Trump gets another SCOTUS appointment?

Just out of interest smr, why are you linking to a story about an act from a Republican house and Senate?

And what relevence does it have to an event that did not occur in either body?

What relevence does if have for the Judiciary committee bring in outside counsel to question someone for the first time ever?

Hell, why would they bring in someone? Don't worry, we call all guess the actual reason, I just want to hear your excuse.

Here's the thing. Innocent people tend to act innocent. Guilty people tend to act guilty.
Kavanaugh, and far too many of the GOP, are acting like he's guilty.
It's not like you can trust him either as he was found to have lied the previous time the Judiciary committee questioned him, and given how obstructionist the GOP is being about documents, it's better than even odds that he lied this time.

Here's how this will go.
Pretty soon Grassley will announce that they will hold off voting due to the midterm elections.
If they go as they are looking like they will, then Trump will resign on or about Jan 21 next year, or get ammendment 25th on him.
Pence will then be sworn in and start issueing pardons like they were toilet paper at a mexican restaurant.
Kavanaugh will be withdrawn, if he hasn't been already, and a new nomination will be made. Probably Thomas Lee.

And then the true Clusterfuck that McConnel started will be on.

A good article outlining the problems with the accuser's story.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big ... rds-story/

The E wrote:Here's a thing smr is forgetting: a confirmation hearing for a SCOTUS seat is not a criminal proceeding. Whether or not Kavanaugh is criminally culpable doesn't matter there; it's a job interview, and just like any other job interview, it is possible to fail at it without any wrongdoing on the part of the person being interviewed.

Of course, such considerations do not matter to someone like smr, who will claim to know survivors of sexual abuse but not have any understanding for the realities of that particular crime and its victims.

We also have laws against defamation, libel and slander in this country. If Kavenaugh fails to get confirmed because of these unsubstantiated accusations, he has good cause to file a lawsuit against the bitch for lost wages and damaged reputation.

Kavenaugh's confirmation to his current Judicial position has been prolonged and acrymonious. This woman has had abundant opportunity to make her accusations public. She didnt. Why not?

Consider the possibility that this woman who IS an extremely partisan Democrat operative decided to weaponize herself by seeking therapy for an imaginary incident that doesnt qualify as a crime committed by an unspecified perpetrator. Then when Trump appoints a SCOTUS nominee who could concievably be connected to the time and place not specified in her vague statements to her therapist, she goes public with the accusations naming the nominee as the alleged perpetrator of the non-crime to sully his reputation.

How much you bet that the Democrats have a stable of studs prepared to accuse any female SCOTUS nominees of being sexually promiscuous? They have a cadre of guys who will attest that any female SCOTUS nominee once had the nickname "the locomotive" because she liked to pull trains.

Seem far fetched?

When Senator John McCain selected Governor Palin to be his VP nominee, Allen Combs of Hannity and Combs on FOX News examined the records of Governor Palin's wedding date and the birthdate of Track Palin and concluded that since less than 9 months had elapsed Governor Palin was guilty of having premarrital sex which resulted in an out of wedlock pregnancy. This was suppossed to scandalize the nation? In 2012 more accusations of sexual impropriety were made against Governor Palin. She allegedly had a casual sexual encounter with Glen Rice, who would later become an NBA player, months before she was engaged much less married to Todd Palin. Apparently, it was expected that conservatives would be alienated and aghast because Glenn Rice is black. One would conclude that since Sarah married Todd rather than Glenn, it is Todd rather than Glenn that God has gifted with a "womb shifter"as Mike Tyson the convicted rapist described it.

My point here is the Democrats have a very long history of making allegations of allegedly sordid sexual impropriety against Republicans without any actual evidence.

Joat42 wrote:

smr wrote:He's is member of Congress! Part of Democrats that paid off sexual misconduct allegations through a Congressional Slush Fund. He beats Women. I know no outrage.

What slush funds? What payoffs?

smr wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-congress-plays-by-different-rules-on-sexual-harassment-and-misconduct/2017/10/26/2b9a8412-b80c-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.ac1baceac447

Strike 1:
An article that talks about how the congress has set up rules making it incredible difficult for victims of sexual harassment and other job-related problems to report it and get something done about it.

smr wrote:https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/360355-congress-owes-american-taxpayers-answers-about-secret-shush-fund

Strike 2:
An article on how the republicans created the Office of Compliance that can pay reparations to the victim after the victim had mandatory counseling for 30 days following another 30 days of mediation. If the mediation fails the victim gets nothing.

So it was the Republicans that set all that up and there is no mention about democrats paying someone off with those money to protect Ellison.

Joat42 wrote:And it seems you decided he is guilty without any tried evidence. So why isn't Kavanaugh guilty in your opinion?

smr wrote:Where is the proof? I am still willing to listen to her testimony but no proof or corroboration balanced against his record. He's innocent until proven guilty. If she does not testify on Thursday, Judge Kavanaugh should be voted on by the Judiciary Committee this Friday. This is a typical DNC trick that that these use against Republicans. The DNC thinks their going to retake Congress in the midterms and wants to delay the SCOTUS appointment.

Strike 3:
But you decided Ellison where guilty without being proven guilty? Your hypocrisy has no bounds it seems.

And I have to ask, do you really read the articles you link to? Because they refute your own arguments.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:We also have laws against defamation, libel and slander in this country. If Kavenaugh fails to get confirmed because of these unsubstantiated accusations, he has good cause to file a lawsuit against the bitch for lost wages and damaged reputation.

