Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Uncle Sam

[Merged] Kavanaugh Hearing

991 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

hatecraft
5 minutes ago, Wickian said:

There is one good thing I can say about Politico.  They aren't HuffPost.

That's like saying HIV isn't AIDS.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
11 minutes ago, hatecraft said:

That's like saying HIV isn't AIDS.

Or you a ghost and me a spirit!

 

Oh wait, wrong commercial :rofl:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
9 hours ago, Big Jim said:

You seem to accept it as automatically true.  It is neither true or false until proven.  If it can't be proven then any court in the land would deem it false.

Rather than jumping in on one comment, go back, read the conversation and borrow Hammerclaw's new dictionary. Hopefully, he's bookmarked the word 'potential' for both of you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
11 hours ago, Merc14 said:

On what grounds?    That you don't like him?  Hey RJ, Feinstein just admitted she doesn't know what is truthful in the woman's statement and you think a president should be denied his right to appoint a Justice on this?  LMAO,   Justify your ridiculous declaration.

No. My objection has nothing to do with the sexual assault claims. 

 

I also think SCOTUS members should have term limits. Lifetime appointments are going to kill this country and keep us in the dark ages.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
9 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

The problem is in the therapist's notes it says there was 4 guys involved and none of them were named while in her letter it says 2 with Kavanaugh being named, she does claim the therapist wrote the stuff down wrong but that's a bit of a stretch.  The husband does claim the wife mentioned Kavanaugh's name but his testimony is arguably the weakest by far.  As for the polygraph from what I remember it was on if she was attacked/molested that showed up as being truthful without questions asked on who attacked/molested her.

Why would you tell a therapist the name of your assailant? And if you did, why should they feel the need to write it down?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
1 hour ago, Robotic Jew said:

No. My objection has nothing to do with the sexual assault claims. 

 

I also think SCOTUS members should have term limits. Lifetime appointments are going to kill this country and keep us in the dark ages.

Oh, so you really don't care about the crime that was supposedly committed, you just don't like his being a strict constitutionalist?  Or something, you seem afraid of stating what you actually stand for but have no problem insulting people that disagree with your beliefs...whatever those beliefs may be.  

BTW RJ, here is a legit rape accusation against a man in power that I am sure you attacked the woman for making (an assumption oion my part based of your empty and biased posts here),  Exact dates, times and places as well as witnesses that saw the emotional turmoil and physical aftermath the victim was suffering from afterwards.  

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36016/walsh-what-credible-rape-allegations-look-matt-walsh?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=mattwalsh

So, consider Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill Clinton of raping her in 1978 — right around the time that Ford says Kavanaugh assaulted her. But that is where the similarities in their stories end. Here is Broaddrick's allegation, as reported by BuzzFeed:

 

Broaddrick, then 35, first met Bill Clinton when he was 31 and the attorney general of Arkansas, during a campaign stop he made at her nursing home. They discussed her business and his campaign — Broaddrick wasn’t much into politics, but she had recently started volunteering for him with a friend — and Clinton told Broaddrick to call his office if she was ever in nearby Little Rock. A few weeks later, she did just that while attending a nursing seminar there. They arranged to meet one morning in the coffee shop in the hotel where the seminar was held. At the last second, Clinton called up to Broaddrick’s room and asked if they could meet there instead, since there were reporters in the lobby below. She said yes. Minutes after entering her room, he tried to kiss her, she says, biting her upper lip, hard.

Shocked, Broaddrick says, she resisted Clinton ... He ignored her, she says, and pushed her on the bed and raped her. Afterward, she says, he put his sunglasses on and told her to get some ice for her swollen lips before leaving the room.

... Two of Broaddrick’s friends who had also attended the nursing conference found Broaddrick in tears, her lips swollen and blue. She told them what had happened but made them swear not to tell anyone else. She was scared of retaliation, didn’t think anyone would believe her, and blamed herself for allowing Clinton to come up to her room.

