Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collinswriters

this message is a reply to stravos' comment

---

I am not hiding behind the allegation, on which I have not taken a position one way or the other. In fact the allegations of sexual assault have deflected attention away from the core issues I have referred to which is Kavanaugh's positions on matters of law. If you compare the Senate hearings of Kavanaugh with those of Neil Gorsuch, you find that the issues were legal not personal, and the extreme positions that Gorsuch took on matters such as Birth Control and LGBT rights, as per the Vox list produced at the time (in the link below) which do not reflect public opinion.

Re cd-sasha's comment: Had the Democrats from the start decided to sabotage every Supreme Court nomination, why did they not pay an ex-or current hooker to claim Gorsuch as a client or any other lurid tale you can make up which is what the President's supporters claim Dr Ford has been recruited (and paid) to do?

It is hypocrisy because the roll-call of morals that the Republicans claim to be part of the fabric of American life in reality are applied to some people not others, and guess who gets the free pass? At least Mrs Pence has the decency of her convinctions to refuse any interaction with the President, apparently she won't even shake his hand.

It seems to me that the Supreme Court appointments are part of a deliberate attempt by the Republican Party to deny to the majority of Americans what it is that they want: they want women to receive the benefits of Planned Parenthood because it works -unwanted pregnancies are down, cervical cancer screenings are up and saving women's lives, and contraception, contrary to what some of the President's supporters claim, does work.

Americans want to vote, they don't want registration to cost them time and money and deter them from registering at all, and States -all States- should ensure every citizen is registered and that a polling station on election day is open within a mile of where they live -you can't tell me this is not possible in the USA in the 21st century. Ultimately, it is about rights, which has been the foundation of your Constitutional Republic, and whether or not any of the three branches of government should be taking rights away, or extending them. No surpise that Republicans tend to take rights away, rather than extend them.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction....s-neil-gorsuch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

All I'm saying is there's a difference between allegations and conviction. I believe in due process - innocent until proven guilty. If Kavanaugh is proclaimed guilty after evidence is found to backup the allegations (there's none, it's all she said he said), then he should disqualify becoming scotus - I agree. But if you believe word of mouth is evidence, especially when Dr. Ford's close friend refuted knowing the defendant, then this country is in deep trouble.

+
Even if the FBI found 17 credible accusations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh the Republicans could confirm him, if Democrats are up in arms it's because Kavanaugh isn't going to be just one seat on the Supreme Court, he will be the swing vote that will make the Supreme Court a rubber stamp on the Republican agenda. If you think the Republicans are drunk on power now, wait until they start sending case after case to their very own Kangaroo Court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

+
Even if the FBI found 17 credible accusations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh the Republicans could confirm him, if Democrats are up in arms it's because Kavanaugh isn't going to be just one seat on the Supreme Court, he will be the swing vote that will make the Supreme Court a rubber stamp on the Republican agenda. If you think the Republicans are drunk on power now, wait until they start sending case after case to their very own Kangaroo Court.

---

Your responses are very emotional and very bias. Nothing I've responded to is being bias and simply stating there's always 2 sides to everything. If evidence is found to hold allegations true, then Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated as SCOTUS. If allegations don't hold true, then Dr. Ford should be locked up for defamation. The American people (like me) see this as a political hit based on the timing and Democrats promise to "resist" anything Trump does. But this one goes too far and I'm willing to bet Democrats with common sense can see this too. We'll see what happens after this is over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CD_Sasha

Your responses are very emotional and very bias. Nothing I've responded to is being bias and simply stating there's always 2 sides to everything. If evidence is found to hold allegations true, then Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated as SCOTUS. If allegations don't hold true, then Dr. Ford should be locked up for defamation. The American people (like me) see this as a political hit based on the timing and Democrats promise to "resist" anything Trump does. But this one goes too far and I'm willing to bet Democrats with common sense can see this too. We'll see what happens after this is over.

---

First, nobody can get locked up for defamation because it's not a crime, it's a civil action. Second of all, just because something is not proven true doesn't mean it's established to be false. Think about it. Third, there's nothing suspicious about the timing. He was being appointed to the Supreme Court so she felt she had a responsibility to come forward. Often people who have been sexually assaulted are not able to come forward at all. Failing to report is not rare nor is it suspicious.

In your previous post to me you use the phrase "word of mouth". Word of mouth means a rumor. Often people also use the word hearsay as well to mean something it doesn't mean. Dr. Ford testified under oath about what she personally experienced. That's not word of mouth or hearsay, but in person testimony given under penalty of perjury.

As I said before, this is often the only evidence that is offered in rape trials. How else do you think rape is proven if a man claims he and the accuser had sex but it was consensual? The presence of semen might show there was intercourse but doesn't speak to the issue of consent. Sometimes there is genital trauma, which again the accused can claim is the result of a consensual encounter where the putative victim "liked it rough". The testimony is decisive in many cases, is sometimes the only evidence that exists, and is often enough by itself to sustain a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is not even what is required here.

Beyond that, even if it were a criminal trial juries are considered experts in evaluating the credibility of witnesses and what weight to give to testimony. That's what people who evaluate evidence do. They listen to witnesses and if someone provides and internally consistent account, they might decide to give it more weight than someone who told several lies under oath, tried to evade questions by attacking his interlocutors, and seemed unable to control himself. Kavanaugh is lucky he will never be tried in a criminal court for this.

