quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
We were having a civil convo... But I think I'll just let you go on with your pretend win now. Good job, winner.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
That doesn't make sense. Actual change of power doesn't happen until January 3rd. The Democrats had no delusions that Kavanaigh's investigation would have taken three months.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think Avenatti is actually mad. I think he's happy Trump paid Stormy for sex and then paid** to try and cover it up, as it gave him a platform to shine in and make a profit. Which is his purpose, he wants money and fame.

**Which there in lies the actual legal problem for Trump if Cohen used campaign funds, we'll see with that in time.

Honestly, I don't know of anyone who went "ballistic" over Trump fking Stormy. Though if anyone should be ballistic, if should be the "Family Values" Conservatives, but they're as usual turning a blind-eye to Trump's actions.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
That makes no sense. Investigations into things like these can last years, not just 3 months. What are you talking about?

I remember watching on CNN, at the gym, the people talking about the Dems wanting to delay the appointment until after the midterms because of the blue wave that was predicted so they thought the delay would impede the appointment because....of the flip.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think any Dem thought they could delay Kavanaugh's appointment vote for 3 months and then axe him once they were (or thought they would be) in power.

Their hope was that the FBI investigation would have been thorough and either found undeniable evidence, or plausible evidence that would have forced Republicans to abandon Kavanuagh and had Trump pick another judge.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
She said he didnt pay her for sex numerous times, she also said she isnt a victim or apart of the #meetoo to movement.

Paying her hush money, like this isnt news or surprising in the Trump arena. And after the access hollywood tape didnt work to take him down, does anyone really think him sleeping with a porn start would?

Infidelity has never been a major contributor to politicians winning or losing elections. Clinton won a second term in office.

Liberals seem to have been grasping their pearls much for over this then "family value conservatives."

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
That makes no sense. Investigations into things like these can last years, not just 3 months. What are you talking about?

I remember watching on CNN, at the gym, the people talking about the Dems wanting to delay the appointment until after the midterms because of the blue wave that was predicted so they thought the delay would impede the appointment because....of the flip.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think any Dem thought they could delay Kavanaugh's appointment vote for 3 months and then axe him once they were (or thought they would be) in power.

Their hope was that the FBI investigation would have been thorough and either found undeniable evidence, or plausible evidence that would have forced Republicans to abandon Kavanuagh and had Trump pick another judge.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
If Trump didn't think it would have been a problem, then he wouldn't have paid to cover it up. Trump obviously did think it was a problem during his run.

Correct, cheating does seem to have little affect on people voting. But it's still something Republicans use as a blunt axe when it suits them.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by BrolyBlack


But what I dont get is the same people that get mad at Trump for fcking Stormy Daniels are the ones praising her for saying she did.

Or Avenatii saying a white man can only beat Trump.

I cant square these things with his following and media fawning on him, hes literally Trump light on the left.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Huh? No, that was the tactic. to delay until after midterms to prevent the appointment and also to remove Trump. This effort was led by Feinstein:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/...tt-13115222.php




And the Dems didn't just want to stop with ruining the Special K appointment and removing Trump with blue wave majority, they wanted Pence's head, too:

https://www.newsday.com/opinion/com...plan-1.21270983

Maxine Waters:

“When we finish with Trump, we have to go and get Pence. He’s next.”





Why do you pretend that the Democrats aren't these terrible vile creatures that they are? They are terrible atrocious people. Just like Republicans.



Here's s quick summary of the Kavanaugh situation:


Dems: Crap, this is a political appointment. Let's prevent it. What are our options? Delay until the blue wave? Delay we will.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
I dont understand the way you post shiv, no offense.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Trump isn't a Republican, he's a nationalist from what I have seen.

Maybe he was covering his bases. Regardless it would not have mattered a single vote, He said on Camera "you can grab them by the pussy." Do you really think people finding out he slept with a porn star would have changed the vote? People were fed up with 8 years of Obama and Hillary.

Most people got tired of cow-towing to ideology and letting dems run around and do whatever they want and never fighting back. Trump fights back, typically dems and the media can't handle someone who does, especially not a Republican, they are used to them bending over and taking it.

Trump is a constant kick in the balls and America for better or worse needed it. Washington was way to chummy, every 8 years the whole thing needs to be dismantled and torn down. Im still happy with my vote.

P.S. Could you really put up with Hillary coughing for 8 years?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard


I think you have a very shewed vision of Obama's presidency. For 6 of his 8 years he had a Republican controlled Congress keeping him in check and blocking him. So this idea of "letting dems run around and do whatever they want" seems like some Far-Right talking point.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
That first story was the Dems wanting to see all of Kavanaugh voting records.

quote:

During the Fox News interview with Judge Brett Kavanaugh on Monday night, the embattled Supreme Court nominee was peppered with questions about the motivations of his two accusers and the attacks on his credibility.
“Where’s all this coming from?” he was asked.

Kavanaugh’s response was muted. “I just want a fair process where I can be heard.”

Fox News host Martha MacCallum’s question was a good one, but directed at the wrong person. Had she asked a Democratic senator or progressive activist, their answer — if given honestly — would be as shocking as it would be fantastical.

