Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Leroy42 · 07-09-2018 10:51am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This issue with Senator Leahy is the only potential thing that might derail his confirmation.

Sessions lied under oath. I doubt that is going to be any impediment to the GOP getting this through.

DNC are dong all they can, but it is about as useful as the protesters that are making noise and being taken out of the hearing.

Kavannagh is going to SCOTUS, there is no way to stop it.

The GOP are looking at the very real possibility of losing the House, the low chance of loosing the Senate, but the very high chance that Trump is a goner. This could very well be there last chance for the next few years to get the SCOTUS balanced to there view. This is a lifetime appoinitment, a chance to revole Roe v's Wade, and in many cases will be seen as a way to stop the creeping liberal agenda in its tracks. Lock down gun freedom for the next 30+ years.

StringerBell · 07-09-2018 10:53am

Is it just me or is there one very conspicuous name missing from the multitude of officials coming out to say it wasn't them (the op-ed)

Also, Trump can't say the word anonymous

he had two shots at it and just couldn't do it

StringerBell · 07-09-2018 10:54am

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sessions lied under oath. I doubt that is going to be any impediment to the GOP getting this through.

DNC are dong all they can, but it is about as useful as the protesters that are making noise and being taken out of the hearing.

Kavannagh is going to SCOTUS, there is no way to stop it.

This ^^^^

Zubeneschamali · 07-09-2018 10:57am

Leroy42 wrote: »

Kavannagh is going to SCOTUS, there is no way to stop it.

Maybe so, but they want to hang a big sign up about Roe vs. Wade - when it is struck down by Kavanaugh, the Dems get to use that against every R senator in a purple state who voted for him. They can't say they weren't warned.

oscarBravo · 07-09-2018 11:20am

Manic Moran wrote: »

With respect, no, that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the US. A Presidential Election is actually some 51 separate elections, each election determining who a State will vote for to become their President. The position of President was created to the United States as a “them”, not an “it”. The States voted, they voted for Trump over Clinton. It’s as simple as that.

I'm not misunderstanding the system; I'm disagreeing with your initial assertion. Here it is again:

Manic Moran wrote: »

...the direction [Clinton] wanted to take the country obviously was not the direction the country wanted to be taken, or she would have won.

We're not discussing the weird mechanics of how the USA elects its President; we're literally discussing "what the country wants". I'm arguing that if more people in a country vote for A than for B, then the country wants A. You're arguing that if the electoral college translates a majority for A into a win for B, then the country wants B.

I accept that Trump won. I accept that the electoral college is designed to replace the will of the people with a best-guess approximation of the will of the states based on an assortment of interpretations of the will of the peoples of those respective states. I don't accept that it can be meaningfully described as representing what the country wants.

Celticfire · 07-09-2018 11:29am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This issue with Senator Leahy is the only potential thing that might derail his confirmation.

Perhaps Senator Leahy could join his colleague and have a Spartacus moment of his own. It's plainly obvious that Sen Booker thought that he had the silver bullet and dramatically wished to deliver it. He was sure that he had Kavanaugh guilty of agreeing with racial profiling. Too bad that he in his rush to have his Spartacus moment he didn't actually realize that he was opposed to it. I wonder how much Bookers odds dropped for the 2020 run after his massive swing and miss?

26000 Elephants · 07-09-2018 11:33am

Celticfire wrote: »

Perhaps Senator Leahy could join his colleague and have a Spartacus moment of his own. It's plainly obvious that Sen Booker thought that he had the silver bullet and dramatically wished to deliver it. He was sure that he had Kavanaugh guilty of agreeing with racial profiling. Too bad that he in his rush to have his Spartacus moment he didn't actually realize that he was opposed to it. I wonder how much Bookers odds dropped for the 2020 run after his massive swing and miss?

I think you might have missed the entire point that Booker was making concerning the 'protected' status of those emails.

StringerBell · 07-09-2018 11:33am

Celticfire wrote: »

Perhaps Senator Leahy could join his colleague and have a Spartacus moment of his own. It's plainly obvious that Sen Booker thought that he had the silver bullet and dramatically wished to deliver it. He was sure that he had Kavanaugh guilty of agreeing with racial profiling. Too bad that he in his rush to have his Spartacus moment he didn't actually realize that he was opposed to it. I wonder how much Bookers odds dropped for the 2020 run after his massive swing and miss?

He obviously didn't think he was guilty of agreeing to racial profiling considering he read the thing before releasing it.

