ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

A Post-Apocalyptic Hearing

[ Posted Thursday, September 27th, 2018 – 17:28 PDT ]

Well, that was certainly an interesting nine hours, wasn't it?

I write this immediately after having watched the gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Christine Blasey Ford / Brett Kavanaugh hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My strongest reaction takes the long view, because I think in 20 or 30 years' time, Christine Blasey Ford's name will be as recognizable as Anita Hill's still is today. No matter what happens next, this was definitely a historic moment.

This article's title comes from the definition of post-apocalyptic: after the apocalypse. This continues the metaphor which started when then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went with what was called at the time "the nuclear option" -- changing the Senate's rules so that all judicial appointments below the level of the Supreme Court could no longer be filibustered. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell later launched his own retaliatory nuclear strike on the Supreme Court confirmations. So, with both sides having "dropped a nuke" each, we are now in a political landscape that can only be described as post-apocalyptic.

I am reminded, in fact, of one of the most jarring lyrics from the rock band Yes (who normally wrote some rather ethereal and uplifting lyrics). In the song "Yours Is No Disgrace," however, one line appears which seems to fit what we just witnessed: "Death-defying, mutilated armies scatter the Earth. Crawling out of dirty holes, their morals, their morals disappear." At this point, that seems an apt description of our post-apocalyptic politics.

Republicans, mindful of political optics, decided to hire a female prosecutor to handle their questioning of Ford, who went first. Their plan also seemed to be to let her also question Kavanaugh, but they didn't stick to that for long. But back to the morning's testimony, first. The Republicans' idea seemed to be to nibble away at things Ford claimed (or claimed not to remember) in an effort to undermine her overall credibility. This was not very effective at all. Because the woman was not used to questioning in five-minute segments, she never really got the chance to draw any sort of conclusion for the wandering queries she posed to Ford. And every five minutes this was interrupted by Democratic senators heaping praise on Ford's bravery in coming forward. This is not how prosecutors are used to presenting their arguments, and it showed. In fact, I can't think of a single instance where the woman even scored any sort of legal or even political point during all of Ford's testimony. She kept attempting to prove something that Ford freely admitted beforehand -- that she didn't remember every single detail. But why so much effort to prove something already stipulated? Not a single part of the heart of Ford's story was ever even questioned, really. This might be why the Republicans abandoned the prosecutor during Kavanaugh's testimony, but again, I am getting ahead of myself here.

Ford told her story very quietly, and with great composure. The strongest thing she said was in answer to a question as to how sure she was that her attacker was Kavanaugh: "one hundred percent." She had no doubt what had happened to her, and who was responsible. She came across as credible and believable. Even Republicans admitted as much, during the breaks and after she finished. She did not sound like someone with a political axe to grind, she did not sound like someone who was seeking the spotlight, and she did not sound like someone who would callously make a false accusation of this sort. Because the Republicans had learned their lesson from the Anita Hill hearings, there was no strong pushback against either Ford or her story. She was not cross-examined within an inch of insanity, as Hill was. So the Republicans avoided that trap successfully. No one could call the Republican question periods misogynistic, in other words.

Did Ford change any minds on the committee? Perhaps not. The battle lines were drawn so deeply that it's hard to see anyone shifting their allegiance after hearing Ford speak -- at least on the committee itself. Other Republicans, particularly women (Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski in particular) may, however, have been influenced by Ford. We will be able to see within a few days if there is such a shift, but it certainly hasn't happened yet.

After a lunch break, Kavanaugh began. He appeared emotional and animated, to the point (at times) of outright belligerence. This was a conscious strategy, because almost everyone admits that it worked out well for Clarence Thomas previously. Kavanaugh gave an extended opening statement that danced right up to the edge of proclaiming a "vast left-wing conspiracy" out to get both him and Donald Trump. This portion of his statement was very obviously pitched to an audience of one -- Trump himself. Why else bring up "the Clintons," after all?

Kavanaugh went from visibly angry to visibly choked up during his opening statement. It was, unlike much of Ford's testimony, very emotional. How people read this remains to be seen, but my guess is that both sides will see it through their own partisan lens. Republicans who believe Kavanaugh and not Ford will see a man indignant at what has been done to his good name. Democrats will probably see Ford as protesting just a wee bit too much.

Kavanaugh's questioning was reversed, of course. He got lots of praise (and very few actual questions) from Republicans. He got lots of questions and absolutely no praise from Democrats. This was all entirely to be expected. The Republican side began with the prosecutor they hired attempting to ask him the small-bore specific questions she had posed to Ford. But very early on, the Republicans had had enough and decided to go full-on political instead. To tell you the truth, this was kind of what I expected from the get-go, which left me wondering why they even tried to have someone else ask questions for them rather than politically grandstanding.

Democrats were also mindful of the Anita Hill history, and for the most part bent over backwards to be civil and respectful both in their manner and in the actual questions they asked. Kavanaugh largely responded with more indignant anger, but the things he got most angry about were subjects he himself raised in his opening statement (his yearbook page, and the "Renate alumni" bit in particular). So his righteousness fell a little flat, since after introducing the subjects himself it was a little unbelievable that he was so upset that they were being brought up.

There were a handful of fiery moments when Democrats were asking their questions, but not many. They (like the Republicans) had obviously agreed not to go for the jugular in the questions they asked, because of the risk of very bad optics. In fact, the biggest emotional outburst came from Lindsey Graham, the first Republican senator to refuse to yield his time to the prosecutor the GOP had hired. Graham looked and sounded like he was ready to challenge the Democrats to a fistfight in the back alley, in fact. It was one of the most extraordinary moments in what was already an extraordinary hearing. Graham was mainly speaking to a very small audience, though -- Republican senators who might be wavering in their support of Kavanaugh. His words for any Republican who dared to vote against confirmation were more strident than anything he said about the Democrats, in fact.

Kavanaugh, to be fair, visibly calmed down after one of the early breaks. He very cavalierly tried to turn a question about getting so drunk he blacked out against Senator Amy Klobuchar, asking her repeatedly whether she had ever done so. When he returned from the break, he offered her an apology, and he visibly calmed down in his answering style from that point forward.

The senators, however, just got more and more abrasive as the hearing wound on. But what struck me is that for roughly the last two hours of his testimony, Kavanaugh didn't even really need to be in the room for what went on. He could have excused himself and gone out for several beers while the senators sniped at each other across the aisle. The entire fight erupted over the question of whether the F.B.I. should have (or should still) investigate the very serious accusations or not.

This was the political battle at hand. And, like I said, Kavanaugh himself was so peripheral to this battle that he hardly even needed to be there for it. Democrats and Republicans finally did go for the jugular vein -- each other's.

Neither side presented much in the way of original arguments in this fight. No new ideas were aired. The Democrats' position has been -- ever since the accusation was made public -- that the F.B.I. should investigate. The Republicans' position is that they should not. Neither side budged an inch, and neither side persuasively made their case to each other. They were instead fighting in the arena of public opinion, because while political junkies have watched this fight grow over the past two weeks, the general public probably hadn't been all that aware of it. So both sides tried to get their clips on the evening news, and Kavanaugh himself was all but forgotten in the fray.

This is what post-nuclear Supreme Court battles are going to look like, from this point on -- that's my guess. This fight has been escalating over the past three or four decades, and has never been more poisonous a process as it now is. From this point on, for the foreseeable future, voting on just about every Supreme Court nominee is going to be on pretty strict party lines. I don't say this is a good thing, but I think it's impossible to deny, at this point.

A few final thoughts on the post-apocalyptic hearing we just witnessed are worth jotting down. The first is that the mood surrounding the questioning of a female accuser has indeed changed dramatically since Anita Hill's time in the witness chair. Respect was the watchword of the day, which included Kavanaugh himself, who was careful never to call Ford a liar or to even doubt her story, really. Kavanaugh insisted that while she may have indeed been attacked, it wasn't by him -- but that he wasn't suggesting that she had made it all up in any way. That is a sea-change in and of itself, really.

My final thought is on the politics of the situation. I would be willing to bet that Kavanaugh wins the committee vote scheduled for tomorrow. Jeff Flake is really the only Republican vote in doubt, and he didn't sound today like he was going to vote against Kavanaugh. He could surprise me, but that's how I read it.

I have no idea what will happen in the full Senate, however. I have no idea if Republicans are going to hold their caucus together for the final confirmation vote or not. They have such a slim majority that all it will take is two defections to derail Kavanaugh's appointment. I would put the chances of that happening at 50-50, at this point -- a total tossup.

The more important question is going to be how the electorate views the hearing, and the aftermath. Women -- especially suburban professional women -- have already been fleeing the Republican Party in droves. I certainly don't think today is going to change that trend at all. It may in fact accelerate it, but that will be almost impossible to measure such causality at the voting booth. Women already have plenty to be upset about with Trump in the White House, to put it another way.

I thought both witnesses were at least minimally credible. Kavanaugh offered some explanations of his high-school persona that were pretty laughably inaccurate (that "he had a weak stomach" instead of "regularly got so drunk he ralphed," for instance), but I don't think it was enough to render the rest of his statements as suspect. I could be wrong about that -- I am writing this before reading any other reactions to the hearing, I should point out, so this is entirely subjective on my part.

Except for one key issue, I think both witnesses probably told the truth as they remember it. The exception is whether you believe that Kavanaugh ever got so drunk he didn't remember things. Because if you think he's lying about that, it makes the rest of his testimony credible. He probably doesn't remember sexually assaulting women while in school, but if he woke up the next day and had no memory of it happening, then that is indeed what he would remember about it now -- that it didn't happen, or it happened to somebody else.

But for all that to make sense, he would indeed have to be lying about never being the slightest bit fuzzy over details of a night of youthful partying. In fact, the one question I really wanted to hear one of the Democrats ask was never asked -- the only question that was even close came from the Republican prosecutor, in fact.

If I had been a senator on that committee, what I would have asked Kavanaugh is: "When you were in high school and college, what was the highest number of beers you drank in one setting? How many beers did you consume at any one time, whether at a party or a trip to see a baseball game, or any other time? Please remember that you are under oath." I think the answer to that -- if Kavanaugh were forced to answer honestly -- would have added a key dimension to today's testimony, for obvious reasons.

 

[Program Note: I apologize for the lack of column yesterday, and sincerely hope I will be able to post this one today. I am still in ISP Hell, and have no reliable connection to the online world. It does come and go, so hopefully this will get posted. I also sincerely hope that by tomorrow this will all be cleared up, since it is Friday. Again, apologies for the interruption in service.]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

255 Comments on “A Post-Apocalyptic Hearing”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    The biggest takaway for me is that Kavanaugh DOES NOT WANT THE FBI TO INVESTIGATE. To me that pretty much kills his credibility. Which was low anyway.

    He kept referencing 4 people's testimony, portraying them as being the same as live testimony under oath. In reality three people provided vague statements that were basically "I wasn't there" and "He was always nice to me", and Mark Ford said he didn't remember and doesn't want to talk about it. He waved those around but clearly, CLEARLY, doesn't want anyone to be able to question any of them.

    He sincerely believes he's being screwed, but his manner changed dramatically every time he was asked a direct question - almost none of which he answered. He hedged. He yapped about irrelevancies - going to Yale doesn't mean you can't be a sexual predator. He played the victim card to the hilt, backed by complicit Repubs, but he also absolutely refused to ask for the one thing that might clear him.

    He's guilty. Repubs know it.

    I hope one or some of the accusers press charges so we can have a real investigation instead of the show-trial we were subjected to today.

  2. [2] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I bleed for you and your ISP woes...

    I saw half of Ford's bit and most of Kavanaugh's (it was colliding with re-runs of DS9) rebuttal.

    Kavanaugh came out of the shoot with Trumpian abrasiveness, he was loud and frothing at the mouth. He sneered at the Democrats on the committee and looked mostly at his handlers on the GOP side, like a wanting pet. He refused to acknowledge his 'unquestioned good name' needed any further review.

    He's wrong, it does.

    Nothing was settled today, aside from the fact that Kavanaugh is a political creature who has every intention of holding a grudge against the Democrats. He has no business being on the SCOTUS. He yelled, he cried, he obnoxiously butted in where he should have stfu, he's a classless bureaucrat, and an obvious Trumpian lapdog.

    LL&P

  3. [3] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [1] "Mark Ford" should read 'Mark Judge'...no?
    [2] 'Shute' not "shoot"

    I rarely correct myself, not my thing. I thought I might follow a new course.

    LL&P

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Update:

    OK, knock wood... but I think I may be fully up and running again. Woo hoo! Would've hated to try a Friday column with a dodgy internet...

    Let's hope it lasts more than 10 minutes...

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    CW... embrace dodgy-ness. Go for a bowl of Pho. Sometimes it's all you can do.

    Trust me.

    LL&P

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    Betty's Noodles is my son's fav.

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: If I had been a senator on that committee, what I would have asked Kavanaugh is: "When you were in high school and college, what was the highest number of beers you drank in one setting? How many beers did you consume at any one time, whether at a party or a trip to see a baseball game, or any other time? Please remember that you are under oath."

    That would have been a great question, CW, but remember how Kavanaugh answered similar questioning:

    Ms. Mitchell: What do you consider to be too many beers?

    Kavanaugh: I don't know. Ah. You know, we... whatever the chart says (laughing) blood alcohol chart.

    Under oath, Kavanaugh claims he doesn't know what he considers to be too many beers. He states that he believes that "too many beers" is whatever the blood alcohol chart says. This is sworn testimony, mind you.

    Neil, under penalty of perjury: What do you consider to be too many beers? I would wager that it's likely three or four, depending on size, because I remember that time you stated you had three one night and how you tickled my funny bone when you misidentified "The Untouchables"... something you would obviously normally know [sorry can't help it... trained memory]. Regardless your answer, I would definitely wager you're well aware of what you consider to be "too many beers."

    Anyone here* who doesn't know what they consider to be too many beers?

    Anyone here* believe the utter ridiculous claim that Kavanaugh believes "too many beers" is "whatever the chart says"?
    _______________

    * besides the board spammer/troller

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    American Bar Association calls for an FBI investigation and a delay in confirmation votes.

    The American Bar Association is calling on the Senate Judiciary Committee to halt the consideration of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh until an FBI investigation is completed into the sexual assault allegations that have roiled his nomination.

    In a strongly worded letter obtained by CNN Thursday, the organization said it is making the extraordinary request "because of the ABA's respect for the rule of law and due process under law," siding with concerns voiced by Senate Democrats since Christine Blasey Ford's decades-old allegations became public.

    "The basic principles that underscore the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI," said Robert Carlson, president of the organization, in a Thursday night letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/kavanaugh-american-bar-association/index.html

    “Here’s my understanding, if you lived a good life, people will recognize it like the American Bar Association has, the gold standard.” ~ Lindsey Graham, 09/27/2018

  9. [9] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Might I invoke Monty Python...

    Bruce: 'American beer is like making love in a canoe...'

    Bruce: 'Making love in a canoe, Bruce?'

    Bruce: 'yes, Bruce... It's fucking close to water'

    I'm of a similar age to Kavanaugh, and his slippery mates...beer--smeer, let's talk about liquor being quicker.

