Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

[ivwshane]

Yes, I do. You just don't like the choices made by Republicans.

Nope, I just hate dishonest posters who spread lies and bullshit and you happen to be the biggest piece of shit on this forum.

Stop lying, stop spreading bullshit, and then we can discuss things like the Republican picks for supreme court.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Nope, I just hate dishonest posters who spread lies and bullshit and you happen to be the biggest piece of shit on this forum.

Stop lying, stop spreading bullshit, and then we can discuss things like the Republican picks for supreme court.

You mean Gorsuch and our next Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh?

 

[Paratus]

I added a definition for stupid people and liars, like yourself.

I’m enjoying your 100% success rate in projecting in every post.

Keep it up.

 

[woolfe9998]

Maddow is arguing tonight that the dems aren't posturing for the public. They are trying to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation. She makes several sound points in support of her thesis.

 

[ivwshane]

Maddow is arguing tonight that the dems aren't posturing for the public. They are trying to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation. She makes several sound points in support of her thesis.

I don't think they are posturing but they are fully vetting him. To me it seems like they are trying their best to expose the whole system and how corrupted the process is. They are discussing things like campaign finance reform, dark money, advocacy groups behind supreme court picks and the systematic removal/limitation of Congress's ability to place checks on the executive as well as protecting consumers and citizens.

They won't stop this nomination but I hope their life of questioning brings out a much larger, in depth, discussion of the issues.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't think they are posturing but they are fully vetting him. To me it seems like they are trying their best to expose the whole system and how corrupted the process is. They are discussing things like campaign finance reform, dark money, advocacy groups behind supreme court picks and the systematic removal/limitation of Congress's ability to place checks on the executive as well as protecting consumers and citizens.

They won't stop this nomination but I hope their life of questioning brings out a much larger, in depth, discussion of the issues.

Maddow says they are trying to convince a couple GOP Senators to vote "no" on Kavanaugh. She discusses the recent withdrawal of Ryan Bounds for the 9th Circuit because two GOP Senators flipped "no" when prior racially insensitve remarks were revealed. Here, one possibility she suggests is Collins and Murkowski. They publicly said that they'll vote to confirm Kavanaugh even though they're pro-choice only because Kavanaugh assured them that he considered Roe to be "settled law." Now they have an e-mail where he says exactly the opposite. She doesn't think they'll succeed, but she thinks that's what they're trying to do.

 

[Viper1j]

Kamala brought the pain today!

 

[woolfe9998]

Kamala brought the pain today!

You just beat me to posting this. Holy crap. Here is day one and day two of her questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vtx_1f0-Ro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsm1GPnlqmU

Listen to Kavanaugh and his renowned legal mind pretend not to understand a clear, simple question. Repeatedly.

I'm curious if anyone here can claim to be confused by the following question: "have you ever had a conservation with anyone at the law firm Kasowitz, Benson, & Torres about the Mueller investigation?"

Tough to understand? Would you need it repeated 7 times before you could answer?

WTF is going on here?

 

[trenchfoot]

Kamala brought the pain today!

Truth be told I had some kind of perverse pleasure watching that go down. She had his nuts in a kung fu death grip fer sure.

 

[Victorian Gray]

What was that for? I know what it is. Just because it is a common practice doesn't make it legal or a right. It is still illegal.

You said:

"So you think that people have a right to disrupt and break the law during a protest?

Do you think that they have a right to interfere with your rights?"

Civil disobedience is the answer.

btw, which of your "rights" did those protestors "interfere with"?

 

[ivwshane]

You said:

"So you think that people have a right to disrupt and break the law during a protest?

Do you think that they have a right to interfere with your rights?"

Civil disobedience is the answer.

btw, which of your "rights" did those protestors "interfere with"?

The little bitch won't answer, I've asked him four times now.

 

[darkswordsman17]

The little bitch won't answer, I've asked him four times now.

I keep telling you guys, leave a definitive post in response and then ignore them until they have something actually tangible that moves things forward.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The little bitch won't answer, I've asked him four times now.

He has a lot of shoes to shine. Keeps him very busy.

 

[Bitek]

If you are asking someone to recall a particular conversation, it helps to specify who the conversation was with. It was a BS question lined with innuendo.

She’s the Senator. If she has a specific concern beyond her Presidential aspirations, she should speak them in no uncertain terms.

It was a specific topic, with a specific set of people from the president's attorney's law firm.
It shouldn't be that difficult to answer.

She was getting at if he had any conflicts of interest that would require recusal. Possibly lying to Congress if she has intel.

Instead of a simple answer, he looked startled and tried to dodge the question. Why? Why did it take two days to say no?

Tell yourselves it was just about "2020" if you must, but you are clearly missing the point of the exchange.