The point was very, very obvious. You don't even miss it yourself you just can't defend it.

There is no way those emails should have been deemed necessary to withhold from the public. It is more evidence that they are rushing this through without the proper diligence as it is their man and they are worried about the midterms.

Nobody expects Republicans to play fair so it's even a position you need to waste time defending.

Silver bullet my arse, it's a good illustration of how the party on power is subventing the process alright.

Rjd2 · 07-09-2018 1:14pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I think you might have missed the entire point that Booker was making concerning the 'protected' status of those emails.

Maybe , but he is right to point out the grand standing tbf. Fair is fair.

Leroy42 · 07-09-2018 1:48pm

Rjd2 wrote: »

Maybe , but he is right to point out the grand standing tbf. Fair is fair.

How else should he have done it? I mean the guy was trying to make a point. Had he just released them without saying anything Trump would probably call him out for treason.

HE is trying to highlight the nature of the process that the GOP is running in order to get their man in before the mid-terms.

Should he have maybe written a strongly worded e-mail? Maybe appeared on CNN, where Trump and his supporters would simply dismiss it as Fake News.

It is telling that you seem more interested in his PR than the issue itself.

Quin_Dub · 07-09-2018 2:19pm

Celticfire wrote: »

Perhaps Senator Leahy could join his colleague and have a Spartacus moment of his own. It's plainly obvious that Sen Booker thought that he had the silver bullet and dramatically wished to deliver it. He was sure that he had Kavanaugh guilty of agreeing with racial profiling. Too bad that he in his rush to have his Spartacus moment he didn't actually realize that he was opposed to it. I wonder how much Bookers odds dropped for the 2020 run after his massive swing and miss?

As others have said , you're kind of missing the point on the Booker actions.

But in regards to Leahy, It's there in Black & White - Kavanaugh lied , under oath to the Senate on at least two and arguably 3 separate occasions about several different issues.

The GOP hid that information behind a spurious "executive privilege" claim to get their man over the line..

And actually when you look at how the last few days have panned out , the Democrats have played a very smart game.

They get a few questions in there early asking if Kavanaugh had had conversations about Trump and other issues ,
which he either denied or obfuscated on.

Booker then finds some fairly innocuous documents that they'd claimed privilege on , showing people that the reasons for hiding the documents has nothing to do with National security etc. but also publicly forcing William Burcks hand where he said "We've released any document we've been asked for so far.

Which then tees up Leahy to play for the more important documents that show that Kavanaugh perjured himself before the Senate.

It will ultimately come to nothing though as the GOP do not care about the rule of law or ethics or anything other than them getting their man into the Supreme court and setting the Conservative agenda for decades when the actual percentage of the population that support that agenda is dwindling rapidly.

Celticfire · 07-09-2018 2:20pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

How else should he have done it? I mean the guy was trying to make a point. Had he just released them without saying anything Trump would probably call him out for treason.

HE is trying to highlight the nature of the process that the GOP is running in order to get their man in before the mid-terms.

Should he have maybe written a strongly worded e-mail? Maybe appeared on CNN, where Trump and his supporters would simply dismiss it as Fake News.

It is telling that you seem more interested in his PR than the issue itself.

I'm very interested in how a US Senator gets a free pass by lying about the release of the documents. All he had to do was release them without his dramatic Spartacus spiel. These document's were approved for release before his outburst and he was well aware of that fact. If a Republican Senator pulled that same stunt they would be lambasted on this forum.

Stallingrad · 07-09-2018 2:33pm

Celticfire wrote: »

If a Republican Senator pulled that same stunt they would be lambasted on this forum.

I'm so sick of this Dems v Reps BS. If the democrats where rushing through a conservative SCOTUS with all sorts of question marks surrounding them I'd applaud anyone who spoke out. Have people lost the ability to simply see what is right v wrong anymore and can only see their party?

What's happening with Kavanaugh is just another septic episode in modern American politics.

Rjd2 · 07-09-2018 2:34pm

Celticfire wrote: »

I'm very interested in how a US Senator gets a free pass by lying about the release of the documents. All he had to do was release them without his dramatic Spartacus spiel. These document's were approved for release before his outburst and he was well aware of that fact. If a Republican Senator pulled that same stunt they would be lambasted on this forum.

He gets a pass because he is a left winger. The Republicans **** up on the hourly and get hammered and so often they deserve it, but ultimately the same standards don't apply for the Dems.

Leroy42 wrote: »

How else should he have done it? I mean the guy was trying to make a point. Had he just released them without saying anything Trump would probably call him out for treason.