That's only if he can absolutely, positively prove that something he can't remember has definitely not happened - Something that he actually can't credibly do, because he claimed in a recent interview to have been a virgin throughout high-school who never drank a drop of alcohol, something that was immediately refuted by people who knew him at the time.

Kavenaugh's confirmation to his current Judicial position has been prolonged and acrymonious. This woman has had abundant opportunity to make her accusations public. She didnt. Why not?

Go out and talk to actual survivors of sexual abuse sometimes. It might open your eyes a bit towards the realities of being a victim of a crime that makes the victim seem like a worse person.

Consider the possibility that this woman who IS an extremely partisan Democrat operative decided to weaponize herself by seeking therapy for an imaginary incident that doesnt qualify as a crime committed by an unspecified perpetrator.

She has affidavits confirming that she shared her story, and the accusations in it, long before Kavanaugh was in the running for a SCOTUS seat.

Your next claim will be that she's a long-term operative being planted by democrats against the contingency of Kavanaugh ever becoming more than a back-bench type of guy. (In other words, Fly: You're boring. Go away.)

Then when Trump appoints a SCOTUS nominee who could concievably be connected to the time and place not specified in her vague statements to her therapist, she goes public with the accusations naming the nominee as the alleged perpetrator of the non-crime to sully his reputation.

See above.

How much you bet that the Democrats have a stable of studs prepared to accuse any female SCOTUS nominees of being sexually promiscuous? They have a cadre of guys who will attest that any female SCOTUS nominee once had the nickname "the locomotive" because she liked to pull trains.

Seem far fetched?

Almost as far-fetched as a senate leader deciding to postpone hearings for a SCOTUS confirmation for over a year because the President making the nomination was in his second term of office.

You can claim that the Democrats are breaking norms here (you'd be wrong), but given that you conservatives are currently on a rule-breaking bender, you're not one to complain.

My point here is the Democrats have a very long history of making allegations of allegedly sordid sexual impropriety against Republicans without any actual evidence.

How do you explain away all the instances of credible allegations being made against Conservatives?

Also, please explain why large portions of Kavanaugh's work was kept secret?

Oh, and naturally, there's never just one.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael ... tnick.html

So here's another sworn affidavit by another woman accusing Kavanaugh of criminal conduct.

The E wrote:Oh, and naturally, there's never just one.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael ... tnick.html

So here's another sworn affidavit by another woman accusing Kavanaugh of criminal conduct.

Looks like the Democrat s are using War of Honor, Chapter 1 as their play book. Time the release of scurulous charges to delay past the election.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:We also have laws against defamation, libel and slander in this country. If Kavenaugh fails to get confirmed because of these unsubstantiated accusations, he has good cause to file a lawsuit against the bitch for lost wages and damaged reputation.

He would be laughed out of court... of course the guy who is opposed to having any investigation into these incidents or sworn testimony of witnesses heard or to having himself submitted to a polygraph over them is never in a million years going to file that lawsuit.

Guess why genius.

Kavenaugh's confirmation to his current Judicial position has been prolonged and acrymonious.

Which is a natural consequence of nominating a man like Kavanaugh to such a position in the first place.

Gorsuch is extremely conservative. He practically sailed through. So you don't get to claim this is just the Libs being mean to the right.

Kavanaugh is grossly unfit for this position.

This woman has had abundant opportunity to make her accusations public. She didnt. Why not?

Have you spent the entire freaking #metoo era in sensory deprivation or something? How is it possible you are still clueless enough to ask that question?

Consider the possibility that this woman who IS an extremely partisan Democrat operative decided to weaponize herself by seeking therapy for an imaginary incident that doesnt qualify as a crime committed by an unspecified perpetrator. Then when Trump appoints a SCOTUS nominee who could concievably be connected to the time and place not specified in her vague statements to her therapist, she goes public with the accusations naming the nominee as the alleged perpetrator of the non-crime to sully his reputation.

How much you bet that the Democrats have a stable of studs prepared to accuse any female SCOTUS nominees of being sexually promiscuous? They have a cadre of guys who will attest that any female SCOTUS nominee once had the nickname "the locomotive" because she liked to pull trains.

Seem far fetched?

It would be thrown in the trash bin if it was pitched as the plot to a far fetched Hollywood conspiracy theory movie for being *too* far fetched and just plain freaking idiotic.

My point here is the Democrats have a very long history of making allegations of allegedly sordid sexual impropriety against Republicans without any actual evidence.

Sworn witness testimony *is* evidence Captain Clueless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKmOMOxQPB4

Senator Graham, I share the anger against this witch hunt and I think on election day the Democrats are going to be surprised. I was at a Casino yesterday before the hearings and most people were against what the Democrats were doing. Most did not believe the accusations. After the hearings, I have to concur with that sentiment. For the record, I did not bring up the topic or participate with the discussion. My interests were in winning and making money ($10,500 USD win).
FYI: I am going on a Cruise with this bonus money! Vacation time in the Cancun, Cozumel, Cuba, and one other destination which eludes me now. I am grinning ear to ear with my reward in more ways than one!

I'm curious what witch hunt you are talking about?

As for the confirmation hearings, maybe you should have watched it yesterday/thursday.

She came across as highly credible, Kavanaugh as almost deranged.
Even Kavanaugh's wife and mother couldn't believe his behaviour. Or perhaps, that he'd behave that way at such a time.
Seriously, look at the women behind him.

Whereas, aparently, Graham is like Judge Jeanete.
After Sessions' job. And trying to get it the same way.