Jump to content

MixtyMotions

banned
  • Posts

    263
  • Joined

Everything posted by MixtyMotions

  1. You are absolutely correct. And the GOP does want their vote on the record.
  2. I see a delay as HIGHLY unlikely. There will be votes. If he loses it's on to somebody new. There is time to confirm someone else by January 3 if that's what it comes to. But there isn't much more time. It's now or never. And it's important to get a vote on the record.
  3. The next thing you know the NFL will be getting players from Alabama, and prestigious research labs will be getting scientists from CalTech and MIT.
  4. I'd be tickled pink to have nine Justices like Kennedy.
  5. It's not reasonable to have a process where an army with tens of thousands of soldiers and tens of millions of dollars is allowed to sort through thousands of allegations, pick the best ones, assign them to be sheperded by sophisticated operatives, keep them secret, and then dump them on the table at the last minute to delay, if not to defeat the nomination.
  6. Dirty politics to stop Robert Bork worked. Dirty politics to stop Clarence Thomas almost worked. Dirty politics to stop Merrick Garland worked. Dirty politics to stop Brett Kavanaugh might work. Expect more dirty politics. On another note: Assume for a moment that Brett Kavanaugh goes down, and Amy Coney Barrett gets confirmed. Did the nation win? I think both GOP and Dem interests lose.
  7. There are many, many examples of ill-advised risks we take which turn out bad some time. We don't "deserve" the bad result, but we made a bad decision. I don't see a difference in these. For example, if somebody fails to wear a motorcycle helmet and gets their brains scrambled I don't say they deserved to get their brains scrambled. I do say they made a bad decision not to wear a helmet. I could give you a hundred examples. Going to a part as described is on the list.
  8. I am unclear what "present" means. Is it present at the party or present at the rape? The affidavit has a number of such unclear statements. Another ambiguity is "witnessed efforts to ...". What the fuck does that mean?
  9. I don't think she's lying. I think she had a traumatic experience and truly believes what she is saying. So I would not support prosecuting her for false allegations.
  10. I believe there are many on both the Left and Right who would risk a lot for a shot at changing the composition of the Court. I think many on the Left think they have a shot at delaying a confirmation past the end of the year, winning the Senate and blocking a Trump nominee till 2021.
  11. If she doesn't show up tomorrow what will happen?
  12. I know a little bit about trying to fill out a timesheet for a half month period, after not keeping any records. It was my modus operandi. And it is really hard, particularly if some "enemy" is trying to attack your records, which was my case. The only way I could do it was to get the timesheets of others and fill out a grid which laid out everything each of them did with me. I can't imagine constructing a calendar for the Summer of 1982 with entries like attended Grease III with Suzanne. I had trouble reconstructing days that were the .previous week. He could delete an item but there is no way to create that from scratch.
  13. I have. All it names are Kavanaugh and Judge. I want to check out her story. Let's have the names of others.
  14. Regardless of what happens is there any scenario where the process does not get uglier? I don't think so. I don't know how people can expect the other side to behave when they act so ugly. Even on this board, where there are no real consequences, people act very ugly. I don't see how it gets turned around.
  15. The thing I want to hear are the names of party participants - girls molested, boys molesting, witnesses, attendees, places, dates, and so on. If Ms Swetnick has info I'm listening. If all she remembers is Brett Kavanaugh I'm not.
  16. I want to see what happens when people are crossed under oath. I think I know.
  17. I wonder if all these Senators who talk about the importance of the hearing being a "fact finding mission" would support a special rule prohibiting speeches by Senators or questions unrelated to the events in question. Well, I don't really wonder. I know damn well. In fact they will have almost no questions about the specifics which we need to know. It will be all about the treatment of women who allege assault. I'm convinced she was assaulted. Hell, if I were defending Kavanaugh I'd stipulate to it. The only question on the table is whether Kavanaugh did it.
  18. 8 min ago Chuck Grassley says GOP is using prosecutor to "de-politicize" hearing Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley says that Republicans chose to use an outside counsel at tomorrow's hearing to “de-politicize”it. News broke yesterday that republicans hired Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question Christine Blasey Ford and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh following concerns about how it would look to have the all-male GOP committee members questioning Ford. Here's Grassley's tweet: Twitter Ads info and privacy
  19. No. But that's what I say when I get the vapors.
  20. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-second-sexual-allegation-latest/h_e5e0cb60d9db4ac5fbf58541a0cee49f
  21. Susan Collins expressed concern about Christine Ford's high school yearbook. So I Googled Christine Ford's high school yearbook. My, my, my.
  22. I buy that. Hook, line and sinker. I think her "memory" that Kavanaugh was there is recent. She remembers nothing else. Something happened; she's angry; she doesn't want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. That's all we know.
×
×
  • Create New...