HE is trying to highlight the nature of the process that the GOP is running in order to get their man in before the mid-terms.

Should he have maybe written a strongly worded e-mail? Maybe appeared on CNN, where Trump and his supporters would simply dismiss it as Fake News.

It is telling that you seem more interested in his PR than the issue itself.

Firstly there is no need for digs at me.

Secondly I have called out how the Republicans have handled it which I stand by. I appreciate nobody likes to criticise the Dems here no matter the scenario, but we are still allowed to and I stand by the criticism of Booker.

Leroy42 · 07-09-2018 2:35pm

Celticfire wrote: »

I'm very interested in how a US Senator gets a free pass by lying about the release of the documents. All he had to do was release them without his dramatic Spartacus spiel. These document's were approved for release before his outburst and he was well aware of that fact. If a Republican Senator pulled that same stunt they would be lambasted on this forum.

So you think, and I already asked you this, that he should have just released them quietly. You seem to think it is fine that these documents were withheld and only released when requested.

I find it hard to take seriously that you really have an issue for a person trying to garner the most PR attention for themselves, when the current POTUS uses press conferences as the latest episode of his TV show and has carried out monthly campaign rallies where the sole purpose his to grand stand.

What was the reason for withholding them in the first place if they were happy to release them if asked?

So effectively they tried to hide it until they were called up on it. So what other docs are there that we don't know what is in them and therefore don't know to ask for?

everlast75 · 07-09-2018 2:41pm

Celticfire wrote: »

I'm very interested in how a US Senator gets a free pass by lying about the release of the documents. All he had to do was release them without his dramatic Spartacus spiel. These document's were approved for release before his outburst and he was well aware of that fact. If a Republican Senator pulled that same stunt they would be lambasted on this forum.

From what I have read online, I believe the Reps claimed that they let Booker know the docs would be released. However, a Rep senator on the floor told Booker not to discuss them, or what the ramifications would be (or words to that effect).

So if the docs were cleared, why would the Rep Senator say that?

Celticfire · 07-09-2018 2:47pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you think, and I already asked you this, that he should have just released them quietly. You seem to think it is fine that these documents were withheld and only released when requested.

I find it hard to take seriously that you really have an issue for a person trying to garner the most PR attention for themselves, when the current POTUS uses press conferences as the latest episode of his TV show and has carried out monthly campaign rallies where the sole purpose his to grand stand.

What was the reason for withholding them in the first place if they were happy to release them if asked?

So effectively they tried to hide it until they were called up on it. So what other docs are there that we don't know what is in them and therefore don't know to ask for?

Fact is they were released. Their release was requested and that that request was granted. You seem quite fine with his lying. Why is ok for the honorable Senator to lie to the committee and the public to garner attention? Does this not make a mockery of his position as Senator. All he had to do was announce that he was publishing them and give his reason why. He get's his airtime just like everyone else at the hearings.

everlast75 · 07-09-2018 2:47pm

And to hammer the legal issue home..

In 2016 Trump gave a list of nominees for the SC, should one appear.

Gorsuch got the first nod.

Mueller is appointed. Kavanaugh's name appears on the list all of a sudden, he being one of the most outspoken defenders of a President and their right to avoid legal jeopardy.

Despite McConnell adv that Kavanaugh would be the toughest to vet because of the extensive paper trail, Trump picks him.

The reps hold a significant portion of papers back.

They appoint a lawyer who represents 6 people in the Mueller probe matter to determine what docs are to be released and what are not.

Kavanaugh skirts any issue put to him about whether he spoke to other lawyers in a firm which reps the president about the Mueller probe.

The reps are pushing the appointment through at lightening speed.

The whole appointment absolutely stinks, but sure - go after a democrat who may (or may very well not) be guilty of some theatrics on a sound point.

Leroy42 · 07-09-2018 2:54pm

OK, Booker is a populist attention seeker, that wants to increase his profile to make a run at POTUS in the coming years. Not sure why you have a beef with that, that is what all of them are at.

So, why are the GOP withholding the docs in the 1st place, only releasing them when asked directly? It makes no sense. Are they really saying that everything is classified until such time as the DNC ask for it? And if the DNC don't ask for a specific doc can it simply be ignored? That is not how this is supposed to work. The senate is supposed to get access to all documents, not simply they ones the GOP want them to see or the ones the DNC already know about. What a strange process you seem to think this should be.