 

Broaddrick knows the exact day and location of her assault. She has two witnesses who found her in tears with a swollen lip. She told them what happened. It's true that she didn't come forward publicly with this story for another 20 years, but she wasn't completely silent for those two decades. What's more, she had a very compelling reason to keep quiet all those years. Clinton was a powerful man at the time of the attack, and only became more powerful as time went on. Also, according to Broaddrick, Clinton's own wife had threatened her in a thinly veiled way.

Finally, adding even more credibility to Broaddrick's account, Clinton has been accused by multiple women. There is an established pattern of behavior. He is a known liar and a known pervert. Broaddrick's story is not only detailed, not only corroborated by two people who witnessed the immediate aftermath of the attack, but it fits into the overall picture of Bill Clinton. Credible? Broaddrick's case is far more than credible. It's overwhelming. She leaves you no conceivable reason to disbelieve her. To side with Bill Clinton is to trust the word of a pathological liar and notorious womanizer over the detailed account of a woman who has gained absolutely nothing from telling her story.

 

That's the other important element of this: Broadrrick didn't come forward until Bill Clinton was in his second presidential term. She wasn't some devout right winger running onto the scene a week before the 1992 election. If this were a politically motivated smear, it would mean Broaddrick is brilliant and enormously stupid all at once. Brilliant for concocting such a compelling story and sticking to it so convincingly for so long, but stupid for waiting until the guy had already been elected governor twice and president twice to finally set her plan in motion.

But Broaddrick need not be brilliant or stupid. She is just a regular person telling the truth. She has given us a perfect example of a credible accusation. Ford's story, on the other hand, does not meet this standard. It doesn't even come close to it. Does that make it untrue? No, not necessarily. But that probably makes it somewhat less than credible. And it also means that any honest person who believes Ford, despite all of the valid reasons for doubting her, must certainly believe Broaddrick.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Oh, so you really don't care about the crime that was supposedly committed, you just don't like his being a strict constitutionalist?  Or something, you seem afraid of stating what you actually stand for but have no problem insulting people that disagree with your beliefs...whatever those beliefs may be.  

BTW RJ, here is a legit rape accusation against a man in power that I am sure you attacked the woman for making (an assumption oion my part based of your empty and biased posts here),  Exact dates, times and places as well as witnesses that saw the emotional turmoil and physical aftermath the victim was suffering from afterwards.  

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36016/walsh-what-credible-rape-allegations-look-matt-walsh?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=mattwalsh

So, consider Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill Clinton of raping her in 1978 — right around the time that Ford says Kavanaugh assaulted her. But that is where the similarities in their stories end. Here is Broaddrick's allegation, as reported by BuzzFeed:

 

Broaddrick, then 35, first met Bill Clinton when he was 31 and the attorney general of Arkansas, during a campaign stop he made at her nursing home. They discussed her business and his campaign — Broaddrick wasn’t much into politics, but she had recently started volunteering for him with a friend — and Clinton told Broaddrick to call his office if she was ever in nearby Little Rock. A few weeks later, she did just that while attending a nursing seminar there. They arranged to meet one morning in the coffee shop in the hotel where the seminar was held. At the last second, Clinton called up to Broaddrick’s room and asked if they could meet there instead, since there were reporters in the lobby below. She said yes. Minutes after entering her room, he tried to kiss her, she says, biting her upper lip, hard.

Shocked, Broaddrick says, she resisted Clinton ... He ignored her, she says, and pushed her on the bed and raped her. Afterward, she says, he put his sunglasses on and told her to get some ice for her swollen lips before leaving the room.

... Two of Broaddrick’s friends who had also attended the nursing conference found Broaddrick in tears, her lips swollen and blue. She told them what had happened but made them swear not to tell anyone else. She was scared of retaliation, didn’t think anyone would believe her, and blamed herself for allowing Clinton to come up to her room.

