Mock

I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who do/would oppose anything coming from Trump, but it's certainly not everybody on 'the left' despite your constant insistence to the contrary Maggot.

Just like everybody on the right hasn't given up their desire to evaluate and make their own judgments rather than believe/defend/worship everything the President says and does, like you and plenty of others on 'the right' have.

It's ignorant to keep insisting that people who object to a lot of Trump's policies, statements and decisions do so because they're suffering from 'Trump hate" or "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or they're "RINOs" or any of the other shit you constantly fling, especially after they've told you the basis for their opinions.

Don't even try to step off the plantation!!!   

(09-25-2018, 10:45 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]It matters not who Trump nominates it's that he nominates that drives the left mad. Throughout the confirmation process he was doing great, no problems and that is what scared the left so they scoured the earth looking for anyone, anything no matter how obscure to toss in the fire. These accusers with no memory have no clue how ruthless and gutless the left really is but they will soon find out when it doesn't work.

That's not true. Some of it may apply to some people but in general it does not apply to everyone.

When Kavanaugh introduced himself to America, he lied. He lied like the ridiculous Dr. lied when it came to trump and his overall health, these people have an audience of one, Maggot and you willfully choose not to see it.

Well if this is anything like a Stormy Daniels wave of bullshit it will never get off the ground. Her lawsuit has been tossed into the trash and this new bimbo's will too. But not before causing damage as the left is knowingly going for.

Why are you calling her a bimbo? She is an educated, accomplished woman who has risked a great deal to come forward.

trump is talking before the UN audience. He said "my administration has accomplished more than any administration in the history of our country" and the audience is laughing at him. Jesus Christ. He's the laughingstock of the entire world.

(09-25-2018, 11:28 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Well if this is anything like a Stormy Daniels wave of bullshit it will never get off the ground. Her lawsuit has been tossed into the trash and this new bimbo's will too. But not before causing damage as the left is knowingly going for.

Without Stormy Daniels and her attorney, there's a very good chance that Michael Cohen would still be fixin' for Trump and there would be no investigation into the Trump Organization for illegal campaign contributions.

That 'bullshit', as you oddly label it, has not only gotten off the ground, it's buried at least one person legally and prompted an investigation which has seen immunity given to some of Trump's closest allies (Pecker, Weisselberg) in exchange for their cooperation.

Daniels is no longer called a 'liar' by anyone but the most brain-dead. Her lawyer is a household name now and is contemplating a 2020 presidential challenge.  

Their defamation suit being denied is quite likely a disappointment.  But, one has to be blind as a bat to believe Daniels' story never got off the ground.

I believe Biden said it best as head of the judicial committee for Anita Hill.

No fucking shit, eat that ass you fucking hypocrites.

You guys are high (I hope).

Did it really take a 27 year old video of Uncle Joe for you to realize that it's not the FBI's job to draw conclusions and make recommendations when doing background checks?  

In that context, it's the FBI's job to screen, interview witnesses/acquaintances/employers about the subject under penalty of law, document/compile the statements and findings, and submit the report to whomever requested and authorized the FBI assignment.  

The vetted/professional objective report can then be used for questioning and judgment/decision making.  

In the case of Clarence Thomas's SCOTUS nomination, the President and Senate asked the FBI to conduct a deeper background check after Anita Hill's claim of sexual harassment was made known.   The Senate used the FBI report and called 22 witnesses to testify during the confirmation hearing.  After which, the Senators voted/decided on Thomas's confirmation.

^ That's the precedent which should be followed in regards to Kavanaugh's nomination as well, in my opinion. However, the Republican Senate is not compelling the President to authorize a deeper FBI check and Trump isn't requesting it of his own volition.

If I were Kavanaugh and I had nothing to hide, I'd be pushing for FBI engagement. I'd want the FBI to talk to everyone named as a witness by Ford and Ramirez under penalty of law and get those sworn statements on the record. But, Kavanaugh isn't requesting FBI involvement either, and he wouldn't even answer the FOX interviewer last night when she asked why not, since it could help vindicate him.

Instead, it's Dr. Ford and Debbie Ramirez who requested that the FBI investigate their claims and report the findings to the Senate so the senators could have full background on the alleged incidents before confirming Kavanaugh.

the same fbi who claimed they could prevent trump from being elected.

I responded to Maggot's video comment and your reply, Biggie.

I'm not interested in going off topic to address the same old rhetoric and 'everyone's out to get victim Trump!' conspiracy theories.

But, in case you're actually interested in the question you posed, the enhanced background check into Kavanaugh would not be handled by the counter-intelligence or criminal divisions of the FBI.