As for lying, well you really are stepping into a minefield with that one. Kavannagh is being accused of lying under oath. We know Sessions has, and Trump has told 4500+ an counting since he became POTUS.

And the above highlights one of the biggest issues that Trump supporters have, They cannot expect to be taken seriously on any point they raise when on that very issues they continue to stand fully behind a person and party so completely involved in it themselves. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

everlast75 · 07-09-2018 3:05pm

Celticfire wrote: »

I'm very interested in how a US Senator gets a free pass by lying about the release of the documents. All he had to do was release them without his dramatic Spartacus spiel. These document's were approved for release before his outburst and he was well aware of that fact. If a Republican Senator pulled that same stunt they would be lambasted on this forum.

everlast75 wrote: »

From what I have read online, I believe the Reps claimed that they let Booker know the docs would be released. However, a Rep senator on the floor told Booker not to discuss them, or what the ramifications would be (or words to that effect).

So if the docs were cleared, why would the Rep Senator say that?

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1038062874369896451

So which is it? Were the docs authorised to be released, or were they not?

Celticfire · 07-09-2018 3:10pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

As for lying, well you really are stepping into a minefield with that one. Kavannagh is being accused of lying under oath. We know Sessions has, and Trump has told 4500+ an counting since he became POTUS.

And the above highlights one of the biggest issues that Trump supporters have, They cannot expect to be taken seriously on any point they raise when on that very issues they continue to stand fully behind a person and party so completely involved in it themselves. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

You talk about hypocrisy.... your defending of Bookers falsehood is the very definition of same. You continually spout about how POTUS shouldn't do this or that as it demeans the office. Now a Senator lies to his peers and the public in an official confirmation hearing but that can be fobbed off with excuses. If there's proof that Kavanagh lied under oath then let it be presented. At least that would be a worthy reason to release classified material.

prawnsambo · 07-09-2018 3:15pm

Celticfire wrote: »

You talk about hypocrisy.... your defending of Bookers falsehood is the very definition of same. You continually spout about how POTUS shouldn't do this or that as it demeans the office. Now a Senator lies to his peers and the public in an official confirmation hearing but that can be fobbed off with excuses. If there's proof that Kavanagh lied under oath then let it be presented. At least that would be a worthy reason to release classified material.

Well, judging by the tweet above your post, that's not entirely clear.

Leroy42 · 07-09-2018 3:27pm

I'm not defending anything, but it seems unclear as the exact sequence of events. I am asking why you seem so unmoved by the clear fact that the GOP attempted to hide documents? This is one of the greatest positions in the country, a life time appointment, an appointment that could impact each and every American for decades to come, and yet you have no issue with how the GOP are going about it.

Why not release the document in the 1st place?
Why was it considered confidential until requested by Booker?
What other documents exist that have been similarly classified yet, like those documents, incorrectly so?

But, and herein lies the key difference, if he did lie and he himself has stated that he is willing to suffer the consequences for his actions, then fine by me that he faces an inquiry. But we both know that won't happen. Not because Booker will use the apparatus of the state to get way with it, but the GOP are not going to launch an investigation into their shady dealings. The DNC would love that.

Exactly what consequences did Sessions suffer for lying under oath? What consequences has Trump suffered for his continual lying? And grand standing? And simply making up claims to try to get PR for himself?

everlast75 · 07-09-2018 3:49pm

You have to laugh at the WH.

There are literally hundreds of people who work there who could have written that article, opining that the President was unfit for office.
(What an indictment that is!)

So they are furious, talk about lie detector tests and sworn affidavits in order to lock this whole thing down.

They narrow down the suspects to 12....... and then that fact is leaked.

It would be hilarious if not so much worrying.

amandstu · 07-09-2018 3:58pm

everlast75 wrote: »

You have to laugh at the WH.

There are literally hundreds of people who work there who could have written that article, opining that the President was unfit for office.
(What an indictment that is!)

So they are furious, talk about lie detector tests and sworn affidavits in order to lock this whole thing down.

They narrow down the suspects to 12....... and then that fact is leaked.

It would be hilarious if not so much worrying.

Giuliani?(not sure if he is firing on all cylinders)

everlast75 · 07-09-2018 4:58pm

here's hoping for a decent sentence for oul George Papadopoulos "aka the coffee boy" today...

Another victim of the "Witch Hunt"!!!?

Hande hoche! · 07-09-2018 5:31pm

everlast75 wrote: »

here's hoping for a decent sentence for oul George Papadopoulos "aka the coffee boy" today...

Another victim of the "Witch Hunt"!!!?

