Since Justice Thomas, there has been an expectation that Republican nominees for the Supreme Court lie during their confirmation hearings. Thomas pretending that he wasn’t sexually harassing Anita Hill. George W. Bush’s nominees pretending that they didn’t have an opinion on roe. That kept going under Trump.
But yeah. Kavanaugh is worse. Just brazenly lying about who he talked to about the Muller investigation. Knowable facts. At this point, not only should the Senate not support him, the House should probably impeach him.
Wherein Trump harangues his supporters that if he’s impeached it’ll be their fault.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/06/politics/trump-impeach-your-fault/index.html
#waytobuildabase
I guess that was inevitable.
Might as well blame the morons who voted for him. For once he’s telling the truth. It IS their fault. All of it.
It can’t be the fault of Spartacus.
Marco Rubio✔
@marcorubio
On this day in 71B.C. the Thracian gladiator Spartacus was put to death by Marcus Licinius Crassus for disclosing confidential scrolls. When informed days later that in fact the Roman Senate had already publicly released the scrolls, Crassus replied “Oh, ok, my bad”.
5:04 AM – Sep 7, 2018
Shouldn’t Carl direct his anger at former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?
Or twice-failed Democratic presidential candidate and enabler of a rapist Hillary Clinton?
Weakness externalized appears no less weak.
4,
however literary the pussy, still a pussy.
The Chair and his little buddy from Texas had to eat a great big BBC all the way down. In front of millions of voters.
Carl,
although the expectation has been that the nominees are probably concealing much of their bias, there has not been a documented case of perjury. This nomination may be very different.
Many nominees have been asked to explain their past documented statements and comments that would otherwise indicate a profound or at least concerning legal bias about a matter likely to come before the court. They are given the opportunity to explain to the committee and the public how those statements and comments can be squared with their obligation to hear and consider cases that come before the court without any bias. Some have done better than others. Some have been put on political trial for those statements and comments. But that’s still a normal part of the process. It’s hard to imagine any potential nominee reaching this point in a sufficiently accomplished legal career without making at least a few statements that might reveal bias. The committee and the public have a right to expect the nominees to explain and justify those comments. But we really shouldn’t expect nominees to come before the committee without a history of expressing opinions about a matter of public and legal importance.
But the case with Judge Kavanaugh appears to be entirely different and quite unprecedented. If true, this would be a case of sworn testimony before the committee that can be documented to have constituted a provable lie. Also known as perjury. Lying in almost any official context is a professionally disqualifying act for a lawyer most of the time. Perjury is common grounds for disbarment.
Of course, Judge Kavanaugh should absolutely have the opportunity to explain to the committee how his previous sworn testimony was either fundamentally true, or failing at that, an innocent act of misunderstanding. The burden in a case such as this, for a lifetime appointment to the highest court, should lie with the nominee. If he refuses, is not forthcoming, or simply plays dumb, that’s quite a bit different from playing dumb about potential biases. This isn’t about bias. This is about swearing a false statement.
There’s just never been a committee leadership at any time in the past that was willing to continue forward with a nominee’s scheduled hearings and vote for confirmation under circumstances similar to these. It would be absolutely unprecedented for the committee to offer the nomination for a vote to confirm while a question of criminal perjury on the part of the nominee remains unresolved.
My thoughts on who the op-ed saboteur might be:
http://handbill.us/2018/09/07/the-guessing-game/
In re 7,
I thought I should also add:
The question of the factual discrepancy between the nominee’s previous sworn statements before the committee and the limited documentary record is certainly a question the nominee should be expected to explain to the committee. But the committee also should be expected, given the gravity of the underlying discrepancy, to do a more thorough review of the documentary record. At least a bit more than 10%.
Again, under circumstances like these, it would be entirely unprecedented for the committee to proceed to a vote without having undertaken a more comprehensive review of the nominee’s record. If only a cursory examination of the nominee’s documentary record reveals these kinds of gravely serious, potentially criminal lapses then in the normal course of the committee’s business they would reschedule a vote until a more thorough review were possible.
