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

Professor Moriarty · 04-10-2018 4:48pm

This is a very interesting article with graphics from Reuters. It succinctly explains why the GOP should be very nervous about the House.

Inquitus · 04-10-2018 4:58pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This is a very interesting article with graphics from Reuters. It succinctly explains why the GOP should be very nervous about the House.

538 has the Dems 75% to take the house, 24% the Senate. Incidentally in the betting predictit.org has Kavanaugh at 91% to be confirmed now, a rise of nigh on 20% since this morning.

Professor Moriarty · 04-10-2018 5:04pm

Inquitus wrote: »

538 has the Dems 75% to take the house, 24% the Senate. Incidentally in the betting predictit.org has Kavanaugh at 91% to be confirmed now, a rise of nigh on 20% since this morning.

I'm guessing that's because Grassley stated:

"There’s nothing [in the report] that we didn’t already know. This investigation found no hint of misconduct and the same is true of the six prior FBI background investigations conducted during Judge Kavanaugh’s 25 years of public service,"

Inquitus · 04-10-2018 5:06pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm guessing that's because Grassley stated:

"There’s nothing [in the report] that we didn’t already know. This investigation found no hint of misconduct and the same is true of the six prior FBI background investigations conducted during Judge Kavanaugh’s 25 years of public service,"

It seems the scope of the FBI investigation was limited by Trump to just Ramirez as far as accusers go, Ford and Swetnick were not contacted.

Professor Moriarty · 04-10-2018 5:07pm

Inquitus wrote: »

It seems the scope of the FBI investigation was limited by Trump to just Ramirez as far as accusers go, Ford and Swetnick were not contacted.

I presume that's because Ford already testified.

eire4 · 04-10-2018 5:11pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm guessing that's because Grassley stated:

"There’s nothing [in the report] that we didn’t already know. This investigation found no hint of misconduct and the same is true of the six prior FBI background investigations conducted during Judge Kavanaugh’s 25 years of public service,"

Which is not very surprising given the FBI either was told not to or refused themselves to talk with numerous witnesses who have come forward offering to talk to the FBI such as for example James Roche Kavanagh's freshman college room mate who was on CNN saying that Kavanagh is flat out lying about his behaviour with regard to alcohol. From the sheer number of people not talked with the so called FBI investigation looks more like a window dressing sham then an actual legitimate investigation.

Quin_Dub · 04-10-2018 5:23pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Samuel Chase was impeached in the early 1800s, on grounds of letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions, but was acquitted by the Senate and remained in office.

So a SC impeachment would not be a precedent.

A successful one would be a precedent, but I don't see how it is dangerous. A judge that provably perjures himself to get a promotion should be impeached.

Will never happen - Needs a 2/3rd majority in the Senate to be impeached..

everlast75 · 04-10-2018 6:13pm

Appears Flake's backbone was "one use only".

Objectively one of the worst episodes in SC history. Pretty sh1ty conduct by the WH and the Reps too.

I'd like to think that if the Dems tried to pull a trick like this I would call them on it.

Sadly, I'm sure when they get in, they could do the same kind of thing and just say "well ye did it to us". Where then, does it end?

2 Scoops · 04-10-2018 6:13pm

listermint wrote: »

[

He can't win because he's excuse the language. Been caught by the bollix.

It will all come out next week.

And the Russian money pouring into gop senators pockets shows all we need to know about the big horah they are causing over this.

Follow the money always follow the money.

Kavanaugh was caught by the bollix was he, how did that work out for you? I don't see anything on supposed Russian money being funneled to Lindsey Graham either, was it the Palmer report reporting or some other nutjob source masking as a news source?

This is an excellent piece of the WSJ editorial board, the assault on Kavanaugh has unified the Republican party. It's not about Trump, but about how radical the Democrat party has become and how they'll stop at nothing to get power.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-never-conservatives-1538608630

StringerBell · 04-10-2018 6:22pm

Enjoy the ill gotten victories, as the next supreme Supreme Court Justice himself said "what goes around, comes around"

Inquitus · 04-10-2018 6:26pm

StringerBell wrote: »

Enjoy the ill gotten victories, as the next supreme Supreme Court Justice himself said "what goes around, comes around"

Hear, hear! Guilty or innocent, the one thing that was clear from this process is that he is utterly unfit to be on the Supreme Court. The Partisanship, the attitude he showed in the hearing, as well as the numerous perjeries with the small lies he told in his testimony.

everlast75 · 04-10-2018 6:30pm

Kavanaugh had an odd view that sitting presidents should not be bothered by litigation.

Kavanaugh made it on to the list after Mueller was appointed.

The GOP withheld docs on Kavanaugh, with the determinator of what was seen or not was his friend.

Kavanaugh appeared in a TV interview in order to rubbish Ford's story before she had a chance to tell her side of the story before the Senate.

Kavanaugh lied under oath.

Kavanaugh displayed partisan bias.

Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament.