Wouldn't have a tremendous amount of sympathy alright. Was a voluntary interview and he seemed prone to mouthing off.

Would be more curious as to the Flynn sentencing. If they ever get around to it at this rate.

26000 Elephants · 07-09-2018 6:08pm

Celticfire wrote: »

You talk about hypocrisy.... your defending of Bookers falsehood is the very definition of same. You continually spout about how POTUS shouldn't do this or that as it demeans the office. Now a Senator lies to his peers and the public in an official confirmation hearing but that can be fobbed off with excuses. If there's proof that Kavanagh lied under oath then let it be presented. At least that would be a worthy reason to release classified material.

We have to get to the root of the confidential documents ( that were not confidential at all) being released into the public domain when they were auhorised to be released in the public domain when.... err, what was the problem again?

Oh, that the Republicans have abused privilege to frustrate the proper due diligence expected in vetting SCOTUS nominations.

Dont let indignation allow you to lose sight of the real issue here.

RIGOLO · 07-09-2018 6:11pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not misunderstanding the system; I'm disagreeing with your initial assertion. Here it is again:

We're not discussing the weird mechanics of how the USA elects its President; we're literally discussing "what the country wants". I'm arguing that if more people in a country vote for A than for B, then the country wants A. You're arguing that if the electoral college translates a majority for A into a win for B, then the country wants B.

I accept that Trump won. I accept that the electoral college is designed to replace the will of the people with a best-guess approximation of the will of the states based on an assortment of interpretations of the will of the peoples of those respective states. I don't accept that it can be meaningfully described as representing what the country wants.

That this post got 14 likes tells me that alot about the anti-Trumpers on here, that they dont actually understand the fundamental structure of the United States of America.
Which is ironic, considering they live in the European Union.

currently torn between watching Obama rewrite history on the mid-terms campaign trail in illinois or getting a $40K education via Kavanaughs senate hearings. Obama is stumbling thru his rhetoric trying to balance the nonsense that got him elected with the realism of the world today. He is getting a muted response, same as when Hilary went on the road, no passion, would put you to sleep.
Senate hearing it is,

PropJoe10 · 07-09-2018 6:23pm

everlast75 wrote: »

You have to laugh at the WH.

There are literally hundreds of people who work there who could have written that article, opining that the President was unfit for office.
(What an indictment that is!)

So they are furious, talk about lie detector tests and sworn affidavits in order to lock this whole thing down.

They narrow down the suspects to 12....... and then that fact is leaked.

It would be hilarious if not so much worrying.

He's asking Sessions to look at it now. Not exactly sure what the Justice Department has to do with someone giving an opinion on the state of the Trump presidency.

Manic Moran · 07-09-2018 6:36pm

We're not discussing the weird mechanics of how the USA elects its President; we're literally discussing "what the country wants". I'm arguing that if more people in a country vote for A than for B, then the country wants A. You're arguing that if the electoral college translates a majority for A into a win for B, then the country wants B.

The difference is that you are viewing the US as a singular body politic, a position which has nothing to substantiate it in either the documentation of the legal structure, nor its history.

To a point, this is understandable. The Constitution has designed the US to act as a single body to all countries outside the US. It specifically reserves foreign relations to the federal government. To all practical effect, the US is an 'it' to Ireland. That is not, however, how the US operates internally. There is not a single federal decision in which the US can be driven by a 'nationwide' opinion. I am as subject to the laws and constitution of California as you are to the laws and Constitution of Ireland (I presume you're in Ireland), and what goes in New York affects me every bit as much as what goes in Germany affects you. Basically not at all, we're effectively separate countries under a common umbrella. The direction of that umbrella goes is determined by the States guided by their people, not the people of the umbrella.

You can't say that the "US" wants something when you mistake what the US actually is.

SimonTemplar · 07-09-2018 7:06pm

Brilliant speech there by Obama. Really rebuked the GOP.

WinnyThePoo · 07-09-2018 7:19pm

The Kavanagh hearing was hard to watch today. Weird having such emotional testimonies followed by fluff testimonies.

What sort of man do you have to be, to have 13 year old kid testify you.

UsedToWait · 07-09-2018 7:22pm

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

The Kavanagh hearing was hard to watch today. Weird having such emotional testimonies followed by fluff testimonies.

What sort of man do you have to be, to have 13 year old kid testify you.

Care to expand a bit for those of us who didn't see it?

Headshot · 07-09-2018 7:26pm

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Brilliant speech there by Obama. Really rebuked the GOP.

