Jump to content

babysdaddy

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2405
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by babysdaddy

  1. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/21/trump-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-charges-834664

     

    She can't be there on Monday because she's afraid of confined spaces and doesn't want to fly? 

    "The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington, according to the Republican senator, which means she may need to drive across the country to make the hearing. Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane"

  2. This game is everything that is right with college football.  No more enjoyment than hammering a few beers and a morning corn dog prior to going in to the stadium and watching the bands come out.  God I love it so.  And I love the 11am kickoff now that I'm not staying out until 3 am on friday night

    • Like 2
  3. Just now, Mojo Hand said:

    You're posting this as a joke, not something you find persuasive, right? 

    I'm posting that thread because that Ed Wheelan guy was mentioned in politico as someone who knows things.  Maggie from NYT shared it as did Ross Douthat.  They are giving this Ed guy the benefit of the doubt.  I'm agnostic

  4. Just now, DDD Dad said:

    Yeah, I looked at their feed too.  The problem I have with that feed is that it is simply spewing talking points from the republicans running the show.  Also, their narrative is not completely accurate.  They say they offered Dr. Ford multiple dates to testify when Grassley very clearly stated the contrary.  I have a hard time taking that feed at face value, especially if one simply drills down to see what the investigation really entailed (statements, not interviews, e.g.)

    Agreed, just pointing out to whoever the other poster was that there were doing 'nothing' when I think they are.

    • Like 1
  5. Just now, Captainant said:

    Also worth noting: the GOP holds all the cards here. If they think she's lying or her friends are lying, they have all the subpoena power to test the veracity of their claims. It's strange that they're doing absolutely NOTHING to investigate the claims and to investigate previous perjury before the SJC.

    The Senate Judiciary is investigating.  Just go look at their twitter feed.  

    And this lady could not be more credible.  The only issue, in my mind, is how to prove if it was Kavanaugh or not.  This 'let's see if she's credible' under testimony is a ridiculous standard and purely opinion based.  I'll go ahead and guess the Hugo/Denison/et all will say she's supremely credible and therefor truthful.  Chrispy, greggy and IC are going to say she was clearly lying and couldn't remember enough details to satisfy.  Then we are back to right here again.  Back to your corners.    

  6. 2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

    PM or email me if you get tickets.  My phone died so I can't get text messages until I replace it or get it fixed.

    no response from my email to that campaign email address.

  7. Kinda catching up on all this.  Read in Politico the accuser's lawyer is trying to put conditions around her public testimony?  I agree with Hugo that I doubt we have any sort of testimony next week.

    She was definitely assaulted but how to prove it was or was not Kavanaugh?  From a purely political standpoint, this lady is as brave as they come.  Given it is a he said/she said I fully expect for her character to be totally and completely assassinated.  She had to know that or should have been warned about it.  Kavanaugh has already been through the ringer....this lady is about to be totally and completely exposed.  

    The play from Feinstein is pretty smart, politically, but disgusting from a humanity standpoint.  Had him under oath and could've asked all the questions she wanted.  Sat on it purely to put pressure on her colleagues.  

     

  8. Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    to my knowledge, the senate can confirm a nominee on any date and the justice will take the bench as soon as they are sworn in.  And the justice could be sworn in 1 minute after the confirmation vote.  They don't even have to wait for a formal ceremony.  

    I would assume that if a justice does not participate in the oral arguments, then they don't vote on that case.   Hence one reason why they want Kavanaugh to have a vote this week or next.  I could be wrong on this one.

     

    The following would lead to an interesting dilemma:

    • A new nominee has to be selected
    • The new nominee would most likely not be confirmed prior to the election.   There just isn't time now.
    • Dems win the Senate
    • But McConnell tries to push through the nominee during the lame duck session

    It would be interesting because McConnell would absolutely do anything to get Trump's nominee through even if the American public just told him that they want a Dem controlled Senate.   The hypocrisy in regards to how he refused the Garland vote as we had to wait 10 months to let the american public decide on a new President.

    I would wonder if the Dems could actually fight that confirmation through the court system as being invalid.   The Supreme Court would most likely split 4-4 on that fight.  You have to wonder what the lower court ruling would be as that would be the deciding factor.

    This is the exact scenario that is going to happen.  It's the only way to get things more antagonizing than they already are so it shall be done.

  9. Does he need to be confirmed prior to 10/1 in order to sit on the bench this coming term?  Or could they confirm him up until 12/31? Assumption being the R's lose the Senate and they'd want to confirm a SC nominee prior to losing majority.  I don't exactly know when Congress starts up again post election day.  

×
×
  • Create New...