Ford - Kavanaugh Hearings 9-27-18

a reply to: Wayfarer

The Lewinski scandal was a farce. It was two consenting adults, even though one of those adults was the POTUS.

You are barking up the wrong tree in reference to that. I thought the attacks on Bill Clinton (who was a decent President, good economy, moderate, etc) were disgusting and despicable.

the idea that Democrats are the party of sex-crazed obsession?

You're right, it is more so the MSM/pundits obsessing with sex issues vs. the democrats themselves. The democrats are equal opportunity attackers, not just sex accusations (That was In jest)

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

No, that's not how things played out - see above
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Appreciate you taking the time to cross-link that for easy viewing.

I'm not saying the Democrats didn't want to stop all Republican nominations if they could, but rather that they couldn't regardless of desire. They knew just as well as McConnell knew that they held no power/cards in the dynamic, and all they could do is complain about it. Their efforts to stop Kavanaugh arise from the downballot benefits in the midterms and 2020 election relating to public perception/outrage over whats transpired. The fact that McConnell could have pulled Kavanaugh and put an equal facsimile in his place without any dirt to be dredged up is puzzling to me if not but for the fact that Kavanaugh has admitted he believes Trump should be above the law and beyond any investigation whatsoever, which both shores up any potential Mueller report fallout for the Republican Senators, but also potential keeps them in power just that much longer if they remove (an albeit slight) chance of Trump getting some bad indictments dropped in his lap because of the report.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

Not quite right - almost.
Sequence of events was..
- Scalia dies all of a sudden, suffocating himself with his own pillow.
- McConnell says that no nominee will be brought to the floor
- Obama nominated someone anyway - which he is entitled to do.
- McConnell didn't bring it to the floor, like he said - which he is entitled to do.

It's also not the first time that Congress intentionally ignored a Supreme Court nomination and allowed it to lapse, either.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Majic
a reply to: vor78

They let the Republicans have Gorsuch, but another seat is a bridge too far.

Hence the banzai charges.

They're really gonna be crapping bricks when Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies. I daresay that nobody who has seen her talk recently thinks that day is far off.

I hear some rumors about one more that has cancer and isn't one of the Conservative Justices and it isn't RBG.

Under control but not completely treatable.

a reply to: Grambler

The dems opened themselves up for Garland by being partisan and setting this in motion with the Biden rule. Both parties need to stop it, moreso the Democrats, but neither has clean hands.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Wayfarer

The Lewinski scandal was a farce. It was two consenting adults, even though one of those adults was the POTUS.

You are barking up the wrong tree in reference to that. I thought the attacks on Bill Clinton (who was a decent President, good economy, moderate, etc) were disgusting and despicable.

As did I.



But that wont stop the left from holding you accountable for their imagined cartoon view of 'deplorables'.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer


- McConnell didn't bring it to the floor, like he said - which he is entitled to do.

He is entitled to do it insomuch as you are I are entitled to go to work and not do our jobs (except in his case nobody can fire him). I'm not sure I'd use that as some paragon of procedural masterwork rather than just flatly taking advantage of being untouchable to flaunt their disregard for what the constitution says they are beholden to.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

No prosecutor would bring this case.
There is no evidence.
With that in mind, one would have to be crazy to punish the accused.

This is not a trial, it is a job interview for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
Testimony is evidence.
With that in mind, whoever is misremembering, Kavenaugh has disqualified himself by demonstrating his very serious rage, self-pitying and severe entitlement issues.
"Punish the accused"..Do people that interview for lifetime appointments to arguably the most prestigious position in the land get "punished" when they are NOT given the position?
THAT is what "entitlement" means.

He had a massive angry tantrum on national TV like toddler, Tears and all, that he had to answer accusations before being given what he wants.

AND his false indignation about having to answer questions about sex is RIDICULOUS.

Kavenaugh was the one who DEMANDED THESE questions to be asked of President of The United States:

If Monica Lewinsky says that you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the
Oval Ofiice area, would she be lying?
If Monica Lewinsky says that you had phone sex with her on approximately 15 occasions,
would she be lying?
If Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your
fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?
If Monica Lewinsky says that she gave you oral sex on nine occasions in the Oval Office
area, would she be lying?
If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval
Office area, would she be lying?
If Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions you had her give her oral sex, made her
stop, and then ejaculated into the sink in the bathroom ofi” the Oval Office, would she be lying?
If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary's office,
would she by lying?

int.nyt.com...=1

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Grambler

The dems opened themselves up for Garland by being partisan and setting this in motion with the Biden rule. Both parties need to stop it, moreso the Democrats, but neither has clean hands.