    First time I was in the US was in 84'. I was 16, even back then, you had to drink the beer while standing over the toilet, it was that weak. In fact, there was a product called JOLT, "two times the sugar, three times the caffeine" that was more efficacious than the beer, it certainly had a more deleterious effect on the system.

    LL&P

  10. [10] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [8] "Here’s my understanding, if you lived a good life, people will recognize it like the American Bar Association has, the gold standard.” ~ Lindsey Graham, 09/27/2018"

    It's safe to assume that utterance was prior to the ABA making their statement?

    Makes one hum 'what is it they know from years of Kavanaugh being a lawyer, that we don't?'

    I think Kavanaugh is as bent as the Soviet sickle that put his patron in a position to nominate him. This fish stinks from the head, to the dorsa's, to the tail fins.

    LL&P

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, before I read any news or any of the commentary or any of the comments, let me lay it out..

    It's my fervent hope and desire that both Kavanaugh and Ford get a fair shake and the assessment ya'all make is based on objective facts and reality..

    Let me show ya'all how it's done.. Keep in mind that this is being written without have seen ANY latest news or reading any of the comments from yesterday evening to now.. So what I say is without the benefit of knowledge from approx 1700 hrs yesterday to today..

    First Kavanaugh..

    Sanctimonious at times.. Overly defensive which is understandable, considering the unfounded accusations against him and the pain and suffering that has been inflicted on his family... Too verbose.. Answer the questions and don't get into sparring matches.. Again, understandable...

    He was flailing when talking about his high school days and often non-sequitor.. Many non answers with regards to his high school activities. But, again, to be fair, many of those questions were completely irrelevant to the proceeding...

    So, on those areas, Kavanaugh didn't shine.. Not at all..

    But, let's be factually clear.. On the subject that was the REASON for this hearing, Kavanaugh was perfect.. Unequivocal and believable denial on the accusations leveled against him by Ford and the media.. There was absolutely NO DOUBT that Kavanaugh did not sexually assault Ford.. And the prosecutor proved that to herself as evidenced by the fact that she didn't need all of the GOP Senator's time to get to the facts. Which allowed Lindsey Graham his time..

    And wasn't that just magnificent!! OMG I loved the way the Democrats were upbraided and laid low... If Graham ever run for POTUS, he has my vote...

    So, to sum up.. When it came to irrelevant questions, Kavanaugh was evasive and not completely truthful.. But it wasn't that big of a deal, considering the circumstances.. On the entire point of the hearing, Kavanaugh was rock-solid and utterly believable..

    Now to Ford...

    Inconsistencies throughout.. Was caught in several blatant lies.. For example, she claimed she did not show the WaPoop reporter her medical records, but recanted when told that WaPoop said she did..

    Now, one might say that Ford lied about irrelevant things, as Kavanaugh did... But it all went to motivation for her accusation which IS relevant...

    And the BIGGEST thing that tripped up Ford did totally and utterly go to motivation... And ironically enough, it wasn't against Ford, but went to how she was used by her counsel.

    First off, it was obvious that her counsel DID NOT inform their client about the GOP offer to come to California. Ford appeared shocked that the offer was made.. Her counsel did their best to hide the fact from the committee, trying to hide behind attorney/client privilege but it was obvious to all that counsel did not tell Ford about the offer.. That's strike one against Ford's counsel...

    But the kill shot came at the end of Mitchell's questioning. It's what allowed Mitchell to say "I have no more questions" with the finality of a Perry Mason Moment...

    First, she softened Ford and Ford's counsel with a joke.. Got them on her (Mitchell's) side. Classic Good Cop strategy...

    Mitchell implied that it's likely that the WORST possible way to get to the facts of an incident such as this was a Senate chamber in 5 min increments..

    Both Ford **AND** Counsel agreed...

    Then Mitchell went on to explain that the BEST WAY to get to the facts is a forensic session.. One on One with a shrink for hours on end just talking and delving into the matter...

    Ford agreed that this would be the best way... I could just HEAR Ford's counsel groaning to themselves, "We're screwed"...

    Then came the coup de grace....

    Words to the effect of:

    "Did your counsel ever suggest to you that you should have a forensic session such as we agree would be the best way to go about getting to the truth??"
    -Mitchell

    "No"
    -Ford

    BOOM!!!! HEAD SHOT!!!

    "I have no more questions"
    -Mitchell

    Motivation established...

    Ya'all will notice that I have dropped the so-called victim label for Ford..

    Because I see now that Ford *IS* a victim. She has been manipulated by Democrat players into doing one of the worst things a sexual assault survivor could do.. Accuse the wrong man...

    Mitchell also proved that NO Democrat cared about the sexual assault.. Until AFTER Kavanaugh was nominated.. I am certain that up until that point, Ford had NEVER mentioned Kavanaugh's name.. I am certain that it was Democrats who planted the name if Ford's head after Kavanaugh was nominated, as there is NO MENTION of Kavanaugh in Ford's narrative prior to that point..

    Ford strikes me as not very intelligent and easily led..

    Ford IS a victim.. She is a victim of Democrat greed and corruption..

    It's my fervent hope that she gets ahold of a REAL lawyer instead of Democrat operatives and sues the HELL out of those lawyers who sat beside her at the hearing...

    So, there you have it.. A logical, rational and above all else, an OBJECTIVE assessment of the hearing...

    I truly hope that mine is NOT the only objective assessment here...

    OK Now let me get caught up....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    OH and just another point..

    Ford was "promised" that her letter would never see the light of day..

    Another strike against Democrat operatives....

    Oh yes.. Ford is, indeed, a victim... Almost as much as Kavanaugh is a victim...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://youtu.be/ZBcJVpM87tc

    That was so awesome.. It likely seals Judge Kavanaugh ascension to the SCOTUS....

    Great job, Senator Graham...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone here* believe the utter ridiculous claim that Kavanaugh believes "too many beers" is "whatever the chart says"?
    _______________

    * besides the board spammer/troller

    Ahhhhh

    So, because you got your ass intellectually kicked six ways from Sunday..

    NOW we're back to name-calling..

    OK, so be it... Once again.. I don't start these.. But I do finish them....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans, mindful of political optics, decided to hire a female prosecutor to handle their questioning of Ford, who went first.

    AND Kavanaugh.. Com'on.. Let's be fair here...

    Their plan also seemed to be to let her also question Kavanaugh, but they didn't stick to that for long.

    Actually, they stuck with it throughout Ford's entire questioning.. ????

    Ford told her story very quietly, and with great composure. The strongest thing she said was in answer to a question as to how sure she was that her attacker was Kavanaugh: "one hundred percent." She had no doubt what had happened to her, and who was responsible.

    Yes.. Very good coaching by Democrat operatives with an agenda...

    After a lunch break, Kavanaugh began. He appeared emotional and animated, to the point (at times) of outright belligerence.

    "The cause was sufficient"
    -Surak Of Vulcan

    My final thought is on the politics of the situation. I would be willing to bet that Kavanaugh wins the committee vote scheduled for tomorrow. Jeff Flake is really the only Republican vote in doubt, and he didn't sound today like he was going to vote against Kavanaugh. He could surprise me, but that's how I read it.

    Yep, that's my read as well..

    I have no idea what will happen in the full Senate, however. I have no idea if Republicans are going to hold their caucus together for the final confirmation vote or not. They have such a slim majority that all it will take is two defections to derail Kavanaugh's appointment. I would put the chances of that happening at 50-50, at this point -- a total tossup.

    Given the fact that Kavanaugh was so unequivocal and believable in his denial of the accusations against him, I have no doubt in my mind he will be confirmed..

    You can take that to the bank... :D

    I thought both witnesses were at least minimally credible. Kavanaugh offered some explanations of his high-school persona that were pretty laughably inaccurate (that "he had a weak stomach" instead of "regularly got so drunk he ralphed," for instance), but I don't think it was enough to render the rest of his statements as suspect. I could be wrong about that -- I am writing this before reading any other reactions to the hearing, I should point out, so this is entirely subjective on my part.

    It's only "subjective" insofar as ALL opinions are "subjective"... But it's completely objective insofar without a hint of political bias or bigotry...

    THAT is exactly what I was talking about above...

    Kudos, CW...

    If I had been a senator on that committee, what I would have asked Kavanaugh is: "When you were in high school and college, what was the highest number of beers you drank in one setting? How many beers did you consume at any one time, whether at a party or a trip to see a baseball game, or any other time? Please remember that you are under oath."

    Could you remember that???

    I mean, I know I can... ZERO... NONE...

    But could anyone else???

    There are absolutely NO FACTS to support the idea that Judge Kavanaugh is anything but proper and respectful of women..

    Let me repeat that for the cheap seats..

    NO FACTS to support the idea that the judge is ANYTHING but proper and respectful of women...

    NO FACTS...

    "Lieutenant, I am half Vulcan. Vulcans do not speculate. I speak from pure logic. If I let go of a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has in fact fallen. Human beings have characteristics just as inanimate objects do. It is impossible for Captain Kirk to act out of panic or malice. It is not his nature."
    -Commander Spock, STAR TREK, Court Martial

    It is NOT in Judge Kavanaugh's nature to be ANYTHING but proper and respectful to women..

    That is the only relevant fact...

    “An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the solution.”
    -Captain Spock

    So, since there are NO FACTS to support that idea that Judge Kavanaugh is ANYTHING but prim and proper and respectful of women, what is left however improbable (mistaken identity) must be the fact...

    Great commentary, CW.. For the most part, completely and utterly objective...

    I am a proud member of Weigantia today..

    At least until I read the other comments. :^/ heh

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    There were a handful of fiery moments when Democrats were asking their questions, but not many. They (like the Republicans) had obviously agreed not to go for the jugular in the questions they asked, because of the risk of very bad optics. In fact, the biggest emotional outburst came from Lindsey Graham, the first Republican senator to refuse to yield his time to the prosecutor the GOP had hired. Graham looked and sounded like he was ready to challenge the Democrats to a fistfight in the back alley, in fact. It was one of the most extraordinary moments in what was already an extraordinary hearing. Graham was mainly speaking to a very small audience, though -- Republican senators who might be wavering in their support of Kavanaugh. His words for any Republican who dared to vote against confirmation were more strident than anything he said about the Democrats, in fact.

    Wasn't that just totally awesome!!!!

    I mean, I saw Graham, but in my mind's eye it was Daniel Caffey

    "DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED!!!"

    If Lindsey Graham ever runs for POTUS, he has my vote.... :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    I saw half of Ford's bit and most of Kavanaugh's (it was colliding with re-runs of DS9) rebuttal.

    OOOOoooooo tough choice.. :D

    Kavanaugh came out of the shoot with Trumpian abrasiveness, he was loud and frothing at the mouth. He sneered at the Democrats on the committee and looked mostly at his handlers on the GOP side, like a wanting pet. He refused to acknowledge his 'unquestioned good name' needed any further review.

    He's wrong, it does.

    Yea???? Any facts prior to his nomination to support???

    Not a single one.. Even Liberals and Democrats gushed about Kavanaugh...

    There is not a single solitary FACT to support your opinion of Kavanaugh in the here and now..

    NOT... A.... SINGLE.... SOLITARY.... FACT....

    [2] 'Shute' not "shoot"

    Actually, it's not 'shute' or 'shoot'.. It's chute... :D

    Unless it's a Canadian thing.. :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone here* believe the utter ridiculous claim that Kavanaugh believes "too many beers" is "whatever the chart says"?

    Anyone here besides the Crack Whore Welfare Girl believe that they can read Kavanaugh's mind??

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    When all is said and done, Kavanaugh is going to be elevated to the SCOTUS..

    Democrats will pay for this sham con job, this blatant character assassination, in November..

    And, although it's obvious that Judge Kavanaugh is NOT that kind of Judge, it is my fervent hope, once a justice on the SCOTUS, that he deals Democrats blow after blow after blow.. That he takes the Democrat agenda and stomps on it again and again and again... That he takes ANY case that Democrats wants to win and shoves it up the Democrats' asses..

    I know, I know.. There are NO FACTS to support the idea that Judge Kavanaugh is that kind of judge..

    But I can fantasize that he is...

    And I will laugh my ass off every time Democrats get bitch-slapped by the SCOTUS... Loudly and longly...

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Their plan also seemed to be to let her also question Kavanaugh, but they didn't stick to that for long.

    Sorry, my bust... I misread that...

    You wrote Kavanaugh, but I saw Ford... Sooweeeee

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    I saw half of Ford's bit and most of Kavanaugh's (it was colliding with re-runs of DS9) rebuttal.

    Yunno, with your new TV, you can put every episode of every Star Trek, including the movies onto a thumbdrive and stick that in your TV. Then you can watch any Star Trek you want any time you want..

    We have a video server that has 10TB of storage.. I have all the Star Treks, all the Stargates, plus about 5000 movies that we can watch whenever we want.. :D

    Just a thought...

  22. [22] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I haven't heard it mentioned much, but Kavanaugh repeatedly came across to me as an alcoholic in denial. The "sensitive stomach" and "I liked beer, I still do" retorts were classics I've heard from many high functioning alcoholics....no pun intended.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Susan Collins. A moderate who sometimes breaks from party ranks, Collins earlier said she wanted both Ford and Kavanaugh to testify under oath to the committee and told reporters that if Kavanaugh had lied about allegations of sexual misconduct, "that would be disqualifying."

    There were absolutely no lies about the accusations of sexual misconduct..

    Susan Collins is YES on Kavanaugh...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    An occasional party renegade, she has not said how she will vote. Murkowski met privately late on Thursday with Collins, Flake and Democrat Joe Manchin. Earlier in the day she told Reuters: "I find Dr. Ford's testimony to be credible."

    Yes, Ford's testimony was "credible" in that she likely was assaulted by someone.. But the motivations that were PROVEN by Mitchell disqualify the credibility of the accusation as it pertains to Judge Kavanaugh..

    Lisa Murkowski is YES on Kavanaugh

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    ** Heidi Heitkamp. Facing a re-election campaign in North Dakota, a heavily pro-Trump state, she had called for further investigation of Ford's allegations.

    ** Joe Manchin. Also up for re-election, in the pro-Trump state of West Virginia, he met with Republicans late Thursday.

    ** Joe Donnelly. Donnelly is up for re-election in the red-leaning state of Indiana. He has said the allegations against Kavanaugh "merit further review."

    ** Doug Jones. The first Democratic senator elected from Alabama in over 20 years, he must show he can be independent-minded to stay in office. The Kavanaugh vote could be a test.

    Heitkamp is a NO on Kavanaugh and will likely lose her seat..

    Manchin, Donnelly and Jones are YES on Kavanaugh.. It's a toss-up as to whether they will keep their seats. Vindictive Left Wingers will likely stay home. So, it's a win-win for the GOP. They get Kavanaugh confirmed AND pick-up 3 Dem seats..

    I kinda feel for Manchin. He seems to be a pretty straight shooter... His BEST course of action would be to change his Party affiliation to GOP.. But I assume he CAN'T do that until after the election..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I haven't heard it mentioned much, but Kavanaugh repeatedly came across to me as an alcoholic in denial.

    Do you have *ANY* facts to support this claim other than your bigoted and biased opinions??

