The Kavanaugh Confirmation Charade Thread

[RedSoxFan9]

 

did he really say this?

[Spork3245]

I never knew that the circle game had such racist undertones... it must be why I only ever see white people playing it.

[Jason]

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

10 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

did he really say this?

I guess he could be TECHNICALLY correct if he grew up in Washington, DC during the 1970s/1980s.

[Jason]

 

[Greatoneshere]

37 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

 

She's a borderline traitor to ethics and morals, in my opinion, if not full-on traitor. 

[Jason]

 

[Jason]

 

[Firewithin]

Good to see the trend of lying liars who lie will not have any consequences 

[Jason]

10 minutes ago, Firewithin said:

Good to see the trend of lying liars who lie will not have any consequences 

 

Good thing we ran Franken out of the Senate.

 

Spoiler

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Franken had an excellent line of questioning he posted on his Facebook page on how he would approach his confirmation. Start by asking about the statement he made when he accepted the nomination for SCOTUS, specifically about how he claimed Trump searched better than any other president for a dcotus pick. I'll see if I can find it.

[Jason]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Franken had an excellent line of questioning he posted on his Facebook page on how he would approach his confirmation. Start by asking about the statement he made when he accepted the nomination for SCOTUS, specifically about how he claimed Trump searched better than any other president for a dcotus pick. I'll see if I can find it.

 

 

Also,

 

 

[Jason]

 

 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

42 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Good thing we ran Franken out of the Senate.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Franken had an excellent line of questioning he posted on his Facebook page on how he would approach his confirmation. Start by asking about the statement he made when he accepted the nomination for SCOTUS, specifically about how he claimed Trump searched better than any other president for a dcotus pick. I'll see if I can find it.

Here it is. Long but good

 

https://m.facebook.com/senatoralfranken/posts/1830068093745731

[MarSolo]

I'm now more than convinced that those allegations against Franken were a deliberate hit job.

 

Notice how we haven't heard ANYTHING about them since he resigned?

[Firewithin]

Of course it was

[Jason]

48 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

I'm now more than convinced that those allegations against Franken were a deliberate hit job.

 

Notice how we haven't heard ANYTHING about them since he resigned?

 

The second accusation amounted to "one time Franken was a jerk about make sure I knew I'd lost an argument with him" and came from a right-wing blogger who called Bill O'Reilly getting fired a "scalping". But, you know, BELIEVE THE VICTIM, NOTHING SUSPICIOUS HERE!

[thewhyteboar]

 

 

[Jason]

 

[MarSolo]

I may be sexually attracted to Kamala Harris.

 

I'd ask her to intimidate me like I was Jeff Sessions.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

 

I think it is a pretty bogus line of questioning. Senator Lee was right to

note it’s a town of lawyers and law firms (even the senate is filled with attorneys), and he very well may have had a conversation with somebody who worked there with or without his knowledge of the particular firm they work at. He’s also a judge so much of his social engagements are with other people in the legal profession.

 

If she thinks he talked to somebody at that firm, name the individual.

[outsida]

6 hours ago, Jason said:

 

You can see the moment he shit his pants.

[Ghost_MH]

6 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

I think it is a pretty bogus line of questioning. Senator Lee was right to

note it’s a town of lawyers and law firms (even the senate is filled with attorneys), and he very well may have had a conversation with somebody who worked there with or without his knowledge of the particular firm they work at. He’s also a judge so much of his social engagements are with other people in the legal profession.

 

If she thinks he talked to somebody at that firm, name the individual.

 

He very easily could have said that to his knowledge, he hadn't. He's under oath, so he wouldn't be lying if he was not aware that someone he had spoken to worked at that firm. Nobody would have held that against him. His caginess here is the issue.

[legend]

2 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

He very easily could have said that to his knowledge, he hadn't. He's under oath, so he wouldn't be lying if he was not aware that someone he had spoken to worked at that firm. Nobody would have held that against him. His caginess here is the issue.

 

 

Yeah I agree with that. If he gave the answer "I never knowingly talked to someone at the firm about the topic, but it's possible some degree of discussion happened with someone whom I didn't know worked there being that it's a big story" it would have been a completely legit answer. His refusal to say that though is concerning. It raises the issue that he did deliberately talk to someone there about it, but doesn't want to say while also not wanting to get caught in a lie if she knows he did and can prove he intentionally spoke to someone there about it.

