Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: TigerWuUh, no it isn't.
LOL Not even remotely.
I can name three.
Michael Wolff
Stephen Colbert
Donald Trump
Oh, wait, you said SANE people, so scratch that last one.
LOL WUT
Well, he's banged some hot women, so I'll give him that....
Is it?
Maybe. Maybe not. It definitely would have been in his best interest had he lost.
An idiot beat one of the most hated women in modern politics. Not too much of a stretch.
Yeah.... it's called the Electoral College.
Sorry I forgot to put quotes around Hillary being “the most qualified”.
I said a "sane" person. You cited a dude who thought that Trump was having an affair with Nikki Haley. Then he had to backtrack after his own side called him out lol!Quote: TigerWuI can name three.
Michael Wolff
Stephen Colbert
Donald Trump
Quote: Per WikipediaErik Wemple of the Washington Post said that Wolff was engaging in a "remarkable multimedia slime job". The New York Post editorial board called Wolff's claim an "ugly, sexist rumor". Bari Weiss in The New York Times said that Wolff was "gleefully" spreading "evidence-free detail". After several interviewers pressed him about the rumor, Wolff later said that "I do not know if the president is having an affair."
Colbert — So your source is a comedian now????? double LOL!!!!
Trump — A link to an interview from 1987????? triple LOL!!!!
And you guys wonder why no one takes you seriously?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Quote: Dalex64
Hmmm, forum rule #1
Quote: RSSo over here we got Hillary Clinton, most qualified person ever to run for president.
By an objective measure, most likely Bush Sr. Major oil business, congress, CIA director, Vice President.
By contrast Hilary's most significant qualification was wanting to continue the Bill Clinton / Obama federal government policies. Her other major qualification was being the greatest War Hawk candidate in history. Given how close she came to winning -- and winning the majority of votes -- it's pretty clear that American voters don't care much about qualifications.
Quote: scoobydooI said a "sane" person.
Please, feel free to provide medical evidence that either Michael Wolff or Stephen Colbert are not clinically sane.
I'll wait.
Quote:Colbert — So your source is a comedian now????? double LOL!!!!
Trump — A link to an interview from 1987????? triple LOL!!!!
You asked for sources for non-anonymous people who think Trump never wanted to be President. I provided those sources. You never said I couldn't source a comedian, author, or old interviews. You're trying to move the goalposts.
Quote:And you guys wonder why no one takes you seriously?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
LOL... you're the one getting all worked up about this and taking it so seriously. All I've said is that I don't think Trump wanted to be President. There's no proof of that. It's all speculation. Speculation that's been around for years and has had mainstream coverage. That's all I'm saying. I even provided proof it is a theory that's had mainstream coverage. You're over here looking at me like I'm talking about lizard people and flat earths and Pizzagate.
Relax, dude. Go get a beer or something.
Quote: FleaswatterObama: Hillary Clinton Most Qualified Presidential Candidate Ever:
........
I guess you are laughing at Obama.
Yes.
I am assuming his/her name is red because he/she exceeded allowable daily posting limits due to only recently joining.
Is this correct?
Quote: RSSo over here we got Hillary Clinton, most qualified person ever to run for president. On the other side of the aisle we have Donald Trump, who according to all of you, is an idiot (plus every other insult in the book).
Which statement is correct?
Long shot horses never wln.
Favorite odds horse always wins.
50-1 horse will sometimes win.
Quote: FleaswatterI am assuming his/her name is red because he/she exceeded allowable daily posting limits due to only recently joining.
Is this correct?
No, that’s not a thing.
Who was he in his previous incarnation?
Quote: ams288The suspension list says Scooby has been nuked for being a duplicate ID.
Thanks, I see scoobydoo on the suspension list now.
Quote:Who was he in his previous incarnation?
I have no idea.
it's sooooooo unfair bigly. waiting for a tweetstorm. 𝐔𝐆𝐄 𝕨𝕣𝕠𝕟𝕘 has been done to Trumpy.
I'll just say this: once again, Dems' decision to shun Al Franken over his #metoo issues is paying dividends....
Quote: ams288No mention of the Kavanaugh mess yet?
I'll just say this: once again, Dems' decision to shun Al Franken over his #metoo issues is paying dividends....
She deserves to be heard. It is a serious allegation where neither party will be able to provide any real proof and where the Franken situation involving multiple accusers does not exist. The stuff about "repressed memory" and all is fluff as far as testimony is concerned, even if it is documented in the therapist's notes--it is hearsay and the only thing it appears they have right now is "she said, he said."