I said I find it very unlikely Dr. Ford fabricated an accusation given that she spoke to a psychiatrist in 2012. I'm not sure what you think happened, but I watched the testimony and it didn't sound like someone who had an axe to grind but rather someone whose life has been altered by trauma. That was my take based on listening.

Take a step back and tell me you don't see a similar pattern before any nomination. Happened to Trump, Roy Moore and now this judge. Why does it always happen RIGHT before any major nomination? You can't be that gullable and oblivious. And listening to what? Liberal news media who always paint Republicans and conservatives as "evil"? What happened to the previous accusers regarding Trump and Roy Moore? Why did the news stopped following their case? Because the plan failed (to stop Trump becoming President) or worked (Roy Moore stepped down)? I'm surprised no one ever questions that except independent thinkers who aren't swayed by a narrative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CD_Sasha

Take a step back and tell me you don't see a similar pattern before any nomination. Happened to Trump, Roy Moore and now this judge. Why does it always happen RIGHT before any major nomination? You can't be that gullable and oblivious. And listening to what? Liberal news media who always paint Republicans and conservatives as "evil"? What happened to the previous accusers regarding Trump and Roy Moore? Why did the news stopped following their case? Because the plan failed (to stop Trump becoming President) or worked (Roy Moore stepped down)? I'm surprised no one ever questions that except independent thinkers who aren't swayed by a narrative.

---

I don't doubt there are some people motivated by politics rather than the underlying issues, but that doesn't mean the issue raised doesn't have merit. I thought the Republicans who attacked Bill Clinton did not care about sexual assault and we've seen they don't care about perjury, but that doesn't mean he didn't do what he was accused of in many of those cases. Roy Moore was kicked out of a mall for preying on children. He came onto and fondled a minor. This was fairly well established and while he refused to step down and the Republican party continued to support him, Al Franken stepped down for several transgressions that were not nearly as severe. He was a Democrat. He did not have widespread support in the Democratic party when women starting coming forward saying he groped them. Yet Republicans who face dozens of accusations of sexual assault are somehow assumed to be the victims of a "smear campaign". Similar fringe figures believe that the sandy hook shooting was a government hoax and that Hillary Clinton had children in the dungeon of a pizza shop.

Why does the media stop following the cases? Because as time passes and the Republican party continues to support men with dozens of credible accusations against them, they realize there's nothing left to report.

What you are describing is not independent thought. All sorts of nutjobs and conspiracy theorists consider themselves independent thinkers. What they're missing is the ability to use common sense. If someone did not report an assault because they were afraid of going to the police then they feel especially motivated to come forward as soon as their assailant runs for office. Why? Because they're reminded of the trauma and believe they can speak to the person's unfitness for office. Does that mean every accusation should be assumed to be true per se? No, but you can actually listen to the people who come forward and not engage in conspiratorial thinking.

And just as a final point. Al Franken is a Democrat who faced an initial complaint that he was sexually aggressive with a woman. Within a week or two, many women came forward to report similar experiences. Does that mean it was fabricated? Why did they all come forward at the same time? Probably because they were encouraged by other women coming forward to share their experiences. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

What you are describing is not independent thought. All sorts of nutjobs and conspiracy theorists consider themselves independent thinkers. What they're missing is the ability to use common sense

---

Not a conspiracy when you question as to why there's no evidence for conviction (yes, there's a difference between conviction and allegations). Common sense is thinking evidence = true facts. Ahh forget it, I guess we must believe all accusers because they're women but not believe in due process.. got it. I'll follow the rest of the flock on this illogical way of thinking.

Your responses are very emotional and very bias. Passionate I haven't called you a dimwit yet
Nothing I've responded to is being bias and simply stating there's always 2 sides to everything. Not attempted rape
If evidence is found to hold allegations true, then Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated as SCOTUS. No shit
If allegations don't hold true, then Dr. Ford should be locked up for defamation. Bust up that lie detector while you're at it
The American people (like me) see this as a political hit based on the timing and Democrats promise to "resist" anything Trump does. About 48 percent of voters do not want Kavanaugh to be confirmed, compared with 42 percent who do.
But this one goes too far and I'm willing to bet Democrats with common sense can see this too. Turn off Fox News and find a shrink who deprograms cult members
We'll see what happens after this is over. You mean the Mueller Investigation??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Your responses are very emotional and very bias. Passionate I haven't called you a dimwit yet
Nothing I've responded to is being bias and simply stating there's always 2 sides to everything. Not attempted rape
If evidence is found to hold allegations true, then Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated as SCOTUS. No shit
If allegations don't hold true, then Dr. Ford should be locked up for defamation. Bust up that lie detector while you're at it
The American people (like me) see this as a political hit based on the timing and Democrats promise to "resist" anything Trump does. About 48 percent of voters do not want Kavanaugh to be confirmed, compared with 42 percent who do.
But this one goes too far and I'm willing to bet Democrats with common sense can see this too. Turn off Fox News and find a shrink who deprograms cult members
We'll see what happens after this is over. You mean the Mueller Investigation??

---

Oh please, you're acting like anyone who thinks different "must be following Fox News!". You're acting like Libertarians aren't laughing at the Democrats being so obvious using rape allegations as their last tactic to obstruct. We're just soo baffled how easily fooled the liberals are. But ok, I won't respond anymore. Until I see EVIDENCE that leads to a conviction against Kavanaugh, then I'll agree.

Before the hearing last Thursday, my biggest beefs against Kavanaugh were 1) his position on Roe vs Wade, 2) his position that an President can’t be indicted and 3) his action in Garza v. Hargan in which he unconscionably made a immigrant wait seven weeks before she was allowed to go through with an abortion.

