Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jericho

The only thing that can top that lot is if tRumpf gets assassinated.....

---

I remember that Enron case where the CEO who was a multimillionaire that had cheated millions had a heart attack a couple days before his prison sentence was about to start.
I want tRumpf to wish he was assassinated. I want him to fall farther and harder than anyman I can think of. I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that he do jailtime. I want him to live to 103 and hear about how the Trump name is synonymous to Benedict Arnold. I want his family to lose everything. Put him in a cage and take him away from his families like those little Mexican kids. Does anybody who saw Trump onstage at Helsinki see any other scenario except that Putin has the goods on Trump? Probably exactly because of Stavros''s post a couple back. I think Mueller has the goods on him too. I guess the plan is to presume Mueller will be mum until November, and pray the Republicans win the House. Sad. What else can he do, confess all now? Go for it Trump, take all the rope you need.

If it comes out that Trump was compromised by Putin, and that looks like a big possibility, this is like 9-11 Huge. The Republicans will have years of explaining to do. In politics, explaining is losing.
"Hey, weren't you one of the guys who ran a traitor for President?"

A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested. .. Tom Wolfe
https://image.ibb.co/ehqcv9/benedict_arnold.jpg
deactivate account

The President has said Bruce Ohr, a Justice Department lawyer is 'a disgrace' and should be fired, citing his wife's employment by Fusion GPS and their connections to the 'Steele Dossier'. In fact, while Ms Ohr does work for Fusion GPS she had nothing to do with the 'Steele Dossier' whereas he husband met Steele several times. But this is the key reason why the President looks with startled anxiety at the name Bruce Ohr:

In nearly three decades at the Justice Department, Mr. Ohr has made a career of supporting and facilitating important cases that targeted Russian organized crime. Now he is a target of President Trump, who has put his security clearance under review and attacked him publicly, and allies. They have cast Mr. Ohr and his wife — who worked as a contractor at the same research firm that produced a damaging dossier of information about Mr. Trump — as villains, part of a pro-Clinton cabal out to destroy the president.

But Mr. Ohr, 56, is far from corrupt, friends and former colleagues said. An experienced law enforcement official, he has a deep understanding of the underworld of Russian organized crime, they said, including raising concerns about at least one oligarch whose name has resurfaced amid the scrutiny of contacts between Trump associates and Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/u...epartment.html

So, a 'senior White House official' has penned an anonymous vignette of Crazytown, USA in which we learn that the President is incompetent, ignorant and dangerous.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.
Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/o...esistance.html

But we know that already. This sounds more like Bruised Ego than Deep Throat, when what we want to know is where does the money come from, what have the Russians got on this man, and most of all, how to get rid of him short of throwing him out of the window.

But it all mounts up, day after day, with Woodward sure to earn more brownie points than the semi-conscious drone aka Sarah Huckabee Sanders -why does she even bother?

This article looks at the breakdown of trust between the Commander-in-Chief and his military. Can this really last for another tw years before there is a major crisis or some kind of breakdow?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8524056.html

There is now a vibrant competition to name the Anonymous Author of the NYT Op-ed piece, with the BBC using linguistic analysis to narrow it down to Mike Pence, while the Telegraph via Canadian betting service Bovada has these odds:

Jeff Sessions 5/2
Mike Pence 3/1
John Kelly 4/1
Nikki Haley 10/1
'Javanka' 15/1
Don McGahn 15/1
the President himself 25/1
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...unners-riders/

The BBC analysis points out that 'Senior Government Official' could be anyone from the White House to the Pentagon and beyond but concludes:

Compared with most of the official statements and speeches we analysed, the New York Times column had a distinctive style (again, some of this could be down to the editing process).

For a start, the average length of the sentences in the column is very low compared with government statements: only 19.3 words per sentence.

Compare this with statements by Press Secretary Sarah Sanders on Syria on 4 September (31 average words a sentence) and Mr Trump in a letter to the Senate on 28 August (30 words a sentence).

There is one Trump administration official whose statements and speeches are always shorter than the others - sometimes significantly.