I think Senator Feinstein knowing about this months ago and just now bringing it up is an indicator of how desperate the Democrats are to derail this appointment. I understand the reluctance of the accuser to come forward and all of that, but this information was always going to blow up to the point of her being identified that timing did not really matter. The Senator knew the confirmation was a done deal when the appointment was made. The Senator knew full well the information was out there and that the accuser's name would become public. She also knew that the Republicans would have to take it seriously, which it appears they are doing. I think she damaged the accuser's credibility in some ways by doing it this way.
The whole reason for her timing was political and had nothing to do with "advice and consent." Right now, her only hope in the world is that one of two things happen should Kavanaugh be brought down--the Senate goes Democrat in November or Mueller leaks/announces something criminal or civil that is enough to put Trump's Presidency in jeopardy. If the Republicans retain the Senate, it is game over, whether Kavanaugh or someone else is the nominee.
They had a letter vouching for Kavanaugh from 65 women who knew him in high school in their back pocket. I mean, c’mon!
After yesterday’s developments, reporters could only find TWO of those 65 women who are still willing to publicly support him.
Things that make you go “hmmmmm.....”
Quote: ams288I think it’s pretty clear the GOP knew this accusation was out there this whole time.
They had a letter vouching for Kavanaugh from 65 women who knew him in high school in their back pocket. I mean, c’mon!
After yesterday’s developments, reporters could only find TWO of those 65 women who are still willing to publicly support him.
Things that make you go “hmmmmm.....”
I don't think we know the whole story on that yet...
"“I signed it,” Virginia Hume began. “Here’s how it went down.”
On Friday, a group of women who knew Brett in high school sent a letter in support of him to Senators Grassley and Feinstein. I am one of those 65 women. Having seen some of the reaction to the letter, I’d like to clear up a few things:
The letter was conceived and drafted by friends of Brett’s, and it was drafted after allegations came out on Thursday. I learned about the letter from a friend and fellow signatory. Others learned about it the same way. Those surprised at the speed with which it came together should see it as yet another testament to Brett’s excellent reputation."
https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/15/virginia-hume-letter-supporting-kavanaugh/
I really don't care about the letter--I'm just not sure your post is correct on how it went down. It is not like having a whole bunch of people saying you are great ever means that you did not do something wrong...again, the only thing that really matters is the testimony of the accuser and Kavanaugh. That's it...nothing else. We already know he is supported by a wide variety of people; this letter of support can just be added to that pile.
"there's only one". For now. Franken only had one accuser for a couple weeks. Then a couple other women made claims. Then a couple anonymous. This all just happened - it's never easy to come forward as the victim.
Franken had letters of support from virtually all SNL females, many famous and respected, like Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, among a couple dozen others. He had letters of support from his legislative staff, from prominent Minnesota women, from others who worked with or knew him. Fat lot of good it did him.
Kav's accuser has taken a polygraph, it was discussed before now with her husband and her therapist, and who knows who else from that time. Could have been nobody she told at the time. Really quite likely she kept quiet as a teen - she was at a party with underage drinking, it wasn't "done" at all to say anything back then.
Republicans Flake and Corker are saying she needs to be heard. Collins has asked Kav privately, he denied it, she says she doesn't know enough yet to say more. No word from Murkowski. So that's 4 plus all the Dems who are not locked in.
Quote: beachbumbabsMost everybody seems to be connected specifically by high school classes on social media. I don't doubt it was a quick chain via FB/Twitter/Instagram/whoever, so it seems easy to think they could put it together in a day.
"there's only one". For now. Franken only had one accuser for a couple weeks. Then a couple other women made claims. Then a couple anonymous. This all just happened - it's never easy to come forward as the victim.
Franken had letters of support from virtually all SNL females, many famous and respected, like Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, among a couple dozen others. He had letters of support from his legislative staff, from prominent Minnesota women, from others who worked with or knew him. Fat lot of good it did him.
Kav's accuser has taken a polygraph, it was discussed before now with her husband and her therapist, and who knows who else from that time. Could have been nobody she told at the time. Really quite likely she kept quiet as a teen - she was at a party with underage drinking, it wasn't "done" at all to say anything back then.
Republicans Flake and Corker are saying she needs to be heard. Collins has asked Kav privately, he denied it, she says she doesn't know enough yet to say more. No word from Murkowski. So that's 4 plus all the Dems who are not locked in.