    No?? Of course you don't..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    CSPAN will be streaming live the 0930 Senate Hearing On Judge Kavanaugh..

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?452084-1/senate-judiciary-committee-holds-executive-meeting-brett-kavanaugh-nomination

    I sure hope Rachel Mitchell will publicly give her assessment of previous testimony...

    I would especially like to hear if Mitchell has reports and facts that Ford was drinking at the pool prior to the get together where she continued drinking...

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    18

    Anyone here besides the Crack Whore Welfare Girl believe that they can read Kavanaugh's mind??

    It was you who insisted that "families should be off limits" so I cannot fathom why you'd wish to start your ridiculous and incessant chattering about your family situation all over again, and I would wager that no one else on the board can either. :)

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ...it is my fervent hope, once a justice on the SCOTUS, that he deals Democrats blow after blow after blow.. That he takes the Democrat agenda and stomps on it again and again and again... That he takes ANY case that Democrats wants to win and shoves it up the Democrats' asses..

    He'll be delivering blows alright: he'll be blowing the corporations, the fossil fuel industry, and the pharmaceutical companies. The religious right will get a rim job, and Trump will get a teabag with a hot taint tongue lashing. Hand jobs all around for Wall Street, the Insurance lobby, and our new Environmental Destruction Agency. As for the rest of us...

    ..well we just get screwed.

    .

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stig [22]: I had exactly the same impression. If you've ever lived with an alcoholic (as I did for ten years), his defenses sound very familiar.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was you who insisted that "families should be off limits" so I cannot fathom why you'd wish to start your ridiculous and incessant chattering about your family situation all over again,

    You are the only one talking about my family..

    I am talking about you.. A crack whore welfare girl who attacks people's families just because you get your ass kicked in a political blog..

    Seriously, cunt.. You have no future. Yer a sad and pathetic excuse for a human being and your only recourse is to end your sad and pathetic life...

  32. [32] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    The ABA declaration is interesting... I'm curious to see how, if at all, that plays out.

    For any member of the bar, to have them full-throatily endorse a better investigation, that has to carry weight.

    They spoke as one.

    LL&P

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    He'll be delivering blows alright: he'll be blowing the corporations, the fossil fuel industry, and the pharmaceutical companies.

    Any facts to support your bullshit??

    Jeesh.. Look who I am asking for "facts"... :^/

    ..well we just get screwed.

    Says the guy who supports the credibility of a college woman who attends high school gang rape parties and parties alongside children that are being drugged and gang raped and never lifted a finger to stop it or report it..

    Sorry, blathy... Someone who supports a cretin like that SOLELY to further a Party slavery agenda has absolutely NO CREDIBILITY whatsoever..

  34. [34] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    An aside... Shute and chute are one in the same. Colour and color.

    :D

    LL&P

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ABA declaration is interesting... I'm curious to see how, if at all, that plays out.

    It IS interesting, but completely irrelevant...

    They made their recommendation and it's only political pressure that prompts this latest announcement..

    They spoke as one.....

    ... political entity..

    There.. Finished it for you.. Yer welcome.. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    An aside... Shute and chute are one in the same. Colour and color.

    Using that reasoning, shute, chute and shoot are all the same..

    Noun. shute (plural shutes) Alternative form of chute. Alternative form of shoot. (Southern England, especially in place names) A steep road through a cleft in a hill.
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shute

    :D But I am not going to quibble.. :D

  37. [37] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I'll wager Kavanaugh took their pronouncement as a personal slight.

    His life is anchored by his career, his career is anchored to the ABA... It would be akin to you being hurled from the society of Trolls And Spammers (TAS), Michale.

    ;)

    LL&P

  38. [38] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS: I haven't heard it mentioned much, but Kavanaugh repeatedly came across to me as an alcoholic in denial.

    Michale: Do you have *ANY* facts to support this claim other than your bigoted and biased opinions??

    No?? Of course you don't..

    So Michale, why can't you allow TS or any other poster to state their opinion without spamming the board over and over ad nauseam with this? It's his opinion that doesn't require "facts to support" it. Are you afraid of others having an opinion?

    TS: I don't know about the "alcoholic" part, but he certainly did bolster the claims of "belligerent drunk" that multiple persons had said about him, including his roommate Roche and others he went to school with, and he sure blew to hell his prior testimony under oath that he was an unbiased jurist.

    I do hope they ramrod him onto the SCOTUS, though, without doing any other factfinding by the FBI or similar... because if they do, that's an issue that isn't going to go away anytime soon. Please do no further investigation and seat this guy to the highest court. People will campaign over this, it's not going away, and the facts will come out eventually; they always do. :)

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Isn't it funny how we're not hearing a SINGLE word about the Swetnick accusation anymore..

    That boneheaded moronic accusation did more to screw over the Democrats than anything else.. It's likely what prompted Graham's awesome outburst..

    The scum sucking porn lawyer helped Kavanaugh's case immensely by showing what a lying bunch of scumbags Democrats are...

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welfare Crack Whore,

    So Michale, why can't you allow TS or any other poster to state their opinion without spamming the board over and over ad nauseam with this? It's his opinion that doesn't require "facts to support" it. Are you afraid of others having an opinion?

    I simply asked him for facts to support his opinions..

    If you can't handle that, then don't read my comments..

    If Blathy can't handle that, then he can tell me himself..

    He doesn't need a crack whore to speak for him..

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Blathy can't handle that, then he can tell me himself..

    Woops.. That should be if TS can't handle it..

    I guess I had Blathy on my mind.. :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    So yea.. I guess TS *DOES* need a crack whore to speak for him...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welfare Crack Whore

    I do hope they ramrod him onto the SCOTUS, though, without doing any other factfinding by the FBI or similar... because if they do, that's an issue that isn't going to go away anytime soon.

    Yea, that's what you Democrat morons said about the Anita Hill issue too..

    You were wrong then, you'll be wrong now..

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll wager Kavanaugh took their pronouncement as a personal slight.

    Only because it suits your political agenda to believe that..

    Judge Kavanaugh got their sterling recommendation.. That's all that's needed..

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [41] I guess I had Blathy on my mind..

    As well you should. Go ahead, hang another one out over the plate for me to swing at..

    heh.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Prosecutor tells wavering senators she wouldn't charge Kavanaugh, as vote looms

    The sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to question Brett Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday's hearing told senators the case would not hold up in a courtroom, sources told Fox News—guidance that could prove critical as wavering lawmakers prepare to vote.

    “Mitchell spelled it out and was clear with senators that she could not take this anywhere near a courtroom,” one source told Fox News. She told them she would not charge the Supreme Court nominee and reportedly said she wouldn't even seek a search warrant.

    Asked whether more time or investigating would help, as Democrats suggested repeatedly on Thursday, Flake rejected the idea.

    “Where does this start, where does it end?” he asked. “More time, more ludicrous allegations. What does that do to the accused?”
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/28/prosecutor-tells-wavering-senators-wouldnt-charge-kavanaugh-as-vote-looms.html

    And THERE you have it...

    Based ON THE FACTS, no FBI investigation is warranted..

    You people have lost...

    Own it...

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    31

    I am talking about you.. A crack whore welfare girl who attacks people's families just because you get your ass kicked in a political blog..

    Like I said, sunshine. No one wants to hear about your family situation. You are obviously miserable and wish desperately to make everyone else feel like you do. Your projection is obvious.

    Seriously, cunt.. You have no future. Yer a sad and pathetic excuse for a human being and your only recourse is to end your sad and pathetic life...

    My life is great. My future is great. I am a terrific human being, and I'm not going anywhere. Your language is pathetic, and it's kind of obvious you're trying to run me and others off the board with your constant and continual spamming of opinions. There's no need to spam every comment and bully others posters.

    Why are you afraid to allow anyone to have an opinion? Why must you spam near every opinion with the same repetitive rhetoric? Sometimes an opinion is just an opinion that doesn't require facts and certainly doesn't require the needless constant heckling and bullying by you. :)

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    As well you should. Go ahead, hang another one out over the plate for me to swing at..

    heh.

    Even without any political credibility, yer still an OK guy.. :D

  49. [49] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [32] "Seriously, cunt.. You have no future. Yer a sad and pathetic excuse for a human being and your only recourse is to end your sad and pathetic life..."

    That's a bit strong, Michale… not that I'm squeamish, but I thought it was universally agreed that particular invective was verboten in polite society-ish. Vituperations of that strength should be expressed on a 'user beware' basis.

    I'm not 'Liz-ing' you, just thought it needed to be said.

    LL&P

  50. [50] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Judge Kavanaugh got their sterling recommendation.. That's all that's needed..

    Yeah, because that's how it works.

    Mike calls 'no take-backs'..

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welfare Crack Whore

    Like I said, sunshine. No one wants to hear about your family situation.

    And yet you keep talking and attacking my family.

    Only a low life whose best course of action is suicide would do that..

    My life is great. My future is great. I am a terrific human being, and I'm not going anywhere. Your language is pathetic, and it's kind of obvious you're trying to run me and others off the board with your constant and continual spamming of opinions. There's no need to spam every comment and bully others posters.

    Fortunately, a scumbag waste of skin like you doesn't make the rules around here.

    Things were great around here til your kind showed up..

    So, just do everyone a favor and put yourself out of everyone's misery... You're just an angry and bitter spinster who gets her ass kicked daily..

    It's no wonder yer single...

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's a bit strong, Michale… not that I'm squeamish, but I thought it was universally agreed that particular invective was verboten in polite society-ish.

    I completely agree... But we're nowhere near polite around here as I am sure you will agree...

    I don't start the name-calling, but I damn well will end it..

    I'm not 'Liz-ing' you, just thought it needed to be said.

    I appreciate it, but I already know.. It never has to be said but for Victoria's incessant and on-going name-calling..

    You can ask her to stop with the name-calling and you will never see it again..

    Good luck with that....

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, because that's how it works.

    Mike calls 'no take-backs'..

    Oh, they can take it back...

    But I don't think the ABA wants to take a HUGE hit on their credibility.. Not even to further the Democrat Agenda..

    If they take it back, they will NEVER have any credibility again...

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    Yea, that's what you Democrat morons said about the Anita Hill issue too..

    I'm neither a Democrat or a moron, but when did you ever let facts get in the way of your board BS? I actually supported Clarence Thomas at that time based on what I knew at that time.

    You were wrong then, you'll be wrong now..

    I was wrong to support Clarence Thomas. Okay!

    Anybody else here besides the foul mouthed board bully who claims they can read minds and knows what everyone here thinks or did in the past? Anybody? #Enough

  55. [55] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [45] "Judge Kavanaugh got their (ABA) sterling recommendation.. That's all that's needed.."

    I think they rescinded their endorsement when they decided this rush to confirm was contrary to their professional experience.

    A family of lawyers will see it as a rebuke, which of course, it is, and was meant to be. It would be akin to the Bridge Builders Guild (BBG) saying you were no longer welcome to dwell under their edifices.

    :D

    LL&P

  56. [56] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [55] "Anybody else here besides the foul mouthed board bully who claims they can read minds and knows what everyone here thinks or did in the past? Anybody?"

    ... Reading some minds would require sturdy hip-waders to slog through a veritable sewer.

    No thanks.

    LL& :P

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think they rescinded their endorsement when they decided this rush to confirm was contrary to their professional experience.

    Facts to support??

    A family of lawyers will see it as a rebuke, which of course, it is, and was meant to be.

    A family of lawyers with a political ax to grind will see it as a rebuke, which of course, it is, and was
    meant to be.

    There.. fixed it for you. :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay.. I am a fair guy..

    Let's let the FBI investigate Juanita Brodderick's factual accusation of rape against Bill Clinton..

    When they are done with that, then we can discuss the FBI investigating Ford's claim..

  59. [59] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [58] "A family of lawyers with a political ax to grind will see it as a rebuke, which of course, it is, and was
    meant to be."

    I'm glad you agree that the Family Kavanaugh have a political axe to grind... It's called right-wing religious zealotry.

    LL&P

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    As of late Thursday, 47 Republican senators had pledged to vote for Kavanaugh at the scheduled full Senate vote on Tuesday.

    Yep.. Kavanaugh will be confirmed..

    SUCK IT, Democrats!!! Your con job FAILED...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm glad you agree that the Family Kavanaugh have a political axe to grind... It's called right-wing religious zealotry.

    So, you DON'T mind wading in the muck to read people's minds, eh?? :D

  62. [62] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I see Flake is living up to his name... No bollocks at all, even on the way out the door.

    Shameless.

    He won't be winning any 'profile in courage' awards anytime soon.

    LL&P

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing Played Maximally Well for the Republicans Under the Circumstances

    Looking back on the day’s riveting events, it is amazing how effectively the Republicans and Judge Kavanaugh sidestepped the perils and emerged perhaps even stronger than the morning augured.

    As the first half of the day wound down, with Mitchell coming to the end of her on-off-on-off-on-off-on-off-on-off-on-off-on-off-on-off-on-off-on-off parrying with Dr. Ford, it was not quite clear whether the GOP had shot itself mortally with the strategy. Certainly, Mitchell did elicit a few whoppers. Democrats had insisted for days on delaying the hearings — ideally, until after the November elections — partly on a claim that Dr. Ford has some sort of fear of flying. Thus, Democrats insisted that it would take days upon days for Dr. Ford to drive from her home in California to Washington, D.C. In response, Sen. Charles Grassley and the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans offered to fly to the West Coast to interview Dr. Ford there. Yet, under Ms. Mitchell’s gentle, genteel, and warmly smiling questioning, it emerged that Christine Ford actually is a major frequent flier, who flies the globe (albeit not to Australia) not only for business but also for pleasure and hobbies:

    MITCHELL: I also saw on your CV that you list the following interests of travel, and you, in parentheses put “Hawaii, Costa Rica, South Pacific islands, and French Polynesia. Have you been to all these places?

    FORD: Yes.… It’s easier for me to travel going that direction when it’s a vacation.”

    Even more incredibly, she testified that she did not know that the Senators had offered to fly to California for her convenience.
    https://spectator.org/the-ford-kavanaugh-hearing-played-maximally-well-for-the-republicans-under-the-circumstances/

    Yep.. The GOP came out smelling like a rose and the duplicitous and scheming Democrats came out smelling like day old shit..

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    None of the revelations drawn out by Ms. Mitchell even remotely was a knockout punch, but they did confirm inconsistencies and did underscore lingering questions: Who paid for Dr. Ford’s lie detector test? Why did she even seek a polygraph? To whom did she initially go with her account? How many people were in that house of that party? Was she attacked by two men? By one man? In all, were there four men on site (her therapist’s notes of the event that Dr. Ford recounted), or was it three men and a woman on site (Dr. Ford’s subsequent version)? If 15-year-old then-Christine Blasey did not then own a car and lived far from the location of the street intersection where she placed the house, how did she get there? How did she get back? And the gentle questions concluded with Dr. Ford’s intriguing answer to the lingering question as to why her female friend whom she places at the party, Leland Ingham Keyser, utterly denies the core elements of Ford’s allegations. For the first time, we hear from Dr. Ford that we really should not go there too deeply because Ms. Keyser has some kind of illness for which we only can wish her well. Thud.

    Yea, THAT went over like a ton of bricks...