Democrats think they have a real shot at retaking not just the House and Senate this year but, incredibly, removing both President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. Opposition to Kavanaugh is thus a delaying tactic, planning for the day when progressives control Congress and force Republicans into political negotiations that could lead to a “placeholder President” until the 2020 elections.

Here’s why.

Democratic leaders and pundits are convinced that Trump will be removed from office or pressured to resign. To the point, former CIA Director and MSNBC contributor John Brennan twice told Hollywood insiders that the president “will not be in power by the end of the calendar year.”

It was a dramatic prediction, and one that would not end with the president’s removal.

“When we finish with Trump,” Rep. Maxine Waters has said, “we have to go and get Pence. He’s next.”

The exact justification for Trump’s removal isn’t yet clear, with guesses ranging from Russian collusion to financial crimes. Either way, progressives believe that special counsel Bob Mueller’s investigation will bring Trump down.
As for Pence, the argument by activist groups and Never Trump conservatives is that he has to be complicit of something, perhaps simply just being the vice president to a chaotic and distasteful commander in chief.

Removing Trump and Pence would be no small task, of course, requiring Democratic control over Congress along with the help of Republican Senators who would presumably be bitter about their loss of the GOP’s majority.
A loss they would view as attributable to Trump and Trump alone.

The idea of such revolutionary change in Washington might sound almost conspiratorial to casual observers. But recent polls show a growing blue wave in November that would give Democrats both the House and the Senate.
Meanwhile, there have long been Republican senators who have bristled at the style and substance of Trump, like Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska.

At a minimum, the scheming of Brennan and Waters helps answer MacCallum’s question about Kavanaugh’s real opposition. The Democratic aim is not some high-minded justice for sexual assault victims or stopping a predator from advancing to the Court. Indeed, Democratic shenanigans surrounding Kavanaugh’s nomination are as transparent as they are embarrassing.

Instead, the immediate goal is to simply delay the vote on Kavanaugh until after the midterm elections by using spurious accusations as fodder. Then, Kavanaugh will be dumped, along with any other Republican nominee, until the 2020 elections.

This is outrageous and heinous: Progressives have decided to weaponize rape and use victims of crimes to achieve a political end.

The president’s supporters would understandably be outraged by these attempts, viewed not incorrectly as a coup d’etat. Our already divided nation would be pulled at the seams by protests from coast to coast.

That would require a very careful and amenable selection of a placeholder president to calm the nation’s wounds.
The next in line for the presidency is the speaker of the House, of course. After the anticipated blue wave, that would normally be a Democrat. But not necessarily so. The constitution states that the speaker could be anyone who is otherwise qualified, regardless of party, including someone outside of the House.

Given the need of Republican support in the Senate, Democrats would likely select a conservative who’s palatable to The Resistance, like Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Ne.), or Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

To be sure, there’d be wrangling by progressives for Hillary Clinton, given her popular vote victory in 2016. But it’s hard to imagine even the angriest of Republican senators agreeing to jettison Trump and Pence in favor of Clinton while they’re trying to temper the outrage of Trump supporters.

None of this is to say Democrats wouldn’t be happy with just stopping Kavanaugh or any Republican judicial nominee until 2020. As The New York Times recently reported, Democrats are willing to leave the court one justice short for the foreseeable future.

“We certainly had over a one-year vacancy with Merrick Garland,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hi.) and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But make no mistake, the finish line for stopping Judge Kavanaugh is not the Supreme Court.

It’s the White House.

quote:

Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to fill a crucial U.S. Supreme Court seat is headed toward a Senate confirmation vote — but how fast it gets there will be determined by whether outnumbered Democrats succeed in a tactic that could postpone a decision until after the midterm elections.

Those elections could maintain Republican control of the Senate, virtually guaranteeing confirmation of Kavanaugh and solidifying conservative control of the high court for years to come.

But if Democrats succeed in both putting off a vote on Kavanaugh and prevailing in an election in which they’re defending more Senate seats than Republicans, the nomination could be in trouble.

“What are Republicans and the White House trying to hide?” asked Feinstein, the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will consider President Trump’s nomination of Kavanaugh to succeed retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. She said the importance of the records in evaluating Kavanaugh is shown by his statements that as staff secretary, he “worked closely with the president and with the senior staff” and was called on by Bush “to provide advice on a full range of subjects.”

Republicans say the only records that are relevant to Kavanaugh’s qualifications are the rulings he has issued in 12 years as an appeals court judge, and possibly documents he wrote as a White House lawyer from 2001 to 2003, but not the voluminous paperwork that crossed his desk in three years as staff secretary. Democrats are playing a “delay game,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

If it’s a game, the majority Republicans hold most of the cards, with the votes to decide what information gets released ahead of the hearing. Whether they have anything to hide is uncertain, but one Democrat finds a clue in the history of a current federal appeals court judge in San Francisco.

In 2003, recalled Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Bush nominated Justice Department attorney Jay Bybee to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Leahy, then the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, asked him whether he had dealt with legal issues in the administration’s “war on terror.” He said Bybee did not answer.