My goodness, how soon we forget. The push for and subsequent resignation by Franken had very little to do with his guilt or innocence. The dems found a politically expedient way to get the "upper hand" in the "metoo" movement. Franken was a "sacrificial lamb". The dems had nothing to lose since the governor of Minnesota would appoint another dem to replace Franken. Had the governor of Minnesota been a republican, I have no doubt the process would have evolved differently.
I am not prejudging the Kavanaugh/Ford situation. Lots of information coming out.
Makes me wonder how other Presidents stack up.
Quote: FleaswatterMy goodness, how soon we forget. The push for and subsequent resignation by Franken had very little to do with his guilt or innocence. The dems found a politically expedient way to get the "upper hand" in the "metoo" movement. Franken was a "sacrificial lamb". The dems had nothing to lose since the governor of Minnesota would appoint another dem to replace Franken. Had the governor of Minnesota been a republican, I have no doubt the process would have evolved differently.
I am not prejudging the Kavanaugh/Ford situation. Lots of information coming out.
I was stating comparative facts since someone else brought Franken into the conversation. I have forgotten NOTHING about how he was treated.
I know him myself from way back in the early 80s, and I defended him all the way last year, and still do. And I'm still furious about how he was treated by his party peers. He is sorely missed and needed - he was straightforward, brilliant, and bipartisan as a Senator. You likely didn't like his positions, but he was there to do the job the way it's meant to be done.
Pretty ironic that Trump is still there despite his much larger offenses, and Franken is gone. Says a lot about the Republicans protecting him, none of it good.
Quote: beachbumbabsI was stating comparative facts since someone else brought Franken into the conversation. I have forgotten NOTHING about how he was treated.
I know him myself from way back in the early 80s, and I defended him all the way last year, and still do. And I'm still furious about how he was treated by his party peers. He is sorely missed and needed - he was straightforward, brilliant, and bipartisan as a Senator. You likely didn't like his positions, but he was there to do the job the way it's meant to be done.
Quote:Pretty ironic that Trump is still there despite his much larger offenses, and Franken is gone.
As of now unproved accusations.
Quote:Says a lot about the Republicans protecting him, none of it good.
What about Keith Ellison? Where is the dems outrage? Says a lot about the democrats.
#BrettCavenuff
Quote: beachbumbabs"there's only one". For now. Franken only had one accuser for a couple weeks. Then a couple other women made claims. Then a couple anonymous. This all just happened - it's never easy to come forward as the victim.
Franken had letters of support from virtually all SNL females, many famous and respected, like Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, among a couple dozen others. He had letters of support from his legislative staff, from prominent Minnesota women, from others who worked with or knew him. Fat lot of good it did him.
Yet another reason Senator Feinstein should have worked to get this out earlier instead of as a last minute political tactic. I understand the accuser's reluctance but there is not way she was going to remain anonymous once it was brought forward. IF there is another accuser out there, which there is not at this time, bringing it up anytime between, say, July and now would have given ample time for people to step up (if any of those people exist, of course).
A serious allegation treated by the Senator as a political stunt.
Quote: beachbumbabsKav's accuser has taken a polygraph, it was discussed before now with her husband and her therapist, and who knows who else from that time. Could have been nobody she told at the time. Really quite likely she kept quiet as a teen - she was at a party with underage drinking, it wasn't "done" at all to say anything back then.
I don't care how many people she has discussed it with...I can tell hundreds of people a story and that is no proof at all of my story. It is her word against his.
The polygraph is not a perfect science, either.
Her word; his word. That is it.
Quote: beachbumbabsRepublicans Flake and Corker are saying she needs to be heard. Collins has asked Kav privately, he denied it, she says she doesn't know enough yet to say more. No word from Murkowski. So that's 4 plus all the Dems who are not locked in.
Don't look now, but pretty much everyone is saying something similar--that she needs to be heard.
As I said, derailing Kavanaugh gets them another, possible more conservative selection in a couple of months unless they take the Senate or someone finds an actual crime committed by the President.
Quote: rxwineWhich statement is correct?
Long shot horses never wln.
Favorite odds horse always wins.
50-1 horse will sometimes win.
Say there's a boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and Stephen Hawking. Do you think you could get -300 ML on Floyd?
Let's put it another way -- if what was said is true (that HRC was "most qualified" and Trump trying to lose), the odds never even should have been as close as they (the odds) were. Ignore the actual result.
Quote: RS
Let's put it another way -- if what was said is true (that HRC was "most qualified" and Trump trying to lose), the odds never even should have been as close as they (the odds) were. Ignore the actual result.