Of course none of that is going to happen. The nominee will be confirmed. He will not be held to answer to these discrepancies. His professional record will go largely unexamined. And the other eight members of the court will have no choice but to accommodate themselves to working alongside a person they have no good reason to doubt may be a criminal liar.
Because FREEDUMB!
The sort of thing that results from the last time the GOP went all-in to force a flawed nominee onto the court:
Trump won. Elections have consequences. Everything has changed.
This is really who Republicans are now.
@7 Actually the committee does not need to hold up a nomination because some members feel the nominee was less than truthful. Might be better to skip the circus and the committee makes a recommendation and sends it to the floor of the Senate for a vote. There are many potential nominees that are not going to be nominated by any President of either party because they expressed an opinion or they have a large number of cases or just a case with some controversy.
And of course they cannot tell Senators the real truth. If the Senate and Congress does not like Roe v. Wade thy can pass a law or pass a constitutional amendment. When Congress fails to do its job because of schism and the court is placed in the position of making a decision on something the Congress will not act on, the court may still have to make a ruling on a controversial matter though it would be far far better for Congress to have done its job and the court can simply review the statute.
And of course judges cannot comment on a matter that might go before the court at some time in the future, so Senate members place nominees in a precarious position. Look here in Washington we have a somewhat silly law in one county that makes shooting bigfoot illegal. Can a judge in that county or the state appeals or supreme court comment on what they may rule on the law. Since it cannot be proven that the cryptoid does not exist the judges should not comment on any possible ruling, though the brave judge that calls it poppycock should be applauded, but will likely never get onto the US district court or higher. Now if the law were in some
Washington state county you cannot shoot god that would be constitutionally interesting. Presumable it is constitutional as no legislative body in these United States would ever pass a unconstitutional law and no mayor or governor would ever sign such a law, and if they veto such a law no legislature would override an impeachment, nor use it to impeach a sitting President (Johnson).
@5 No. That would be like blaming Weimar for Hitler. In fact, Hitler’s supporters and minions were to blame. But I understand why they tried to pass the fault to someone else. A gallows is an ugly thing.
@9 Of course all 8 of them have been though the same circus, and know others who refuse to go through the process, or were felled by the process. they will welcome the new Supreme with martinis privately, introduce him to being in charge of the cafeteria, and coffee. Ruth will give tips on how to deal with being famous and movie contract negotiations. Thomas may actually speak now that he is out of the shadow of Scalia. It will be all very collegial, and a little clubby and rather stuffy.
They will save the first discussion of substantive due process until tomorrow, looking forward with glee on which will win the bet on when the new justices eyes will glaze over. Hey their clerks really do know how to keep secrets.
@9 They should review his credit card records too, to see who he’s into, for how much, and how far behind he is with his payments.
@12 Or the Treaty of Versailles? Odd the allies after WWII did not want a repeat.
In the middle east that treaty is still a special present to humanity.
Re: Kavanaugh and the perjury trap-
It’s worth recalling here that the senior leadership in the Senate, including the senior GOP leadership on the committee did not want this nominee. Because of his past professional record they worried that he would be difficult to get through confirmation without some problem (just like this one) coming up and derailing it.
Kav was pushed by McGahan and Sessions, the FedSoc, and a group of “establishment” conservatives inside the WH who are all now suspected of (choose as many as you think apply):
a) cooperating with the DERP STATE WITCH HUNT!!!!
b) obstructing the duly elected Poosey Grabper in Chief from Gabpink Poosey
c) calling Cheeto Jeebus names behind his back
d) writing anonymous OpEds in the NYT
e) secretly plotting a 25th amendment coup
f) touching PornSweat’s Pringles when he isn’t looking
g) all of the above
In other words, the President now hates these guys and all their shit.
This nominee was considered a problem long before “I am Spartacus”. And for reasons having nothing to do with ideology. At least a few GOP members of the committee were openly pissed about it. So it wouldn’t be tremendously difficult, or in any way provocative for the Chair and the Majority Leader to respectfully request either a longer and more thorough review of the more than 90% of documents that the White House is hiding under a desk, or a better fucking nominee – one just as committed to locking up the vaginas and stopping all the darkies from voting of course. There are plenty available.