And of course there was the possibility that Kavanaugh’s behavior as a young man thirty-five years prior was less than exemplary.

After the hearing it became clear to me that Kavanaough’s behavior, not only as a young man, but throughout his life and in the hearing itself was and is less than exemplary. Whether or not the allegations against him are true, he has shown himself to be 4) a liar and 5) a crazed conspiracy theorist. He has demonstrated 6) an inability to control his anger, his rancor, and 7) his biases against women and liberal colleagues. He has shown us 8, a temperament thoroughly unfitting for a Supreme Court Justice, or any sort of justice for that matter.

Yes, I would like to have a full FBI investigation into his character and the allegations against him raised by the women and associates that knew or know him. Not only the allegations of sexual misconduct, but allegations that he is a drunk and that he’s belligerent when drunk. But for me, in light of (1), (2), (3) now (4), (5), (6), (7) and 8 Kavanaugh should never have been appointed to U.S. Court of Appeals, let alone be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CD_Sasha

Take a step back and tell me you don't see a similar pattern before any nomination. Happened to Trump, Roy Moore and now this judge. Why does it always happen RIGHT before any major nomination? You can't be that gullable and oblivious. And listening to what? Liberal news media who always paint Republicans and conservatives as "evil"? What happened to the previous accusers regarding Trump and Roy Moore? Why did the news stopped following their case? Because the plan failed (to stop Trump becoming President) or worked (Roy Moore stepped down)? I'm surprised no one ever questions that except independent thinkers who aren't swayed by a narrative.

---

This is simply a distortion of the record. There is a list (a long list) of the President's nominees who withdrew their names
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...have_withdrawn

but in most cases the President's nominees have not been accused of crimes or misdemeanors in the manner that Brett Kavanaugh has been. And Roy Moore was not nominated by the President.

Neil Gorsuch, Betsy de Vos, Rex Tillerson, Ben Carson, Rick Perry, Nikki Haley, Steve Mnuchin, Wilbur Ross, Scott Pruit, John Bolton, etc -none of them accused, all of them appointed. The one person without portfolio about whom allegations have been made for some time is his son-in-law Jared Kushner who, along with his wife was relieved not to be prosecuted for deception in New York some years ago in a case where it is beieved the prosecutor treated them with extreme lenience.

But there was one person who did have a dubious background, serious enough for President Obama in their private meeting in the White House to warn his successor not to hire him: Michael Flynn. Needless to say the incoming President, probably out of spite, did precisely that and hired Flynn as National Security Advisor but he lasted barely a month before resigning. It was the sign that the President is a man of poor judgement.

If Republicans are mad that Democrats don't like Brett just because he's a Republican, they are exactly right. The Kavanaugh pick was ONE HUNDRED PERCENT POLITICAL.
The FBI needs to investigate Trump.
(Oh, that's right. They are)
PAYBACK is gonna be a bitch.
Attachment 1097469

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CD_Sasha

Oh please, you're acting like anyone who thinks different "must be following Fox News!". You're acting like Libertarians aren't laughing at the Democrats being so obvious using rape allegations as their last tactic to obstruct. We're just soo baffled how easily fooled the liberals are. But ok, I won't respond anymore. Until I see EVIDENCE that leads to a conviction against Kavanaugh, then I'll agree.

---

Classic. Keep repeating the same point over and over and ignore what other people say in response. Claim that you are really independent-minded even though the only comments you ever make are arguing for one side. Declare that you are through with the discussion when you are getting the worst of it. Where have we seen that before? Do all of you people go to the same debating classes?

Why can't you answer this simple question - If it was appropriate for Bill Clinton to be impeached for one instance of perjury then why shouldn't Brett Kavanaugh be disqualified if he is found to have lied in his testimony?

No offense, but there's no hope for many people here.
You are looking for all possible means to paint Kavanaugh as bad. Not being exemplary? If he was a Democrat, I bet he would have been a role model to all of you.
Someone said Fox news. What's wrong with Fox news? They support Trump? What about other media? Have they not all supported Democrats and, even became Obama's ass-lickers?
Some of you make good points but for some, no sense. If Kavanaugh doesn't support your cause, I see no problem there. You guys want to police how people think and, behave and anyone against it is an enemy of the people. I don't see Republicans pushing for that. You guys pretend like there's no logic behind what Republicans do. You think you are the only ones that have the ability to reason?
And you guys are the ones saying that we must believe all women just because they are women. Is that even logical at all? How will you believe a particular gender no matter what? Women lie anyhow they like and so do men. We are humans, let's not pretend like women are holy. Some women are good and, some are not. Same applies to the men as well.
Some of you even believe all men are rapists, misogynistic, homophobic and all (this is now a popular line amongst Democrats).
They no longer think for themselves, they need people to think for them as a group. You ask many people why they hate Trump, some have absolutely no idea and, some of them recite the popular line. Some just make claims to paint him as the worst person in recorded history.

Supreme Court nominees should be exemplary. The standards should be high.
Kavanaugh’s performance during the hearing was an example the opposite of judicial temperament and an example of how not to behave during a job interview. He’s certainly no role model for anybody, conservative or liberal.

Opposing a nominee because you disagree with his ideology is not even close to “policing how people think” (that’s Fox News’ job). And yes I mentioned three points of judicial disagreement that predisposed me against Kavanaugh. I do, on occasion, try to persuade people in conversation to those points. I don’t police. In the words of Kavanaugh, “Do you?”
But the remaining five points I previously mentioned were to his emotional and mental fitness to be a Supreme Court Justice. In my judgement he failed to demonstrate a relatively unbiased, reasoned and sound temperament which I would expect of a Supreme Court Justice regardless of their politics or gender.