  65. [65] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [62] No mind-meld was needed, It's more than obvious to the barely aware that Kavanaugh is another right-wing theocrat.

    Antidisestablishmentarianism is alive and kicking in US politics... Tough break.

    LL&P

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see Flake is living up to his name... No bollocks at all, even on the way out the door.

    Shameless.

    He won't be winning any 'profile in courage' awards anytime soon.

    That's strange..

    Cuz when Flake was holding out against Kavanaugh and saying an FBI investigated may be warranted, ya'all LOVED Flake...

    When Flake was opposing President Trump, ya'all LOVED Flake...

    Strange your opinion of Flake changes so dramatically and so quickly, eh?? :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was remarkably telling how little the Democrats asked about the allegations proffered by Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick. The liberal New York Times had investigated Ramirez’s story and had decided to ignore it, and so did the Democrats slowly realize they should, too. The Swetnick story was so ridiculous that its very mention threatened to cast the entire Democrat prosecution into disgrace. In the end, it seemed that each Democrat was left with little but a few minutes to raise unsubstantiated innuendoes, to elicit the revelation and admission that certain immature teen boys giggle over passing gas, vomiting, and how one of them elongates pronouncing a common filthy word. Left with nowhere to go, without evidence to support any of Dr. Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, each Democrat ultimately reverted to the safe harbor of asking for an “FBI investigation” that each knows is a cover story and smokescreen for yet another round of delay. Joe Biden said it best, so effectively, that his one-minute refutation of seeking an “FBI investigation” must be watched, not merely quoted or transcribed.

    The Democrats really shot themselves in the foot and over-extended by bringing out these other accusations..

  68. [68] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [67] I have never expressed an opinion about Flake until now... And I stick to it. He should slither out of committee, walking upright without a spine might be a task to far.

    LL&P

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    No mind-meld was needed, It's more than obvious to the barely aware that Kavanaugh is another right-wing theocrat.

    And THAT is the opinion of another left-wing theocrat.. :D

    Which I respect.. But disagree with...

    It's all moot... Mitchell's report sealed the deal...

    Judge Kavanaugh will be forwarded to the SCOTUS on Tuesday?

    "We don't have any photon torpedoes.. They won't be here til Tuesday."
    -Captain Harriman, STAR TREK VII-Generations

    :D

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have never expressed an opinion about Flake until now...

    Yet, you were silent when others had..

    SILENCE GIVES ASSENT
    -Left Wing Chancellorsville Rule

    :D

    He should slither out of committee, walking upright without a spine might be a task to far.

    I understand yer bummed.. I would be too, in your shoes.. :D

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    14

    * besides the board spammer/troller

    Ahhhhh
    So, because you got your ass intellectually kicked six ways from Sunday..

    NOW we're back to name-calling..

    Okay, sunshine. Seriously? How is this any different than your continual and never ending taunts of "party slavery" and "bias" and "bigotry"? Why do you believe it's okay for you to continually spam others with the "facts to support" taunting and "party bigot" labels yet you're whining if anyone talks about your spamming? Spamming posts repeatedly is not remotely "intellectually" kicking anyone's asses. It's repetitive spam and it's trolling. It's not remotely intellectual.

    So if it's okay for you to continue to spam every post and refer to others as party bigots and slaves, why is it not okay to refer to you as a spammer?

    Seriously! Spamming everyone's posts with the same repeated "facts to support" is not "intellectual." It's trolling. Continually referring to people's party slavery is name calling.

    You want to sit on a perch of privilege and refer to everyone as party slaves and bigots, and if anyone says anything back, you whine about being called names.

    Clue in. #Enough

    OK, so be it... Once again.. I don't start these.. But I do finish them....

    Yes, you do. Do a search for "slave" yesterday. You're the only one who refers to others here as slaves. You've never stopped. Do a search for "facts to support" whenever anyone posts an opinion. It's spamming. You spam everyone's opinion posts with the same shit over and over. That's not "intellectual," it's spamming.

    If you're going to refer to others as party slaves and spam their posts, you sound like a whining infant with no self-awareness whatsoever when you repeatedly insist others are calling you names. Seriously. You've never stopped with the name calling. #Enough

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kavanaugh Hearing Was The Democrats' Worst Nightmare

    But as soon as Judge Kavanaugh completed his opening statement, it became clear what the afternoon matinee would contain: Republicans showing more spine than they have in years, accompanied by Democrats making total asses of themselves.

    This is what Kavanaugh’s riveting certitude did to both sides. It energized Republicans to solidly back the judge, and additionally inspired them to call out committee Democrats for the shameful scam they have deployed to poison the nomination process.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/markdavis/2018/09/28/untitled-n2523392

    I get it why ya'all are bummed.. This hearing was a HUGE plus for Kavanaugh and the GOP...

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Bllaaa Blaaaaa Blaaaaa Blaaaaa"
    -Victoria, Welfare Crack Whore

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    When their time came to badger Judge Kavanaugh, the Democrat decisions to obsess about a useless FBI probe or leer over arcane references in his high school yearbook made them look microscopically small. And when the rotation turned to Orrin Hatch, John Cornyn and the consummately inspired Lindsey Graham, the tide had turned completely. America went to lunch wondering about Kavanaugh’s fate but had to wonder if he might be confirmed by dinner.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Compactly contained within one day witnessed by millions, we saw Democrat behavior so unhinged and repulsive that Republicans finally came out of their shells and called them on it. It was glorious.

    The confirmation of Kavanaugh is now a moral necessity—so that a good man’s reputation can be restored, rules of basic decency upheld, and viciously craven political tactics dealt the death blow they deserve.

    Yep, yep.. A THOUSAND times yep...

    Democrats lost at this hearing and lost big time..

    Any hope of a Blue Wave is gone on the ash heap of history...

    The House and the Senate will remain in GOP hands.. I am as sure of that as I was sure that Donald J Trump would be our next President...

    And, obviously, a LOT more sure than I was about Dr Ford actually appearing.. :D

    You heard it here first, people..

    Democrats lost... GOP and Judge Kavanaugh won....

    It's THAT simple...

  76. [76] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Michale… A Theocrat is someone who's religious belief's drive their political agenda.

    I can't be doing your googling for you, please keep up if you want to run with the adults.
    :)

    LL&P

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    56

    ... Reading some minds would require sturdy hip-waders to slog through a veritable sewer.

    Very well said, sir. :)

  78. [78] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [76] "The House and the Senate will remain in GOP hands.. I am as sure of that as I was sure that Donald J Trump would be our next President..."

    No doubt you'll as sure about that as you were about Ford being a 'no-show' to committee?

    That didn't pan out. You're 0-1, son.

    LL&P

  79. [79] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    *whose... Damn this new-found self-correcting.

    LL&P

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    78

    No doubt you'll as sure about that as you were about Ford being a 'no-show' to committee?

    Right you are, JTC, and don't forget how sure he was about "Senator Roy Moore." :)

  81. [81] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [75] So no one has to waste their time looking into shameless plagiarism... https://townhall.com/columnists/markdavis/2018/09/28/untitled-n2523392

    :)

    LL&P

  82. [82] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [81] Thanks, Kick. I forgot about that clanger.

    0-2, son.

    :)

    LL&P

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    "After hearing more than 30 hours of testimony from Judge Kavanaugh earlier this month, I was prepared to support his nomination based on his view of the law and his record as a judge. In fact, I commented at the time that had he been nominated in another era, he would have likely received 90+ votes."
    -Senator Flake

    Oh the mighty Left Wing hero, shoves it up Democrats' asses.. :D

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    No doubt you'll as sure about that as you were about Ford being a 'no-show' to committee?

    What part of "And, obviously, a LOT more sure than I was about Dr Ford actually appearing.. :D" was not clear to you??

  85. [85] 
    lharvey16 wrote:

    kick (38)
    In my most cynical self, I understand the sentiment. In this case, my better angels hope the supreme court doesn't have to stink from the head down. I will take too long to clean up. (soooo thankful for my right index finger and the scroll wheel)

  86. [86] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Grassley just admitted the committee had Avanatti's client, Julie Swetnick's allegation on Sunday? Though he hasn't bothered to learn how pronounce her name, yesterday he bemoaned that one day wasn't enough time to validate her claim, one way or another.

    Is Grassley an elected official? or did he come with the drapes?

    LL&P

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    In my most cynical self, I understand the sentiment. In this case, my better angels hope the supreme court doesn't have to stink from the head down. I will take too long to clean up.

    Yea.. Democrats said the exact same thing about Clarence Thomas..

    Of course, they were wrong...

    They'll be wrong again...

    As will you...

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grassley just admitted the committee had Avanatti's client, Julie Swetnick's allegation on Sunday? Though he hasn't bothered to learn how pronounce her name, yesterday he bemoaned that one day wasn't enough time to validate her claim, one way or another.

    Actually, 10 mins is enough to validate her claim..

    She is a woman who claims that, as an adult, she regularly attended high school gang rape parties and partied right next to to a room where she KNEW that innocent children were being drugged and gang raped..

    And she did NOTHING to stop it or even REPORT IT...

    It takes me 2 seconds to assess her credibility.. It's non existence..

    There is no SOL in Maryland, where these crimes took place....

    WHY HASN'T THIS WOMAN FILED A CRIMINAL REPORT???

    This person has ZERO credibility and ANY rational person who is not enslaved by Party ideology and/or has an ideological agenda would see that..

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lindsay Graham is my hero....

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    How could her lawyers NOT tell Dr Ford about the offer for the Senate Committee to go to her in California??

    That's DISBARMENT territory for her lawyers...

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    lharvey16
    85

    In my most cynical self, I understand the sentiment.

    I hear you.

    In this case, my better angels hope the supreme court doesn't have to stink from the head down.

    You will definitely not be alone.

    It will take too long to clean up.

    We've got time, though.

    (soooo thankful for my right index finger and the scroll wheel)

    You are definitely not alone there either. :)

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why did Dr Ford's lawyers go with a Senate Session and NOT go with the best possible way for the facts to be revealed. A forensic session..

    Because her lawyers didn't care about what was best for Dr Ford.. Her lawyers wanted what was best for the Democrats and to hell with Dr Ford..

    THAT IS DISBARMENT TERRITORY FOR HER LAWYERS....

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    (soooo thankful for my right index finger and the scroll wheel)

    Yea, I get it.. FACTS are so inconvenient to Party fanaticism... :D

    I completely understand and encourage you to do what you must to preserve your mental health..

  94. [94] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [90] "Lindsay Graham is my hero...."

    He's my queero. I like his style when he's being affable. He's certainly found his swagger since JM started pushing up the daisy's.

    He'd be more likeable if he dropped all the religious sewage. But then, to my mind... all those afflicted with religion would be, at a minimum, tolerable.

    LL&P

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senator FLAKE YES

    Senator CORKER YES

    Oh, boy.. Democrats.. You are so sunk....

    A Fully Conservative SCOTUS for DECADES.... :D

    Happy Days Are Here Again

    Would serve the Democrats right if Roe v Wade WAS overturned...

    :D

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    He's my queero.

    That's great I don't ride that back, but fully support you if you do.. :D

    He'd be more likeable if he dropped all the religious sewage.

    Completely agree... I am as agnostic as they come...

    all those afflicted with religion would be, at a minimum, tolerable.

    A-FRAKIN' MEN to THAT!!!

    Ya know what the problem is with born-again christians??

    They are always a bigger pain the 2nd time around.. :D

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's great I don't ride that back, but fully support you if you do.. :D

    Freudian slip?? hehehehehe

    Allow me to rephrase...

    That's great. I don't ride that BIKE, but fully support you if you do.. :D

  98. [98] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [98] 'The beast with two backs'?

    You see, my non-partisanship is consistent. I do like Graham, more because he's never at a loss for quirky turn of phrase than his personal proclivities, which I also feel are endearing. Order Condescendi notwithstanding, Graham is a likeable fellow.

    LL&P

  99. [99] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Whitehouse is spot on with 'screed'...an anagram of which is 'creeds'.

    QED...

    Lol...seems Kavanaugh was at that party after all, if his own calendar is to be believed.

    Oops.

    LL&P

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, my non-partisanship is consistent. I do like Graham, more because he's never at a loss for quirky turn of phrase than his personal proclivities, which I also feel are endearing. Order Condescendi notwithstanding, Graham is a likeable fellow.

    And yet, you don't defend him when he is ruthlessly attacked by Party bigots...

    So, you can understand my confusion.. :D

    'S ok.. I have come to realize that you are one of the more rational players here.. Not quite up to LB status, but close...

    Which simply makes some of your positions all the more confusing..

    But hay.. Diff' strokes... :D

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol...seems Kavanaugh was at that party after all, if his own calendar is to be believed.

    Link???

  102. [102] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    No problem... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaughs-calendar-for-july-1-1982-go-to-timmys-for-skis-with-judge.html

    Curious how Ford knew these same people were in one place on or around the time she maintains this attack took place...considering the calendars were known only to Kavanaugh prior to her original claim?

    Riddle me that.

    LL&P

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Curious how Ford knew these same people were in one place on or around the time she maintains this attack took place...considering the calendars were known only to Kavanaugh prior to her original claim?

    Riddle me that.

    Simple.. No mention of Timmy or Squi or Tom or Bernie in Ford's testimony...

    No mention of Keyes or Ford in Kavanaugh's calender..

    Com'on dood. Yer reaching...

    I get it. Yer disappointed.. It was a valiant con job, but with NO FACTS to support the accusation, it falls flat.. AS IT SHOULD...

  104. [104] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Michale… drop the bullshit, you have to admit, either Ford has some clairvoyance we're not familiar with, or there's some substance to her claim, add to that Judge's frailty to appear, it doesn't wash, not even a sock. Kavanaugh knows who PJ is, wouldn't you like to have these guys roll up and sing their song in front of a congressional committee?

    Your vaunted facts might take a hit, or not...we'll never know. You'd have bwaha's in perpetuity if these cats were in lockstep with Kavanaugh's account.

    Hmmm

    LL&P

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale… drop the bullshit,

    I would ask you to do the same..

    Prosecutor Mitchell, recognized as a LEADING expert on sex crimes has stated FOR THE RECORD, that there is no enough evidence to warrant an investigation..

    She stated that, with what she has, she couldn't even get a WARRANT for anything in this case.

    NO WARRANT = NO INVESTIGATION

    Kavanaugh knows who PJ is, wouldn't you like to have these guys roll up and sing their song in front of a congressional committee?

    They have already "sang' for the committee in an affidavit under penalty of felony.. Why do you think they would say anything different??

    Cut the bullshit... The ONLY goal here is to delay the confirmation until AFTER the mid terms in hopes that the Dims take the Senate..

    THAT is the ***ONLY*** motivation at play here..

    It's NOT going to work..

    Dims lost..

    Game over...

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cut the bullshit... The ONLY goal here is to delay the confirmation until AFTER the mid terms in hopes that the Dims take the Senate..

    THAT is the ***ONLY*** motivation at play here..

    That was made clear when it came out that Ford's lawyers did NOT tell Ford about the committee's offer to come to California..

    THAT was made clear when Ford testified that her lawyers did NOT tell her about a forensic session which is the BEST way to get at FACTS in these cases..

