A ton of things with no witnesses? You don’t give a crap about any due processes. Your “friends” on this board already admit if. Your minority leader admitted it.
Everything could have even been further investigated, or you know, use the fucking six background checks already done by the FBI!
Spare me your frustration, and fake outrage. Whip up your own frenzy.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. They have the power to do that. Again, lets have an honest debate.They didn't investigate it because they lack subpoena power and therefore could not compel testimony from those who didn't want to give it. (ie: Mark Judge)
Of course there is a defense for this action, she was keeping a promise she made to her constituent about an issue that could potentially ruin her life.
He will not be removed from the Supreme Court regardless of what investigations find and you know it.
Kavanaugh should lose this opportunity for a shitload of other reasons besides this. He's lied to the Senate on multiple occasions, he apparently buys into crazed conspiracy theories, etc. He disqualified himself totally absent any of these larger claims.
On what grounds? What federal statute are you claiming was violated?
Don't you just hate it when reasonably minded centrists don't share your opinion?
He's a conspiracy spewing douchebag.Don't you just hate it when reasonably minded centrists don't share your opinion?
You want to honestly debate this? Let's do it, no partisan bullshit. Why didn't the Senate minority committee investigators, investigate the situation? Once any sort of credible evidence is found, the report it like they do all whistleblowers? Answer me those two questions, and I MIGHT be persuaded towards your opinion. From ALL details, read, and watched, it wasn't done because of "insert something here".
You have no idea about history, or process. You're a typical hack, with plenty of keyboard time on your hands.The 'reasonably minded centrist' Ben Sasse has a DW-NOMINATE score of 0.833, making him one of the most radically right senators in US history.
Again, never answer the questions. People can see through the pile of shit you spew. Do you honestly think people fall for your false outrage?And, uhh, what about the total shit show of Kavanaugh's opening statement?
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. They have the power to do that. Again, lets have an honest debate.
If Feinstein leaked the letter against the will of Ford, how is that keeping a promise?
not sure if this has been posted yet:
Jeff Flake of Arizona announced Friday morning that he would vote to confirm President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/28/politics/jeff-flake-kavanaugh-vote-nomination/index.html
Uhmm, I don't know what to say other than no. They literally do not have the power to do that and there's no arguing this point.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44247.pdf
EDIT: Sorry, page 14
So yes, let's have an honest debate where we both ground it in facts. Will you concede that the minority does not have subpoena powers in the Senate Judiciary committee?
You have no idea about history, or process. You're a typical hack, with plenty of keyboard time on your hands.
Ford said only two people received the letter. Is Ford not telling the truth?The Intercept is the outfit that outed Ford and they say they did not get any information from Feinstein or her office. ie: she didn't leak the letter.
In addition, Ford says Feinstein respected her privacy and her promise.
No, you are. You didn't even know the senate committee could subpoena. Since you refuse to have an honest debate, I'll resign replying to you and assume you have nothing to add to your point?DW-NOMINATE explicitly ranks legislators in relation to other senators throughout history. That's the whole point.
I feel like you're in over your head here.
Goal post move again, I see. Let's stick to honest debate shall we? No more goal post moves. Are you saying that if the minority leader told the majority leader at the time of receiving the letter, we would be in the position we're in? You think I give two shits about a rich Yale grad? No, I care about the due process, and how this impacts the republic.
No, you are. You didn't even know the senate committee could subpoena. Since you refuse to have an honest debate, I'll resign replying to you and assume you have nothing to add to your point?
The Intercept is the outfit that outed Ford and they say they did not get any information from Feinstein or her office. ie: she didn't leak the letter.
In addition, Ford says Feinstein respected her privacy and her promise.
I think the most striking thing about this nomination of this inept drunkard and rapist to the Supreme Court is how much it reveals that life for white american males in the US truly is life in "easy mode". Imagine a woman or a minority ever acting the way Kavanaugh did in this hearing or being so obviously stupid and making it into Yale and then to a Judgeship. A woman or a minority with Kavaluagh's temperament and mental acuity would be lucky to make manager at Burger King.
This whole thing looks like a smear campaign by the Dems to try and push the vote to after the midterm. Pretty underhanded below the belt move on their part.
OK, I'm done with you. You don't want to chat honestly, and few on this board want to as well. It's sad, you can review the quotes, and replies, and clearly show you're unwilling to engage in an honest debate.What are you even talking about? I said they weren't able to investigate because they lacked subpoena power. You said they have the power to do that, something that is directly contradicted by the Congressional Research service.
It says an awful lot when you repeatedly ask for 'honest debate' and then refuse to admit error even when directly confronted with authoritative evidence. Show me your commitment to honest debate and admit you were wrong.
Again, never answer the questions. People can see through the pile of shit you spew. Do you honestly think people fall for your false outrage?
Who did The Intercept name as the source of the information? Would they normally out the source of their information? No?The Intercept is the outfit that outed Ford and they say they did not get any information from Feinstein or her office. ie: she didn't leak the letter.
In addition, Ford says Feinstein respected her privacy and her promise.
OK, I'm done with you. You don't want to chat honestly, and few on this board want to as well. It's sad, you can review the quotes, and replies, and clearly show you're unwilling to engage in an honest debate.
From the start, Ramirez’s legal team had called for the F.B.I. to conduct an investigation. Her attorney John Clune told Davis that Ramirez was seeking an F.B.I. investigation and said that, “on appropriate terms, she would also agree to be interviewed in person.” But when Clune proposed a phone call several times, Davis repeatedly insisted that Clune answer two questions: Did Ramirez possess evidence in addition to what was in the New Yorker article? And was she willing to provide testimony to the committee’s investigators?
Clune answered the Republican staffer’s questions, suggesting that Ramirez did, in fact, have additional witnesses and other evidence. And, he said, of Ramirez’s willingness to testify to the committee’s investigators, “We couldn’t answer without learning more from you about the details of whatever process you are contemplating. After hearing more, we would advise the client accordingly.” Davis then requested that Ramirez’s team provide evidence in the form of a letter, e-mail, or statement to the committee’s investigators before he would consider a call. Clune continued to try to schedule a call with a Democratic staffer on the e-mail thread, but Davis wrote back to him, saying that, “before we discuss a phone call or any other next steps, again, we need to have the following information,” and reiterated the two questions.
At that point, Heather Sawyer, the Democratic staffer who was copied on the e-mails in accordance with committee policy, wrote to Davis, “As you’re aware, Ms. Ramirez’s counsel have repeatedly requested to speak with the Committee, on a bipartisan basis, to determine how to proceed. You refused. I’ve never encountered an instance where the Committee has refused even to speak with an individual or counsel. I am perplexed as to why this is happening here, except that it seems designed to ensure that the Majority can falsely claim that Ms. Ramirez and her lawyers refused to cooperate. That simply is not true.”