Not all claims by all women are true as some would maliciously interpret the motto, “believe women”. Not all persons standing trial are innocent, in spite of the motto,”innocent until proven...” Yet, I don’t see anyone here but you attempting to saddle the whole with the unreasonable assumptions of the few. Professor Ford’s testimony was credible, but not decisive. Kavanaugh’s testimony was, in the words of President Trump, “incredible” and he left us with more doubts than we had before the hearing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Does that mean every accusation should be assumed to be true per se? No, but you can actually listen to the people who come forward and not engage in conspiratorial thinking.

---

Collinswriter, perhaps you aren't reading what people have said. I wrote this on the last page. I wrote on another thread that I don't believe decades old rape charges should be prosecuted in criminal court. Accusations made under oath at a confirmation hearing should be listened to and the credibility of the parties based on their demonstrated conduct should be taken into careful consideration. Dr. Ford conducted herself with poise and testified thoughtfully. Kavanaugh showed bad judgment and was belligerent.

Due process comes from the 5th and 14th amendments to our Constitution. It may have a colloquial meaning, but it should also be understood to have a particular domain of application. Someone who is applying for a position does not have a vested property right. On the other hand, someone who is fired from a public position for an impropriety is often entitled to due process. The due process in that hearing would not look anything like the due process someone is entitled to before facing a criminal punishment. This is not a scholarly site but does give a short summary of the issue. https://employment.findlaw.com/wages...-employee.html

I have several issues with Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy but they are not issues I would not have with other candidates so I don't oppose his nomination on that basis. I would like to hear him speak more about the issue of the appointment of special counsel and whether he thinks the special counsel statute is constitutional. I think it's terrible that there's a good chance he would overturn Obergefell and Roe, and that he thinks assault weapons are protected by the second amendment. That this follows from his judicial philosophy and that there are many other potential appointments with similar views I'm certain of. I'm more concerned by the fact that he doesn't respect an oath, that he is pretty much as Trish described him and it should be disqualifying.

If the Truth is ugly enough, people will prefer lies. Fox News isn't a Democrat problem, it's a United States problem.

Just as an addendum here: is it not completely obvious that Collinswriter has misrepresented his own views to seem like a moderate who is simply skeptical about the Democrats' behavior? I get along with plenty of conservatives and can have civil conversations with them but it's very difficult when someone pretends they're not right-wing and plainly are.

On one page he is saying he is just concerned about due process and then on another is saying he isn't sure Fox News is biased, is complaining about Obama without providing a reason and is claiming Trump is getting a bum rap and that people don't even know what they object to about him.

He realizes he's on a site where the readers are much more likely to liberal and so has presented himself in a completely misleading way. It's kind of irritating.

Collinswriters can speak for himself but I think maybe he thinks the reaction to Kavanaugh has become hysterical rather than rational, and that his President is much the issue as Kavanaugh himself. I am not in the US so don't feel the full force of this, except to say that it seems to me this is how Americans are reacting, and that anyone who is placed into the public arena by this President must expect to become a ball in a game to be kicked from one side to the other. Kavanaugh appears to have been a poor choice, and may pay the price for it. Does it matter? There are plenty conservative judges to take his place.

The Telegraph is the voice of English Conservatism, even known in some circles as the 'Torygraph'. Ambrose Evans Prichard has been writing for the paper for decades indeed, was Washington Bureau correspondent, and has written this article on Brett Kavanaugh (can you believe this jerk actually met Queen Elizabeth?) which starts-

Twenty-three years ago I crossed swords with a younger Brett Kavanaugh in one of the weirdest and most disturbing episodes of my career as a journalist.
What happened leaves me in no doubt that he lacks judicial character and is unfit to serve on the US Supreme Court for the next thirty years or more, whatever his political ideology.

It continues (in case the Telegraph hide this later behind their pay-wall)

To my surprise, the incident has suddenly become a second front in his nomination saga on Capitol Hill. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has accused him of violating secrecy laws by revealing the details of a federal grand jury.
“Disclosing grand jury information is against the law,” she told Politico. She said it also showed he had misled the Senate by assuring categorically that he had never leaked grand jury material to journalists.
Sen Feinstein released a ‘smoking gun’ document from the archive files of the Starr investigation. It shows Mr Kavanaugh’s efforts to suppress a news story about his wild cross-examination of a witness, including a wayward discussion of “genitalia” that particularly worried him.
This piqued my interest since I am named in the document and the witness – Patrick Knowlton – was in a sense ‘my witness’.
Sen Feinstein is doubtless unaware of the larger, surreal story behind that week, and what it might suggest about rogue operations at the heart of the US federal system.

