Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

[collinswriters]

Logic demands that a candidate for the Supreme Court answer questions on the law he will be expected to judge. Clarence Hill was appointed even when there was evidence his personal behaviour was insulting to women, but does anyone recall his views of the law? He said nothing for ten years. His wife is a TEA party lobbyist. He was and presumably still is opposed to same-sex marriage. His 'originalist' position on the Constitution is so rigid even Scalia called Thomas 'a nut'. So the issue with Kavanaugh is at its core his perspective on the law, and in particular his view on the limits of Presidential power, and whether or not a President can be, or indeed should be, prosecuted for crimes in the same way as an 'ordinary citizen'. And on the basis of the past, it seems that personal behaviour whether it is proven to be aggressive towards women or not, does not matter to the men who make these appointments. Not does it seem to matter when it comes to electing Presidents. Is it not ironic that the same men who make such bold and biblical claims about sexual morality in men and women apply those morals to every American excep the Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces? Not ironic at all, just hypocrisy.

As you can clearly see, your problem with him is not the allegation but what you stated above. You should refer to what you dislike instead of hiding behind the allegation and saying anything you feel. No offense pls.

this message is a reply to stravos' comment

[CD_Sasha]

When the FBI sits Kavanaugh down and asks him if he wants to take a lie detector test, like Ford did, he will give some bullshit Matt Damon SNL answer. You might as well give his seat to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, or Sean Hannity, fake Viagra peddler. He is as biased as you can get, that's why he's in the hot seat.

Um.. you do realize he's been vetted by the feds 6 times since 1992 right? And the timing of the allegations, it's a clear political move of character assassination and to delay the process. If you don't see this, then you have no logic. No facts = No evidence. Looks like innocent until proven guilty does not exist in America anymore.

[buttslinger]

Um.. you do realize he's been vetted by the feds 6 times since 1992 right? And the timing of the allegations, it's a clear political move of character assassination and to delay the process. If you don't see this, then you have no logic. No facts = No evidence. Looks like innocent until proven guilty does not exist in America anymore.

The Republicans were blocking the search for evidence, that's the whole point.
If that was an interview for a Republican pawn in the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh aced it. If it were an interview for an independent nonpartisan decider of the future of U S Law, he failed miserably. He is the most unpopular Supreme Court nominee ever. That's not my opinion, that's the truth. Kavanaugh was picked by Ken Starr to be in charge of the character assassination of Bill Clinton. He opened the door.

If I were accused of rape I'd scream too. I'd scream for a lie detector test.

[CD_Sasha]

Kavanaugh was picked by Ken Starr to be in charge of the character assassination of Bill Clinton.

Nope, Bill did it to himself by lying under oath, lying to the American people and was ultimately impeached. No one else is to blame on that.

[filghy2]

Turning to other matters, what exactly did happen in the closed session with Kim Jong Un when there were no officials in the room? You Trump nutters don't find this just a little embarassing?
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world...cid=spartanntp

[filghy2]

Um.. you do realize he's been vetted by the feds 6 times since 1992 right? And the timing of the allegations, it's a clear political move of character assassination and to delay the process. If you don't see this, then you have no logic. No facts = No evidence. Looks like innocent until proven guilty does not exist in America anymore.

Evidently three Republican senators don't agree with you - or are they part of the same conspiracy? Why exactly is it so critical not to delay the confirmation process? Republicans were quite happy to leave a vacancy for almost a year in 2016.

Aside from the sexual assault allegations, Kavanaugh should be disqualified because of his record of extreme views, including on the immunity of the president from investigation. Strangely, he came to this view only after working on the Starr investigation. https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...e-power-219634
If you believe that has nothing to do with why Trump nominated him then I have a sure-fire investment opportunity for you with a friend in Nigeria.

[CD_Sasha]

Are you all in agreement that the Ford allegations are real? Or is she used as a political motive for something else? I wonder what will be everyone's reaction if the FBI investigation comes back with clearing his name. I bet the opposition party won't apologize and will drop Dr. Ford like she never existed.

[buttslinger]

Are you all in agreement that the Ford allegations are real? Or is she used as a political motive for something else? I wonder what will be everyone's reaction if the FBI investigation comes back with clearing his name. I bet the opposition party won't apologize and will drop Dr. Ford like she never existed.

Mark Judge's book make Ford's charges credible. Kavanaugh's yearbook make Ford credible. Kavanaugh's roommate in College make Ford credible. It should be VERY interesting what Kavanaugh's own friends say when locked in a room with a couple of seasoned FBI interrogators. All those guys who flipped on Trump were his biggest supporters until the FBI explained the facts of life to them. I believe Clinton's accusers, I believe Trump's accusers, and I believe Kavanaugh's accusers. Just between you and me, I believe Brett is less of a rapist than a complete and total asshole when he's drunk. Somewhere on those FBI background checks they asked him if he had a drinking problem. If he said no he has a self awareness problem.

The Senate is supposed to be political. The Supreme Court is not. If the nominee needed 60 votes to be confirmed, like it should be, we would have never heard the name Brett Kavanaugh.

[filghy2]

It should be VERY interesting what Kavanaugh's own friends say when locked in a room with a couple of seasoned FBI interrogators.

That's assuming the FBI is allowed to question them - it seems the former classmates who've contradicted his drinking claims are not on the witness list they've been given. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...-brett-n915061

If CD_Sasha thinks it was appropriate for Bill Clinton to be impeached for lying under oath then clearly Kavanagh should be disqualified if he did the same thing.

[broncofan]

I can’t reply fully because I’m on my phone but collinswriter why don’t you type into google “is testimony evidence?”. You begin with the meaningless sentence that it’s not evidence in this case.

Testimony is evidence in every case. In cases where the defense to a charge of rape is that there was consensual sex rather than force it is often the only dispositive evidence. In such cases the outcome hinges not on physical evidence but witness testimony. One can reach the burden of proof in a criminal case on testimony alone and withstand appeal. I’ve read dozens of such appeals.

You also need an entire course on procedural due process, including what safeguards apply and where. I’ll give you a hint: the greater the deprivation being faced the more robust the procedures must be to prevent an unjust deprivation. It is not a criminal trial. Kavanaugh is not facing prison and so constitutionally he is not being treated inappropriately. What you call skepticism I call poorly done sophistry. It requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to subject someone to criminal sanction, not to rule on whether they are an unfit appointment to Supreme Court.

As for cd Sasha’s why would perjury be worth impeachment but not preclude someone from serving as a judge?