A year after he was confirmed by the Senate, Bybee was revealed as the official who had signed off on a 2002 memo drafted by another Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo — now a UC Berkeley law professor — authorizing torturous treatment such as waterboarding for terror suspects in U.S. custody.

“Had we known that at the time, Mr. Bybee would not have become Judge Bybee,” Leahy said in a column in the New York Times.

Because Kavanaugh was “directly involved in some of the most politically charged moments of our recent history,” he wrote, “the Senate owes the American people an unsparing examination of his nomination.”

Another Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, says he’s been waiting more than a decade for Kavanaugh to explain his involvement in Bush administration detention and interrogation policies.

At Kavanaugh’s 2006 confirmation hearing to be appeals court judge, Durbin asked what he knew about another official’s role in those policies. Kavanaugh replied that he was “not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.”

That response was misleading, Durbin said at a recent hearing. He cited reports in 2007 by the Washington Post and National Public Radio that Kavanaugh had discussed with other officials the detention of U.S. citizens held as alleged enemy combatants. Kavanaugh reportedly told them that Justice Kennedy, for whom he had clerked, would probably rule that they were entitled to lawyers, contrary to the Bush administration’s position. It proved to be an accurate prediction.

After those reports, Durbin sent Kavanaugh a letter asking about the apparent contradiction and calling on him to disqualify himself from appeals court cases involving detainees. He said he never got an answer.

Democrats aren’t any more likely to get the answers they’re looking for now, said Rory Little, a law professor at UC Hastings in San Francisco and a former Justice Department attorney and Supreme Court law clerk.

Feinstein and her colleagues are making “a very legitimate request” for records of Kavanaugh’s White House years, Little said, but Republicans also have a basis for responding “that this is a fishing expedition and you’re just trying to delay things.”

He said Democrats are clearly hoping to delay a vote on Kavanaugh until after the November elections, when they hope to take control of the Senate. That will be difficult: While Republicans’ current majority is only 51-49, 26 of the 35 seats up for election this year are being defended by Democrats.

Little also recalled the seemingly explosive revelation of Supreme Court nominee William Rehnquist’s writings at his 1971 confirmation hearing. Senators learned that as a Supreme Court law clerk 20 years earlier, Rehnquist had written a memo saying the court’s 1896 ruling upholding racial segregation “was right and should be reaffirmed.”

Asked about the memo, Rehnquist said he had merely been expressing the view of his boss, Justice Robert Jackson. Most historians have rejected that explanation — noting, among other things, Jackson’s participation in the unanimous Brown vs. Board of Education ruling in 1954 that outlawed state-sponsored segregation — but enough members of the Democratic-controlled Senate accepted it to confirm Rehnquist to the court.

Even if Democrats unearthed “a copy of the torture memo with Kavanaugh’s initials on it, indicating it passed through him, would that change people’s votes? I don’t think so,” Little said.

Kavanaugh was screened extensively during his confirmation process as an appeals court judge, and it’s unlikely the Democrats will uncover anything embarrassing now, said Jessica Levinson, who teaches courses in law and politics as a Loyola Law School professor in Los Angeles.

Describing Kavanaugh as very conservative but within the judicial mainstream, she said Democrats lack the votes needed to pry loose any records and must rely on “trying to sway public opinion.”

Little also said a “galvanized grassroots movement” might change the equation. On Thursday, civil rights groups are hoping to initiate such an effort locally at a meeting in Berkeley they’ve labeled #StopKavanaugh (Bay Area).

A similar meeting took place more than 30 years ago to organize local opposition to President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, recalled San Francisco attorney Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society and organizer of Thursday’s session. “Nobody thought we could stop him,” she said, but the Senate rejected Bork, and Reagan later named the more moderate Kennedy to fill the vacancy.

“This is a 50-state strategy,” said another participant, Leslie Proll, a Washington, D.C., civil rights lawyer and adviser to the NAACP on judicial nominations. She said organizers, who include leaders of feminist and abortion rights groups, want to encourage Californians to support Feinstein’s effort to obtain Kavanaugh’s records, and to “use their networks ... to reach out to their friends, families, colleagues, classmates who live in other states.”

But local action isn’t limited to Kavanaugh’s opponents. The antiabortion group Susan B. Anthony List, which supports the nomination, says nearly 500 of its canvassers have visited more than 1.1 million homes in states including Indiana, Florida, Missouri and North Dakota, where Democratic senators face re-election challenges. Advocates for and against Kavanaugh have also budgeted millions of dollars for television ads, mostly targeting swing states.

There might be one more role for selected members of the public, said UC Hastings’ Little: Democrats who can’t get Kavanaugh’s documents from officials channels are signaling, he said, that they’ll accept them from anyone who has them.

“The fact that this (need for records) has been announced publicly is, in today’s world, an invitation to leak,” he said. The message is, “‘Anybody who has information out there, send it to us.’”

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
I think you're conflating things to Kavanaugh that were not part of that debacle.

quote:

I don't think any Dem thought they could delay Kavanaugh's appointment vote for 3 months and then axe him once they were (or thought they would be) in power.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
idea of blocking anyone/everyone until after January (the the assumption there was a Blue Wave) wasn't or if it was, it was a pipe dream.