal.

In Europe, but not in the US, if your team sucks then they get relegated. Maybe from Series A, The Show, down to series B, regional theater. Not only do the players and the owners suffer but the fans get raked over as well. But if you win in Series B you can get promoted.

So I propose that if your Critter gets arrested and convicted then y'all lose your congressional district vote. Don't like it? Pay more attention and don't vote for charlatans. I could imagine that Greater San Diego would be without Congressional representation for long stretches of time.

Promotion is a little harder. Maybe relegation is like a prison sentence for a certain number of years.

Congressional office doors would have signs similar to OSHA placards.  "This district has been conviction free for 467 days."  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

And people wonder why we see smoke around this. Weasel wording denials under oath and preprepared testimonials of good standing for how a fifty-three year old acted in high school. 

Mazie Hirono (D) asked him the question and specified the 'as an adult' condition.  His answer was only 'yes' or 'no'.  In this case 'no'.

This suggests either Hirono knew about the letter and was intentionally trying to protect him from perjury (for some reason) or she was just asking canned questions (which is what it sounded like as she was clearly reading from notes).

The weasel words - as spoken in the video - were hers, not his.  I think the argument that he was dodging a secret past as a minor would be more compelling if the question were asked by a Republican.

FWIW, i think both Kavanaugh and Hirono knew the allegation was out there and would come up later.  Hirono said she asked that of every nominee and it would have looked weird if she didn't ask it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mrs. K has to know, deep down, whether or not Mr.K could have done this. She's lived with him and has bound to have seen some signs along the way. I predict she's the weak link here and will cave in before next week. K will then bow out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Congressional office doors would have signs similar to OSHA placards.  "This district has been conviction free for 467 days."  

Ouch 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Mrs. K has to know, deep down, whether or not Mr.K could have done this. She's lived with him and has bound to have seen some signs along the way. I predict she's the weak link here and will cave in before next week. K will then bow out.

Kavannope has written a book on his alcohol abuse and addiction from this time period.  He knows he was capable of this assault.  May have even told the GOP about it.  Why did they try to hide it?  Why did they have 65 women lined up to refute it?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

Not to derail a good thread but the power these critters have could be somewhat curtailed with:

Term Limits! 

Can I get a fucking AMEN?

And the congregation rose and said—— “Fucking Amen Rev!!”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Kavannope has written a book on his alcohol abuse and addiction from this time period.  He knows he was capable of this assault.  May have even told the GOP about it.  Why did they try to hide it?

 

Gotta be biz as usual in DC but the times are achangin. And not a moment too soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Sen. Collins says that if he lied about sexual assault it would be disqualifying.  (Strong stand!) https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/407095-collins-if-kavanaugh-lied-that-would-be-disqualifying

 

Considering Kavanno's addiction problem at the time, the story of the accuser is very believable.  If he lies about this, he's toast.  Gone.  Adios.  May even lose his fed judgeship.  Karma is a bitch.  #MeToo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, this just a case boys being boys.  The fact the two boys (17 years old) in the room were intoxicated relieves them of the charge of sexual assault on a 15 year old.  She didn't report it for fuck's sake!  Its a free pass man!  Ok, @Shootist Jeff, I tried to channel you.  But with your rape fantasies you repeat here, it seems like your take on this.  @Shootist Jeff, if you came into the room and saw KavanNo dry humping your 15 year old daughter, would it be a clean shoot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Considering Kavanno's addiction problem at the time, the story of the accuser is very believable.  If he lies about this, he's toast.  Gone.  Adios.  May even lose his fed judgeship.  Karma is a bitch.  #MeToo

 

If one of them gets caught lying, they should lose their career.  If he claims he was not there, and another witness says that he was, he should be disbarred. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

If one of them gets caught lying, they should lose their career.  If he claims he was not there, and another witness says that he was, he should be disbarred. 

Lying under oath can have consequences, right?  Even for republicans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Look, this just a case boys being boys.  The fact the two boys (17 years old) in the room were intoxicated relieves them of the charge of sexual assault on a 15 year old.  She didn't report it for fuck's sake!  Its a free pass man!  Ok, @Shootist Jeff, I tried to channel you.  But with your rape fantasies you repeat here, it seems like your take on this.  @Shootist Jeff, if you came into the room and saw KavanNo dry humping your 15 year old daughter, would it be a clean shoot?

Short Jeff has posted rape fantasies here?

Creepyyyyyyyy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites