SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I don't think anything regarding lying about "Devil's Triangle" or "boofing" is in play. Only lying about the assault. Which they will not prove because everything I hear this morning is the FBI is being handcuffed by the Trump administration regarding this investigation.

Republicans are playing a bit of sleight of hand here.

I also heard enough to indicate that the richer you are the more you identify with Kavanaugh. Apparently this is what rich white men do is go to prep school, molest women, and drink a lot of beer. And they don't like their high school party culture being exposed and they don't like their male heir's having to answer for it.

This gets swept under the rug by the end of the week and Kavanaugh goes through with Collins, Flake and Murkowski voting in the affirmative.

Uh the guy from Yale didnt talk about any of that (that was stuff from HS) the guy from Yale put out a public statement about being at parties with Brett Kavanaugh and him getting very drunk and belligerent including throwing a beer at someone and getting in a fight.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s, issued a statement saying the Supreme Court nominee was not truthful about his drinking. Here is the full statement. <a href="https://t.co/qw0XSniC31">https://t.co/qw0XSniC31</a></p>— The New York Times (@nytimes) <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1046693741073977344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


If this is true than Brett Kavanaugh lied to Congress...again.

As for whether rich people identify with him of course they do. They never deal with their consequences either. Problem is, as you know there are way less rich than there are poor

 

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

FWIW if all these new witnesses dont get heard by Wednesday they should go public. (and it sounds like plenty are coming out of the woodwork) Even better is they should (if they are being truthful) put it in an affidavit since it will be under oath. The WH and the Senate can tell the FBI not to ask questions and the FBI can stonewall...but once something is public it is public. If the middle man isnt doing his job (the FBI) then go right to the friggin source.

Just sitting on your hands isnt going to work, you need to pressure the hell out of the Senators every day until the vote.

Remember Flake didnt cause this situation because of anything Ford said, it was because of the woman at the elevator. If the FBI is asleep at the wheel then the Press and the People need to act. Tweet these stories at Flake and Collins and Murkoski (and email them, and if you are in town mail them or drop them off) every hour if you have to. The women who have been protesting since Ford went public need to keep up the pressure. If you dont trust the process to do what is right you make them look you in the eye when they shove the knife in. Its the only way...

 

[rufus]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Not investigating his drinking. Don McGahn saw to that.

So, for all intents and purposes, his drinking, and what he did while drinking, is null and void.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I just read this in an NY Post article:

Democrat Joe *Biden, head of the Judiciary Committee, set the rule in 1992 of no confirmations in the final year of a presidential term while George H.W. Bush was president.

Fact or crap?

It's technically not true as written. It is true though that in Spring 1992, coming on the heels of the contentious Thomas nomination in Fall '91, Biden gave a speech on the Senate floor saying that should a SC seat open, the President (GHWB) should not attempt to fill it until after the November election, arguing that it would overly politicize the process at the conventions and all the way to the Nov. Presidential election. Notably, he didn't say HW shouldn't nominate at all, but rather wait until after the national election was decided. As a practical matter however, had a seat indeed opened, and had HW complied with Biden's demand, (which is pretty doubtful in itself) it is hard to imagine D's seating HW's nominee in a lame duck session vs. getting Bill's nominee on the court, as obviously, "the people had spoken."

It is from this speech though, that R's coined the name "Biden rule" to help bolster their argument as to why they wouldn't seat Garland, who was nominated in the Spring of 2016.

 

[rufus]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I didn't watch the Flake Hero Hour last night, so I may be mistaken, but I read that what the women in the elevator said wasn't what caused him to hit pause. It was after that, where he got some emails and messages from women he knew, who told him their stories.

So once again, no issue is important to Republicans, until it effects them personally. Not health care, not sexual assault, nothing.

 

[unofan]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I just read this in an NY Post article:



Fact or crap?

Crap.

But it's kinda amazing how often you and Joe find crap like from the Post, or Fox, or the WSJ, and can't figure out that it's crap on your own. You just have to ask questions.

And the Biden rule thing is 2-year old crap at this point. You can't tell me you didn't hear about it during the Garland non-hearings.

 

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Not investigating his drinking. Don McGahn saw to that.

So, for all intents and purposes, his drinking, and what he did while drinking, is null and void.

Now I am hardly an expert, all I learned was from Republicans and their threats with Hillary but if it can be proven he lied to Congress cant he be charged with a crime? That would be a completely different matter than anything else.

If the New Yorker is right and the FBI is looking the other way then it is time the Left got more creative. You have til Friday, use it. Senate Democrats should talk in the Press every day reading emails from women and the stories about Kavanaugh and his lies. What would the GOP do here? Get all these witnesses under oath one way or another. Get them on tv, have press conferences. Dont let this rest until the vote. The Senate should be under siege up to and including the vote. Its time to go all in, put up or shut up. Standing on the sidelines with your hands in your pocket shrugging and whining makes you (not YOU but in general the People) part of the problem and accessory to all of this.

 

[Rover]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I didn't watch the Flake Hero Hour last night, so I may be mistaken, but I read that what the women in the elevator said wasn't what caused him to hit pause. It was after that, where he got some emails and messages from women he knew, who told him their stories.

So once again, no issue is important to Republicans, until it effects them personally. Not health care, not sexual assault, nothing.