The document is one of hundreds of papers released by the US National Archives this year. For me it has been a strange journey back in time, like reading your old STASI file in East Berlin. There is one handwritten note by a Starr prosecutor stating – obliquely – “Ambrose about to go off the deep end”. OK, nobody is perfect.
There were debriefing memos of clandestine meetings I had with federal agents and prosecutors. One from Shoney’s restaurant in Little Rock, Arkansas; another from a dinner at the Occidental Grill in Washington (my old haunt).
Mr Knowlton had been called to the grand jury because of a story in the Telegraph. Little did I know then that I was about to turn this brave man’s life upside down.
He was a crime scene witness in the death of Vincent Foster, the White House aide and ex-law partner of Hillary Clinton. At the time this was a mystery case, a big story during my tenure as the Sunday Telegraph’s bureau chief in Washington.
I had tracked down Mr Knowlton and discovered that the Starr probe had never spoken to him, even though he had been the first person at the Fort Marcy death location and had highly-relevant information.
I showed him his FBI ‘302’ witness statement from the earlier, superficial Fiske probe. He had never seen the words attributed to him before.
Mr Knowlton was stunned. It contradicted his express assertions. He said the FBI had tried repeatedly to badger him into changing his story on key facts. Each time he refused. Now it appeared they had written in what they wanted to hear. He agreed to go public and accused the FBI of falsifying his witness statement. This was to court trouble.
As soon as the print edition of the Telegraph reached Washington, the Starr investigation issued a subpoena calling Mr Knowlton to the grand jury. He was to face questioning by Brett Kavanaugh.

Mr Kavanaugh was then a cocky 30 year-old from the affluent WASP suburbs of Northwest Washington, very much the country club boy with a high sense of his status, and Georgetown Prep and Yale Law School behind him, though only with a humdrum Cum Laude. If anybody was going to wind up my hard-scrabble, salt-of-America witness, it was this child of privilege.
What happened first was an eye-opener. Before testifying, he suffered two days of what appeared to be systematic intimidation by a large surveillance team. This was observed by two other witnesses, including Chris Ruddy, now the powerful chief executive of NewsMax.
Mr Ruddy called me in shock from Dupont Circle to recount what he saw. A deeply-shaken Mr Knowlton contacted me from his home several times, until his phone was cut off.

Veteran intelligence agents might recognise a method. It had the hallmarks of a boilerplate softening-up operation. In my view – unprovable – the objective was to frighten him before his grand jury appearance. It smacked of police state behaviour on the streets of Washington DC.
I informed Mr Starr’s office that their grand jury witness was being intimidated. So did Mr Knowlton’s lawyer, who asked for witness protection. Nothing was done. Mr Kavanaugh brushed it off, saying the Telegraph was behind all this mischief in order to “sell newspapers”.
When Mr Knowlton appeared at the grand jury – thinking he was doing his civic duty – he says he was subjected to two and a half hours of character assassination by Mr Kavanaugh. There was little attempt to find out what he knew about the Foster death scene.
Could it be that the witness was distraught and imagined much of this? Possibly. But Mr Knowlton and his lawyer later filed a federal lawsuit against FBI agents he claimed were working for Brett Kavanaugh, alleging witness tampering and a conspiracy to violate his civil rights. This eventually reached the US District Court in Washington DC. The quixotic case was impossible to prove. Yet it was the action of a man who clearly felt wronged. To this day he blames Mr Kavanaugh personally.

Thousands of documents from the Starr probe are still secret. Others are redacted. It is impossible to know whether Mr Kavanaugh was linked to any intimidation or obstruction of justice, but there is no doubt in my mind that he failed to protect the rights of his own grand jury witness.
This is not the place to revisit the Foster case, the electric third rail of US politics. But it is worth noting two points that touch on Mr Kavanaugh.
Few people are aware that the US federal prosecutor handling the death investigation at the outset, Miquel Rodriguez, had resigned earlier from the Starr investigation after a bitter dispute.
His resignation letter – later leaked – said he was prevented from pursuing investigative leads, that FBI witness statements did not reflect what witnesses had said, that the suicide verdict was premature, and that his grand jury probe was shut down just as he was beginning to uncover evidence. An informed source told me his work had been sabotaged by his own FBI agents.

The nub of the dispute was over compelling evidence of a wound in Foster’s neck, which contradicted the official version that Foster shot himself in the mouth and had essentially been suppressed. The key crime scene photos had vanished and the FBI labs said others were over-exposed and useless.
Mr Rodriguez, by then suspicious, slipped them to the Smithsonian Institution and had them enhanced. One showed a black stippled ring like a gunshot wound in the side of Foster’s neck. This remains secret but I have seen it.
The photo was pivotal. It confirmed what several people who handled the body had originally stated. I interviewed the first rescue worker on the scene and when I asked him about the mouth wound, he grabbed me, and said with frightening intensity: “listen to me buddy, Foster was shot right here,” jabbing his finger into my neck. He said the FBI had pressured him too into changing his story and that official narrative was a pack of lies.
Mr Kavanaugh’s reaction to the findings of his colleague can be found in the stash of released documents from the Starr inquiry. One says in his hand-written notes: “startling discovery”, “blew up portions of photo – trauma to the neck on rt side”, “appears to be bullet hole”.
He was presented with a long analysis by Rodriguez that ripped apart the earlier Fiske report and called for an open homicide investigation. This had huge implications for the Clinton presidency and caused an internal crisis in the Starr office. A decision was made to shut down that part of probe. Miquel Rodriguez said he was “forced out”. It was the end of the only genuine probe of the Foster death – conducted under oath – that had ever occurred.
Mr Kavanaugh faced a choice. He chose to go with the establishment rather than stick up for his colleague. This proved good for his career. He took over the grand jury, by then a legacy showpiece. His treatment of my witness revealed his colours.