His name is Michael Richard Pence, the vice-president of the United States of America, and on Thursday, he denied he was the author of the column. Some had suggested he was responsible because the column used one unusual word - "lodestar" - he's been known to use.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45435813

Every week has a new scandal or fuck-up, somewhere in the national group dynamic psychosis all these fumbles are counted and accounted for, I'm guessing that Mueller would only give Manafort a deal is because somebody down the road is going to get indicted without a deal (how ironic) and that person is Trump Trump Trump. Who else could it be?
What will happen if Trump and Sons INC. are cornered, will they fight back like a wounded animal? Will the RNC stick with him, will Rush Limbo stick with him? Even Trump's most loyal voters will have a moment of doubt and pain, but if they lose their Messiah, who's left? Pence? Jeb? Cruz?
If History is any guide, we're way overdue for WWlll, …..nevermind.

Week by week we edge closer to the big reveal. My guess is that the President will take actions to prevent any revelation of his finances, which is to him the most important component of his life other than his relentless obsession with himself as a truly great man, being so detached from reality. It is hard to know how far this will go or when it will take place. Bob Woodward in his book Fear seems to regard the 'collusion with Russia' as a non-story which is surprising in light of what we know so far, and also has not kept in mind Deep Throat's recommendation to 'Follow the Money'. Surely he must know where the money comes from, and wherher or not it is tainted, and used in the election campaign. And if he doesn't know, what does it say about his skills as an investigaive journalist?
In the end, if a man can make up stories about dead people in Puerto Rico who he claims do not exist, then anything that Mueller reveals will be dismissed as lies even if a jury convicts; he will probably claim the jury was nobbled or selected by the Clintons. As for Congress, it would not surprise me if the Republicans decide that even if their leader is revealed to be a crook, a liar, and a traitor, they would rather piss on the rule of law and the Constitution than see him impeached, having long ago given up any pretence that they love their country more than they hate Democrats. When John Bolton and Rudolph Giuliani can repeatedly appear on the platform of an Iranian terrorist organization that has a long and bloody history including many murdered Americans you know where their sympathies lie.

War drums on the Potomac: New York Times article PROVES Deep State conspiracy against Trump. Rosenstein wears wire to get dirt on Trump! Fight back, Donald, fight back!! What more evidence do you need??
Trump is like a wounded animal backed into a corner. Very dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

War drums on the Potomac: New York Times article PROVES Deep State conspiracy against Trump. Rosenstein wears wire to get dirt on Trump! Fight back, Donald, fight back!! What more evidence do you need??
Trump is like a wounded animal backed into a corner. Very dangerous.

---

What rubbish is this? There is no 'deep state'. That this story is on the 'front page' of the NYT proves it.

The previous most powerful man in the World gave healthcare to millions, the present most powerful man gave two trillion bucks to has golf buddies, that's power. I would be the most powerful man in the World if it weren't for Reality, even if I don't believe in Reality, Reality believes in me, and even if Reality has taken a couple years off, Reality WILL wake up soon and VETO Trump, and probably his entire bloodline. The USA has been struggling for almost 75 years to prevent WWlll, Reality says we're way overdo, if History is any indicator, death always wins, so lets raise our glasses once more to this crappy little puddle called life, and vote for eternal life, is eternal life like the Devil, a fairy tale? Will Trump be destroyed by his own sins, or the Democratic Party? The Buddha will not entertain these questions unless they pertain directly to Salvation. Give a Junkie twenty bucks for a meal and that Junkie will buy heroin, give the citizens the right to vote, and they'll choose Trump and Brexit. The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Cheaters do prosper, for a while, anyway. Until I die, I can't write a proper review of life, yet here I am. Our total existence relies on Steven Grooby's quest for riches. Skoal!

Fuck me, this site ate my post again and I mistakenly posted my rant here instead of there. I'm going to go eat some scrambled eggs with salsa and guacamole.

Buckle-up, Buttslinger, and take your meds.
America needs you alert, not incoherent.
There are hundreds of unfilled vacancies in Energy, Agriculture and State. Apply now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

America needs you alert, not incoherent.

---

Thanks for the pep talk, but my Doctor says that is not medically possible. I wish I was kidding.
I will take your advice on the meds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Fuck me, this site ate my post again and I mistakenly posted my rant here instead of there. I'm going to go eat some scrambled eggs with salsa and guacamole.

---

I learned to always copy my post first, before I hit post. This site has a rather quick time, before automatic log out. Sometimes it will keep your post. Other times, it won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

I learned to always copy my post first,

---

Sheez, now I only have two buttons, Submit Reply and preview post!
This morning I copied, lost it, had to completely re-sign in, I had just woken up and hit Stavros' post, but I forgot Stavros had made two posts. If I can line up enough votes I'm going to claim it was Stavros' fault.
I used to be a good guy and do the right thing, but I didn't like the people there.

now I have
Post Quick Reply
Go Advanced
and Cancel
Time for another trip to the medicine cabinet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

What rubbish is this? There is no 'deep state'. That this story is on the 'front page' of the NYT proves it.

