Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[drogulus]

Evidence?

     Why bother whitewashing and concealing for someone falsely accused? The behavior of everyone on all sides of the issue is consistent with the truth of Ford's allegations, and so is the guilty man defense full of counter-accusations and evasions. Why can't Kavanaugh admit to the obvious fact that he was a drunken lout in a crowd of drunken louts?  The letter "Bart" wrote that the NYTimes published was full of exactly the admissions of intent and opportunity that a proper investigation would seek, not try to conceal.     

     Repubs know just as well as Dems and innocent bystanders that Ford isn't mixed up or mistaken. The mistaken theory I've dealt with. Only Repubs would hire Kavanaugh now, no one else would hire him for anything, no matter that the credible charges against him can't be proved by the standards of criminal law. Those are not the standards used in the confirmation process. Repubs are not a different species, they know Kavanaugh is a liar, that can't escape knowing that.

[Todd]

     Why bother whitewashing and concealing for someone falsely accused? The behavior of everyone on all sides of the issue is consistent with the truth of Ford's allegations, and so is the guilty man defense full of counter-accusations and evasions. Why can't Kavanaugh admit to the obvious fact that he was a drunken lout in a crowd of drunken louts?  The letter "Bart" wrote that the NYTimes published was full of exactly the admissions of intent and opportunity that a proper investigation would seek, not try to conceal.     

     Repubs know just as well as Dems and innocent bystanders that Ford isn't mixed up or mistaken. The mistaken theory I've dealt with. Only Repubs would hire Kavanaugh now, no one else would hire him for anything, no matter that the credible charges against him can't be proved by the standards of criminal law. Those are not the standards used in the confirmation process. Repubs are not a different species, they know Kavanaugh is a liar, that can't escape knowing that.

So, no evidence then.

[TheGSMoeller]

That comment is disingenuous and just plain stupid. Kavanaugh (K) was accused of attempted rape and he lied repeatedly about his character and behavior in high school in an attempt to refute the allegation and discredit the accuser. Probing his obvious falsehoods doesn't show desperation on the part of Dems, it shows due diligence — the kind the assclown in chief and his cronies should have undertaken before nominating this specimen. The desperation was all on the Republican side. They were so desperate to get someone — anyone — on the SCOTUS before the midterm elections that they forced through a nominee with multiple credible allegations of sexual assault against him rather than admit their mistake and find an acceptable candidate.

This +1
Pushing Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court could allow the GOP, and Trump, the ability to act more unconstitutional and get away with it. Shrink women's rights, limit voting rights, LGBTQ rights... basically act more bigoted, racist, and sexist just to own the LIBS!

So, no evidence then.

Yes. Dr. Ford's testimony under oath. But I guess most Republicans have difficulty believing anyone that is not pro-Trump, especially women.

[drogulus]

So, no evidence then.

     Not unless Judge changes his story, there's not enough evidence to convict, or probably not enough to be charged. For the nomination process that's not the standard. The committee is well within its rights to deny a nominee on the basis of what they believe to be true about him. Kavanaugh's present dishonesty about several aspects of his past behavior is in my view more disqualifying than his past behavior. I fault the Repubs not for disbelieving Ford because it's clear they don't disbelieve her, and the pathetic attempt to blame someone else is a backhanded way to acknowledge Ford is telling the truth. The Repubs should have taken present dishonesty more seriously.

[BasilValentine]

Evidence?

— The testimony of the victim corroborated by what she told others long before Kavanaugh was a candidate. Her story is further corroborated by K's calendar entry for July 1, 1982. Contrary to K's testimony that he never attended a gathering of the kind described by Blasey-Ford, this entry precisely echoes to her list of who was in the house the evening she claims she was assaulted. The July 1 date also validates her timeline in relation to Mark Judge's employment history.
— The fact that K lied repeatedly in his attempts to refute Blasey-Ford's claims should be taken as consciousness if guilt.
— The statement of Elizabeth Rasor, Mark Judge's girlfriend a few years after the event, should give one pause. According to Rasor, Judge confessed to her that he and his friends had had sex with an incapacitated woman at a party in high school — gang rape, that is. K was Judge's closest friend ("joined at the hip") at the time. Julie Swetnick's claim that Judge and K were at a party where she claims to have been gang raped is interesting in this regard. 
— The Ramirez affair, with its multiple as yet unquestioned witnesses, suggests a pattern of assault.

