The 78 page politics thread

Moderators: shutout, evs' Boytoy, Irish Mike

Locked

1001.9508 » Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:12 pm



What's your theory on her actions?
Who cares. Whatever DF's intentions are makes no difference on whether kavanaugh did it or not
Thanks Hilary.
Please explain

Wait

We know you can’t.

1002.gatorbreeze » Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:20 pm


This is a very popular theory. Any proof beyond people saying that must be it?
What's your theory on her actions?
I’d say it’s possible. But it’s also obvious there has been interactions with the press too. The source might be her lawyer.

Do you have proof it was Feinstein? You all seem to need video, audio, a confession, dna and have seen it with your own eyes for anything related to a Republican. Where is your evidence on Feinstein?
I thought df herself said she had the letter and sent it to the FBI?

1003.gatorbreeze » Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:23 pm


This is a very popular theory. Any proof beyond people saying that must be it?
What's your theory on her actions?
Who cares. Whatever DF's intentions are makes no difference on whether kavanaugh did it or not
9508 said it was a popular theory, I thought he might have a different one. I'm not losing sleep over it not even working up a half a shit. Y'all are going to blow a gasket before you hit your 40s. :smoke:

1004.9508 » Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:34 pm



What's your theory on her actions?
I’d say it’s possible. But it’s also obvious there has been interactions with the press too. The source might be her lawyer.

Do you have proof it was Feinstein? You all seem to need video, audio, a confession, dna and have seen it with your own eyes for anything related to a Republican. Where is your evidence on Feinstein?
I thought df herself said she had the letter and sent it to the FBI?
She did. Does that mean she leaked it to the press?

User avatar 1005.GFY » Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:47 pm



Who cares. Whatever DF's intentions are makes no difference on whether kavanaugh did it or not
Thanks Hilary.
Please explain

Wait

We know you can’t.
Sure asshole. Back when Hilary testified about Benghazi she said “what difference does it make?”
Your dem buddy Ramp practically said the same thing. Hence, I called him Hilary.
Do I need to draw you pictures too?

1006.9508 » Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:54 pm



Thanks Hilary.
Please explain

Wait

We know you can’t.
Sure asshole. Back when Hilary testified about Benghazi she said “what difference does it make?”
Your dem buddy Ramp practically said the same thing. Hence, I called him Hilary.
Do I need to draw you pictures too?
Wow. Quick question. What difference does it make?

1007.rampart » Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:56 pm



Thanks Hilary.
Please explain

Wait

We know you can’t.
Sure asshole. Back when Hilary testified about Benghazi she said “what difference does it make?”
Your dem buddy Ramp practically said the same thing. Hence, I called him Hilary.
Do I need to draw you pictures too?
:lol:

1008.gatorbreeze » Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:57 pm


I’d say it’s possible. But it’s also obvious there has been interactions with the press too. The source might be her lawyer.

Do you have proof it was Feinstein? You all seem to need video, audio, a confession, dna and have seen it with your own eyes for anything related to a Republican. Where is your evidence on Feinstein?
I thought df herself said she had the letter and sent it to the FBI?
She did. Does that mean she leaked it to the press?
Perhaps. Could be the alleged victim's lawyer, or the FBI, could be another senator. I have no idea.

1009.9508 » Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:23 pm



I thought df herself said she had the letter and sent it to the FBI?
She did. Does that mean she leaked it to the press?
Perhaps. Could be the alleged victim's lawyer, or the FBI, could be another senator. I have no idea.
Ok, all fair. Just pointing out the double standards

User avatar 1010.ufgators68 » Sat Sep 22, 2018 7:46 pm

Image

:lol:

Image

1011.9508 » Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:18 pm

Yes. She is the problem with the process.

1012.PG. » Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:33 pm

Is that the only picture that exists of this woman?

1013.HG 2.0 » Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:57 pm

Is that the only picture that exists of this woman?
Image

User avatar 1014.panamag8or » Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:15 pm

Jeez, football's on... give it a rest

User avatar 1015.ufgators68 » Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:24 pm

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/us/p ... endar.html
Kavanaugh to Give Senate Calendars From 1982 to Back Up Denial

WASHINGTON — Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has calendars from the summer of 1982 that he plans to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that do not show a party consistent with the description of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, according to someone working for his confirmation.

The calendars do not disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations, Judge Kavanaugh’s team acknowledged. He could have attended a party that he did not list. But his team will argue to the senators that the calendars provide no corroboration for her account of a small gathering at a house where he allegedly pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothing.