It's a such joy to listen to such a great orator.

pixelburp · 07-09-2018 7:30pm

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Brilliant speech there by Obama. Really rebuked the GOP.

The first time he has referred to Trump by name as well: I imagine there'll be a corresponding Twitter storm to match. Trump's hatred for the man is irrational and has demonstrably dictated policy.

It's hard to see what a speech might do, beyond persuade any lingering centrists, independents of their better angels. Obama was such a vilified, hated figure among the GOP central any speech by him will just be condemned as interfering or whatnot.

WinnyThePoo · 07-09-2018 7:33pm

UsedToWait wrote: »

Care to expand a bit for those of us who didn't see it?

Basically a number of civilians picked from democrats and reps testified for or against Kavanagh.

So a girl who was at a school shooting( sandy hook) testified they she had to pick body parts from her hair.

This was followed by and old college buddy talking how great Kavanagh was at playing basketball and he drives his kids to school. This was followed by a 13 year old kid, who's family can't even afford to keep paying his medical bills. If obamacare is taken from him, he will die. That was followed by a former clerk of Kavanagh again just saying what a stand up guy Kavanagh is.

Now senators are talking, all the republicans are not even acknowledging the kids.

https://twitter.com/2Tall2Furious/status/1038125377321873409

mcmoustache · 07-09-2018 7:42pm

Headshot wrote: »

It's a such joy to listen to such a great orator.

I think he's a good orator but not necessarily a great one. It's just that the current idiot is a blithering buffoon who loses his train of thought after four words. I'm watching the speech now and it is pretty good so far. I hope he takes the gloves off more as the yanks get closer to the election.

StringerBell · 07-09-2018 7:45pm

Rjd2 wrote: »

He gets a pass because he is a left winger. The Republicans **** up on the hourly and get hammered and so often they deserve it, but ultimately the same standards don't apply for the Dems.

Im sorry, but this is nonsense and even a cursory glance at what happens when there is a scandal concerning a Rep and one concerning a Dem would tell you this.

There certainly does appear to be a difference in standards applied but it isn't the way you think. Look into it a bit more I'd urge you.

Start with searching about paying off mistresses, Roy Moore, Al franken, Anthony Weiner, Donald Trump.

That will get you started

UsedToWait · 07-09-2018 7:49pm

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Brilliant speech there by Obama. Really rebuked the GOP.

Headshot wrote: »

It's a such joy to listen to such a great orator.

Trump:

"'I'm sorry.
I watched it.
But I fell asleep"

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/07/trump-obama-speech-response-north-dakota-sot-vpx.cnn

everlast75 · 07-09-2018 7:52pm

UsedToWait wrote: »

Trump:

"'I'm sorry.
I watched it.
But I fell asleep"

Wildean wit indeed...

mcmoustache · 07-09-2018 7:57pm

StringerBell wrote: »

This is nonsense

You are correct.

Booker released some stuff that was allowed but he also released documents that he was not allowed to.

McConnell is under the impression that he broke some rules.

Washington Post wrote:

During a radio interview, McConnell characterized Booker’s actions as “unusual behavior” and said it “wouldn’t surprise me” if it draws the attention of the Ethics Committee.
“When you break the Senate rules, it’s something the Ethics Committee could take a look at,” McConnell told host Hugh Hewitt. “And that would be up to them to decide. But it’s routinely looked at by the Ethics Committee.”

BabyCheeses · 07-09-2018 7:57pm

RIGOLO wrote: »

That this post got 14 likes tells me that alot about the anti-Trumpers on here, that they dont actually understand the fundamental structure of the United States of America.
Which is ironic, considering they live in the European Union.

currently torn between watching Obama rewrite history on the mid-terms campaign trail in illinois or getting a $40K education via Kavanaughs senate hearings. Obama is stumbling thru his rhetoric trying to balance the nonsense that got him elected with the realism of the world today. He is getting a muted response, same as when Hilary went on the road, no passion, would put you to sleep.
Senate hearing it is,

Unfortunately politics generally isn't aimed at the same demographic as children's TV. It can be boring when the adults talk.

mcmoustache · 07-09-2018 8:06pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

I think he's a good orator but not necessarily a great one. It's just that the current idiot is a blithering buffoon who loses his train of thought after four words. I'm watching the speech now and it is pretty good so far. I hope he takes the gloves off more as the yanks get closer to the election.

Responding to myself to say that this is a good speech.