Why do you think it would be any different? If Democrats had waited to try and block Kavanaugh's vote Republican's would have done away with the 60 vote rule at this point anyways, and nothing about the outcome would have changed from what we have now.

a reply to: Wayfarer

potential Mueller report fallout

This is what started all the nonsense. There isn't going to be any fallout, because Trump didn't do anything wrong with Russia. And there is no concern of any "obstruction" since the President is directly charged with supervising the DOJ/FBI and his attorney general (which is a political appointment).

Perhaps you now see the major complaints about overreaching federal laws (vs. federal protection of our Constitutional rights) - they are all political. If you really think about it, all laws are political.

I guess this has all exposed some serious design flaws

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

No prosecutor would bring this case.
There is no evidence.
With that in mind, one would have to be crazy to punish the accused.

This is not a trial, it is a job interview...

Did you ever have a job interview where your potential employer labeled you a 'Serial Gang Rapist'?

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Garland was nominated and McConnell refused to do his constitutionally assigned job of voting on him (which is the same thing as usurping the power of SC assignments).

That is a matter of debate, as explained in detail in the link I provided.

We are, of course, entitled to our opinions, but there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution specifying a time frame for confirmation hearings. Indeed, there are any number of reasons why hearings may be delayed, as the current debacle so poignantly illustrates.

The least creative assessment is that the Senate may decide whether to hold hearings at all or simply allow a nomination to expire, as it did in the case of Garland.

Anything beyond that would require a usurpation of Senate powers, which is an option not provided for in the Constitution.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Wayfarer

potential Mueller report fallout

This is what started all the nonsense. There isn't going to be any fallout, because Trump didn't do anything wrong with Russia. And there is no concern of any "obstruction" since the President is directly charged with supervising the DOJ/FBI and his attorney general (which is a political appointment).

Perhaps you now see the major complaints about overreaching federal laws (vs. federal protection of our Constitutional rights) - they are all political. If you really think about it, all laws are political.

I guess this has all exposed some serious design flaws

I think you're likely correct that nothing will happen to Trump vis-a-vis Mueller's report, but neither you nor I conclusively know that, and neither do Senate Democrats or Republicans.

a reply to: IAMTAT

originally posted by: IAMTAT

Did you ever have a job interview where your potential employer labeled you a 'Serial Gang Rapist'?

Or where if you don't get the job, your entire reputation and life will be destroyed.

This 'job interview' nonsense is beyond inane. What the hell is wrong with people?

Cory Booker is embarrassing himself again! His foolishness makes me cringe!

a reply to: Wayfarer

neither you nor I conclusively know that, and neither do Senate Democrats or Republicans.

Agreed

(that explains why they still wield it as a club to whack one another over the head with)

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

No prosecutor would bring this case.
There is no evidence.
With that in mind, one would have to be crazy to punish the accused.

This is not a trial, it is a job interview...

Did you ever have a job interview where your potential employer labeled you a 'Serial Gang Rapist'?

I have never hired an employee that was accused of being a serial gang rapist.
But if they were, I am sure as hell going to ask about it and investigate before offering anyone a position.

a reply to: loam

I can't understand it either loam! Some folks are very cavalier about destroying somebody's life/career, their family or their reputation

I have no doubt those same people, if facing those kind of allegations, would be the first ones screaming for due process/presumptive innocence

Spartacus has spoken, let's all kneel in respect!

We're not worthy of this man's divine wisdom.

a reply to: soberbacchus

He was not credibly accused of being a serial gang rapist.

The accuser in this instance claims to have voluntarily returned to that location (for subsequent "gang rape") over a dozen times over the span of 2 years. No person behaves that way, in reality.

Those allegations were so non-credible that even democrats wouldn't bring them up. On the bright side, Avenatti's nonsense has been exposed. He is the least credible of them all - and exactly how most of us knew for a fact something sneaky was going on. As soon as the likes of Avenatti, Allred, Davis (etc) get involved, you can be certain there is a conspiracy afoot.