The calendar pages from June, July and August 1982, which were examined by The New York Times, show that Judge Kavanaugh was out of town much of the summer at the beach or away with his parents. When he was at home, the calendars list his basketball games, movie outings, football workouts and college interviews. A few parties are mentioned but include names of friends other than those identified by Dr. Blasey...

Image

1016.9508 » Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:29 pm

You guys are thrilled to be defending a guy that isn’t going to fuck your argument with a stupid tweet. Admit it.

User avatar 1017.GFY » Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:25 am

I like the idea of a censure for Feinstein.
Regardless of the fate of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, the Senate should censure the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein. Her deception and maneuvering, condemned across the political spectrum, seriously interfered with the Senate’s performance of its constitutional duty to review judicial nominations, and unquestionably has brought the Senate into “dishonor and disrepute,” the standard that governs these matters. As a matter of institutional integrity, the Senate cannot let this wrong go unaddressed.

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution provides that each House of the Congress may “punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour.” Nine times in American history the Senate has used that power to censure one of its members. Feinstein has richly earned the right to join this inglorious company.

The senior senator from California not only disgraced herself personally in the underhanded and disingenuous way she dealt with the sex-assault charge against Judge Kavanaugh, but she also misused her position on the Judiciary Committee and broke faith with her fellow committee members. She was further, to quote the San Francisco Chronicle, no less, “unfair” to Judge Kavanaugh — manipulating the public disclosure of the charge so as to maximize the adverse publicity Judge Kavanaugh received and minimize the judge’s opportunity to defend himself. Censure is appropriate in this case for the Senate to defend its procedures and institutional reputation.

By her own account, Feinstein was aware of the charge shortly after President Trump nominated Kavanaugh, nearly two months before her committee opened its hearings. She came into possession of the letter making the charge by virtue of her position on the Judiciary Committee. We don’t know what contact she had thereafter with the accuser or the accuser’s Democrat-activist Washington lawyer — but we do know that Feinstein kept the information from her Senate colleagues, ensuring it was untested and unmentioned in the committee’s hearings. This, even though the hearings were accompanied by loud complaints from Democrats that the administration’s document production was insufficient. Indeed, as this is being written, while yet another Judiciary Committee hearing has been scheduled, she still has not released the unredacted text of the letter that made the charge.

Her conduct has been condemned all across the political spectrum. Her hometown newspaper, the left-leaning Chronicle, editorialized that she chose “the worst possible course” in dealing with the charge. The Chronicle specifically noted that her treatment of the more than three-decade-old assault charge was “unfair to Feinstein’s colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — on the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Across the political aisle, her conduct was called “totally dishonest and dirty” in the pages of the Washington Examiner; the Wall Street Journal, more restrained, described her conduct as “highly irregular.”

In substance, she “deliberately misled and deceived” her fellow senators, with the “effect of impeding discovery of evidence” relevant to the performance of their constitutional duties. No one should know better than Feinstein herself that such deceptive and obstructive conduct, widely regarded as “unacceptable,” “fully deserves censure,” so that “future generations of Americans . . . know that such behavior is not only unacceptable but also bears grave consequences,” bringing “shame and dishonor” to the person guilty of it and to the office that person holds, who has “violated the trust of the American people.” These quoted words all come from the resolution of censure Feinstein herself introduced concerning President Bill Clinton’s behavior in connection with his sex scandal. She can hardly be heard to complain if she is held to the same standard.

Comparison with other past censure cases only makes Feinstein’s situation look worse. The last three senators censured, Thomas Dodd, Herman Talmadge, and Dave Durenberger, were all condemned for financial hanky-panky: converting campaign contributions to personal use and the like. They were all found to have brought the Senate into “dishonor and disrepute” even though nothing they had done implicated the Senate’s performance of its constitutional duties. Feinstein, in sharpest contrast, sought to keep her committee from timely and properly investigating an apparently serious charge of misconduct, and is still doing so, even in the face of criticism from all (or most) quarters.

As the second-richest member of the Senate, with a net worth of $94 million, Feinstein is presumably above the temptations to which Dodd, Talmadge, and Durenberger succumbed. She does, however, face a difficult reelection campaign, with a serious enthusiasm gap on her left, the California Democratic party having refused to endorse her bid for a sixth term in office. Her conduct in arranging matters to make her appear the champion of an allegedly abused constituent, and perhaps positioning herself as the woman who sank the Kavanaugh nomination, can only help on that flank. Is a nakedly political motive for senatorial misbehavior any less reprehensible than a financial one?