It's amazing to hear a US president use complete sentences and stick to the point that they're trying to make. It's also nice to see a president who is sane and doesn't make you think "what is this weird ****?". It's a low bar, but here we are.

UsedToWait · 07-09-2018 8:18pm

Trump audio from Air Force One answering a question as to whether he'll agree to meet Meuller.

Essentially, he will if it's fair.

Started rambling then, as is his wont, to the clearly single phrase that his aides have drilled into him on any given topic.
In this case "Article 2"
Seems they are recycling this canard from Guiliani which excuses Trump of obstruction of justice in sacking Comey, due to the President's right to hire and fire at whim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/07/24/giulianis-new-mueller-theory-actually-reveals-weakness-of-trumps-position/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.370a5f7d16eb

as the head of the executive branch, he has control over all Justice Department investigations, including into himself. Therefore, there is no reason for Mueller to question him about such actions

everlast75 · 07-09-2018 8:34pm

He's had a year to meet Mueller.

He wants people to think he will, but he is scared stiff

Manic Moran · 07-09-2018 8:36pm

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Basically a number of civilians picked from democrats and reps testified for or against Kavanagh.

So a girl who was at a school shooting( sandy hook) testified they she had to pick body parts from her hair.

This was followed by and old college buddy talking how great Kavanagh was at playing basketball and he drives his kids to school. This was followed by a 13 year old kid, who's family can't even afford to keep paying his medical bills. If obamacare is taken from him, he will die. That was followed by a former clerk of Kavanagh again just saying what a stand up guy Kavanagh is.

Now senators are talking, all the republicans are not even acknowledging the kids.

https://twitter.com/2Tall2Furious/status/1038125377321873409

The idiocy of all this is that none of the above has anything to do with the law, his past application of the law, his qualifications to judtge, or his likely future intent to intepret the laws as fairly and to the best of his ability.

He dropped his kids off to school. Whoop-dee-do.

Kid had to pull body parts out of hair. Is there anything in the Constitution about that? I'm not seeing it.

He's a great guy. Fantastic. That should be the default position for anyone who's currently a senior judge. If not, why is he a judge in the first place?

As the Chicago Tribune observed, "Time was when a "well qualified" endorsement by the American Bar Association, which Judge Kavanaugh received, was enough for most senators to vote in favor of a nominee. Not in a day when politics has invaded even funerals."

Or, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-supreme-court-trump-20180709-story.html
"All of us should evaluate Kavanaugh not on how he is likely to vote on abortion rights, the Second Amendment or affirmative action, but on more fundamental characteristics. Predicting how a judge will rule on any particular question is a fool’s errand: Ask conservatives who were shocked when Chief Justice John Roberts provided the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare.

More important is weighing whether Kavanaugh will do the job in a careful, conscientious way, with a deep respect for the text of the Constitution, the language of statutes and the different responsibilities of the three branches of government. A justice who acts mainly to advance some political agenda will be wrong even if he or she votes in the way we would prefer.

Kavanaugh’s record suggests that by these standards, he’s highly qualified. In 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which deals with especially complex regulatory cases, he’s authored some 300 decisions. Taken as a body of work, they reflect a great allegiance to the words of the Constitution. By the time he faces a confirmation hearing, backers and foes of his nomination will have scrutinized his every word."

Out of over 300 opinions written, only one has been partially reversed by the Supreme Court. This seems to indicate, together with his qualifications, and the endorsement of the US legal system's professional organisation, that he's a good judge. Scalia was nominated, what, 98-0? Ginsburg, on the other side of the spectrum, 96-3, only a couple of years later. What was important was that the judge was well qualified.

Nowadays, confirmation hearings are a political theater designed not to evaluate a judge's ability or suitability for the post, but instead to appeal to voters for the next election cycle. It's an embarassment as much as a lot of other US government issues.

oscarBravo · 07-09-2018 9:02pm

RIGOLO wrote: »

That this post got 14 likes tells me that alot about the anti-Trumpers on here, that they dont actually understand the fundamental structure of the United States of America.

That was probably a devastating rebuttal in your head, but it didn't actually say anything meaningful whatsoever. If you want to understand how to make reasoned and well-argued posts - albeit posts I'll largely disagree with - you should read Manic's posts carefully.

Which is ironic, considering they live in the European Union.

I have no idea what your point is.

Obama is stumbling thru his rhetoric...

Coming from a Trump fan, that's mind-numbingly ironic.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The difference is that you are viewing the US as a singular body politic, a position which has nothing to substantiate it in either the documentation of the legal structure, nor its history.