(09-26-2018, 12:01 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]You guys are high (I hope).

Did it really take a 27 year old video of Uncle Joe for you to realize that it's not the FBI's job to draw conclusions and make recommendations when doing background checks? 

They're serious.  

(09-26-2018, 12:10 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]^ That's the precedent which should be followed in regards to Kavanaugh's nomination as well, in my opinion.  However, the Republican Senate is not compelling the President to authorize a deeper FBI check and Trump isn't requesting it of his own volition.  

If I were Kavanaugh and I had nothing to hide, I'd be pushing for FBI engagement.  I'd want the FBI to talk to everyone named as a witness by Ford and Ramirez under penalty of law and get those sworn statements on the record.  But, Kavanaugh isn't requesting FBI involvement either, and he wouldn't even answer the FOX interviewer last night when she asked why not, since it could help vindicate him.    

Instead, it's Dr. Ford and Debbie Ramirez who requested that the FBI investigate their claims and report the findings to the Senate so the senators could have full background on the alleged  incidents before confirming Kavanaugh.

The request was made at the instigation of Democrat lawyers to extend the nomination into and after the mid-term elections, the second accuser did not remember anything about any assault or names that is until she sat with Democrat lawyers for 6 days it was then that she had a miraculous revelation complete with facts and faces. Amazing!! A miracle!

Katz and friend...

I don't care whether Democrat leaders are responsible for getting the allegations aired.

As a U.S. citizen and a woman, I'm interested in full vetting of Brett Kavanaugh before he gets appointed to the Supreme Court for life. I think every U.S. citizen should be, regardless of political affiliation.

What we already know:

-Kavanaugh spends beyond his means.
-Kavanaugh bragged about drinking excessively as a teen - does he still do it? I'd like to know because heavy drinking impairs judgment.
-Kavanaugh either lied under oath or he was woefully naive and uninformed about what was going on right under his nose when he answered questions about his professional experience in the nomination hearings.
-Kavanaugh lied, at least once, during Monday's FOX interview. He acknowledged that there was beer at parties he attended as a teen because, he said, seniors could legally drink -- but the legal age had been raised from 18 to 21 before then, so that's false.
-Kavanaugh is alleged to have been sexually inappropriate with two women; acts which aren't/weren't 'boys just being boys' by any rational standard back then or now.

Whomever fills Kennedy's SCOTUS seat will be making decisions that impact everyone in the country for decades.

Kavanaugh was chosen, in part, because of his opposition to women's right to choose. Archaic religion-based regressive bullshit, as far as I'm concerned.

So, scores of women, including some conservative women, are of course very interested in finding out more about allegations that he's also okay with forcing sexual contact (and lying about it). Based on what I'm reading/hearing, a lot of good men are also interested and concerned.

I want as much information on the table as possible before senators vote on Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court. The senators who vote to confirm or deny his confirmation will be held responsible for their votes, so they should all want the same. Why are all but a few of the senators from the majority party resistant to such transparency and following the process established during the Thomas confirmation hearings?

People who think this is about Trump don't know or care what's really at stake here and are obsessed with the President. This is about the direction of the country and people's rights for decades to come, long after Trump leaves office.

Kavanaugh is a constitutional judge that relies on the Constitution to guide his opinions. he does not believe the Constitution is a "living" document, he will base his decisions on the interpretation of it and not by the court of public opinion. That in itself is reason enough for the left to want him off the court. He is not like Mia Farrow says "making" laws only making decisions based on the content of the constitution. 

I believe the left wants someone that will not be such a constitutional defender and this is why they have stretched the truth as much as they have even trying to say it is the accused that should show proof of innocence. Not the accusers need to show evidence of guilt. An amazing way to justify this entire whackamole process.

According to your view, there would be no amendments to the Constitution, Mags. Of course it's a living document. Were it not, blacks wouldn't have a right to vote, women wouldn't have a right to vote, citizens wouldn't have a right to bear arms for self defense, citizens wouldn't have a right to freedom of speech and expression within broad parameters, etc...

Society and humans evolve Mags. Any document offering principles and guidelines written over 200 years ago must be interpreted according to present day life to be relevant and valuable.

If conservative judges stuck only to the literal words within the document or only interpreted it in terms of their deep religious beliefs, it would be a major problem for the country, in my opinion.

There's already been a huge push of young religious/conservative judges into lower courts over the last 2 years.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed, I hope it won't lead to several Justices (essentially chosen by powerful religious lobbies) being able to take the country backwards and erode the separation of church & state because they hold the majority of seats on the Supreme Court. I hope the same if Kavanaugh is not confirmed and is replaced with an equally conservative but less controversial judge.