Mr Kavanaugh went on to write the Starr Report on the Foster death. But Mr Knowlton got the last word, literally. He filed a 511-page report at the US Federal Court with evidence alleging a pattern of skullduggery, and asked that it be attached to the Starr Report.
The three top judges did not agree but they ordered that a shorter 20-page version be attached at the end, despite vehement protest from the Starr office. This had never happened before in the history of the office of the independent council.
This summary asserts that the FBI had “concealed the true facts”, that there had been witness tampering, and that the report had wilfully ignored facts that refuted its own conclusions. There it sits in perpetuity, a strange rebuke for Mr Kavanaugh by his own fellow judges on the federal bench.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard was the Sunday Telegraph’s Washington Bureau Chief from 1992 to 1997
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/my-...ans-pritchard/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collinswriters

You guys want to police how people think and, behave and anyone against it is an enemy of the people. I don't see Republicans pushing for that.
You guys pretend like there's no logic behind what Republicans do. You think you are the only ones that have the ability to reason?
And you guys are the ones saying that we must believe all women just because they are women. Some of you even believe all men are rapists, misogynistic, homophobic and all (this is now a popular line amongst Democrats).
They no longer think for themselves, they need people to think for them as a group.

---

Nice diatribe. Must have been very satisfying for you, especially with applause from the fearless types in the peanut gallery. But who actually said those things?

I don't suppose you realise how ironic it is that you use the term 'enemy of the people', which Trump has applied to any media that criticise him. If Republicans are such free-thinkers perhaps you could give us a list of those who don't think tax cuts for the rich are a panacea for every economic problem, who think that something should be done to control guns or that climate change is a problem requiring government action. Perhaps you could explain why Republican attitudes on free trade and Russia have done an about-turn since Trump.

The logic behind what Republicans do is unfortunately depressingly clear:
1. Use temporary control of the three arms of government to lock in a conservative majority in the Supreme Court and undermine government programs such as Obamacare.
2. Use control of the majority of states to tilt the electoral system in their favour through gerrymandering and voter suppression.
3. Use white christian identity politics to attract white working class support, while masking the real agenda of redistribution toward the rich.
4. Undermine independent sources of information such as the free media and expert analysis, while relying on tame media sources to hide the truth and spread misinformation.

I agree 100% with Filghy, and I'm going to nominate Stavros to Steve for the Hung Angels Literary Prize, but not only are the Republicans raping and pillaging, they have the nerve to claim VICTIM as well. It's going to take sticks and stones, torches and pitchforks, and millions of VOTES to shut Trump up. There is still a chance Trump could become the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party. There's nothing wrong with Trump that a jail cell won't cure, Instead of Impeachment, I think they should let an impotent Trump stay in the White House for two years as a constant reminder to Conservative Media and Redneck Voters what they hath wrought. Nobody wants Mike Pence to be President by default. No matter how you cut it, cleaning up this mess if going to be horrific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

If the Truth is ugly enough, people will prefer lies. Fox News isn't a Democrat problem, it's a United States problem.

---

There's absolutely no truth to this claim. Can you provide a link (or links) with credible evidence which shows beyond doubt that fox news should not be trusted or is a United States problem. Fox news reports the news as is or in favor of the Republicans but they don't lie. You simply don't like the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Just as an addendum here: is it not completely obvious that Collinswriter has misrepresented his own views to seem like a moderate who is simply skeptical about the Democrats' behavior? I get along with plenty of conservatives and can have civil conversations with them but it's very difficult when someone pretends they're not right-wing and plainly are.

On one page he is saying he is just concerned about due process and then on another is saying he isn't sure Fox News is biased, is complaining about Obama without providing a reason and is claiming Trump is getting a bum rap and that people don't even know what they object to about him.

He realizes he's on a site where the readers are much more likely to liberal and so has presented himself in a completely misleading way. It's kind of irritating.

---

That is your opinion and all I said were my opinions. I never complained about Obama, I only talked about the media's activities during his tenure which is almost exactly the same thing Fox News is doing with regards to Trump.
I am being skeptical as I said and that's just it whether you like it or not. I don't have to think like everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I agree 100% with Filghy, and I'm going to nominate Stavros to Steve for the Hung Angels Literary Prize, but not only are the Republicans raping and pillaging, they have the nerve to claim VICTIM as well. It's going to take sticks and stones, torches and pitchforks, and millions of VOTES to shut Trump up. There is still a chance Trump could become the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party. There's nothing wrong with Trump that a jail cell won't cure, Instead of Impeachment, I think they should let an impotent Trump stay in the White House for two years as a constant reminder to Conservative Media and Redneck Voters what they hath wrought. Nobody wants Mike Pence to be President by default. No matter how you cut it, cleaning up this mess if going to be horrific.

---

As a self-proclaimed freethinker, I am NOT a Republican. I don't like all Trump's policies and I don't hate him in general.
In accordance with the constitution, why should Trump be locked up?
And what brought about Trump's impotency? How do you know that he is impotent?
Why should the Conservative media be reminded of anything? Don't they have the right to do what they do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Nice diatribe. Must have been very satisfying for you, especially with applause from the fearless types in the peanut gallery. But who actually said those things?

I don't suppose you realise how ironic it is that you use the term 'enemy of the people', which Trump has applied to any media that criticise him. If Republicans are such free-thinkers perhaps you could give us a list of those who don't think tax cuts for the rich are a panacea for every economic problem, who think that something should be done to control guns or that climate change is a problem requiring government action. Perhaps you could explain why Republican attitudes on free trade and Russia have done an about-turn since Trump.