The Presidency is a popularity contest.
Half the population doesn't know s*** about politics, and the other half are single issue voters.
It doesn't matter who has what qualifications.
That's why Trump won.
You ever see those news stories where a dog is legitimately elected mayor of some small town? Same principle.
Quote: RonCI don't care how many people she has discussed it with...I can tell hundreds of people a story and that is no proof at all of my story.
Maybe not direct proof, no. But it would definitely lead to your credibility if you had.
I also find it pretty ironic to hear about Feinstein's "tactics", if you could even call them that. It could be that she was simply motivated by the accuser's reluctance to come forward and go public. But if we are to believe her motives were more sinister and driven by pure politics, I would applaud her. Democrats have been losing elections, even elections where they garner MORE VOTES than republicans, because they lack the spine to get dirty and play the game that the republicans have been playing for the last decade.
Tactics? Let's talk about how the republicans held up a legitimate nomination from a legitimate president for 400 days because they thought the "voters should weigh in". Well, we have an eleciton coming up soon where voters can weigh in on whether or not we think it's okay for a money-laundering conman of a President to shape the Supreme Court for a generation.
If Feinstein's motives were political, it's about f**king time.
Quote: RonCYet another reason Senator Feinstein should have worked to get this out earlier instead of as a last minute political tactic.
Why are you placing the blame on Feinstein? As far as I can tell, Feinstein did everything she could to keep this from leaking to protect Dr. Ford’s identity, and she was not the one who is responsible for that info getting out.
Do you not think the GOP knew about this? I think it’d be pretty naive to say only Feinstein knew...
Quote: ams288Why are you placing the blame on Feinstein? As far as I can tell, Feinstein did everything she could to keep this from leaking to protect Dr. Ford’s identity, and she was not the one who is responsible for that info getting out.
Are you that naive? I have very little doubt that Feinstein's motive was to have the letter (or accusations in the letter) and Ford's identity made public to derail the nomination. She didn't have to announce that she had this letter. She easily could have ONLY shared it privately with the FBI for their consideration and possible investigation but she did't do this.
Why did Feinstein hold onto the letter for 2 months?
Also, if Ford really didn't want her identity known, why did she need to hire an attorney before her name was made public?
Quote:Do you not think the GOP knew about this? I think it’d be pretty naive to say only Feinstein knew...
I do not think that the GOP knew about until after Feinstein's release of the information.
Quote: FleaswatterAre you that naive? I have very little doubt that Feinstein's motive was to have the letter (or accusations in the letter) and Ford's identity made public to derail the nomination. She didn't have to announce that she had this letter. She easily could have ONLY shared it privately with the FBI for their consideration and possible investigation but she did't do this.
Why did Feinstein hold onto the letter for 2 months?
Also, if Ford really didn't want her identity known, why did she need to hire an attorney before her name was made public?
I do not think that the GOP knew about until after Feinstein's release of the information.
This post reeks of someone who has only gotten the right-wing media spin version of this story. Specifically, the question about why did she hire an attorney.
Did you even read the Washington Post article that broke this story yesterday?
Quote:Christine Ford is a professor at Palo Alto University who teaches in a consortium with Stanford University, training graduate students in clinical psychology. Her work has been widely published in academic journals.
She contacted The Post through a tip line in early July, when it had become clear that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace retiring justice Anthony M. Kennedy but before Trump announced his name publicly. A registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations, she contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna G. Eshoo, around the same time. In late July, she sent a letter via Eshoo’s office to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
In the letter, which was read to The Post, Ford described the incident and said she expected her story to be kept confidential. She signed the letter as Christine Blasey, the name she uses professionally.
Though Ford had contacted The Post, she declined to speak on the record for weeks as she grappled with concerns about what going public would mean for her and her family — and what she said was her duty as a citizen to tell the story.
She engaged Debra Katz, a Washington lawyer known for her work on sexual harassment cases. On the advice of Katz, who said she believed Ford would be attacked as a liar if she came forward, Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in early August. The results, which Katz provided to The Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.
By late August, Ford had decided not to come forward, calculating that doing so would upend her life and probably would not affect Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “Why suffer through the annihilation if it’s not going to matter?” she said.
Her story leaked anyway. On Wednesday, the Intercept reported that Feinstein had a letter describing an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school and that Feinstein was refusing to share it with her Democratic colleagues.
Franken had the photo of him grabbing breasts. Stupid move. Career-ending?
The GOP would do the same thing in the same situation.