The above is clearly not enough evidence to convict K in a court of law. But along with his numerous lies to the Judiciary Committee, it was way more than enough to disqualify him for consideration.

[Todd]

Yes. Dr. Ford's testimony under oath. But I guess most Republicans have difficulty believing anyone that is not pro-Trump, especially women.

Mr Kavanaugh also testified under oath.  You picked the testimony you want to believe, that's all.  I know Democrats have difficulty understanding things like this.

Not unless Judge changes his story, there's not enough evidence to convict, or probably not enough to be charged. For the nomination process that's not the standard. The committee is well within its rights to deny a nominee on the basis of what they believe to be true about him. Kavanaugh's present dishonesty about several aspects of his past behavior is in my view more disqualifying than his past behavior. I fault the Repubs not for disbelieving Ford because it's clear they don't disbelieve her, and the pathetic attempt to blame someone else is a backhanded way to acknowledge Ford is telling the truth.

Even if there was enough evidence of whatever crimes Mr Kavanaugh may have committed based on your faulty and intemperate assessment, the statute of limitations would preclude conviction.  But there was not even enough evidence to stop the nomination and confirmation.  Thankfully.

<snip>blather filtered through partisanship<snip>

The above is clearly not enough evidence to convict K in court of law.

Your statement of lack of evidence is accurate.

But along with his numerous lies to the Judiciary Committee, it was way more than enough to disqualify him for consideration.

The Judiciary Committee disagreed with you.

[BasilValentine]

Mr Kavanaugh also testified under oath.  You picked the testimony you want to believe, that's all.  I know Democrats have difficulty understanding things like this.

Even if there was enough evidence of whatever crimes Mr Kavanaugh may have committed based on your faulty and intemperate assessment, the statute of limitations would preclude conviction.  But there was not even enough evidence to stop the nomination and confirmation.  Thankfully.

Your statement of lack of evidence is accurate.

The Judiciary Committee disagreed with you.

I picked the evidence of the credible witness, that is, the one who didn't tell numerous falsehoods in sworn testimony. Senator Blumenthal cited a principle applied in charging juries to the effect that a witness shown to be false in one thing can be disbelieved in all — I forget the Latin phrase. I was applying this principle in evaluating the testimony. But apparently you "have difficulty understanding things like this."

What you called blather was physical evidence in the hand of the accused corroborating his victim's account and numerous witnesses whose evidence was ignored by presidential order. Nice try.

[drogulus]

Mr Kavanaugh also testified under oath.  You picked the testimony you want to believe, that's all.  I know Democrats have difficulty understanding things like this.

      Repubs believed Ford, too, and they said so. That's why they had to resort to explanations about a mixed up victim and body doubles for 2 participants. Furthermore the Repubs demonstrated by their unwillingness to call important witnesses and conduct a proper set of FBI interviews that they had strong convictions about what had to remain hidden to protect Kavanaugh.

     

[Todd]

I picked the evidence of the credible witness, that is, the one who didn't tell numerous falsehoods in sworn testimony. Senator Blumenthal cited a principle applied in charging juries to the effect that a witness shown to be false in one thing can be disbelieved in all — I forget the Latin phrase. I was applying this principle in evaluating the testimony. But apparently you "have difficulty understanding things like this."

You picked the witness(es) you want to believe, that's all.  I know it's difficult to understand.

What you called blather was physical evidence in the hand of the accused corroborating his victim's account. Nice try.

Can you pinpoint the physical evidence you refer to again?

Repubs believed Ford, too, and they said so. That's why they had to resort to explanations about a mixed up victim and body doubles for 2 participants. Furthermore the Repubs demonstrated by their unwillingness to call important witnesses and conduct a proper set of FBI interviews that they had strong convictions about what had to remain hidden to protect Kavanaugh.

Is that what happened?  Hmm.