 

Broaddrick knows the exact day and location of her assault. She has two witnesses who found her in tears with a swollen lip. She told them what happened. It's true that she didn't come forward publicly with this story for another 20 years, but she wasn't completely silent for those two decades. What's more, she had a very compelling reason to keep quiet all those years. Clinton was a powerful man at the time of the attack, and only became more powerful as time went on. Also, according to Broaddrick, Clinton's own wife had threatened her in a thinly veiled way.

Finally, adding even more credibility to Broaddrick's account, Clinton has been accused by multiple women. There is an established pattern of behavior. He is a known liar and a known pervert. Broaddrick's story is not only detailed, not only corroborated by two people who witnessed the immediate aftermath of the attack, but it fits into the overall picture of Bill Clinton. Credible? Broaddrick's case is far more than credible. It's overwhelming. She leaves you no conceivable reason to disbelieve her. To side with Bill Clinton is to trust the word of a pathological liar and notorious womanizer over the detailed account of a woman who has gained absolutely nothing from telling her story.

 

That's the other important element of this: Broadrrick didn't come forward until Bill Clinton was in his second presidential term. She wasn't some devout right winger running onto the scene a week before the 1992 election. If this were a politically motivated smear, it would mean Broaddrick is brilliant and enormously stupid all at once. Brilliant for concocting such a compelling story and sticking to it so convincingly for so long, but stupid for waiting until the guy had already been elected governor twice and president twice to finally set her plan in motion.

But Broaddrick need not be brilliant or stupid. She is just a regular person telling the truth. She has given us a perfect example of a credible accusation. Ford's story, on the other hand, does not meet this standard. It doesn't even come close to it. Does that make it untrue? No, not necessarily. But that probably makes it somewhat less than credible. And it also means that any honest person who believes Ford, despite all of the valid reasons for doubting her, must certainly believe Broaddrick.

Your assumption is wrong and strictly based on your own idiotic ideas. I don't attack women for making accusations...that's you. That's your conservative brethren. Stop trying to project your hatred and bigotry on me to make yourself feel like you're not wrong.

The only bias I have is for fairness and decency. I object to Kavanaugh because he's a conservative and conservative values are holding the country back. He's not a "constitutionalist", he's a liar. And while that doesn't matter to you, it does matter.

You're overly hostile for some reason. Maybe you need a nap? Or maybe you think being this way makes your sloppy interpretation of the truth correct? Either way, you're misguided and you need to learn that pointing to one bad thing that didn't get the attention it deserved doesn't excuse stuff that happens to people you want to corrupt the country in the future.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

I think one reason that the Progressives fear a Conservative judge is because they imprint their ideals of legislating from the bench onto the Conservative judge.  That’s not how a Conservative judge operates but this does reveal the mindset of Progressives.  For a Conservative judge, there are only two reasons to overturn law.  And as we’ve seen with Judge Roberts not overturning Obamacare, that reason needs to be very clear.  So, the only way to overturn say Roe v Wade would be a Constitutional challenge that we have never seen before that makes it very clear of the need (and that need would have to be some kind of Constitutional crisis) or by legislation via Congress to overturn it brought on by a mass appeal movement from the public.  Personally, I don’t see either of those conditions occurring anytime soon.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Robotic Jew said:

No. My objection has nothing to do with the sexual assault claims. 

 

I also think SCOTUS members should have term limits. Lifetime appointments are going to kill this country and keep us in the dark ages.

keeping us in dark ages???  lmao, we are not in dark ages,  if anyone is killing the country it would be liberals\progressives

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
14 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault wants FBI to investigate incident before testifying to Senate
In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers said an FBI investigation of the incident that occurred decades ago should be the first step in addressing their client’s allegation. The letter said her life has been turned upside down. A hearing with the Supreme Court nominee and Ford has been scheduled for Monday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/grassley-says-mondays-hearing-will-be-limited-to-two-witnesses-kavanaugh-and-his-accuser/2018/09/18/301da074-bb48-11e8-a8aa-860695e7f3fc_story.html