[Ghost_MH]

2 minutes ago, legend said:

Yeah I agree with that. If he gave the answer "I never knowingly talked to someone at the firm about the topic, but it's possible some degree of discussion happened with someone whom I didn't know worked there being that it's a big story" it would have been a completely legit answer. His refusal to say that though is concerning. It raises the issue that he did know, but doesn't want to say while also not get caught in a lie if she knows.

 

Hell, he could have said "I have, but at the time I didn't realize their firm was representing the president". There are like a million ways to answer that question. Simply refusing to is like the worse way possible.

[Chairslinger]

9 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

I think it is a pretty bogus line of questioning. Senator Lee was right to

note it’s a town of lawyers and law firms (even the senate is filled with attorneys), and he very well may have had a conversation with somebody who worked there with or without his knowledge of the particular firm they work at. He’s also a judge so much of his social engagements are with other people in the legal profession.

 

If she thinks he talked to somebody at that firm, name the individual.

 

 

I was under the impression that Harris was restrained from being too direct with that information because of the various games Republicans are playing to restrict what Dems can ask about.

 

I think in a vacuum the point about there being a lot of people at a lot of firms is a fair point. But in this specific case, her questioning and his reaction makes it pretty clear that, for whatever reasons, we've got a dirty little secret one side can't reveal and the other doesn't want to reveal.

[Jason]

“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.”

[Jason]

 

[CayceG]

5 minutes ago, Jason said:

“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.”

 

This quote is the truth and a fact. Collins is being duped. 

[RedSoxFan9]

10 hours ago, MarSolo said:

I may be sexually attracted to Kamala Harris.

 

I'd ask her to intimidate me like I was Jeff Sessions.

 

She’ll send you to jail if your kid skips school 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, CayceG said:

 

This quote is the truth and a fact. Collins is being duped. 

Susan is the most easily duped/grifted GOP senator by far.

[Firewithin]

15 minutes ago, CayceG said:

 

This quote is the truth and a fact. Collins is being duped. 

this is if you even believe she was ever going to vote No in the first place.  which she wasnt

[osxmatt]

I watched the entire 12 hour hearing yesterday, and there was something that became crystal clear.

 

Brett Kavanaugh is a pretty average conservative judge, on most issues. However, there are two specific issues where he is well outside the judicial norm, and holds opinions that are not found in any statute or precedent. That is presidential power and abortion.

 

It's not surprising the WH and GOP committee members are withholding documents. But's it obvious from just one day of testimony that he has deeply held personal convictions that he uses the judiciary to carry out.

[Greatoneshere]

8 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

I watched the entire 12 hour hearing yesterday, and there was something that became crystal clear.

 

Brett Kavanaugh is a pretty average conservative judge, on most issues. However, there are two specific issues where he is well outside the judicial norm, and holds opinions that are not found in any statute or precedent. That is presidential power and abortion.

 

It's not surprising the WH and GOP committee members are withholding documents. But's it obvious from just one day of testimony that he has deeply held personal convictions that he uses the judiciary to carry out.

 

Kavanugh isn't a conservative judge legally - he's a conservative judge politically, and that makes all the difference in the world. He isn't a conservative judge in the "I keep to precedent" stance, because he's shown he's willing to overturn precedent. He's an activist judge in a boring, bland person's clothing, and we should be very wary of him. I think you are right on the money. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

He very easily could have said that to his knowledge, he hadn't. He's under oath, so he wouldn't be lying if he was not aware that someone he had spoken to worked at that firm. Nobody would have held that against him. His caginess here is the issue.

His initial response was “I’m not remembering” and then she goes to the “yes or no” push. He asks for more specificity regarding the person Harris has in mind and she won’t do it.

 

56 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

I was under the impression that Harris was restrained from being too direct with that information because of the various games Republicans are playing to restrict what Dems can ask about.

 

Could be. Just seemed like typical cross tactics, which Harris is very familiar with. Is there some particular rule the chair put into play that restricted her from asking the specific person?