So it’s worth asking why the ride-or-die commitment to this particular nominee? The answer, I think, lies in what is planned for after the mid terms. If they do what I strongly suspect they are planning to do, there is just no way in hell they could get an ideologically biased nominee through confirmation in November and December without a few bluer-state Republicans jumping ship. The politics of a constitutional crisis to upend the rule of law would probably tend to be a bit too “defensive”. If that’s really what’s going on, then this guy is their only shot at a true ideological bias shift in the court majority. And the entire GOP is complicit in the constitutional shit storm PornSweat is planning to unleash during the holidays.
@14 Cannot bash a judge for liking America’s pastime. And asking those kind of questions about sitting judges may get similar questions about sitting Senate members.
@11 “Actually the committee does not need to hold up a nomination because some members feel the nominee was less than truthful.”
True enough. The majority party can ram through the confirmation of one of their own political operatives and party hacks, no matter how dishonest he is, with little or no scrutiny. When you have the votes to do whatever you like, country be damned, then “advise and consent” can be anything you want it to be.
None of them are guilty of criminal perjury.
#nuthinburger
Trump won. Elections have consequences. Everything has changed.
This is really who Shortbus is now.
@13 “Of course all 8 of them have been though the same circus”
False equivalency bullshit, which seems to be your specialty. Their confirmations weren’t like this unprecedented railroad job.
@16 Well those Senate leaders successfully kept Garland off. Never gave him a hearing. Kavanaugh got a hearing, and the Republican members will vote for him and the Democratic members will vote against. All done in ways for campaign adds, and there will be a vote.
Maye they will get their preference should RGB or another member pass. It might be amazing how quickly the majority party can do things it has set a priority on in the S Senate should the opportunity come during the present congress.
File under “Good Guys With Guns”
@15 The Treaty of Versailles, whatever its flaws, was not responsible for Hitler. His supporters were responsible for him and everything that flowed from his elevation to power. They enabled it and carried it out. Nobody else. Their fault, period.
Elections have consequences. You get what you vote for, and you’re responsible for what flows from it. You. Not circumstances.
@20 I suppose you won’t be buying the Supremes next album.
18,
“True enough. The majority party can ram through the confirmation of
one of their own political operatives and party hacks, no matter how dishonest he is,a serial killer cannibal covered in blood with chunks of human flesh hanging off his lips with little or no scrutiny.”ftfy
And a subsequent majority can impeach his ass and replace him with a qualified justice.
Regardless of party affiliation, ideology or bias, if the nominee is a criminal he does not belong on the court and the Congress will have a duty to remove him. Perhaps some future Congress will. Under these circumstances it might be best to let the process unfold in the way that McConnell has planned it, and then take action much later.
@17 You don’t have to prove you’re stupid enough to think it’s okay to put someone who can’t manage his own personal finances on the Supreme Court. Everyone posting here already knows that.
@23 The treaty of Versailles had consequences. It made the rise of fascism possible. It gave the world fascism with Mussolini and Italy was on the winning side. It ultimately gave us Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, ec. The treaty gave the world WWII. It made a second WW inevitable even if Hitler had never come to power. It did not give us communism, but keeping Russia out of the negotiations certainly put a spell on the new USSR.
The treaty made for a weak Germany. It did succeed there. It made for a week Weimar Republic, and the Allies certainly extracted a lot from Germany while not acknowledging their own part in the interlocking secret treaties at the start of the war. WWI certainly killed the pre war hopes of a better Europe based upon the nobility of Europe and Queen Victoria’s inroads into the royal families of Europe, and the end of those houses in much of Europe. Probably for the better, but thus far the British seen unwilling to consider Oliver Cromwell’s alternative to a royal family.
@21 “Well those Senate leaders successfully kept Garland off. ”
No, they didn’t. Garland got no confirmation process. “Those Senate leaders” you refer to blocked the confirmation process mandated by the Constitution from ever taking place.
What they did wasn’t “advise and consent”; they prevented the Senate from exercising its constitutional role and duty. It was illegitimate and contemptuous of our democracy.