May have been a combination of all that but I will give Flake credit here whatever his motives are. One website (buzzfeed maybe) posted the priceless reactions of the Goopers on the Judiciary committee when they received word that they had to delay the vote for a week. Pretty funny stuff.

Having said that, I think Flake is the deciding vote here. Purely for political reasons I can see Collins voting no to preserve her political future in the 2020 elections. That's all well and fine if every other Republican holds the line. Murkowski has more to lose than gain from Chump's wrath so I wouldn't count on her any. That means Flake who probably agrees with Kavanaugh's positions but hates Trump and has nothing to lose given that his political career is essentially dead.

 

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Crap.

But it's kinda amazing how often you and Joe find crap like from the Post, or Fox, or the WSJ, and can't figure out that it's crap on your own. You just have to ask questions.

And the Biden rule thing is 2-year old crap at this point. You can't tell me you didn't hear about it during the Garland non-hearings.

Quite a random coincidence isnt it. I also like when joe puts forth articles from British tabloids or the Washington Examiner

 

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

May have been a combination of all that but I will give Flake credit here whatever his motives are. One website (buzzfeed maybe) posted the priceless reactions of the Goopers on the Judiciary committee when they received word that they had to delay the vote for a week. Pretty funny stuff.

Having said that, I think Flake is the deciding vote here. Purely for political reasons I can see Collins voting no to preserve her political future in the 2020 elections. That's all well and fine if every other Republican holds the line. Murkowski has more to lose than gain from Chump's wrath so I wouldn't count on her any. That means Flake who probably agrees with Kavanaugh's positions but hates Trump and has nothing to lose given that his political career is essentially dead.

This is how I see it as well. Flake's gambit could only work if he was the deciding vote. The amount of emails and calls he must be getting at this point both from Senators and regular people must be crazy. I dont envy his staff right now...

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I believe he also said that if it is proven Kavanaugh lied the nomination is dead. The statement from his classmate at Yale seems to cast doubt on whether Brett was truthful...just saying.

If they show Kavanaugh outright knowingly lied to the SJC he should be off the DC Circuit.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Crap.

But it's kinda amazing how often you and Joe find crap like from the Post, or Fox, or the WSJ, and can't figure out that it's crap on your own. You just have to ask questions.

And the Biden rule thing is 2-year old crap at this point. You can't tell me you didn't hear about it during the Garland non-hearings.

Would you like a link to the Post article?

I'd think you'd be happy I'd ask and not just buy in blindly.

And why ask here? Because (a) it's a discussion forum and (b) there tends to be some pretty good explanations.

 

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Former FBI Director James Comey expressed his approval of the reopening of the bureau's background check into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, writing in a New York Times op-ed that the assigned deadline is "idiotic" <a href="https://t.co/Wr2F3Nx21U">https://t.co/Wr2F3Nx21U</a> <a href="https://t.co/WkAxEA0sQc">pic.twitter.com/WkAxEA0sQc</a></p>— CNN (@CNN) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1046774266811830274?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

This is how I see it as well. Flake's gambit could only work if he was the deciding vote. The amount of emails and calls he must be getting at this point both from Senators and regular people must be crazy. I dont envy his staff right now...

They're probably just letting it go to VM.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Didn't Donnelly also vote against tax theft and ACA repeal?

The tax bill vote took no guts since it was decided the way it was regardless of his vote. McCain's vote on Obamacare caught many off guard, so I'm not seeing much courage there either. This vote is still at least somewhat in the air, we are only weeks away from a very close Senate race and he is already stating his position. Before the Ford allegations became public knowledge I would have bet the farm he was going to vote to confirm him even though even absent the drunken frat boy sexual assault Kavanaugh has no business on the Supreme Court.

 

[Drew S.]

May have been a combination of all that but I will give Flake credit here whatever his motives are. One website (buzzfeed maybe) posted the priceless reactions of the Goopers on the Judiciary committee when they received word that they had to delay the vote for a week. Pretty funny stuff.

Having said that, I think Flake is the deciding vote here. Purely for political reasons I can see Collins voting no to preserve her political future in the 2020 elections. That's all well and fine if every other Republican holds the line. Murkowski has more to lose than gain from Chump's wrath so I wouldn't count on her any. That means Flake who probably agrees with Kavanaugh's positions but hates Trump and has nothing to lose given that his political career is essentially dead.

I don’t get the impression the average person cares a lot about this in Maine. Also, Collins will be 68 in 2020 and might decide not to run. I doubt she lets 2020 have much impact in her decision.

 

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Oh my god Jon Oliver killed it!

BTW having seen Brett's testimony again...I cant prove that it says "cry here for effect" at random points in his written testimony I just know it is true.

 

[Rover]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I don’t get the impression the average person cares a lot about this in Maine. Also, Collins will be 68 in 2020 and might decide not to run. I doubt she lets 2020 have much impact in her decision.

Collins is an opportunist and I'm sure she's running polls right now regarding her decision. Also, 68 is young for the Senate.

 

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

If Collins isnt running then she has no reason to not vote no. I guess I hope Drew is right

 

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Dershowitz: Kavanaugh is presumed guilty by Dems because he is a white man <a href="https://t.co/BAZBW0mIP6">https://t.co/BAZBW0mIP6</a> <a href="https://t.co/3gsA60h0w4">pic.twitter.com/3gsA60h0w4</a></p>— The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1046770986555781121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Wait what?