    WHY didn't Ford's lawyers do a forensic session??

    Because it would not have given them the delay they needed...

    Funny how you won't address these....

  107. [107] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [106] "Prosecutor Mitchell, recognized as a LEADING expert on sex crimes has stated FOR THE RECORD, that there is no enough evidence to warrant an investigation.."

    That's a bald-faced lie. Mitchell 'told' GOP committee members this was her belief, she seems never to have spoken to the Dems.

    "She stated that, with what she has, she couldn't even get a WARRANT for anything in this case."

    Another pile of sewage. To whom did she unveil this catharsis?

    "They have already "sang' for the committee in an affidavit under penalty of felony.. Why do you think they would say anything different??"

    What? They haven't budged from their hiding places, they haven't been held to the same standard Ford OR Kavanaugh have been held... cross examination.

    As for confusing you, I have an opinion on every subject, mine aren't along any pre-molded or conventional party lines. You accuse others of 'party slavery' or some such dogmatic scat, yet you ascertain you are an agnostic who doesn't care about appointing theocrat's to your highest court, so long as they are Republicans?

    It's not me who's confusing, it's your apathy towards religious zealots occupying key posts in government that's awkwardly apparent.

    I suspect you simply don't have the strength of character to have independent opinions outside of your political sphere.

    Try it, you might enjoy a lack of shackle.

    LL&P

  108. [108] 
    neilm wrote:

    [81] Thanks, Kick. I forgot about that clanger.

    0-2, son.

    Don't forget the "Mueller will be done by September 1st" guarantee :)

    0-3

  109. [109] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [106] "Cut the bullshit... The ONLY goal here is to delay the confirmation until AFTER the mid terms in hopes that the Dims take the Senate."

    Lol, now you're copy/pasting your own statements to re-enforce your own conclusions...

    You don't deserve a Bridge. The United Trolls Of American Fails, (TUT OAF) will want their hat, pin and big shoes back.

    LOL&P

  110. [110] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [109] Neilm… 4o-love.

    0-3, son.

    Why do I get the feeling this list will be fruitful and multiply?

    LL&P

  111. [111] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    104

    Exactly right, JTC. Dr. Ford said there were at least 4 boys. She didn't know all their names, but she did name Kavanaugh, PJ, and Judge and another boy whose name she didn't remember. I would say that's at least 4 boys. Is no one to be believed unless they've done a headcount and taken down the names of everyone in a house or at a party they're attending in the event they are sexually assaulted? Perhaps jotting down the license plates tags for future reference would be a good idea too.

    IN CASE OF [ATTEMPTED] RAPE OR ASSAULT

    EVENT NAME: ___________________________

    DATE OF EVENT: _______________

    ADDRESS: ______________________________
    ______________________________________
    ______________________________________

    HEADCOUNT:
    Males: __________
    Females: __________
    Unsure: __________

    Total: ___________

    NAMES:
    (spell them correctly or you're a liar)

    _______________________________________
    _______________________________________
    _______________________________________
    _______________________________________
    _______________________________________
    _______________________________________
    _______________________________________
    _______________________________________
    _______________________________________
    _______________________________________
    _______________________________________
    _______________________________________
    _______________________________________

    LICENSE PLATES:
    _______________ _______________
    _______________ _______________
    _______________ _______________
    _______________ _______________
    _______________ _______________
    _______________ _______________
    _______________ _______________

    Continue on back if necessary. ------------>

    __________

    Those championing Kavanaugh are claiming that there aren't enough facts to corroborate Ford's testimony, and surprise... not surprise... they're the same people standing in the way of a thorough investigation. It's not complicated. The truth will out, JTC. It always does. :)

    Your vaunted facts might take a hit, or not...we'll never know. You'd have bwaha's in perpetuity if these cats were in lockstep with Kavanaugh's account.

    Exactly. When you're reluctant to investigate what would be uncovered if eyewitnesses are allowed to speak on condition of anonymity to the FBI or similar, then do not be surprised when the American people for whom you serve do not place faith in the SCOTUS you've seated. It's not complicated. :)

    LL&P

    I like this tagline of yours, JTC. I want one too. Any suggestions? :)

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's a bald-faced lie. Mitchell 'told' GOP committee members this was her belief, she seems never to have spoken to the Dems.

    So.. She still said it, even if she said it only to the GOP.. And it's on the record.. That's what "for the record" means..

    Another pile of sewage. To whom did she unveil this catharsis?

    What does it matter?? Do you deny she said it??

    Prosecutor tells wavering senators she wouldn't charge Kavanaugh, as vote looms

    The sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to question Brett Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday's hearing told senators the case would not hold up in a courtroom, sources told Fox News—guidance that could prove critical as wavering lawmakers prepare to vote.

    “Mitchell spelled it out and was clear with senators that she could not take this anywhere near a courtroom,” one source told Fox News. She told them she would not charge the Supreme Court nominee and reportedly said she wouldn't even seek a search warrant.

    Asked whether more time or investigating would help, as Democrats suggested repeatedly on Thursday, Flake rejected the idea.

    “Where does this start, where does it end?” he asked. “More time, more ludicrous allegations. What does that do to the accused?”
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/28/prosecutor-tells-wavering-senators-wouldnt-charge-kavanaugh-as-vote-looms.html

    You don't mind "un-named sources" when they say what you want to hear...

    Face reality, sunshine.. Ford's story is too full of holes to make a case out of..

    THAT is what the FBI said as well..

    This call for an FBI investigation is NOTHING but a sham to try and delay the confirmation til after the mid-terms..

    YOU KNOW IT... I KNOW IT..

    And, if by some quirk, the Dems win the Senate, then they won't even process Kavanaugh..

    THAT is the motivation here..

    I notice you keep avoiding the FACTS that Ford's lawyers kept their client in the dark about things..

    WHY would they do that if they were looking after their client??

    Because they WEREN'T looking after their client.. They were looking after the Democrat agenda..

    You know it.. I know it..

    And it will all be for naught because Kavanaugh will be confirmed next week.. :D

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the LOLs and the BBBWWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAs will soon follow ad nasuem.. :D

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh yea.. I have made a couple wrong predictions.

    Which is *NOTHING* compared to the TENS OF THOUSANDS of "TRUMP IS TOAST" predictions that ya'all have made.. :D

    So, yea.. Ding me for 2 wrong predictions.. :D

    I still laugh last so I laugh best.. :D

    Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Has a nice ring to it, don'tcha think? :D

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    40 more minutes until Judge Kavanaugh is approved by the Judiciary Committee.. :D

    I'll be around with the LOLs and the BBWWWAHAHAHAHAs soon thereafter.. :D

  116. [116] 
    Kick wrote:

    neil
    108

    Don't forget the "Mueller will be done by September 1st" guarantee :)

    Oh, Neil is right! Good one, Neil.

    Also, remember that time he stated that his sources said that Theresa May would "easily" keep the majority, and then she lost a buttload of seats... to which Neil stated he pulled it out of his backside. Good times, Neil! :)

    0-4

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    110

    Why do I get the feeling this list will be fruitful and multiply?

    Oh... how'd you know!?! I did post my 116 before I read your comment I quoted above. JTC called that one! :)

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    I get it, people.. I honestly do..

    The ONLY way that the Democrats have been able to push their partisan socialist agenda is thru the SCOTUS..

    And now the SCOTUS is going to make a hard Right for the next several decades at least..

    So I understand why Democrats are soooo desperate that they would float totally LAME stories about high school gang rape parties where Judge Kavanaugh was the ring leader or some such STOOPID MORONIC claims such as that...

    And the ONLY claim of this comes from an adult college woman who said she ATTENDED these high school gang rape parties at least 10 TIMES!!! And that, her ONLY action was to continue to Party Hearty next to the room where CHILDREN were being drugged and gang raped..

    AND THAT IS THE SCUMBAG DEMOCRATS CALL "CREDIBLE"!!!???? SOLELY to further the Democrat agenda???

    How UTTERLY and CONTEMPTIBLY SICK is that!!!???

    So, I get it.. I get where ya'all's desperation comes from..

    But NOTHING excuses or justifies this kind of action by Democrats..

    NOTHING...

    And the BEST punishment for Democrats is to lose.. And lose big...

    And so they shall....

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Boy, Democrats looked like someone just kicked their dog or sumthin... :D

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, I'de like to thank ya'all for the huge rent-free I have in ya'all's heads.. :D

    BWBBWBWBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Booker ends saying a seat on the Supreme Court is not an entitlement and that the country is watching how Congress handles credible allegations of assault.

    Then he left to room and said he cannot participate if the committee does not investigate further.

    "Brave Sir Robin ran away...
    Bravely ran away away.."
    -Monty Python

    Great advertisement for POTUS... When the going gets tough, Booker runs and hides...

    Booker just forfeited his chances in 2020....

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another red state Democrat up for re-election, Montana Sen. John Tester, said: “I have concerns about Kavanaugh’s record.”

    “I have deep concerns about the allegations of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh. Unfortunately, Judge Kavanaugh couldn’t find time to discuss these concerns with me in person, so the only information I have is from what he said in his hearings,” Tester said in a statement. “I’ll be voting against him.”

    OK, GOP picks up another Dem seat in the Senate..

    Lookin' good for the home team.. :D

    5 mins to pucker time..

    "This is excting!!"
    -Simon Pegg, STAR TREK 90210

  123. [123] 
    Kick wrote:

    Once again, I'de like to thank ya'all for the huge rent-free I have in ya'all's heads.. :D

    You're the one who constantly talks about the entire group using "ya'all" and making stuff up on others' behalf and telling people how they feel and what they believe and who feels the constant need to troll near everyone's opinions and make up fake quotes on their behalf.

    Question: Who else here feels the need to troll and spam everyone else?

    Answer: No one.

    So I'd say it's glaringly obvious to everyone but yourself who actually lives rent free in who's head. Self-awareness isn't the strong suit of everyone. :)

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jeezus...

    "We're staying, we're going, we're staying!! I had a great seat picked out!!!"
    -Rockhound, ARMAGEDDON

  125. [125] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [119] "I get it, people.. I honestly do"

    That you need a new crystal ball?

    We agree. Aligning yourself to one fiasco after another is nothing short of gifted.

    What's next, rain isn't wet? Where can I lay a tenner on your future prognostications?

    --------------------------

    [112] "LL&P
    I like this tagline of yours, JTC. I want one too. Any suggestions? :)"

    KOTS? Kick Out The Shams?

    Dunno, methinks that's for you to decide.

    Kick-out. Would be a start, considering your present crusade ;)

    LL&P

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    "blaaa blaaaa blaaaa"
    -Victoria, Welfare Crack Whore

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's next, rain isn't wet? Where can I lay a tenner on your future prognostications?

    You mean like whether Donald Trump is going to be the next POTUS?? :D

    Yea, ya'all blew THAT prediction BIG TIME..

    And ya'all have blown 10,000+ President Trump predictions SINCE then...

    So, yea.. I missed a few or 10..

    But I have NEVER been as wrong as ya'all are on an ONGOING basis.. :D

    I could be wrong for the next 5 years and STILL not come close to how often ya'all have been wrong..

    Ya'all (sans 2) actually think that Judge Kavanaugh WON'T make it to the SCOTUS!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHA

    Gonna have fun with that one.. :D

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    122

    OK, GOP picks up another Dem seat in the Senate..

    Lookin' good for the home team.. :D

    Claims to be nonpartisan but refers to the GOP as the "home team."

    Yes, we already knew. :) |bookmark|

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Holy shit, they cleared the room!!!

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria, Welfare Crack Whore

    Claims to be nonpartisan but refers to the GOP as the "home team."

    Yes.. America is my home..

    Yes, the GOP is the only Party (team) that actually has my home's best interest at heart..

    So, yea.. Home Team..

    Lay off the crack pipe, cunt.. Yer going off the deep end...

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    THIS is an interesting development...

    All Senators but Hatch and Grassley have left the room..

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhh Here the come...

  133. [133] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Lol...my trick knee tells me Michale might hit 0-5 before teatime.

    Get your change-purse ready, Michale… mommy might need a new crystal ball.

    Bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, Pee-wee Whitesonly-Manlyman at the plate...………………...and he?

  134. [134] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    ruht roh raggy.... waves in the chamber....

    Wonder if the FBI is in play...

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol...my trick knee tells me Michale might hit 0-5 before teatime.

    Your knee does tricks?? Like stand up and beg?? Roll over?? :D

    'S OK.. Ya'all are at 0-13,876 so I am still way WAY ahead of ya'all.. :D

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    ruht roh raggy.... waves in the chamber....

    Wonder if the FBI is in play...

    I agree, it's interesting.. Lots of coming and going.

    Don't think it's what yer hoping for, though.. Wishful thinking. :D

  137. [137] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    …swing and a miss, and that's the ballgame, folks.

    LL&P

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Holy crap, GT.. :D Good call...

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    GOP has it.. :D

  140. [140] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Time will wound all heels.

    Flake get's the save.

    Go figure.

    LL&P

  141. [141] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    He swings and connects.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nominee is approved and forwarded to the Senate...

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Flake get's the save.

    WOW... You are going to get whiplash with such 180s...

    Just 60 mins ago, you were castigating Flake....

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Democrats just got played!!!!!!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    NICE MOVE, SENATOR FLAKE... :D

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh my gods, that is hilarious!!!!!

    I am STILL laughing....

    :D

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    DUMBOCRATS got suckered!!!! :D

    Oh this is SOOOOOOOO rich!!!! :D

  147. [147] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    So if Mitch does not follow along with the Flake request. I have a feeling that the Kav would be a no go....

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    So if Mitch does not follow along with the Flake request.

    Senator Flake himself said he can't dictate what the Senate Leader can and cannot do..

    As far as right now, the Floor Vote is still scheduled for Tues...

    I have a feeling that the Kav would be a no go....

    Shocker.. :D

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the bi...

    STILL LAUGHING AT THE DEMOCRATS!!!!

    Sen Flake tossed them a Scooby Snack and got them to shut up and vote..

    OHMYGODS, that's hilarious!!!!! :D

    JTC, I hope you didn't get hurt by that 180... That MUSTA been painful.. :D

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    How is the FBI going to get a warrant??

    There is not enough facts to support an investigation, let alone a warrant..

    FBI will simply say, "There is no case here" and that will be that...

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    All that needs to happen is Prosecutor Mitchell will brief the FBI on her findings and that will be that...

  151. [151] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    130

    Yes, the GOP is the only Party (team) that actually has my home's best interest at heart..

    Looks like "your GOP" made an ignoramus out of you today. *laughs* Just like the OSC and Mueller have flipped the shit out of "your GOP" Comrades Flynn and Manafort and Cohen... etc., etc.

    Lay off the crack pipe, cunt.. Yer going off the deep end...

    No one here is interested in your family situation or the stench going on in your doublewide trailer in the swamps of Spithole! :)

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did ya see the Dumbocrats??

    They were like Chris Tucker in RUSH HOUR...

    "Aww right.. Which one of ya'all kicked me!!"

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    "bleeaaatttt bleeeaaaaattttt bleeaaatt"
    -Victoria, Welfare Crack Whore

    The cunt who should just off herself so she won't be a burden on anyone anymore...