How does she stack up against the most famously censured senator, Joe McCarthy? While what people remember is McCarthy’s trafficking in smears and innuendoes — immortalized in Joseph Welch’s “have you no sense of decency” reproach — McCarthy was actually condemned for “non-cooperation with and abuse of” one Senate subcommittee and abuse of another. The words of McCarthy’s condemnation — that his conduct “tended . . . to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity” — fit Feinstein’s conduct as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee like a glove.


And if trafficking in smears and innuendoes is relevant, consider what Feinstein did: Not only did she fail in her committee duties, but she did everything she could to make the charge public in a way that made the target’s defense difficult or impossible. The charge was lodged anonymously, and rather than subjecting it to vetting by her fellow senators, Feinstein made a transparently groundless referral of the matter to the FBI — as if there could conceivably be a federal law-enforcement dimension to the decades-old claim of sexual assault — which the FBI, to its credit, unceremoniously filed away. Left hanging in the glare of a still-untested sexual-assault charge — which today has the same resonance that a charge of Communist sympathies had in McCarthy’s day — are Judge Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters. They are in a far worse position than was the young lawyer in whose defense Welch made his famous statement.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/ ... d-censure/

1018.rampart » Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:34 am

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/us/p ... endar.html
Kavanaugh to Give Senate Calendars From 1982 to Back Up Denial

WASHINGTON — Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has calendars from the summer of 1982 that he plans to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that do not show a party consistent with the description of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, according to someone working for his confirmation.

The calendars do not disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations, Judge Kavanaugh’s team acknowledged. He could have attended a party that he did not list. But his team will argue to the senators that the calendars provide no corroboration for her account of a small gathering at a house where he allegedly pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothing.

The calendar pages from June, July and August 1982, which were examined by The New York Times, show that Judge Kavanaugh was out of town much of the summer at the beach or away with his parents. When he was at home, the calendars list his basketball games, movie outings, football workouts and college interviews. A few parties are mentioned but include names of friends other than those identified by Dr. Blasey...
So he didn't put that he went to a party on a calendar? I'm sorry, but unless he has one that says he had an appointment, that can be corroborated, at the supposed time of the incident then so fucking what. Really grasping for straws here :lol:

User avatar 1019.ufgators68 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:46 am

Well, if she can specify a date that the assault occurred, then he can reference the calendar and see if he is guilty.

Image

User avatar 1020.ufgators68 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:09 am

Another one comes forward to say Kavanaugh assaulted her... and the people she named, for having knowledge of it, have already said she is full of shit.

The crazies are comng out now.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... ah-ramirez

Image

User avatar 1021.GFY » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:15 am

How about the one where Sen Hirono from Hawaii took campaign contributions from someone that admitted to beating his wife. What a great moral compass she is.

https://freebeacon.com/politics/mazie-h ... ting-wife/

1022.MoralityULack » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:36 am

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/us/p ... endar.html
Kavanaugh to Give Senate Calendars From 1982 to Back Up Denial

WASHINGTON — Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has calendars from the summer of 1982 that he plans to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that do not show a party consistent with the description of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, according to someone working for his confirmation.

The calendars do not disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations, Judge Kavanaugh’s team acknowledged. He could have attended a party that he did not list. But his team will argue to the senators that the calendars provide no corroboration for her account of a small gathering at a house where he allegedly pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothing.

The calendar pages from June, July and August 1982, which were examined by The New York Times, show that Judge Kavanaugh was out of town much of the summer at the beach or away with his parents. When he was at home, the calendars list his basketball games, movie outings, football workouts and college interviews. A few parties are mentioned but include names of friends other than those identified by Dr. Blasey...
So he didn't put that he went to a party on a calendar? I'm sorry, but unless he has one that says he had an appointment, that can be corroborated, at the supposed time of the incident then so fucking what. Really grasping for straws here :lol:
Come on, dont try to make excuses. When I was in school I put all my parties on the calendar. When it started, when I got home, who was there, who had what drugs, prices, what I took, who had sex with who, and of course who I raped.

User avatar 1023.evs' Boytoy » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:57 am

:lol:

1024.Juggs » Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:53 am

Image

1025.HG 2.0 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:37 pm

So he didn't put that he went to a party on a calendar? I'm sorry, but unless he has one that says he had an appointment, that can be corroborated, at the supposed time of the incident then so fucking what. Really grasping for straws here :lol:
Come on, dont try to make excuses. When I was in school I put all my parties on the calendar. When it started, when I got home, who was there, who had what drugs, prices, what I took, who had sex with who, and of course who I raped.
How leftist of you ... there was no rape .... he is accused of copping a feel .... I’m sure your innocent pure soul never touched a girl before
Sort by

« Sports, Entertainment, and Everything Else