Quote: RonCThe story just leaked itself...yeah, right!
I don't think it was Feinstein who leaked it.
It could have been a Dem who leaked it - heck, I hope it was! It's given the GOP a massive headache this week, I'm all for that!
(I'm not a big Feinstein fan, BTW. I wish she'd retire and let California have a real progressive Senator that they deserve).
Quote: boymimboI hate to be the a** here but is we are taking high school experiences to account for our future careers I would think very few of us would have jobs. Even a SCOTUS candidate shouldn't be expected to have been perfect in high school. I know that Ford was traumatized by the incident and that Kavanaughs purported actions was wrong. We all make mistakes and some of them impact someone's life negatively for a long time. That doesn't mean that the penalty should be the loss of a career 30+ years after the fact.
Franken had the photo of him grabbing breasts. Stupid move. Career-ending?
We don't deserve to be defined by what we did in high school, for sure. But not all of us deserve a seat on the Supreme Court either.
The problem is Kavanaugh is denying the allegations even took place. This isn't about what happened 35 years ago. It's about what's happened since and happening today. He is denying the allegations while basically saying his accuser is a liar. If he did this and is not owning up, and has never owned up, this is about his honesty and decency TODAY.
Quote: boymimboI hate to be the a** here but is we are taking high school experiences to account for our future careers I would think very few of us would have jobs. Even a SCOTUS candidate shouldn't be expected to have been perfect in high school. I know that Ford was traumatized by the incident and that Kavanaughs purported actions was wrong. We all make mistakes and some of them impact someone's life negatively for a long time. That doesn't mean that the penalty should be the loss of a career 30+ years after the fact.
Franken had the photo of him grabbing breasts. Stupid move. Career-ending?
It’s a really difficult line to walk.
On one hand, I absolutely agree that somone’s career shouldn’t be destroyed based on vague accusations from 30+ years ago. It really bothers me when someone is tried, sentenced, and executed in the court of public opinion. Kevin Spacey is a recent example of a situation that I think was unfair.
At the same time, if you read this women’s story about Kavanaugh, it’s horrifying. Violent rape is above and beyond normal Highschool debauchery.
Quote: boymimboI hate to be the a** here but is we are taking high school experiences to account for our future careers I would think very few of us would have jobs. Even a SCOTUS candidate shouldn't be expected to have been perfect in high school. I know that Ford was traumatized by the incident and that Kavanaughs purported actions was wrong. We all make mistakes and some of them impact someone's life negatively for a long time. That doesn't mean that the penalty should be the loss of a career 30+ years after the fact.
Franken had the photo of him grabbing breasts. Stupid move. Career-ending?
It’s a really difficult line to walk.
On one hand, I absolutely agree that somone’s career shouldn’t be destroyed based on vague accusations from 30+ years ago. It really bothers me when someone is tried, sentenced, and executed in the court of public opinion. Kevin Spacey is a recent example of a situation that I think was unfair.
At the same time, if you read this women’s story about Kavanaugh, it’s horrifying. Violent rape is above and beyond normal Highschool debauchery.
The accuser doesn't even remember exactly when the party was. But Kavanaugh knows he wasn't there!
Nothing fishy about that at all!
Democrats may well win this one and derail Kavanaugh. If he actually did what he is accused of and/or is not credible in his testimony, I am okay with that. As to all of the "he could just tell the truth now", well, yeah...we all know that wouldn't work anyway. We can fantasize that it might...but be realistic about what would happen...
Anyway, back to the point, if Democrats win this and derail him, they still need to win the Senate, or get rid of both Trump and Pence, in order to keep the President from appointing someone more conservative and doing it when there is no possibility of derailing them!
Quote: RonCAnyway, back to the point, if Democrats win this and derail him, they still need to win the Senate, or get rid of both Trump and Pence, in order to keep the President from appointing someone more conservative and doing it when there is no possibility of derailing them!
Let's not forget: Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are pro-choice. They only reason Kavanaugh has a chance of getting their vote is because of the nonsense "settled law" B.S. he says publicly (that he clearly doesn't really believe). If Donald has to replace him with another nominee, will they be able to walk that same tightrope without losing those two senators?
The GOP has been pushing for judges that will gut Roe for decades. When they finally get the chance, suddenly it's "settled law" and can't be overturned and the Dems are hysterical for saying it'll get overturned. *wink wink*
Quote: TigerWu
You ever see those news stories where a dog is legitimately elected mayor of some small town? Same principle.