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    He's like 'WHERE DID HE GO!!?' and I'm like 'WHERE DID WHO GO!!!!!".."
    -Slider, TOP GUN

    THAT was the Dumbocrats today!! :D

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  155. [155] 
    Paula wrote:

    Good heavens, is Flake not flaking?

  156. [156] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    150

    How is the FBI going to get a warrant??

    *laughs* Oh my gods that's the silliest thing I've ever heard you ask. There goes another hit to your so-called "law enforcement bona fides." *laughs*

    I can assure you, the Eff-Be-I doesn't need a warrant and never did. It's not a trial regardless of what Ms. Mitchell says about warrants. It's never been a trial; it's a background check and always has been.

    They don't need a warrant and never did! They just need a request from the Senate Judiciary Committee or POTUS to reopen the background check on Kavanuagh.

    If Kavanaugh is found to be clean after additional research by the FBI instead of ramming him onto the SCOTUS after he lied under oath, then he'll have my blessing too because elections have consequences. It's not at all complicated. :)

  157. [157] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    155

    Good heavens, is Flake not flaking?

    Facts to support? *wink*

    *laughs* ;)

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria, Welfare Crack Whore

    I can assure you, the Eff-Be-I doesn't need a warrant and never did.

    BBBWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Cunt, you DO realize that America is NOT a police state, right???

    Don't need a warrant!!????

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    They just need a request from the Senate Judiciary Committee or POTUS to reopen the background check on Kavanuagh.

    And do you think THAT is going to happen!!!????

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    It's never been a trial; it's a background check and always has been.

    The background check was already done, cunt...And the FBI added this information already...

    You lose!!! :D

    Gods, I have seen some dumb cunts in my day, but yer the dumbest....

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Kavanaugh is found to be clean after additional research by the FBI instead of ramming him onto the SCOTUS after he lied under oath, then he'll have my blessing too because elections have consequences.

    Bullshit.. You're just lying thru your tooth, now...

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Facts to support? *wink*

    *laughs* ;)

    Xananax girl NEVER has any facts to support...

    NEVER.....

  161. [161] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    What astonishes me is, Michale sees this as a win... it's a loss. The Dems have been bellowing for more investigation into this matter, had he been paying attention, Michale would have spotted that's all I, and others, have been saying here. Simply put, they didn't have the votes.

    *Polishes crystal ball* huh---huh...

    Kavanaugh will tearfully withdraw himself from the proceedings, not wanting any intrusion into his past that might involve the word... BOOGER

    Water is wet. I'm 5-0. Michale is crying.

    When in doubt, bet against Trump...He's 1-1 00,000,000,000,000. He's a gifted loser.

    LL&bwahahaha:P

  162. [162] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's alright. Bob Bork was also voted out of Committee on a party line vote. Republicans thought they had the votes to confirm him then, too.

    Not that I expect this floor vote to go the same way. This time there are some true chickenshits over on the GOP side. And Flake is too Flake-y to depend on.

    As Mike points out, the real question is, 'how will the Red State Democrats vote'? They must know that they'll be punished more by Democrats for defection on this vote, than they will be rewarded by Republicants.

    The real question is the wimmen. How can Collins and Murkowski justify a 'yes' vote now? Recent polls show that their own constituents don't want Kavanaugh confirmed.

  163. [163] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [159] Michale, come on now... your zealot still has a life-line.

    Stop with the 'cunt' stuff, it's un-called for, and quite frankly, beneath your intelligence. Once for effect, sure thing, twice...over-reach.

    Please.

    LL&P

  164. [164] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    153

    The cunt who should just off herself so she won't be a burden on anyone anymore...

    Could you please take your family problems up with them and stop boring those of us here on the board with it? I don't care to hear about your family, and I would wager no one else here does either. Your projection of your doublewide trailer living situation is boring.

    But you'll always have my pity, though. *laughs* I can't help but laugh too... every time I look directly at my TV !!!!!

  165. [165] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    One thing no amount of argle and bargle can escape from is the fact that if Mitch goes for the "strong arm muscle him in route" kav will forever have a cloud larger that Clarence hanging over him....and once the dems get back in this subject will be revisited.

    To be candid Kav was always a no for me, I just don't agree with many of his positions...but if he is cleared and gets voted on thats democracy.

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can picture the scene now..

    Sen Flake talks to his colleguaes..

    "Look.. These morons are going to argue their bullshit til the cows come home... Why don't I go to them, say I will propose the FBI look at things for 1 week, just to get them to shut up.. Then we get Kavanaugh out of committee. Mitch can do what he wants and I'll just tell the dumb morons on the other side of the aisle, 'well, I tried'..."

    And the DUMBOCRATS FELL FOR IT!!!!

    BBBWWWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    One thing no amount of argle and bargle can escape from is the fact that if Mitch goes for the "strong arm muscle him in route" kav will forever have a cloud larger that Clarence hanging over him..

    Yea, that's what Dumbocrats said about Thomas..

    "He will have a HUGE cloud over him!!"

    Didn't happen..

    Quit the fear mongering.. Dems lost... Sei fini...

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Bleat Bleat Bleat"
    -Victoria, Welfare Crack Whore

    Cunt says waaa waaaa waaaa Michale is always kicking my ass Waaaa Waaaa Waaaaa

    :D

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  169. [169] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [166] Ditto.

    Addendum: Unlikely, Kavanaugh is used goods now and Trump doesn't keep receipts.

    Easier for Trump to vilify Kavanaugh, the committee and the Dems for this herculean catastrophe...

    Damn that used car salesman that chases ambulances... His smugness will be unbearable.

    LL&P

  170. [170] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    JTC [163]: I knew a girl once that used to say that the word refers back to the user -

    Can't Understand Normal Talk

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senate panel backs Trump's Supreme Court pick Kavanaugh
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-panel-backs-trumps-supreme-court-pick-kavanaugh-181134852.html

    Ya'all lose.. :D

    Grassley is the ONLY one who can call the FBI in. He has already said NO...

    McConnell is the one who does things in the Senate. HE has already said that the vote is Tuesday...

    Grassley and Flake are doing to the Dumbocrats exactly what Odumbo did to the GOP over TrainWreckCare.. Promise them something just to move forward on TrainWreckCare..

    I honestly can't believe that Dumbocrats FELL for it!!

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Oh I am going to dine on this for a LONG time!!! :D

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    JTC,

    Sorry, I missed this thru all my gloating..

    [159] Michale, come on now... your zealot still has a life-line.

    Stop with the 'cunt' stuff, it's un-called for, and quite frankly, beneath your intelligence. Once for effect, sure thing, twice...over-reach.

    Please.

    I'll be happy to if you make the same plea to Victoria to stop all the name-calling and personal attacks and attacks on my wife......

    What I do doesn't happen in a vacuum.. It's always someone else who starts it...

    She stops, so will I...

    It's THAT simple...

  173. [173] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    158

    Don't need a warrant!!????

    The Eff-Be-I does not need a warrant to do a background check. If you think they do, then your so-called LEO bona fides just took another huge hit.

    And do you think THAT is going to happen!!!????

    You're asking me? Why don't you just make up what I think and put words in my mouth like you usually do? Why not make up some fake quotes and make shit up on my behalf like your normal modus operandi?

    The background check was already done, cunt...And the FBI added this information already...

    Oh, you want to discuss this with your family now. Okay... fine with me! *laughs*

    Gods, I have seen some dumb cunts in my day, but yer the dumbest....

    If you're talking to your wife, she was dumb enough to marry you. If you're talking to your spawn... well, they do have your DNA... so there's that! :)

  174. [174] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [172] Sadly, the pleasant girl at the cable company closed our conversation about wireless tv installation with... " Ok, bye... C U Next Tuesday."

    I responded to a dial tone with, "you fucking what..hey come back here, you."

    LL&P

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    As Mike points out, the real question is, 'how will the Red State Democrats vote'? They must know that they'll be punished more by Democrats for defection on this vote, than they will be rewarded by Republicants.

    Why, thank you... :D Nice ta know yer paying attention.. :D

    I'll consider that an olive branch and respond accordingly... Only my wife and REALLY good friends call me "Mike"... :D

    Yea, that IS the key.. There are at least 3 Dem In Red State YES votes.. Susan Collins is a YES vote.. Lisa Murkowski is a likely YES vote..

    We'll know Tuesday...

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh Blathy, I meant to ask..

    Did you catch the first episode of MANIFEST???

    LOST, here we come.. :D

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    [172] Sadly, the pleasant girl at the cable company closed our conversation about wireless tv installation with... " Ok, bye... C U Next Tuesday."

    I responded to a dial tone with, "you fucking what..hey come back here, you."

    Hehehehehe That's why I consider myself SOOO LUCKY we don't have to deal with cable.. Just get a big video server and download your shows.. With the exception of Jaguar games on OTA, we haven't watched network TV in over a decade...

    Build your own "tivo" and stock it with your shows and movies and you'll never see a commercial again.. :D

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you're talking to your wife, she was dumb enough to marry you. If you're talking to your spawn... well, they do have your DNA... so there's that! :)

    And the cunt moves to attacking my wife (again) and children..

    Typical of this low life waste of skin..

    Seriously, Victoria, why don't you give your family a break and just commit suicide... You're a terrible burden on them... I really feel sorry for them that they have to put up with you..

    Better just to off yourself and make them happy...

  179. [179] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [173-74] Not my section, would love to help. Where's E.M when a cool head is called upon to prevail?

    I'm new here, perhaps someone from the heady days of general nodding and agreement could step up...eh, Michale?

    Prat.

    LL&P

  180. [180] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    172

    I'll be happy to if you make the same plea to Victoria to stop all the name-calling and personal attacks and attacks on my wife...…

    Your name calling never stops. Like I said earlier. Do a search yesterday for "slaves" and "bigots" and you'll find your name calling never stops. While you're at it, do a search for "facts to support" where you troll near everyone's opinion posts ad nauseam. You've never stopped calling anyone names; you never do. You carry on and on, and if anyone says a tiny thing about your constant spamming and trolling, you start with the vulgar language and name calling. All I do is ask you why you talk about your family that way. The vulgar language and insulting your family is all your own doing.

    Like I said. Do a search yesterday for slave, bigot, etc. You'll see. Your name calling never stops. You want unilateral name calling and hijacking posts and spamming everyone incessantly with the same drivel over and over. Anyone says anything back, you whine like a toddler and start talking about your home life. :)

    She stops, so will I...

    You never stop. Do a search yesterday. You want unilateral disarmament. You want to spew whatever while you whine about name calling. Do a search. :)

  181. [181] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Whew. That was close. Maybe that was literally true; his discussion with Chris Coons delayed it so long Grassley went with a two minute offense.

    When Flake and the two key female R's met with Manchin last night, something was put on the rails. There was speculation that Joe was trading his "yes" to allow Murkowski to vote "no" because she has a singular problem with her key constituency.

    I didn't believe that, and the only other thing that could be happening was to re-open an investigation. His demeanor during the Mitchell questioning was often literally close to furtive prayer. In light of all that hindsight, I believe this was the only moral thing a man of great conscious could conclude to do.

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Now that we're having some decent friendly conversations (except for Victoria, Welfare Crack Whore) I'll cease the gloating..

    Probably nothing new until Tuesday..

    "We don't have a tractor beam!"
    "You left space dock without a tractor beam!!!???"
    "It won't be installed til Tuesday"

    -Star Trek VII-Generations

    :D

  183. [183] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Did you catch the first episode of MANIFEST?

    Nope. My current plan is to catch up this weekend.

    LOST, here we come..

    Oh gawd, I hope not. What a mess that was!

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm new here, perhaps someone from the heady days of general nodding and agreement could step up...eh, Michale?

    Prat.

    I am game, but no one wants to step up.. Who wants to endure the wrath of Victoria-Welfare Crack Whore....

    Apparently, no one...

    "And so it goes and so it goes"
    -Billy Joel

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did you catch the first episode of MANIFEST?

    Nope. My current plan is to catch up this weekend.

    LOST, here we come..

    Oh gawd, I hope not. What a mess that was!

    I actually liked it.. It got some rough going for a while there.. Gods help anyone who missed a season!!! :D

    But MANIFEST has some really kewl aspects to it. A LOT of potential... I just wish I could get past PRINCE CHARMING/FANDRAL as the lead.. :D

    I think it will be a keeper... But sci fi shows are notoriously unpredictable...

  186. [186] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [178] No no no...All my conections, WIFI, TV Phone all come through one modem/router...From the cable company. An added bonus is, I can take said modem/router anywhere in Canada, so long as it can hit a cell tower, I'm a Trekkie and a pain in your arse... all for one low price of $149 cdn a month...

    Cool, huh?

    LL&P

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    Probably nothing new until Tuesday..

    "We don't have a tractor beam!"
    "You left space dock without a tractor beam!!!???"
    "It won't be installed til Tuesday"
    -Star Trek VII-Generations

    Just one more!!!

    "Where's your medical staff??"
    "Medical Staff?? Won't be here til.. Tuesday"
    "Udivitel'no! You and you, you've just become nurses. Let's go."

    :D

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm a Trekkie and a pain in your arse...

    I've had worse.. :D At least you don't attack my wife and children...

    Get yerself a 256GB Thumbdrive and I'll tell you how to get EVERY STAR TREK ever made (Even STAR TREK CONTINUES) to put on there so you can watch to yer hearts content.. :D

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    all for one low price of $149 cdn a month...

    Cool, huh?

    Eh... Not bad... :D

  190. [190] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    184

    I am game, but no one wants to step up.. Who wants to endure the wrath of Victoria-Welfare Crack Whore....

    What name did I call you that was worse than party slave or bigot, Michale? You want to sit on a perch of privilege and refer to everyone as bigots and slaves and spam and troll the board, but if anyone talks about your spamming and trolling, you whine like a toddler.

    Why should you be allowed to call everyone slaves and bigots and you never stop doing it while you whine about name calling?

    Why? What set you off, sunshine, and did you or did you not keep referring to everyone as bigots and slaves?

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Bleeat bleet bleeet bleeet"
    -Victoria, Welfare Crack Whore

    JTC, at your request, I'll cease the c-word unless Crack Whore escalates things with more attacks on my wife and children...

  192. [192] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    161

    What astonishes me is, Michale sees this as a win... it's a loss. The Dems have been bellowing for more investigation into this matter, had he been paying attention, Michale would have spotted that's all I, and others, have been saying here. Simply put, they didn't have the votes.

    *Polishes crystal ball* huh---huh...

    Kavanaugh will tearfully withdraw himself from the proceedings, not wanting any intrusion into his past that might involve the word... BOOGER

    Water is wet. I'm 5-0. Michale is crying.

    When in doubt, bet against Trump...He's 1-100,000,000,000,000. He's a gifted loser.

    LL&bwahahaha:P

    Very well said, sir. You totally nailed it! :)

  193. [193] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    One last thing. If there is an FBI investigation, then the guy on the bubble is Avenatti. This would call his bet, and if there is nothing there among his accuser and his witnesses, then he'll be gone in a puff of smoke.

    On other issues, the President was meeting with the president of Chile. I just read a report on lithium reserves. Chile has just over half of the worldwide reserves of mine-able (as opposed to sea water extracted) Li.