---

Some Trump fans seem to think it's the deep state trying to provoke Trump into doing something rash. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...trump-wire-nyt
I suspect their real agenda is to try to persuade Trump to not do anything risky until after the mid-terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Some Trump fans seem to think it's the deep state trying to provoke Trump into doing something rash. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...trump-wire-nyt
I suspect their real agenda is to try to persuade Trump to not do anything risky until after the mid-terms.

---

I still don't understand this one, if I had to guess I would say Hannity and his Confederates have been promising their viewers a major upheaval at the DOJ and FBI but Rosenstein told Trump exactly what he'd do if he tried it. No matter what they say, I smell the stink of fear from the Oval Office and Conservative Media.

Hamlet: Rosenstein and Sessions are dead
Thursday will be must see TV, high drama in the Senate and White House, ….sex, power, ego, folly.
What fools these mortals be.
The stakes are high, if Trump can't get the grits their Evangelical Justice, then why support him? If Trump doesn't kill Sessions and Rosenstein, they will certainly be the death of him. Will Trump blink?

Meanwhile, the World Laughs at Trump. Did he really not expect that?
I feel a Tragedy coming on. To confirm or not to confirm, that is the question.
Even the Hung Angels crowd has to cringe at the sexual antics of a drunken jock virgin.
You can't write this stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Even the Hung Angels crowd has to cringe at the sexual antics of a drunken jock virgin.
You can't write this stuff.

---

Kavanaugh claims he was a virgin, but being a virgin doesn't mean you cannot assault a woman. As to being one of the 'Renate Alumni' maybe this does not mean they all had sex with her, but that they jacked off to a photo and came all over it. I suppose you could call it Locker Room Spunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Meanwhile, the World Laughs at Trump.

---

Not on Fox News/Pravda
https://www.salon.com/2018/09/26/fox...tions_partner/

I am THRILLED that Fox News has wrapped it's legs around trump, and I'm thrilled at cautiously thrilled about Thursday.
In the NFL, when the other team hikes the ball over the quarterback's head, they're saying "he kavanaughed"

I should start selling Avenatti and Mueller silhouettes for target shooting, 10% off with NRA membership.
It's all coming unglued, Donald, your name will illicit laughter for centuries to come...…..
then again, you never know!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Kavanaugh claims he was a virgin, but being a virgin doesn't mean you cannot assault a woman. As to being one of the 'Renate Alumni' maybe this does not mean they all had sex with her, but that they jacked off to a photo and came all over it. I suppose you could call it Locker Room Spunk.

---

So what if Kavanaugh is innocent?
Is there any evidence to prove he is guilty.
This is getting out of hand. Both had good sessions and nothing can be concluded from that. It's one's word against the other.
I don't know why we are pointing fingers when no evidence points to him. I know we all hate trump based on instinct, but let's not lose our minds and ability to think logically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collinswriters

So what if Kavanaugh is innocent?
Is there any evidence to prove he is guilty.
This is getting out of hand. Both had good sessions and nothing can be concluded from that. It's one's word against the other.
I don't know why we are pointing fingers when no evidence points to him. I know we all hate trump based on instinct, but let's not lose our minds and ability to think logically.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collinswriters

So what if Kavanaugh is innocent?
Is there any evidence to prove he is guilty.

---

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.

Thursday's hearing was a job interview, not a trial; reasonable doubt of guilt does not apply - reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh might lack the requisite judicial temperament does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collinswriters

So what if Kavanaugh is innocent?
Is there any evidence to prove he is guilty.
This is getting out of hand. Both had good sessions and nothing can be concluded from that. It's one's word against the other.
I don't know why we are pointing fingers when no evidence points to him. I know we all hate trump based on instinct, but let's not lose our minds and ability to think logically.

---

The evidence that points to him is testimony. Testimony is evidence. Is it as strong as a video of him raping a woman? No. But a woman who had no motive to lie appeared before Congress and gave very credible testimony about him attacking her. She provided notes from her visits to psychiatrists over the years where she discussed the effects of his actions, which makes fabrication or political motive impossible. After she testified in a restrained and thoughtful way, he blustered, told several obvious lies, and was combative about his drinking. He is very fortunate that he has never had to answer for his actions in a criminal context.