[...]

You can't say that the "US" wants something when you mistake what the US actually is.

We're still talking about your "what the country wants" concept. You're arguing that the electoral college reflects the wishes of the country. That strikes me as an article of faith, rather than being grounded in anything rational.

If you're going to argue that the US isn't a singular body politic, that's absolutely fine. I think that a logical consequence of that argument is that you can't lay any claim to what the country "wants". If you're going to anthropomorphise a political entity, I think it's disingenuous to then try to decouple it from its population.

listermint · 07-09-2018 9:09pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The difference is that you are viewing the US as a singular body politic, a position which has nothing to substantiate it in either the documentation of the legal structure, nor its history.

To a point, this is understandable. The Constitution has designed the US to act as a single body to all countries outside the US. It specifically reserves foreign relations to the federal government. To all practical effect, the US is an 'it' to Ireland. That is not, however, how the US operates internally. There is not a single federal decision in which the US can be driven by a 'nationwide' opinion. I am as subject to the laws and constitution of California as you are to the laws and Constitution of Ireland (I presume you're in Ireland), and what goes in New York affects me every bit as much as what goes in Germany affects you. Basically not at all, we're effectively separate countries under a common umbrella. The direction of that umbrella goes is determined by the States guided by their people, not the people of the umbrella.

You can't say that the "US" wants something when you mistake what the US actually is.

That would make sense of us citizens living and working abroad were not taxed back in the us or is it only California that taxes you.

To say it's a mixed up poorly functional political and governmental country would be an understatement.

mcmoustache · 07-09-2018 9:15pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The idiocy of all this is that none of the above has anything to do with the law, his past application of the law, his qualifications to judtge, or his likely future intent to intepret the laws as fairly and to the best of his ability.

He dropped his kids off to school. Whoop-dee-do.

Kid had to pull body parts out of hair. Is there anything in the Constitution about that? I'm not seeing it.

He's a great guy. Fantastic. That should be the default position for anyone who's currently a senior judge. If not, why is he a judge in the first place?

As the Chicago Tribune observed, "Time was when a "well qualified" endorsement by the American Bar Association, which Judge Kavanaugh received, was enough for most senators to vote in favor of a nominee. Not in a day when politics has invaded even funerals."

Or, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-supreme-court-trump-20180709-story.html
"All of us should evaluate Kavanaugh not on how he is likely to vote on abortion rights, the Second Amendment or affirmative action, but on more fundamental characteristics. Predicting how a judge will rule on any particular question is a fool’s errand: Ask conservatives who were shocked when Chief Justice John Roberts provided the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare.

More important is weighing whether Kavanaugh will do the job in a careful, conscientious way, with a deep respect for the text of the Constitution, the language of statutes and the different responsibilities of the three branches of government. A justice who acts mainly to advance some political agenda will be wrong even if he or she votes in the way we would prefer.

Kavanaugh’s record suggests that by these standards, he’s highly qualified. In 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which deals with especially complex regulatory cases, he’s authored some 300 decisions. Taken as a body of work, they reflect a great allegiance to the words of the Constitution. By the time he faces a confirmation hearing, backers and foes of his nomination will have scrutinized his every word."

Out of over 300 opinions written, only one has been partially reversed by the Supreme Court. This seems to indicate, together with his qualifications, and the endorsement of the US legal system's professional organisation, that he's a good judge. Scalia was nominated, what, 98-0? Ginsburg, on the other side of the spectrum, 96-3, only a couple of years later. What was important was that the judge was well qualified.

Nowadays, confirmation hearings are a political theater designed not to evaluate a judge's ability or suitability for the post, but instead to appeal to voters for the next election cycle. It's an embarassment as much as a lot of other US government issues.

There's a bit of a difference here. This is the first time since Clinton that a president has been threatened by a subpoena from a special/independent counsel.

Kavanaugh has opinions on that that are obviously helpful to a president who doesn't want to comply with one. It's also helpful to a president who might do illegal things. He seems to believe that impeachment is the only way to sanction a president.

As John Dean testified, Kavanaugh's views suggest that if a President murders someone, law enforcement cand do anything about it until he's impeached or out of office.

“Under Judge Kavanaugh’s recommendation, if a president shot somebody in cold blood on Fifth Avenue, that president could not be prosecuted while in office,” Dean, a key witness in the Watergate hearings, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday.

This leads to some rather absurd scenarios where a president could theoritically shoot all of the opposition in the head and not be guilty of a crime.

Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Comments