    Chile is thus important, since Chinese interests already have control over about have of the reserves under Chilean soil.

    Lithium, of course, is important because (a) if electric vehicles are to become the majority, it will take more lithium than is currently identified in known reserves, and (b) because it shows that any move away from petroleum to electricity has to also be considered in terms of moving from one national foreign dependency to a different one.

  194. [194] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [189] You're kidding, surely? I have infinite access to the best pirate sites Canadian WIFI allows me to surf. Why on the Canadian Shield would I want to steal such intellectual property?

    A cool site is the Chinese You Tube, Youku… it's got tons of thefted content...lots of Beatles and Zeppelin concert footage ala bootleg.

    Some of the more northern, enlightened states can get it, welcome to the US world of internet censorship if you don't...

    LL&P

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    LeaningBlue wrote:
    One last thing. If there is an FBI investigation, then the guy on the bubble is Avenatti. This would call his bet, and if there is nothing there among his accuser and his witnesses, then he'll be gone in a puff of smoke.

    Too true..

    And now the 64,000 dollar question.. The one question that will decide my future here in Weigantia...

    "Help me Obi Wan. Yer my only hope!"

    Do you find a 20 year old college woman who attends high school gang rape parties on a regular basis (at least 10 times) who parties next to a room where children are being drugged and gang raped and does NOTHING to stop or report the crimes...

    Do you find such a person credible??

    {holding breath}

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're kidding, surely? I have infinite access to the best pirate sites Canadian WIFI allows me to surf. Why on the Canadian Shield would I want to steal such intellectual property?

    Never been a big fan of streaming.. It's just not reliable for me. Plus I have a hundred acres or so in the boonies so that explains the reliability... :D

    Which explains my 10TB server.. I would rather physically have the files..

    Never been a big fan of "WeeFee" to begin with.. Old school hard-wire through and through.. :D

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    https://www.jaguars.com/news/ten-things-jets-jaguars

    Trying not to sulk, but the TITAN loss hit hard..

    :D

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh and for the record. Senator Bill Nelson is a NO on Kavanaugh, so my vote will DEFINITELY go to Governor Scott for the first time since I have been in FL...

  199. [199] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    All I know is I own nothing on the interweb, happily so. It's a tool, like two tin cans and a piece of string.

    Hell and highwater won't interrupt my service, it's hard-wired and mobile simultaneously...

    Q:How do Canadians keep their Igloos together?
    A: Eye Glue

    We aren't just pretty faces.

    LL&P

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    Incidentally, Nelson's NO vote will mean FL will get a GOP Senator...

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    Q:How do Canadians keep their Igloos together?
    A: Eye Glue

    We aren't just pretty faces.

    https://youtu.be/HSzx-zryEgM?t=117

    hehehehehe :D

  202. [202] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Within the four corners of that question, the answer has to be "no."

    You should be happy, then, about a broad FBI investigation, particularly if the deal is, as Jeff Flake proposed as his pre-Comm confirmation vote condition, that the investiation cover all current accusations.

  203. [203] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    171

    Grassley is the ONLY one who can call the FBI in. He has already said NO...

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Your Orange Worship can request the FBI for additional research into Kavanaugh's background. The reason this is preferable to correspondence to the Senate Judiciary Committee is that multiple witnesses are then free to speak to the FBI under condition of anonymity so that the subject of the investigation does not know which witness may have supplied any disparaging information that might defame the subject. That's how the truth is ferreted out. People are allowed to speak freely, however under oath, and without fear of reprisal.

    I hear Mark Judge is agreeing to speak to the FBI under condition of anonymity. I would wager there will be other witnesses who will also do so. :)

  204. [204] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [194] "This would call his bet (Avenatti), and if there is nothing there among his accuser and his witnesses, then he'll be gone in a puff of smoke."

    Wit were that to be true. Avenatti is like a fart in a phone booth... I'm afraid he's here to stay, like a wart subjected to over-the-counter medication or Trump-care... Take your pick.

    LL&P

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB

    Within the four corners of that question, the answer has to be "no."

    THANK YOU!!!! BY THE GODS, THANK YOU!!!!!

    You have restored my faith!!!..

    "You have restored my father's faith."
    "And you have restored my son's."

    -STAR TREK IV, The Undiscovered Country

    :D

    Thank you LB.. I really didn't want to leave here...

    You should be happy, then, about a broad FBI investigation, particularly if the deal is, as Jeff Flake proposed as his pre-Comm confirmation vote condition, that the investiation cover all current accusations.

    I don't think it will.. If there really is an FBI Investigation, Democrats will want to steer it away from the bullshit accusations of Ramirez and SweatHog...

    If it would include the SweatHog bullshit, I would be all for an FBI investigation..

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    Within the four corners of that question, the answer has to be "no."

    BIG EXHALE by the way..... :D

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it would include the SweatHog bullshit, I would be all for an FBI investigation..

    I would ***LOVE*** to see the entirety of the Democrat Party painted with the Avanetti brush.. I really REALLY would.. :D

  208. [208] 
    James T Canuck wrote:
  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    hehehe

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The supplemental FBI background investigation would be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today."

    See?? They don't want to bring in Ramirez or Sweathog..

    OK, so it's not perfect.. But if Grassley or President Trump goes along with it, I spose I can accept it to...

    But when Kavanaugh clears this FBI hurdle.. AGAIN, Victoria will support Kavanaugh..

    That alone is worth the price of admission.. :D

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The supplemental FBI background investigation would be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today,"

    OK, OK.. I am liking this more and more...

    Limit the investigation to ONLY Ford's allegation and no branching off to "or where ever it leads us"... And a hard and firm END date of next Friday...

    OK, I can live with this.. If it will shut Demcorats up, I can live with this...

    2 factors are still in play.. It's up to President Trump.. He's pragmatic and can see the logic..

    And that's if the FBI actually NEEDS 7 days to investigate this fact-less claim...

    So, stipulation time..

    Who here, come next Friday will support Kavanaugh's nomination when the FBI signs off on it???

    This could actually work to the GOP's benefit..

    There can be NO CLAIM that the GOP didn't exhaust ALL requests by the nefarious and scheming Democrats...

    So, who here will take a Sherman???

    Anyone??? Anyone????

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    that the investiation cover all current accusations.

    All current CREDIBLE accusations..

    As we have agreed, Sweathog's accusation is not credible..

    Given that even the NY Grime passed on Ramirez's accusation, that would be deemed as NOT CREDIBLE either...

    So, it's just the FORD accusation...

    Which, logically, Ms Mitchell's actions will play prominently in the FBI investigation... :D

    Yep.. I can definitely live with this.. :D

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who here, come next Friday will support Kavanaugh's nomination when the FBI signs off on it???

    I mean, we already have Victoria's stipulation that she will support Kavanaugh's nomination if the FBI signs off on it..

    Anyone else want to go on record???

    Com'on! Don't be wimpy.. :D

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    Prosecutor who questioned Christine Ford says she wouldn't prosecute Brett Kavanaugh
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/28/rachel-mitchell-says-she-wouldnt-prosecute-scots-nominee-kavanaugh/1453587002/

    Sure.. Let the FBI investigate as long as there is no open-end clause and a definitive time limit....

    What's waiting 7 days to shut the Dumbocrats up??

  215. [215] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    So now Avenatii not only wants his witnesses included in any FBI witness list, but, just to make sure the media paid attention to him, he also called for the Court to be expanded to 11 to account for Garland.

    There's a website called Car Gurus, where you shop to get a good deal on a used car. Av is a little like what the left would have bought if there were an Asshole Gurus website, and they put in the search term "trump like."

  216. [216] 
    Kick wrote:

    Trump reopens the background check.

    See, sunshine. Just like I told you... no warrant required.

    Wonder if Judge will be a CI/T1 or CI/T2 designation?

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hehehehehehe Now THAT's funny.. :D

    And what makes it so sadly hilarious is there are actually people who think Avanetti and his children-drugged-and-gang raped-loving-parties bimbo has a SHRED of credibility....

    That simply boggles the mind...

  218. [218] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    From the initial news flow, the President has ordered the FBI to re-open, and it sounds like it's the scope which Flake stated pre-Comm-vote, so Av may in fact get his bet called.

    Now watch the Dems all start to cluck that the scope isn't going to be broad enough. It'll be broad enough to avert civil war, and that's what matters most right now.

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    See, sunshine. Just like I told you... no warrant required.

    Of course there is no warrant required to OPEN an investigation moron...

    But do you honestly believe that the FBI is going to be able to delve into records and compel witness testimony and search locations WITHOUT a warrant???

    If you honestly believe that, you are more of a moron than I thought.. And THAT says something...

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now watch the Dems all start to cluck that the scope isn't going to be broad enough. It'll be broad enough to avert civil war, and that's what matters most right now.

    Exactly!! And also watch the Dems cluck that they need more time...

  221. [221] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [212] "2 factors are still in play.. It's up to President Trump.. He's problem and can't see any logic.."

    and "And that's if the FBI actually NEEDS 7 days to investigate properly a fact-based claim..."

    Two for one fix, again, a service brought to you by 'Menace-a-Michale', your all purpose sewage un-clogger…

    *Don't take 'Menace-a-Michale' if you have low tolerance to fools suffered easily, twitchy trigger-finger syndrome or are allergic to 'Menace-a-Michale'*

    Back to our regular, scheduled spamming.

    :D

    LL&P

  222. [222] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Owning you all day has taken its toll, Michale… I have kids to feed and a 55 inch tv to mount with nothing but courage and French instructions, seems 2/3's of Canada avoid this particular wall mount like radioactive dogshit.
    Undaunted, I'll press on.
    No doubt someone will pop in to make sure you're not cutting yourself over the events of the day.

    See you in the FTP's.

    LL&P

  223. [223] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    219

    Of course there is no warrant required to OPEN an investigation moron...

    Are you talking to yourself now? Okay. I'll wait until you're finished.

    *elevator music*
    *music from Jeopardy*

    But do you honestly believe that the FBI is going to be able to delve into records and compel witness testimony and search locations WITHOUT a warrant???

    It's a background check, not an investigation. All one needs is the permission of the subject in order to delve into their life and a request from a sponsoring agency or committee/POTUS to do so. One cannot secure federal employment without it.

    That's why the Senators kept asking Kavanaugh if he'd be willing to submit to further background examination. All they need is his approval and request of his sponsoring agency to delve further into his life. The subject being investigated is the one who supplies the names, and it is fairly common that you wouldn't supply the name of someone who would disparage you since they're under penalty of perjury. The depths to which they delve into naturally depends on the position for which you are applying.

    https://nbib.opm.gov/e-qip-background-investigations/standard-form-sf-86-guide-for-applicants.pdf

    Anything else you need to know... just ask me, moron! :)

    ________________

    p.s. Oh my gods those things are tedious to fill out... almost as tedious as the routine polygraph exams... almost. :)

  224. [224] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kavanaugh’s performance was eye-opening and showed him to be a complete partisan hack and thoroughly undeserving of being a Justice of the SCOTUS. His inability to control his anger and rage during questioning by Senate Democrats was disgusting.

    He was said offended that after he was accused of drunkenly attacking a young woman in high school that they would dare ask him about his drinking habits. But it was his claims of treating women with respect that was the biggest lie. As Paul Waldman wrote in the WAPO,

    In what may have been the most despicable moment of the entire day, Kavanaugh was questioned about how he and his buddies had claimed in their yearbook entries to be “Renate alumni,” referring to a girl at a nearby school — an obvious attempt at sexual boasting and slut shaming. He not only claimed ludicrously that the references were only there because they all valued her friendship so highly, but pretended to be outraged that a senator would even imply otherwise, posing as the gallant defender of her honor, the girl he and his friends set out to make an object of ridicule and humiliation.

    He claimed to always treat woman respectfully, but his yearbook postings proved that to be a lie. Friends have come forward willing to testify that he was often pass-out drunk when he partied. He claimed it was OK for him to drink as a senior because the drinking age was 18...except it wasn’t 18, it was 21... and despite this being pointed out multiple times, Kavanaugh still makes this false claim!

    It is obvious that the Republicans want this “party before country” hack on the Supreme Court above all else! They prove themselves unfit for office more and more with every passing day!

  225. [225] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have kids to feed and a 55 inch tv to mount

    55"??

    And here I thought ya were a playa... :D

  226. [226] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a background check, not an investigation. All one needs is the permission of the subject in order to delve into their life and a request from a sponsoring agency or committee/POTUS to do so. One cannot secure federal employment without it.

    Really??

    So, Kavanaugh can give permission to delve into Mark Judge's life??

    To Ford's friend's life???

    You really are a sad simple creature, aren't you???

    Moron....

  227. [227] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT 223

    It's a background check and not a criminal investigation.

  228. [228] 
    Paula wrote:

    Blotus orders the FBI inquiry with a 1-week limit. Avenatti's client may be appearing on TV this weekend.

  229. [229] 
    Paula wrote:

    I learned today FBI normally does not go back further than age 18 in their checks - presuming they're given no reason to do so. Also they start by talking to people provided by the candidate. That combination of factors has protected Kav up til now, and enabled him to pass previous screenings.

    When Kav was shortlisted Dr. Ford began her efforts to alert the committee. Had the Repubs actually cared about doing a real vetting they'd have had the FBI take a look back then. Instead they pushed to hurry Kav through hoping they could get him on the court before any of this came out, or gained enough momentum to affect their timeframe and their objective. They've been forced, every step of the way, to do what they should have done at the start.

    They may still slither him through but at least it's being made really difficult for them.

  230. [230] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    226

    Really??

    Yes, really.

    So, Kavanaugh can give permission to delve into Mark Judge's life??

    No, moron, they will speak with Mark Judge regarding Kavanaugh, and he will be able to testify as a confidential witness. They will likely speak to more of Kavanaugh's classmates under condition of anonymity.

    To Ford's friend's life???

    It's a suitability/background investigation. The FBI is not investigating Ford's friend's life at all. They are investigating Kavanaugh and Ford with their permission. Ford gave her permission under oath as well as submitted to a polygraph test. They will speak to Ford's friend Leland regarding Ford, and I would wager she will be glad to proffer her testimony freely, under penalty of perjury via T1 or T2 confidentiality.

    You really are a sad simple creature, aren't you???

    You really are a repetitive moron, for sure. Anything else you need to know, moron... just ask! :)

  231. [231] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    228

    Blotus orders the FBI inquiry with a 1-week limit. Avenatti's client may be appearing on TV this weekend.

    I wonder if the FBI will question his client regarding Kavanaugh. The right-wing propaganda machine has sure gone into overdrive in mischaracterizing her statement to their gullible minions. They're like bleating sheeple overblowing what she said. She's just describing a typical elitist frat boy party scene where the punch is spiked without the girls' knowledge. Pretty common stuff in the 80s actually. Sad.

  232. [232] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Yeah, most of the other message boards I have seen are ranting about the FBI investigating Ford’s accusations, but they are off base because the FBI will be focused more on Kavanaugh’s responses than to her allegations.