And he did demonstrate a lack of fitness for the position. Instead of participating in the process, he pretended to be a victim, refused to answer questions in a forthright way and made spurious accusations.

I agree with Stavros that it is very difficult to vet these judges on how they view the law. If they are asked about a pending legal matter they will simply say they cannot answer questions about cases that may come before the court. So I suppose that leaves questions about their own cases, questions about judicial philosophy and questions about matters that have been decided (the latter just to demonstrate their erudition and knowledge of precedent). We have some idea that what we'd get with Kavanaugh is going to be originalism when it comes to constitutional matters and textualism when it comes to statutory interpretation. I think he would probably be less pragmatic even than Scalia and his decisions would look a bit more like Clarence Thomas', just based on his second amendment interpretation which is appalling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh might lack the requisite judicial temperament ....

---

TESTIFY TRISH!!!
Reasonable doubt, he was practically crying, and until Lindsey Graham rushed into save him, he was failing.
He was asked about Mark Judge and said "You'll have to ask him" Wrong answer, Brett.
The only reason we're having an FBI investigation is because two or three Republicans were going to vote NO.
NO to rapists. Kavanaugh's reputation hasn't been tarnished, Kavanaugh's beliefs have been tarnished under direct questioning. If Brett thinks he's been pressured, he should see what Collins and Murkowski will go through this week.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

TESTIFY TRISH!!!
Reasonable doubt, he was practically crying, and until Lindsey Graham rushed into save him, he was failing.
He was asked about Mark Judge and said "You'll have to ask him" Wrong answer, Brett.
The only reason we're having an FBI investigation is because two or three Republicans were going to vote NO.
NO to rapists. Kavanaugh's reputation hasn't been tarnished, Kavanaugh's beliefs have been tarnished under direct questioning. If Brett thinks he's been pressured, he should see what Collins and Murkowski will go through this week.

---

You don't seem to understand what it means to present no evidence. I don't think someone has ever accused you falsely or wrongly. I am not saying Dr. Ford is lying, but come on, no evidence except your word? That makes no sense to me. I would like to believe ford but I am skeptical unlike you who believe blindly especially when it comes to politics and when no evidence is presented. Crazy world you wanna live in. No offense intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

The evidence that points to him is testimony. Testimony is evidence. Is it as strong as a video of him raping a woman? No. But a woman who had no motive to lie appeared before Congress and gave very credible testimony about him attacking her. She provided notes from her visits to psychiatrists over the years where she discussed the effects of his actions, which makes fabrication or political motive impossible. After she testified in a restrained and thoughtful way, he blustered, told several obvious lies, and was combative about his drinking. He is very fortunate that he has never had to answer for his actions in a criminal context.

And he did demonstrate a lack of fitness for the position. Instead of participating in the process, he pretended to be a victim, refused to answer questions in a forthright way and made spurious accusations.

I agree with Stavros that it is very difficult to vet these judges on how they view the law. If they are asked about a pending legal matter they will simply say they cannot answer questions about cases that may come before the court. So I suppose that leaves questions about their own cases, questions about judicial philosophy and questions about matters that have been decided (the latter just to demonstrate their erudition and knowledge of precedent). We have some idea that what we'd get with Kavanaugh is going to be originalism when it comes to constitutional matters and textualism when it comes to statutory interpretation. I think he would probably be less pragmatic even than Scalia and his decisions would look a bit more like Clarence Thomas', just based on his second amendment interpretation which is appalling.

---

Let's not be ridiculous here. No possible motive? Testimony (in this case) is not evidence in any manner of means. It's just testimony and you need necessary evidence (proof beyond doubt) to backup the testimony. If every allegation in the world was only backed with testimony from the victim without knowledge of details like where the crime happened and specific time, about half (if not more) of the world's population would be in jail now. The witnesses she mentioned all denied such event and we are to just take the story as the truth. That's ludicrous in my opinion.
And let's not forget, this is in a political setting. People say or do whatever they can to get rid of their opposition (or those they dislike for one reason or the other). I am not implying that Dr. Ford is lying or wrong and I am not saying that Kavanaugh is saying the truth (He could be saying the truth since no substantial evidence points to him) but as I said in a previous reply, I am being skeptical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collinswriters

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CD_Sasha

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CD_Sasha

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

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.

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?