Page 47 of 101

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 7:46 am
by Bandito
Andersen wrote:I was truly amazed yesterday that a bolt of lightning didn't come down and strike Kavanaugh when he was talking about his yearbook page. What a shameless liar!
Because he was tellig the truth. What goes around comes around for the idiot Democrats. Kav will be the next SCOTUS for LIFE. TRUMP IS YOUR PRESIDENT SUCK IT

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 7:50 am
by RedFromMI
jhu72 wrote:Mark Judge sent a letter to Grassley tonight. Essentially saying the same thing his lawyer did, but in it Judge is swearing under penalty of perjury. :roll:
Turns out the "penalty of perjury" part is not true - it is a letter signed by his (Judge's) lawyer...

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:24 am
by youthathletics
After sleeping on it last night and absorbing both testimonies it becomes challenging to "judge" the outcome for a modicum of reasons. So many things happened that our mind attempts to process them all, but the chronology of them can cause a cyclical loop trying to move forward and reflect backwards, in order to make a decision. This is how I see it, at this time.

Feinstein - She royally eff'd up, big time, and she is the the direct reason this all is happening. She could have brought this up when they met 1v1, planted the seed in BK's mind and he may have went off quietly into the night and removed himself. So yes, the SHAM was brought on by her and her alone at the 11th hour. And maybe she was fine intentionally doing this for the "good of her party". That is a deed she will be judged for....I would not be surprised if she suddenly falls ill, just seems how those things work.

Dr Ford - I believed her, what I struggle with are the details. I do not disagree that she had a scary interaction, what worries me is that the interpretation can run the gambit from playful to sadistic.

BK - We are witnessing the silver spoon, elitism of upper class. His behavior yesterday was understandable and I could see he was minimizing some of the drinking issues but I also understand his goal was to not ad lib.

In summary - let's say they get the FBI investigation, again, (they already had 6 (I believe) on him) and none of this (gang rapes, sexual escapades, alcoholism, etc) has ever been revealed that would jeopardize his career advancement. His record as a Judge appears to be impeccable and his right leaning is in sync with his faith based upbringing. So as a SCOTUS judge, I have no reason to believe anything will change.

What I would wish for? Is that Dr.Ford and BK sat down 1v1 with or w/o a professional in the room to hopefully bury the pain she carries. I am sure as en educated professional and hopefully a God fearing woman, she would forgive and/or be released from the burden she carries.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:09 am
by Chips O'Toole
youthathletics wrote:What I would wish for? Is that Dr.Ford and BK sat down 1v1 with or w/o a professional in the room to hopefully bury the pain she carries. I am sure as en educated professional and hopefully a God fearing woman, she would forgive and/or be released from the burden she carries.
I know you have the best intentions here, but I think this is really missing the point. She isn't doing this as some sort of cathartic effort to rid herself of this pain she has carried for 35 years. She's doing her civic duty to inform the Judiciary Committee about a personal interaction she had with a Supreme Court nominee which, most would argue, goes to his character and judgment. That's why now, and not at any other time in the past 35 years. You really think she wants to sit down with him 1v1 and try to bury the hatchet? I think you're badly misreading this. I'm sure she doesn't want or need a kumbahyah with Bart O to move on with her life. What's he going to say? "I'm sorry you have me confused with some other guy who accosted you." Or maybe "I was just horsing around, I didn't know you were so sensitive. Sorry."

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:31 am
by tech37
I hope that someone is looking into who leaked Ford's identity, and also who decided to withhold the info from her that her testimony could have been given privately in CA

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:17 pm
by runrussellrun
Chips O'Toole wrote:
youthathletics wrote:What I would wish for? Is that Dr.Ford and BK sat down 1v1 with or w/o a professional in the room to hopefully bury the pain she carries. I am sure as en educated professional and hopefully a God fearing woman, she would forgive and/or be released from the burden she carries.
I know you have the best intentions here, but I think this is really missing the point. She isn't doing this as some sort of cathartic effort to rid herself of this pain she has carried for 35 years. She's doing her civic duty to inform the Judiciary Committee about a personal interaction she had with a Supreme Court nominee which, most would argue, goes to his character and judgment. That's why now, and not at any other time in the past 35 years. You really think she wants to sit down with him 1v1 and try to bury the hatchet? I think you're badly misreading this. I'm sure she doesn't want or need a kumbahyah with Bart O to move on with her life. What's he going to say? "I'm sorry you have me confused with some other guy who accosted you." Or maybe "I was just horsing around, I didn't know you were so sensitive. Sorry."
So, Ford went to the Montgomery COunty police today? The woman couldn't even remember which day the polygraph was given, a complete spaceshot. Not very credible.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:23 pm
by Bandito
Give up Democrats and Trump Derangement Syndrome posters.
It is over. YOU LOST. WE WON> KAV WILL BE THE NEXT SCOTUS.
Barack HUSSEIN KENYAN OBAMA said it best ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!!!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:34 pm
by Trinity
Dont spike that ball yet, ditto