    I am not saying that they won’t be asking questions regarding Ford’s allegations, but other than Judge, there is no one who could confirm Ford’s claims. And even if Judge remembers Kavanaugh attacking Ford, it doesn’t mean Kavanaugh is lying when he says he does not remember that ever happening.

    What the FBI will be focused on is whether Kavanaugh lied during the confirmation hearings. Was he a pass out drunk? Was the legal drinking age 18 when he was a senior in high school? What do friends remember Kavanaugh’s yearbook posts as meaning at the time? These are things the FBI can easily answer that will help determine whether he deserves being confirmed.

  233. [233] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    229

    I learned today FBI normally does not go back further than age 18 in their checks - presuming they're given no reason to do so. Also they start by talking to people provided by the candidate.

    Hey! That is exactly correct. :)

    That combination of factors has protected Kav up til now, and enabled him to pass previous screenings.

    It's not at all difficult to understand that people don't provide names of people they assaulted. Most people don't include people they think will disparage them in any way. Some past employers won't divulge any information for fear of reprisal of their former employees, etc., etc.

    When Kav was shortlisted Dr. Ford began her efforts to alert the committee. Had the Repubs actually cared about doing a real vetting they'd have had the FBI take a look back then.

    I hate to sound like I'm siding with Kavanaugh, but DiFi kept Ford's name confidential until recently.

    Instead they pushed to hurry Kav through hoping they could get him on the court before any of this came out, or gained enough momentum to affect their timeframe and their objective.

    They could have already been done with this by now, for sure.

    They may still slither him through but at least it's being made really difficult for them.

    If he's going on the SCOTUS anyway, I personally would have much more preferred that they ramrod him on there and pissed off a whole lot of wimmin. Probably not a nice thing to say, but I'm simply being honest about it. :)

  234. [234] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Thought the Republicans might take a step back (see comment 114 from yesterday's CW.com column). Of course that still leaves the second half of my prediction...that Republicans will come to see Kavanaugh as too costly and arrange his withdrawal from consideration. So, I'm still out on the limb.

  235. [235] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    p.s. Oh my gods those things are tedious to fill out... almost as tedious as the routine polygraph exams... almost.

    Tell me about it.... thank god I only have to do the FS 86C every 6 months...much less onerous.

    It is important to note that for judicial nominees the check is much more subjective than substantive as it all centers on "THE QUESTION" Are you aware of anything that might embarrass the President of the United States if your nomination goes forward?”.

    Sure they do the usual trawl, and check out any blips, but really the whole thing is guided by "the Question".

    I suspect that with the case of afluenza we have going on here he did not consider his HS antics to be anything out of the norm... as for him it was the norm.

  236. [236] 
    Paula wrote:

    Among the many "issues" stirred up by Kav nomination is that of white elite privilege as illustrated by the alleged behaviors of groups of these prep-school, Ivy league fraternity students. These boys/men are actively protected from consequences for bad actions.

  237. [237] 
    Paula wrote:

    [235] Goode: I suspect that with the case of afluenza we have going on here he did not consider his HS antics to be anything out of the norm... as for him it was the norm.

    Exactly.

  238. [238] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    224

    Awesome post!

    But it was his claims of treating women with respect that was the biggest lie.

    Yes. His credibility took a huge hit there. He lied under oath multiple times. He knows it too. He had all the demeanor of an elitist snob who was being held accountable for his actions for the first time in his entitled life. I've seen it before. I would wager you have too. I would also wager he gets his "drunk on" tonight -- hopefully in the privacy of his own home. He knows he lied under oath. He's not stupid, but he projects that air of entitlement that is so typical of his ilk. I'm surprised the Trumpers would want him on the SCOTUS since he's the living embodiment of everything they whine about... a corporate elitist snob who will put their fat cat donors before "we the People."

    He claimed to always treat woman respectfully, but his yearbook postings proved that to be a lie.

    I know, right!? Kavanaugh brought up Renate in his statement and then whined like a toddler when they asked a question about her. If that would have been me doing the questioning, I would have been like: "Calm down, Bartleby... you brought her up so zip your lip now, skippy!"

    Friends have come forward willing to testify that he was often pass-out drunk when he partied. He claimed it was OK for him to drink as a senior because the drinking age was 18...except it wasn’t 18, it was 21... and despite this being pointed out multiple times, Kavanaugh still makes this false claim!

    Yes, sir. He lied about this big time. He knows it too.

    It is obvious that the Republicans want this “party before country” hack on the Supreme Court above all else! They prove themselves unfit for office more and more with every passing day!

    Yes, sir. They held open a seat for almost a year and then whined about having to "slam bam" this guy onto the SCOTUS now. Stupid move too for Trump to claim "the FBI doesn't do this." Do you think his minions have figured out yet that Trump was lying about that? :)

  239. [239] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    232

    Yeah, most of the other message boards I have seen are ranting about the FBI investigating Ford’s accusations, but they are off base because the FBI will be focused more on Kavanaugh’s responses than to her allegations.

    Yes, sir. They've probably already determined Judge's employment dates at Safeway and will be able to narrow down the date of the alleged assault. With more questioning of Judge under POP CI/T1, they'll likely get the majority of their information from him. If he continues to maintain he doesn't remember, Kavanaugh is likely home free there. They'll then likely speak with as many of Kav's former classmates as they can. They're coming out of the woodwork too, and they're pissed.

    I am not saying that they won’t be asking questions regarding Ford’s allegations, but other than Judge, there is no one who could confirm Ford’s claims.

    Yes, sir, with the exception of Leland who doesn't remember but does say she believes Dr. Blasey Ford. Does anyone remember every party they went to in high school? I don't. I do remember one where I kicked a guy in the nuts in front of God and everybody, but don't ask me to give you all their names and a headcount of the party attendees. *laughs*

    What the FBI will be focused on is whether Kavanaugh lied during the confirmation hearings. Was he a pass out drunk? Was the legal drinking age 18 when he was a senior in high school? What do friends remember Kavanaugh’s yearbook posts as meaning at the time? These are things the FBI can easily answer that will help determine whether he deserves being confirmed.

    Bingo! I would wager he didn't provide the names of his college friends on his SF-86 who would say negative things about him, but now he doesn't have a choice, and they're coming out of the woodwork! :)

  240. [240] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    234

    Yes. Many of them already have been. :)

  241. [241] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    @Kick

    A favor, please, as I am currently overwhelmed with the cognitive dissonance of evidently acquiescing to everything said on this board that I don't reply to: I got as far as decoding CI/T1 to Confidential Informant Tier 1, but I haven't figured out POP yet. Would you please give a brief overview of T1 vs. T2 in the current context and tell me what POP is? Person of p....?

    I would appreciate that and promise to do better on due diligence in the days ahead.

  242. [242] 
    Kick wrote:

    GT
    235

    Tell me about it.... thank god I only have to do the FS 86C every 6 months...much less onerous.

    Lucky you!

    It is important to note that for judicial nominees the check is much more subjective than substantive as it all centers on "THE QUESTION" Are you aware of anything that might embarrass the President of the United States if your nomination goes forward?”.

    Yes! Exactly this! I had to get a security clearance once just to transport the luggage of the POTUS... Reagan. What a f'n nightmare. No worries, though. We got his stuff from one place to another without a SNAFU or FUBAR or incident or accident. :)

    Sure they do the usual trawl, and check out any blips, but really the whole thing is guided by "the Question".

    A deep dive into a lot of your spit! They don't care if you smoked MJ; they just care if you did it and lied about it. The issue is credibility, and Mr. Kavanaugh did not do himself any favors yesterday at all. He lied multiple times. You know it. I know it. He knows it. :)

    I suspect that with the case of afluenza we have going on here he did not consider his HS antics to be anything out of the norm... as for him it was the norm.

    Afluenza! Yes! Proud... not proud... to be from the state where that term originated. Exactly right too about it being a normal frat boy situation and quite the norm for the 80s. As for the security clearance/background check, they're not even concerned with the drinking and smoking as long as you own up to the doing of it. It's about credibility. If you smoked it or drank it, let them know and give them your urine sample. Mmmmmm… tasty! ;) *winks*

  243. [243] 
    Paula wrote:

    [233] Kick: Regarding the "Feinstein sat on it" angle, Repubs should have been willing to evaluate the claims once they were raised, period. They didn't make any pretense of even considering them initially - they went straight into denial mode.

    Having said that, I think they knew something like Ford and others were lurking in the bushes because they managed to cobble together the famous 65-woman letter in record time. Furthermore, this group of people is insular (prep school, Ivy League, DC) - they share common friends, histories, schools, etc. It wouldn't surprise me at all if people surrounding Kavanaugh had some idea about his drinking history if nothing else. Furthermore tons of his information was suppressed and that wasn't done because the stuff was going to make him look good.

    McConnell said from the beginning Kav was a bad choice. Blotus overruled, so Operation-Cover-Up-Hurry-Up began.

    And even now Repubs are trying to have it both ways - they'll let Ford's claims be looked at but not those of the other women. They want this to be as narrow as possible with the hopes they can retain some plausible deniability.

  244. [244] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Sniffing around, I've stumbled across a curious, little known fact. It seems there's nothing in the US constitution that says SCOTUS has to be limited to nine persons.
    "Article III of the United States Constitution does not specify the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six "judges." Although an 1801 act would have reduced the size of the court to five members upon its next vacancy, an 1802 act promptly negated the 1801 act, legally restoring the court's size to six members before any such vacancy occurred. As the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863."
    Maybe 2020 is a good year to 'expand' the judiciary due to the burgeoning population since the dusky days of 1863.
    *NOTE. FDR did try to slide a 15 judge court past congress in 1937, to 'alleviate' the aging bench, but was shot down as naked partisanship to further 'The new Deal'

    It would be fun to see Hatch's face were it suggested.

    That has to be the ultimate SCOTUS goal post shift, probably see Grassley into a cardiac event.

    LL&P

  245. [245] 
    Kick wrote:

    MyVoice
    241

    A favor, please, as I am currently overwhelmed with the cognitive dissonance of evidently acquiescing to everything said on this board that I don't reply to: I got as far as decoding CI/T1 to Confidential Informant Tier 1, but I haven't figured out POP yet. Would you please give a brief overview of T1 vs. T2 in the current context and tell me what POP is? Person of p....?

    POP*
    - POP goes the weasel.
    - Get your POPcorn ready!
    - Hop on POP

    You sure you wouldn't rather discuss Homer Simpson or the UGBP* or the meadow where unicorns fart rainbows and such things? :)

    I'm ready to read the most excellent FTP 502 now :p

    ______________

    * Penalty of perjury
    * Underpants Gnomes Business Plan

  246. [246] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Further nosing about brought a smile to my face...

    behold... "A Mexican source close to the talks said the U.S. had in turn (mild agreements about the Auto supply chain, essentially meaningless considering the interwoven nature of that trilateral industry!) agreed to drop a demand for tariffs to protect U.S. seasonal produce growers."

    In English, Trump has conceded that seasonal Mexican labour is essential to the US at present wage consideration. So much for outsourcing US jobs to Mexico and restricting the influx of Mexican labourers...not to mention, the need for a wall.

    I suspect this codicil won't get much air time when the agreement hits the spam. Meanwhile, the Mexican president-elect won't ratify any US-Mexico NAFTA agreement bi-laterally...ergo, another Trumpian 'deal' gone horribly wrong.

    MAGA my arse.

    LL&P

  247. [247] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [242] MV...At least in your 'cognitive dissonance' you get ignore repetitive spamming to restore your input balance.

    It took me a few threads.

    LL&P

  248. [248] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    233

    Regarding the "Feinstein sat on it" angle, Repubs should have been willing to evaluate the claims once they were raised, period.

    I totally agree. I don't even think she "sat on it" really... just FUBAR the way the whole thing was handled. Not just the Dr. Blasey Ford issue but also the whole documents SNAFU, obfuscation, and subterfuge. What a mess. I would have bet a chunk of change they were going to ramrod him on the SCOTUS. Weird day.

    I lost a bet to multiple of my peeps! :)

    They didn't make any pretense of even considering them initially - they went straight into denial mode.

    And that whole documents issue and the perjury beforehand. I think they got lulled into thinking they got a clean getaway and then... BAM! #Pathetic

    Having said that, I think they knew something like Ford and others were lurking in the bushes because they managed to cobble together the famous 65-woman letter in record time. Furthermore, this group of people is insular (prep school, Ivy League, DC) - they share common friends, histories, schools, etc.

    Yes, and they're not rapey and assaulty with their friends that are girls; they go after the acquaintances that aren't their frat boy buddies' sisters.

    It wouldn't surprise me at all if people surrounding Kavanaugh had some idea about his drinking history if nothing else. Furthermore tons of his information was suppressed and that wasn't done because the stuff was going to make him look good.

    Zactly!

    McConnell said from the beginning Kav was a bad choice. Blotus overruled, so Operation-Cover-Up-Hurry-Up began.

    Turtle knew. Trump knew. Trump wants him bad, though, and Kav likely hates Trump and everything he stands for and likewise, but they need each other because... okay, I know you know the rest. :)

  249. [249] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    Kick [245]

    I do like to keep up. Thank you.

  250. [250] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    244

    Nice post, JTC. Your friend you call the ambulance chaser is all over this too.

    JTC, though... seriously now... repeat after me:

    Av is a race car driver... not an ambulance chaser.

    Got that?

  251. [251] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    JTC [246]

    Even my scroll wheel doesn't save me from everything. My burden is heavy.

  252. [252] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [228] Avenatti's client may be appearing on TV this weekend.

    At a minimum, Avenatti and his client will be interviewed on The Circus on Showtime. The interview was filmed at one of the WAS aiports, as they were either coming or going. It was Tue. AM, I think. Time has blurred. It should be interesting, because the allegation was only a day or two old, and the odds on the FBI investigation were pretty damned low.

    They may give other interviews, of course. Avenatti has Rudy's Disease; getting between him and a microphone is as dangerous as crossing against the light at rush hour.

  253. [253] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    246

    In English, Trump has conceded that seasonal Mexican labour is essential to the US at present wage consideration. So much for outsourcing US jobs to Mexico and restricting the influx of Mexican labourers...not to mention, the need for a wall.

    There's ~700 miles of "wall" already there... it's called "the fence"... technical term. Do you think the Orange Blowhole even knows about it? ;)

    I suspect this codicil won't get much air time when the agreement hits the spam. Meanwhile, the Mexican president-elect won't ratify any US-Mexico NAFTA agreement bi-laterally...ergo, another Trumpian 'deal' gone horribly wrong.

    But JTC... wasn't that the only "deal" he's actually made? Because all his "deals" are actually where he tore up other deals?

    MAGA my arse.

    Morons Are Governing America

    Okay... since you already won't negotiate on taking Cruz back, hows about we make a deal to trade T for T... Trump for Trudeau? :)

    LL&P

    Do the trade and prove you mean that. :)

  254. [254] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Sorry, Kick... I can't pull the trigger on that deal. We have Doug Fraud, how many bloviated simpletons are we supposed to endure at one time?

    No, no...Hell no. That's not so much a deal for us, but a jettison for you.

    ;)

    LL&P

  255. [255] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    254

    No, no...Hell no. That's not so much a deal for us, but a jettison for you.

    So you're saying there's a chance!? ;)

Comments for this article are closed.