The logic behind what Republicans do is unfortunately depressingly clear:
1. Use temporary control of the three arms of government to lock in a conservative majority in the Supreme Court and undermine government programs such as Obamacare.
2. Use control of the majority of states to tilt the electoral system in their favour through gerrymandering and voter suppression.
3. Use white christian identity politics to attract white working class support, while masking the real agenda of redistribution toward the rich.
4. Undermine independent sources of information such as the free media and expert analysis, while relying on tame media sources to hide the truth and spread misinformation.

---

You asked "who actually said those things?"
My turn. Where did you find the claims you mentioned (4 of them) and who made them?
You said it's clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collinswriters

You asked "who actually said those things?"
My turn. Where did you find the claims you mentioned (4 of them) and who made them?
You said it's clear.

---

So you want me to spend time finding sources for you, even though you have not bothered to provide a single piece of evidence for any of the claims you have made? I would do so if I thought you were genuinely interested, but nothing you've said so far suggests that. I note that you have ignored the considered responses by trish and broncofan to your previous post.

If you want people to take you seriously how about demonstrating that you are acting in good faith by providing evidence for your opinions and engaging with other people's arguments? If you want people to believe you are independent then you need to show it, not just assert it. At the moment you are acting more like a troll.

Poor old Collin....he's probably on his way to the "funny farm" which is where most people end up who've had dealings with you fruit bats.
I just wish Trump had won the Nobel Peace prize to see you lot wetting yourselves for the next six months! :smh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collinswriters

There's absolutely no truth to this claim. Can you provide a link (or links) with credible evidence which shows beyond doubt that fox news should not be trusted or is a United States problem. Fox news reports the news as is or in favor of the Republicans but they don't lie. You simply don't like the truth.

---

When the President boasted to the UN about his 'historic' achievements the audience burst into laughter to the extent that he had to pause his speech, laughter that was edited out of the Fox News report, which made no mention of the incident.

There is even a book on the subject called Fox Nation -vs- Reality, admittedly short at 142 pages, you can find it here-
https://www.amazon.com/Fox-Nation-vs.../dp/B00A8PD694

There has also been a fact check on reports and opinions on Fox Channel which can be found here-
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

Rupert Murdoch has built a career in News which has deliberately 'interpreted' facts or distorted them to promote his libertarian free market agenda, and he has a right to do that. But what his press has also done, in the UK for example is to not only print stories that hav been lies, but to pay journalists and investigators to break the law often not to report the news but to create it, for example by rifling through the rubbish of a footballer or a tv star to find out anything personal that would embarrass them in public.

For years Murdoch defended the 'Page 3 girl' spread in his 'newspaper' The Sun, including the photo of a topless 16 year old that would have been considered illegal in those US states where the age of consent is 18 and possibly landed him in prison and his name on a sex offenders register had he tried to publish it there. And don't forget that Fox News for years allowed anyone willing to claim it that Barrack Obama was not a legitimate President because he was born in Africa not the USA -along with other conspiracy theories-
https://www.oregonlive.com/trending/...s_that_tu.html

Why is Murdoch so allergic to the truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

Poor old Collin....he's probably on his way to the "funny farm" which is where most people end up who've had dealings with you fruit bats.
I just wish Trump had won the Nobel Peace prize to see you lot wetting yourselves for the next six months! :smh

---

I wondered where you'd been. It looks like the doctors may have discharged you prematurely.

I was hoping that you'd been off working on your PhD thesis 'Trump/Putin/Farage: Three great statesman of the 21st century'.

Peejaye, enjoy your kegger with Squi and Bart.
Tom Collins, your reasoning is Supreme Court worthy, now.
Donald, put the diet coke on ice.
Vladimir, Nostrovia!
Drink up, Gentlemen.
This is as good as it gets.

This is an interesting article by a historian on the parallels between the current situation and the rise of fascism in the 1920s.https://www.nybooks.com/articles/201...-of-democracy/

As he says, Trumpism is not Nazism - but to paraphrase Mark Twain, it certainly rhymes. The risk is not totalitarian dictatorship but, rather, a steady shift toward 'illiberal democracy' of the kind seen in countries like Hungary and Turkey. The structures of democracy remain, but with all institutions controlled by loyalists who favour the ruling regime it becomes a charade.

If Republicans retain control of Congress next month the US will certainly move in this direction. Trump will have even less reason to restrain himself, and the Republican Congress even less reason to put up any resistance, having not paid any electoral price. Luckily, that seems unlikely. Nate Silver's site is predicting a 74% chance that the Dems will get a House majority, but only a 22% chance of a Senate majority. https://fivethirtyeight.com/

[QUOTE=filghy2;1855362]This is an interesting article by a historian on the parallels between the current situation and the rise of fascism in the 1920s.
As he says, Trumpism is not Nazism - but to paraphrase Mark Twain, it certainly rhymes. /QUOTE]

I am not sure the comparison works, largely because the US has a federal structure, but would argue this is where the cleavage in American politics is at its clearest.

It seems to me that what States have realised is that they retain enough control over their affairrs to extract as much as they can from the 'people's bank' -known as Congress- and amend their laws to fit their constituency. California can thus implement climate change policies that run counter to the policies advocated by the President; states can legallize marijuana in flagrant opposition to the policies advocated by the Department of Justice. But it is in those states where abortion is all but impossible, and millions of Americans denied the right to vote that you see how autonomy can become close to independence.

Even though there may be a determined effort to provide the Supreme Court with an opportunity to overturn Roe -v- Wade (I am not sure, legally how this is done), it would be more a matter of theatre as in reality Roe -v- Wade is a dead letter in those states whch now impose such severe term limits as to make an abortion all but impossible, and withdraw funding and support for Planned Parenthood.