Well assault between teenagers in the 1980's is not exactly a federal crime so why would the FBI investigate.  This is a job for local authorities.  Should take them all of 2 hours to come to the conclusion that nothing can be proved.  The senate will then examine the style in which he has lived his life to determine the mans character at which point they will likely approve his appointment.  This entire thing is a huge waste of time and a shameful stunt by democrats. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
23 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

Your assumption is wrong and strictly based on your own idiotic ideas. I don't attack women for making accusations...that's you. That's your conservative brethren. Stop trying to project your hatred and bigotry on me to make yourself feel like you're not wrong.

When or where did I attack her?  Questioning her story is not an attack, it is justified when she has so few details and no witnesses but hey, that';s just me, I guess you simply believe anything you are told.

Quote

The only bias I have is for fairness and decency. I object to Kavanaugh because he's a conservative and conservative values are holding the country back. He's not a "constitutionalist", he's a liar. And while that doesn't matter to you, it does matter.

You object to hime because he is a constitutionalist and since you object to him it is OK to crucify him with any accusation another left wing person wants to bring.  Nice world your kind would create

Quote

You're overly hostile for some reason. Maybe you need a nap? Or maybe you think being this way makes your sloppy interpretation of the truth correct? Either way, you're misguided and you need to learn that pointing to one bad thing that didn't get the attention it deserved doesn't excuse stuff that happens to people you want to corrupt the country in the future.

 

Well, you call me an insulting name in every one of your posts and have yet to present anything to justify your stance on this subject other thna you don't like Kavanaugh bevcause he is conservative.  You decided to approach this topic with hostility so please don't whine and cry when you get the same thrown back at you.   BTW, there are now two witnesses that rememebr nothing like this happening at said party and exactly zero people she told at the time or who saw it happen yet you still believe it.  LMAO

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
13 hours ago, Agent0range said:

I wouldn't call an accusation with notes from a therapist, comments from a husband, AND a polygraph zero merit.  Now, before you go on some crazed rant, I AM NOT saying he is guilty.  But there is a difference between zero merit and some interesting evidence.  You are the one that should be ashamed to even say the accusation has zero merit.  Let him take a polygraph.  Although polygraphs aren't 100%, getting it wrong on 2 people would be extremely rare.  We literally use polygraph to give 18 year old kids TS/SCI access.

I work with a young man who has a degree in psychology at WSU and discussing this at lunch yesterday he said recovered memories are considered to be somewhat unreliable by psychologists because it has been found that rather than recovered memories they often end up being false memories which are mistakenly implanted by the doctor through leading questions. 

Now I can't judge other people's level of psychological trauma because everyone is different, but for myself I don't believe unwanted groping for a few seconds would cause repressed anything.  This is so much hot air.  This thread really has demonstrated how partisan we all really are more than anything else.  The question is, are we like this because of how they are in Washington DC or vice versa?  Is the tail wagging the dog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Well assault between teenagers in the 1980's is not exactly a federal crime so why would the FBI investigate.  This is a job for local authorities.  Should take them all of 2 hours to come to the conclusion that nothing can be proved.  The senate will then examine the style in which he has lived his life to determine the mans character at which point they will likely approve his appointment.  This entire thing is a huge waste of time and a shameful stunt by democrats. 

Emphasis on "stunt". Does anyone really think Kavanaugh is the same guy he was even 10 years ago? Are any of us the same a decade later? No. We grow. We change, we learn, we develop. This new trend of holding someone's distant past hostage needs to stop. Anyone with eyes can see this is a "hail mary" from the Progs to save their crumbling empire.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, Robotic Jew said:

Your assumption is wrong and strictly based on your own idiotic ideas. I don't attack women for making accusations...that's you. That's your conservative brethren. Stop trying to project your hatred and bigotry on me to make yourself feel like you're not wrong.