 

[kage69]

Looks like Kamala Harris just found the goods. Kavanaugh is clearly hiding something about meeting with Trump's lawyers.

Lying partisan shill confirmed.

Warren / Harris 2020.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to break this down for you as you seem to be stuck on stupid.

She intentionally asked the question the way she did, by being vague, so he couldn't weasel out of it. Its not important who he talked to at that law firm, its important what was talked about at that law firm. If she asked, "did you talk to X about the Mueller investigation", and he answered, "no" but he did talk to Y about the Mueller investigation, its irrelevant that he didn't talk to X.

She intentionally asked the question the way she did because she decided to go into prosecutor mode and wanted to seed innuendo as raw meat to attract donors. Seems like you fell for it.

Kavanaugh is not on trial. He clearly admitted to talking about the Mueller investigation in his capacity as a judge.

If she has something, bring it to the table. Anything else is just grandstanding. Booker outflanked her.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It was a specific topic, with a specific set of people from the president's attorney's law firm.
It shouldn't be that difficult to answer.

She was getting at if he had any conflicts of interest that would require recusal. Possibly lying to Congress if she has intel.

Instead of a simple answer, he looked startled and tried to dodge the question. Why? Why did it take two days to say no?

Tell yourselves it was just about "2020" if you must, but you are clearly missing the point of the exchange.

The point of the exchange was to attract donors and perhaps plant a seed to justify removing Kavanaugh at some point in the future. If she has “intel” now is the time to present it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The true outrage was the GOP changing the rules & stuffing ideologues down the country's throat. You've defended & obfuscated that throughout this discussion. Had they not, neither Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh would likely have met the 60 vote threshold & we both know it.

Well they didn’t have to because Harry Reid chose to open that particular Pandora’s Box.

I suspect anyone right of Ginsburg is an ideologue to you.

I look forward to Democrats doing the right thing and restoring those rules. Won’t hold my breath.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Nope, I just hate dishonest posters who spread lies and bullshit

How do you live with yourself then?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Absolutely, instead she was trying to play a cute little Gotcha game and she lost.

She lost because she has no depth beyond playing prosecutor and seeding innuendo. Booker actually did something that compelled the release of relevant, pertinent and factual information.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Good analytical article on CNN that really frames everything so far for what it is:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/07/poli...donald-trump-republicans-democrats/index.html

In summary:

Kavanaugh didn’t stumble in a way to lose support from fence sitting GOP Senators, and avoided the vague questions laid as landmines and perjury traps

More senior Senators like Feinstein did the actual heavy lifting in terms of asking questions that truly evaluate Kavanaugh as a candidate

Booker and Harris got their campaign slogan and video clips

Everyone seems to have forgotten the tone of bipartisanship that seemed to take center stage at McCain’s funeral.

 

[ecogen]

Everyone seems to have forgotten the tone of bipartisanship that seemed to take center stage at McCain’s funeral.

Bipartisanship isn't always a good thing.

 

[Bitek]

The point of the exchange was to attract donors and perhaps plant a seed to justify removing Kavanaugh at some point in the future. If she has “intel” now is the time to present it.

That's more on point than Tajis posts.

There has been a concerted effort to show Kav had lied to Congress previously, and may be lying now (see also Lahey.) => He cannot be trusted. He may be lying about RvW.

It also was trying make a push for later recusal if Trump/ Mueller ends up at the SC, making the court 4-4. Failing that, use as evidence of a corrupted decision.

It again is building off of the ongoing theme of Rs hiding information.

If anyone successfully lands punches, then yes, they will attract attention. The fact that everyone is talking about it says it found some success.

However, if anyone really wants notches on their belt, they need to defeat the Kav nomination, and that was the primary mission.

Hirono was in there too, but no one is talking about her for 2020. The above posters lays out Maddow's analysis that the overall strategy is to create a wedge for Collins and Merkowski voting against Kav, sinking the nomination.

This is far more sophisticated than the "herp a derp duh 2020" analysis that doesn't go deeper than a rank amateur analysis.

It was actually a pretty complex attack packaged in a pretty simple question. No wonder Kav was tripping all over himself trying to figure out how to counter.

 

[Bitek]

Bipartisanship isn't always a good thing.

We're in nuclear combat now.

If Rs wanted to extend an Olive Branch, they wouldn't have done what they did with Kavs documents and the last min dumps and classifications, let alone hold the nomination right before an election.

Ds are under no expectations to not respond in kind. It will broadcast weakness if they do.

 

[ivwshane]

How do you live with yourself then?

How do I live with myself knowing that dishonest pieces of shit like you exist? I stay positive and tell myself that for every idiot, such as yourself, that ignores facts and reality, another person realizes there is a lot of bullshit being spread by people like you and they start questioning and verifying things for themselves.