In many states anyone with a prison record is barred from voting, just as the invention of new rules on registration has the practical effect of making it harder when it should be easier, and just as on election day in those states the authorities suddenly declare a polling station does not meet health and safety requirements and is closed -as is the next closest, and the next closest, and the next until a voter is faced with a round trip of 200 miles and several hours to exercise the most basic right in a democracy.

It is not a permanent situation, because it can be changed, but I don't see the changes required happening soon. In some ways what is being seen in the US is not so different from the resistance of the UK and Hungary to their perception of interfering government in Brussels, yet just as the Confederate states cannot survive without transferring tax payers money via Federal contracts to their states, offering corporations tax free or tax holiday deals to provide jobs, so the UK cannot survive without a close trading relationship with the EU.

Thus, whereas the Nazis consolidated power by drawing the whole of Germany into a single, monolithic structure ruled by 'one people, one leader, one state' what we seem to be seeing in the UK and the US is a retreat from the centre and a revival of the local, with the longer term prospect that both the UK in its present form (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; with Gibraltar as an as yet undecided factor in Brexit) and the US could break up into constituent parts, even as they find ways of trading together.

Ultimately, rather than using a warning from the 1930s as an example, the US and the UK can best be judged in reference to their own histories, there is enough material there to provide useful comparisons and a lot of food for thought, chemical free we hope.

I recall a story about a blind man looking at an Elephant, the United States is as big as Europe, but I think the story of The Hour now is the arrow in the shoulder, before you ask who shot the arrow or why, job #1 is to remove the arrow from your flesh. Preliminary Surgery is scheduled for Nov 6th.
Hopefully Donald Trump is just a loophole in the Law, a fly in the ointment, or what happens to a World where War is no longer an option. Two thousand years after we were taught to love our neighbor, our neighbors are still stealing our stuff. The fault is always our neighbor's. Donald Trump is as American as Apple Pie, J R Ewing, P T Barnum. People were sick of another Bush V. Clinton bout, two boring candidates. Nothing will be more entertaining than watching the cuffs placed on Trump's little hands. Live in Hope, Die in despair. The Republicans are petrified that Trump may signal their Death Knell, and they're coming up with the kitchen sink to prevent it. Kavanaugh is an Ace up their sleeve. So many Laws...…….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I am not sure the comparison works, largely because the US has a federal structure, but would argue this is where the cleavage in American politics is at its clearest.

---

Germany also has a federal system with significant powers reserved to the states, and did so at the time of the Nazi takeover. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_Germany I'm sure there are plenty of ways that an unscrupulous and ruthless federal government can put pressure on states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I think the story of The Hour now is the arrow in the shoulder, before you ask who shot the arrow or why, job #1 is to remove the arrow from your flesh. Preliminary Surgery is scheduled for Nov 6th.

---

I think you are over-optimistic. The best we can expect is that the patient will be stabilised and the arrow prevented from going any deeper. All indications are that the Dems will take back the House but not the Senate. That means they can block legislation and launch investigations, but they can't pass legislation or block appointments and they won't be able to impeach Trump.

If you haven't figured yet that most Republicans don't want to see or hear any evil about Trump then you haven't been paying attention. Mueller is unlikely to find a tape of Trump making a deal with the Russians, so whatever he comes up with will be an accumulation of lots of pieces of evidence, which they'll find reasons to discredit. I doubt that most of them care whether he colluded anyway - all they care about is that their tribe wins by any means possible. This isn't the Republican party of the 1970s - Nixon would not have been forced to resign today.

I think it's going to be more like World War I. The enemy advance may be halted, but there'll be many years of trench warfare ahead with no decisive victory. A full cure probably requires the sort of landslide that FDR achieved in the 1930s. But who knows? Maybe Trump will eventually drag us into another Great Depression and history can repeat.

You may very well be right but I think Democrats are being born every day. Teenagers. With soft warm breasts. And they will be on our side. Thanks Trump!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Germany also has a federal system with significant powers reserved to the states, and did so at the time of the Nazi takeover. I'm sure there are plenty of ways that an unscrupulous and ruthless federal government can put pressure on states.

---

I understand the parallels, there is even an article on it, albeit one written from the perspective of an active Christian (not, I think of the 'Evangelical' trend) whih relates the absence of faith to its replacement with identity politics attempting to fill a gap that might also be created by unemployment, or fractured family life-
https://swarajyamag.com/world/drawin...weimar-america

There has been a profusion of books and articles on the origins of the Third Reich which argue either that it was a crisis of modernity in the sense that by the 1930s Germany had failed to develop the liberal institutions that existed in, say the UK, and which acted to prevent the dictatorship that emerged there (as was also the case with Italy), or that the Nazis were a product of modernity itself but a modernizing process that had failed to deliver the degree of prosperity before the First World War that generated so much social distress and dislocation after it. Geoff Eley and David Blakbourn have been proponents of the first idea, Detlev Peukert of the second, and perhaps the more persuasive.

For an overview of the Blakbourn/Eley thesis try this link-
https://douglasibell.com/2012/03/17/...erman-history/

The Peukert view is in this very, very long Wikipedia article on him, some of poorly written, but he was a fascinating historian whose book, in English -Inside the Third Reich- is worth reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detlev_Peukert

I think the differences are too great for the comparison to go far, not least the fact that a unified Germany had only existed for 63 years when Hitler became Chancellor. Maybe the parallel should be with the US civil war?