The GOP prejudged the hearing confirming that the nomination would go ahead, regardless of Ford's testimony.

The GOP senate committee hired a female prosecutor rather than ask Ford questions.

Kavanaugh had numerous credible accusations of sexual assault made against him.

The WH resisted an FBI investigation.

Kavanaugh resisted an FBI investigation.

When the WH relented, they hamstrung that investigation by restricting the number of witnesses.

The WH limited that investigation to one week.

Kavanaugh contacted witnesses to the Rameriz incident before the FBI contacted them in order to get them to support his version of events, ie witness tampering

The WH then lied about there being a restriction and allowed the FBI to speak to 6 more people.

The FBI did not speak to circa 40 people who wanted to speak to them.

The FBI did not interview Ford or Kavanaugh.

The President mocked a sexual assault victim in front of the nation.

But tell me again how the Democrats were out of order.

Trigger · 04-10-2018 6:30pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Kavanaugh was caught by the bollix was he, how did that work out for you? I don't see anything on supposed Russian money being funneled to Lindsey Graham either, was it the Palmer report reporting or some other nutjob source masking as a news source?

This is an excellent piece of the WSJ editorial board, the assault on Kavanaugh has unified the Republican party. It's not about Trump, but about how radical the Democrat party has become and how they'll stop at nothing to get power.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-never-conservatives-1538608630

I'm not much of a poster in this forum, I do lurk though, can I ask you, why you think Kavanaugh is a good candidate for SCOTUS? What are your reasons for backing him? And do you think it's a good call to have a judge who has shown partisan bias in a testimony before the Senate, to be sitting at the highest courts in the land. Do you think that's good for the US as a whole.

batgoat · 04-10-2018 6:32pm

astradave wrote: »

I'm not much of a poster in this forum, I do lurk though, can I ask you, why you think Kavanaugh is a good candidate for SCOTUS? What are your reasons for backing him? And do you think it's a good call to have a judge who has shown partisan bias in a testimony before the Senate, to be sitting at the highest courts in the land. Do you think that's good for the US as a whole.

Beyond bias even, he became Alex Jones for much of that testimony.

RobertKK · 04-10-2018 6:49pm

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-224711993.html?guccounter=1

Former federal prosecutor Joseph Moreno discusses how Christine Blasey Ford’s ex-boyfriend claimed that Ford had helped her friend prepare for a polygraph test, despite her testimony that she had never given polygraph "tips or advice."

It is no surprise the FBI have nothing to stop Brett Kavanaugh being confirmed.

Igotadose · 04-10-2018 6:52pm

RobertKK wrote: »

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-224711993.html?guccounter=1

It is no surprise the FBI have nothing to stop Brett Kavanaugh being confirmed.

In that, there was no reasonable investigation run, I agree. Plus the WH meddled. The investigation was apparently limited to the Ramirez accusations, none of Ford's friends/colleagues were questioned per a report earlier today.

Still, though, perjury by Kavanaugh and his performance under pressure disqualify him from a lifetime SCOTUS appointment. Full stop.

everlast75 · 04-10-2018 6:53pm

RobertKK wrote: »

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-224711993.html?guccounter=1

It is no surprise the FBI have nothing to stop Brett Kavanaugh being confirmed.

If only the FBI had of been allowed to properly investigate and interview Ford, Kavanaugh's name would have been cleared... apparently.

So why didn't that happen again?

StringerBell · 04-10-2018 6:56pm

RobertKK wrote: »

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-224711993.html?guccounter=1

It is no surprise the FBI have nothing to stop Brett Kavanaugh being confirmed.

I think you should check more into that story yourself.

RobertKK · 04-10-2018 6:59pm

everlast75 wrote: »

If only the FBI had of been allowed to properly investigate and interview Ford, Kavanaugh's name would have been cleared... apparently.

So why didn't that happen again?

They could see what she had to say at the senate hearing.

There was no evidence to back up her claims. I read she has made a million dollars or more so far from these claims she made.

relax carry on · 04-10-2018 7:01pm

RobertKK wrote: »

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-224711993.html?guccounter=1

It is no surprise the FBI have nothing to stop Brett Kavanaugh being confirmed.

Think that's due to extremely limited scope and timeframe they had.

To quote a democrat senator, Sen. Christopher A. Coons, “You can’t find what you don’t look for,”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-prepare-to-review-fbi-report-on-kavanaugh-after-early-morning-arrival/2018/10/04/394dbaf8-c7be-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html

Rhineshark · 04-10-2018 7:02pm

RobertKK wrote: »

They could see what she had to say at the senate hearing.

There was no evidence to back up her claims. I read she has made a million dollars or more so far from these claims she made.

There was some evidence actually.

Source for the conveniently round >$1m

batgoat · 04-10-2018 7:05pm

RobertKK wrote: »

They could see what she had to say at the senate hearing.

There was no evidence to back up her claims. I read she has made a million dollars or more so far from these claims she made.