[TheGSMoeller]

Mr Kavanaugh also testified under oath.  You picked the testimony you want to believe, that's all.  I know Democrats have difficulty understanding things like this.

Kavanaugh dodged more questions than he answered. And his angry tone at the hearing displayed he's not a proper fit for the Supreme Court. He came across as an entitled angry white man who is ready to make the Supreme Court partisan, which I know Republicans have an easy time understanding.

[Todd]

Kavanaugh dodged more questions than he answered. And his angry tone at the hearing displayed he's not a proper fit for the Supreme Court. He came across as an entitled angry white man who is ready to make the Supreme Court partisan, which I know Republicans have an easy time understanding.

You are confusing your interpretation of what happened with objective truth, a standard Democrat malady.

[Todd]

Take heart, Dems!  (And non-American fellow travelers!)  AmPo offers solace in the form of impeaching Kavanaugh: With Kavanaugh confirmed, impeachment could follow.  Here's how.

With Trump and Kavanaugh both in the purely just crosshairs of Dems, 2019 could shape up to be the busiest impeachment season on record.  Man, I hope it comes to pass.

[Jo498]

Kavanaugh dodged more questions than he answered. And his angry tone at the hearing displayed he's not a proper fit for the Supreme Court. He came across as an entitled angry white man who is ready to make the Supreme Court partisan, which I know Republicans have an easy time understanding.

Coming across as non-white would not have been very convincing.

For me as a naive European not deeply familiar with the US traditions, a main moral would be to change the mode for picking the judges and/or restricting their service to about 10 or 12 years instead of a lifetime. Lower the importance of each particular candidate or nominated judge, so there is less need of such dirty fighting on both sides.

[Todd]

For me as a naive European not deeply familiar with the US traditions, a main moral would be to change the mode for picking the judges and/or restricting their service to about 10 or 12 years instead of a lifetime. Lower the importance of each particular candidate or nominated judge, so there is less need of such dirty fighting on both sides.

There are several alternatives to the current system being proposed, and there have been for years.  There's a push for 18 year terms, with a justice selected every two years, ensuring that every presidential term receives two picks.  The dolt Rick Perry advocated this years ago, so it's dead with some Dems for that reason alone.

With the two oldest justices being Dirty Dems (Breyer and the Notorious RBG), it doesn't make sense from a Republican standpoint to push for something like that until one or both of them croak or retire.  The wildcard is Clarence Thomas, who at 70 is not young, but he should be able to hold on until the octogenarians exit, then a push could be made.

The Republic will limp along as-is for years to come.

[lisa needs braces]

Andrew Sullivan at his hysterical and entertaining best. Get popcorn for this one.

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/genius-of-destruction-trump-administration/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1538661032

[BasilValentine]

There are several alternatives to the current system being proposed, and there have been for years.  There's a push for 18 year terms, with a justice selected every two years, ensuring that every presidential term receives two picks.  The dolt Rick Perry advocated this years ago, so it's dead with some Dems for that reason alone.

With the two oldest justices being Dirty Dems (Breyer and the Notorious RBG), it doesn't make sense from a Republican standpoint to push for something like that until one or both of them croak or retire.  The wildcard is Clarence Thomas, who at 70 is not young, but he should be able to hold on until the octogenarians exit, then a push could be made.

The Republic will limp along as-is for years to come.

A simpler solution might be to require a super majority for confirmation.

[Todd]

A simpler solution might be to require a super majority for confirmation.

Harry Reid killed that, remember?  An amendment for the same purpose is a non-starter.

[Todd]

The way I always saw it, the Republicans couldn't disavow Kavanaugh on moral, ethical, criminal or lying grounds because then they would have to repudiate Trump whose transgressions were and are far worse.

Nope, they needed to get a Republican on the court before the midterms.  It's simple.

Edwards' original quote is better: The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.  There's no need to soften the words of a Democrat.

[Sydney Nova Scotia]

what's next Vladimir as US foreign Secretary..............

[Daverz]

 0:)[asin] B073YT8P8S[/asin]

Brief interview with the author on Vox:

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/1/17258866/democratic-party-supreme-court-republicans-trump-election