Progressives use accusations to attack.  Isn’t the accused innocent until proven guilty?  I could accuse you of sexual assault.  But in our system, I have the burden of proof.  That doesn’t matter to Progressives.  This accusation against Kavanaugh has nothing to do with justice, it is just a weapon to use against him.  He’s the one that is the victim of Progressive hatred and bigotry.

 

Quote

The only bias I have is for fairness and decency.

CoughBullCoughCoughShitCough.

 

Quote

I object to Kavanaugh because he's a conservative and conservative values are holding the country back.

Conservative values are what holds this nation together.  We don’t need to go down a Socialist path.  That is where we came from.  We spilled our blood to keep us from that trap.

 

Quote

He's not a "constitutionalist", he's a liar. And while that doesn't matter to you, it does matter.

That’s pure hatred talking.  That you are a liar doesn’t seem to matter to you.  But through all of this, the man’s mettle seems to be shining through and that is impressive.  He is a man of good character.

 

Quote

You're overly hostile for some reason. Maybe you need a nap? Or maybe you think being this way makes your sloppy interpretation of the truth correct? Either way, you're misguided and you need to learn that pointing to one bad thing that didn't get the attention it deserved doesn't excuse stuff that happens to people you want to corrupt the country in the future.

Wow!  If that isn’t an epitaph of the Progressive.

Edited by RavenHawk
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim

I don't think the veracity of this woman's accusations matter one bit to the Democrats.  Their value is in using them to delay a vote.  True or not, this has muddied the waters and given them time to think of other tactics.  It's no accident that this was only brought up after choreographed protests, grandstanding Senators and Spartacus failed.  The analogy between a hidden letter of accusation and an ace up the sleeve is too close to be an accident.  It matters not that Kavenaugh has by all verifiable accounts lived an exemplary life with successive accomplishments.  It only matters that he is a conservative and therefore must be destroyed by any means necessary.  If this latest attempt also fails then we can expect even more outlandish claims to surface.  Make way for a string of porn stars with a recent boost to their bank accounts.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kavanaugh-poll/opposition-to-kavanaugh-grows-support-at-historic-low-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1LZ1WT?il=0

(Reuters) - A growing number of Americans said they opposed President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, as the candidate’s confirmation hearings took place and as he fended off a sexual assault claim, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.

The Sept. 11-17 poll found that 36 percent of adults surveyed did not want Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court, up 6 points from a similar poll conducted a month earlier.

Only 31 percent of U.S. adults polled said they were in favor of Kavanaugh’s appointment.

If support for his nomination remains this weak, Trump’s pick would rank among the lowest-supported Supreme Court nominees to later be confirmed, according to historical data from Gallup.

 

“Not after the sexual charges,” said Jeffrey Schmidt, 56, from Colorado, who opposes President Trump and his policies. “Before the allegations, I was not sure.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
28 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kavanaugh-poll/opposition-to-kavanaugh-grows-support-at-historic-low-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1LZ1WT?il=0

(Reuters) - A growing number of Americans said they opposed President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, as the candidate’s confirmation hearings took place and as he fended off a sexual assault claim, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.

The Sept. 11-17 poll found that 36 percent of adults surveyed did not want Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court, up 6 points from a similar poll conducted a month earlier.

Only 31 percent of U.S. adults polled said they were in favor of Kavanaugh’s appointment.

If support for his nomination remains this weak, Trump’s pick would rank among the lowest-supported Supreme Court nominees to later be confirmed, according to historical data from Gallup.

 

“Not after the sexual charges,” said Jeffrey Schmidt, 56, from Colorado, who opposes President Trump and his policies. “Before the allegations, I was not sure.”