Oh Robert, her life is in danger as a result of coming out. She's under constant protection. Has had to move two times to date. Any sort of normal life is ruined for the foreseeable for her. Some crowdfunding that has been setup for her are likely to go towards the significant cost on her life. But sure, it's well classy implying she made it all up.

And yes, additional interviewing should realistically be necessary. A senate committee is nowhere near as effective as law enforcement.

2 Scoops · 04-10-2018 7:10pm

everlast75 wrote: »

Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament.

This sums up my thoughts nicely.

https://i.imgur.com/OKVcbDe.png

Now onto the goal post shifting. Good luck with it!

RobertKK · 04-10-2018 7:23pm

Rhineshark wrote: »

There was some evidence actually.

Source for the conveniently round >$1m

It is under $800k but

Ford was asked about the fundraising efforts on her behalf during Thursday's hearing. "I'm aware that there's been several GoFundMe sites that I haven't had a chance to figure out how to manage those because I've never had one," Ford said when prosecutor Rachel Mitchell asked about funding.

Ford said the intention of the fundraising was to help her cover the cost of security detail, but did not specify if she talking about Feldman's "Cover Dr. Blasey's security costs," GoFundMe.

Ford and her lawyers said her legal team is working on a pro bono basis. When asked again about additional costs the hearing has brought on, Ford said "There are members of the community in Palo Alto that have the means to contribute to help me with the security detail, et cetera."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christine-blasey-ford-gofundme-brett-kavanaugh-allegations-senate-testimony/

The "Cover Dr. Blasey’s security costs" campaign, which was created on Sept. 18, raised $209,987 by 6,658 people over nine days, according to the site. It has closed and is no longer accepting donations.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/gofundme-campaigns-support-ford-raise-700k/story?id=58147904

So currently at $742k and rising and she is accepting it all even though she has members of the community in Palo Alto who are funding her security.

Thargor · 04-10-2018 7:23pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

This sums up my thoughts nicely.

https://i.imgur.com/OKVcbDe.png

Now onto the goal post shifting. Good luck with it!

What must it be like to wander around with this warped of a view of the world?

2 Scoops · 04-10-2018 7:39pm

Thargor wrote: »

What must it be like to wander around with this warped of a view of the world?

I don't know, you tell me.

I see a case against a man which I deemed not credible since the start because there's zero evidence or corroboration to support the accusation, even so I've seen Democrats on TV for weeks calling the man ( A person who was a high ranking member on GW Bush's staff and taught at Harvard ) a sexual predator and gang rapist. The FBI cleared him for the 7th time, it's still not enough.

Is it a warped view of the world, where someone must be guilty until proven innocent? I think you'd find that's how things operated under Stalin. Kavanaugh has nothing to prove, his accuser and her team have provided nothing of substance, not even a zilch of evidence to support her claim. In fact if anything, what they've provided have actually helped Kavanaugh. It doesn't matter who you believe, all that matters is the evidence and there isn't any.

SimonTemplar · 04-10-2018 7:49pm

So its seems there will be a Senate vote tomorrow followed by a final one on Saturday, if I understand things correctly?

Is tomorrow's one basically a vote to have a vote?

Thargor · 04-10-2018 7:51pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

I don't know, you tell me.

I see a case against a man which I deemed not credible since the start because there's zero evidence or corroboration to support the accusation, even so I've seen Democrats on TV for weeks calling the man ( A person who was a high ranking member on GW Bush's staff and taught at Harvard ) a sexual predator and gang rapist. The FBI cleared him for the 7th time, it's still not enough.

Is it a warped view of the world, where someone must be guilty until proven innocent? I think you'd find that's how things operated under Stalin. Kavanaugh has nothing to prove, his accuser and her team have provided nothing of substance, not even a zilch of evidence to support her claim. In fact if anything, what they've provided have actually helped Kavanaugh. It doesn't matter who you believe, all that matters is the evidence and there isn't any.

You keep saying that but its not true is it? She named him to her husband years ago, she discussed an attempted rape by a high ranking republican with her therapist in 2012, thats some long game she was playing.

2 Scoops · 04-10-2018 7:59pm

Thargor wrote: »

You keep saying that but its not true is it? She named him to her husband years ago, she discussed an attempted rape by a high ranking republican with her therapist in 2012, thats some long game she was playing.

That's not proven, she and her legal team have refused to hand over the therapist notes to the committee. Anything I've read about that point says she never mentioned Kavanaugh's name.

As for her Husband, has he provided a sworn statement?

Thargor · 04-10-2018 8:06pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

That's not proven, she and her legal team have refused to hand over the therapist notes to the committee. Anything I've read about that point says she never mentioned Kavanaugh's name.

As for her Husband, has he provided a sworn statement?

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409760-attorneys-for-kavanaugh-accuser-fbi-will-receive-therapy-notes-if-it-agrees

They'll hand them over when she's being interviewed, do you think they're bluffing and they dont exist? Funny that the Washington Post reviewed them and confirmed they're real then isnt it...:rolleyes:

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

Comments