Name me one dog mayor'd town that went to s#$% or was in the news for hijinks. I'll wait...
Seems we need to emulate. 6-8yr maximum term limit, then we take 'em in a field and shoot them.
I call fives on Cuomo.
Quote: RonCWhen Republicans held up Garland, I was concerned that, with Hillary's seemingly insurmountable lead in the polls, she would nominate someone with judicial leanings way left of center as opposed to someone relatively center-of-the road like Garland...both sides had issues that concerned them in his judicial records.
Democrats may well win this one and derail Kavanaugh. If he actually did what he is accused of and/or is not credible in his testimony, I am okay with that. As to all of the "he could just tell the truth now", well, yeah...we all know that wouldn't work anyway. We can fantasize that it might...but be realistic about what would happen...
Anyway, back to the point, if Democrats win this and derail him, they still need to win the Senate, or get rid of both Trump and Pence, in order to keep the President from appointing someone more conservative and doing it when there is no possibility of derailing them!
You mentioned earlier and I meant to respond, and said a similar thing now. Exactly who isaid more conservative than Kavanaugh? The people vetting him and reading hundreds of his writings and decisions say he's to the right of everybody except Clarence Thomas, previously considered the furthest right of all the current and most if not all past Justices. Only Wm Rehnquist was further right than Thomas and that was 40 years ago.. Talk about overkill, look at where Kennedy was compared to this guy.
Source: five thirty-eight
It was bad enough when Scalia passed and we got Gorsuch, who was more conservative, instead of Garland, who was ridiculously blocked from his nomination. But this guy, who WASN'T even on the list Trump pledged to select from, is a bridge too far replacing Kennedy.
And why is that, anyway? Why wasn't he on their vetted list in the first place? He's been on the DC Appeals Court since 2006.
Maybe because he's a liar? They pretty much proved he lied to Congress in 2004 and 2006 to get his current job. Who needs that on the SCOTUS? Nobody except Trump, far as I can tell.
It's pretty clear Donald picked him because of his fringe views on Presidential power. He's basically a human pardon for Donald.
Quote: ams288Let's not forget: Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are pro-choice. They only reason Kavanaugh has a chance of getting their vote is because of the nonsense "settled law" B.S. he says publicly (that he clearly doesn't really believe). If Donald has to replace him with another nominee, will they be able to walk that same tightrope without losing those two senators?
The GOP has been pushing for judges that will gut Roe for decades. When they finally get the chance, suddenly it's "settled law" and can't be overturned and the Dems are hysterical for saying it'll get overturned. *wink wink*
If the Republicans gain a couple of seats in the Senate, their votes would not be needed for confirmation.
It is amazing that it is okay for nominees to say that they pay attention to precedent and all that, but they won't comment on a particular issue that may come before them at some points...but not at this point.
Story has now leaked that mayor was seen urinating on fire hydrant in public.Quote: FaceName me one dog mayor'd town that went to s#$% or was in the news for hijinks. I'll wait...
Quote: boymimboI hate to be the a** here but is we are taking high school experiences to account for our future careers I would think very few of us would have jobs. Even a SCOTUS candidate shouldn't be expected to have been perfect in high school.
A SCOTUS nominee should be expected not to be perfect from birth, but tell the facts of an imperfect teenage youth accurately as possible if necessary.
Quote: FaceName me one dog mayor'd town that went to s#$% or was in the news for hijinks. I'll wait...
I can't. Maybe we should run a dog for President.
Quote: RonCWhen Republicans held up Garland, I was concerned that, with Hillary's seemingly insurmountable lead in the polls, she would nominate someone with judicial leanings way left of center as opposed to someone relatively center-of-the road like Garland...both sides had issues that concerned them in his judicial records.
Orrin Hatch: "The President told me several times he is going to name a moderate, but I do not believe him. [...] [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably will not do that because this appointment is about the election. So I am pretty sure he will name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants."
Obama: "I nominate Merrick Garland."
Orrin Hatch: "Psych! LOL"
Mitch McConnell: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'"
President Trump Issues Immediate Declassification Order of Carter Page FISA Docs
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-34/?kek=top
At the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency, the President has directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to provide for the immediate declassification of the following materials: (1) pages 10-12 and 17-34 of the June 2017 application to the FISA court in the matter of Carter W. Page; (2) all FBI reports of interviews with Bruce G. Ohr prepared in connection with the Russia investigation; and (3) all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all Carter Page FISA applications.
In addition, President Donald J. Trump has directed the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to publicly release all text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction, of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr.