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:35 pm
by jhu72
Chips O'Toole wrote:
youthathletics wrote:What I would wish for? Is that Dr.Ford and BK sat down 1v1 with or w/o a professional in the room to hopefully bury the pain she carries. I am sure as en educated professional and hopefully a God fearing woman, she would forgive and/or be released from the burden she carries.
I know you have the best intentions here, but I think this is really missing the point. She isn't doing this as some sort of cathartic effort to rid herself of this pain she has carried for 35 years. She's doing her civic duty to inform the Judiciary Committee about a personal interaction she had with a Supreme Court nominee which, most would argue, goes to his character and judgment. That's why now, and not at any other time in the past 35 years. You really think she wants to sit down with him 1v1 and try to bury the hatchet? I think you're badly misreading this. I'm sure she doesn't want or need a kumbahyah with Bart O to move on with her life. What's he going to say? "I'm sorry you have me confused with some other guy who accosted you." Or maybe "I was just horsing around, I didn't know you were so sensitive. Sorry."
She has just been told by the republicans on the committee that they don't believe her - NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN believes her, enough to call for additional witnesses! She is not the least bit interested in having a sit down with the Great Pretender. She has done her job, she reported her story. The process has been chathartic for her.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:40 pm
by Bandito
Since our self-righteous Democrat Senators wanted to humiliate innocent Kav all for political gain, perhaps we should discuss Feinstein's Chinese spy office director, Booker's admitted sexual misconduct, Blumenthal's phony Vietnam record and Kamala's work to cover-up Catholic clergy sex abuse. Oh and what about Hirono's anti men statements? She is a huge bigot and racist.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:49 pm
by jhu72
A story that is getting no play - George W. Bush has apparently called Murkowski, Collins, Flake, etc., yesterday. He made a personal appeal to them to vote for Kavanaugh. This because Orange Duce has no sway with any of them - supposedly. I saw this last night before I went to bed.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:50 pm
by Bandito
Dems all cornered Flake into flaking out. No surprise. Dem smear machine in full effect hoping to delay this. Red state democrats voting no. RIP your jobs come Nov 6th.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:52 pm
by wahoomurf
This vote is now 22 minutes overdue. For me, It is, like 9/11 or the day JFK played chicken with Russia, a seminal moment. The D Senators have entered the chamber...and don't look too chuffed.

DRUM ROLL, PLEASE.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:55 pm
by HooDat
oh, boy - the scurrying that will be taking place in the back halls of the capital buildings over the next 24 hours!
oh boy, this'll be great!.jpg
oh boy, this'll be great!.jpg (172.53 KiB) Viewed 2314 times
there is going to be politic-ing going on like there has never been politic-ing! :ugeek:

and not one little bit of it will be about substance. None of it has been.

all for show baby, all for show...... :roll:

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:09 pm
by njbill
High drama to be sure. One thing is clear, the nomination has been approved by the committee and will now move to the floor of the Senate. Senator Flake has said he is in favor of a one-week FBI investigation. Of course, he does not control the floor of the Senate, which is in the hands of the majority leader. But if Flake is not going to vote in favor of the nominee without an investigation , and if only one other Republican colleague is of the same view, then I highly doubt the Senate will take a vote. Perhaps even more importantly, as I understand it, an FBI investigation could only be ordered by the president. What will he do? Who knows.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:12 pm
by youthathletics
This could get interesting. IF and a big IF the FBI comes back with a clean bill of health on BK for the 7th time, what does the left do and how do they vote.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:17 pm
by wahoomurf
jhu72 wrote:
wahoomurf wrote:Joe Manchin's vote tomorrow can be "a profile in courage" or...
... don't think Manchin is on the Judiciary Committee. Think the Senate vote would be sometime next week.
Désolé...he ain't on the SJC...I was projecting.No doubt that poor guy, Kavanagh (?) who was the victimized by the Clintons, the liberal Cabal, the Leftist Democrat weebles that wobbled to the left, the $on$ and daughter$ of $hylock and the folks that didn't back the COOO, will be moved from the SJC to the Senate floor.

At that point, I expect the light to shine brightly on Senator Manchin.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:22 pm
by DMac
Man, I can sure think of a lot of days when I would like to have said, "Ooops, clock says we're done, time to go home."
What a country.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:33 pm
by jhu72
No request or charge of/to the Montgomery Country Police has been made - but supposedly Ford's lawyer has the paperwork ready to go and Ford is willing to file.

The right wing media has been contacting the Montgomery County Police, all morning. They are nervous. The police have made another statement that no charge has been filed as of about 1 hour ago.

I suspect Flake knows this as do a few other republican Senators. I am guessing both Flake and Murkowski will vote no if this comes to a vote before the FBI investigation comes to an end. The dems hold this trump (or perhaps that is an anti-Trump card). Unless they are happy with the answers of the investigation -- meaning they feel a credible investigation has been conducted by the FBI -- they will play this card. No one wants that.

The dems don't want to do it, no sane person wants them to do it, but they will. I am guessing the dems feel comfortable with Flake's promise that he and other republicans will play it straight. They are taking the decision out of the hands of the hardline partisan right leadership.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:36 pm
by njbill
Report that Murkowski has said she is in favor of a delay to allow the FBI to conduct an investigation.