This would only matter if judges were elected by popular vote.  I have learned to trust the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.  They set it up so that all the other members of the government are elected, either nationally or locally.  The sole exception being certain judges, including the Supreme Court.  The system has worked for over 230 years.  Even if he is the "lowest-supported Supreme Court nominee to later be confirmed" he would still be just as much a judge as the other 8.   Polls without weight or influence are no more than dressed up gossip.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
5 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

This would only matter if judges were elected by popular vote.  I have learned to trust the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.  They set it up so that all the other members of the government are elected, either nationally or locally.  The sole exception being certain judges, including the Supreme Court.  The system has worked for over 230 years.  Even if he is the "lowest-supported Supreme Court nominee to later be confirmed" he would still be just as much a judge as the other 8.   Polls without weight or influence are no more than dressed up gossip.

I hear that, just putting out the "polls" as we know the other side is eating it up.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
1 hour ago, South Alabam said:

“Not after the sexual charges,” said Jeffrey Schmidt, 56, from Colorado, who opposes President Trump and his policies. “Before the allegations, I was not sure.”

Does anyone really think that someone who professes to "oppose President Trump and his policies", was ever really "not sure" before these unfounded allegations? Not that Mr. Schmidt from Co. opinion counts here for anything.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Does anyone really think that someone who professes to "oppose President Trump and his policies", was ever really "not sure" before these unfounded allegations? Not that Mr. Schmidt from Co. opinion counts here for anything.

That's exactly my take on it and why I added that line. Not hard to see a foregone conclusion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
23 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

You folks on the Left may not give a damn about that sort of thing anymore, and it shows, but you ain't speaking for the rest of us and you ain't our Overlords.

Damned straight!  And they never will be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/19/fbi-will-not-launch-criminal-investigation-into-kavanaugh-allegations.html

So, all she wants is a thorough investigation of her accusations?  Even Corker, Flake and Collins are saying "appear or the vote goes as scheduled".  I guess when it comes to the detritus occupying the Halls of Power for the Left, nothing ventured, nothing gained but they look to be getting stiff-armed on this tactic.  That pleases me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
6 hours ago, Big Jim said:

This would only matter if judges were elected by popular vote.  I have learned to trust the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.  They set it up so that all the other members of the government are elected, either nationally or locally.  The sole exception being certain judges, including the Supreme Court.  The system has worked for over 230 years.  Even if he is the "lowest-supported Supreme Court nominee to later be confirmed" he would still be just as much a judge as the other 8.   Polls without weight or influence are no more than dressed up gossip.

Not really. Just like Trump and by extension republican congressmen can get a ratings bump by nominating a good conservative judge they can take a hit if they end up putting someone who the public doesnt like in and it is an election year.

While the judges may not get elected those voting for the judges do and you can bet they're paying attention to what their constituents think

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
7 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Not really. Just like Trump and by extension republican congressmen can get a ratings bump by nominating a good conservative judge they can take a hit if they end up putting someone who the public doesnt like in and it is an election year.

While the judges may not get elected those voting for the judges do and you can bet they're paying attention to what their constituents think

Agreed. He isn’t getting seated. We won’t get a new SC judge till after the midterms. If the Dems do well, Trump probably won’t be selecting anyone. Pence will. 

ETA even if republicans keep power, the Dems will throw sexual accusations at who ever is selected. This mess will go on for a long time. 

Edited by preacherman76
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

Agreed. He isn’t getting seated. We won’t get a new SC judge till after the midterms. If the Dems do well, Trump probably won’t be selecting anyone. Pence will.

I think there is a chance he still gets confirmed. I definitely dont think its a slam dunk anymore though.

If the investigation stays a political process and Mueller doesnt go for an indictment then I think the dems will stretch it out as long as possible to keep Trump in office to keep pence from taking over leaving basically no one in charge .  At least thats what i would do from a strategy standpoint.

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

ETA even if republicans keep power, the Dems will throw sexual accusations at who ever is selected. This mess will go on for a long time. 

Im torn here because on the one hand youre most likely not wrong - but that in no way means the Kavanaugh accusations arent potentially legit. I mean if you had to write a character to be guy "the date raper" on Law and Order Kavanaugh would be the exact description of who you wanted. 

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.