@26 Exactly how does that disqualify him? And just how do you define financial mishandling. Seems the man really like baseball and got in over his head. Appears he has managed the situation, might mean he could be a little more sympathetic to folks who have gotten in over their heads over medical bills. Then again maybe not. Just tells me the guy is a human being. No indication his financial issues affected his rulings on the bench, and making such a conclusion would be difficult.
I don’t think the whole season ticket thing is of any real consequence, and you are just posturing. Lots of folks in DC owe a lot more on their home on first or second mortgages some of which one might argue they cannot afford.
@22 How can you not realize you’re not in your own apartment, unless you’re drunk out of your mind?
@24 Yeah, I get it. No, it’s not funny. It’s lame.
@25 I was trying to be diplomatic about it.
@28 And President Obama could have seated his man on the court in response for a year. The President did not. All I can say is well played on the Senate leadership of that time. And an innovative play at that. Bravo.
Maybe a return to how business was done in the 1900s would have not allowed such a play in the first place. Supreme Court justices were not such a big deal then, and something much closer to the constitutions advise and consent took place. I doubt very much based on how the first Congress dealt with the nominations for the first court is how it should be done, and it was very boring. Not much fan fare and no circus hearings. Washington, Adams, Jefferson nominated, and the Senate advised and consented with little or no fuss. Not much more than the candidate is breathing, knows something about the law, is a citizen, and is a competent human being. Man we wish that baseball had been invented so we can take the afternoon off and watch the Senators.
Booker’s a fool.
Kamala Harris served up a nothingburger.
Who knew, before this week, that the two of them follow the same blogs that Goldy does?
@27 No, the supporters of fascist dictators gave us fascism and World War 2. The Treaty of Versailles was bad policy, but had already been substantially modified by the mid-1920s, when Hitler was still nearly unknown in German politics. Historians point to many factors that created fertile ground for the rise of someone like Hitler, but the responsibility for Hitler lies entirely with the Germans who CHOSE Hitler. They had other choices.
Likewise, today in the United States, the responsibility for Trump lies with Trump and those who voted for him. Nobody else. It’s not Hillary’s or Obama’s fault, or the economy’s fault, or climate change’s fault; it’s Trump voters’ fault.
@ 25
Under these circumstances it might be best to let the process unfold in the way that McConnell has planned it, and then take action much later.
You’ll be dead long before Dems surpass 60 Senate votes again, Roger Dumbfuck Rabbit. All of the rest of us will be dead before they reach 67.
@25 If what you are saying is true. And lets assume it is. Then why has there not one Representative in the House initiated the impeachment process prior to the mans nomination? Must be all his good behavior. And gee all these federal judges must be doing a lot of good behavior as not one has had impeachment started in the house, nor been impeached, nor removed by the senate in decades. And then like only one. Leaving us with your patisan rhetoric you trot out every time a Republican President nominates someone to the court, and the Republicans bring out their own aged cheese whenever a Democratic President has a nominee. It is simply politicizing the Senates job. I think these Senators time would have been better spent at a Senators baseball game as they are not doing the peoples business. And all your sound and fury goes in the crapper when the two Democratic Senators from West Virginia and Indiana vote for the guy to sit as a Supreme. And most likely Schumer will let them as he knows those seats have a strong chance of going Republican if those Senators vote against, and that is the pollical calculation that matters in all of this horse manure you are throwing out. Or maybe you all are shadow Republicans and you want the Senate in Republican hands.
@36 I agree it’s not going to be in the next 5 years that the Dems will get 60 votes in the Senate. It will be interesting if they restore certain rules or no if they get a majority. In ten years they could have 60 votes because they ran a great candidate who had tails It happens. Might involve some great calamity or economic crises, but the American voter is fickle, yet the right candidate can inspire. 4 years later they can be out. Ala Jimmy Carter, who I think is a vastly superior ex President than Obama or Clinton, and outshines most of the Republican ex Presidents who at least we expect to do big money speeches for wall street, the oil industry and Republican business friends.
36,
It will require a simple majority to compel document production from the White House necessary to determine if the nominee committed perjury in 2004 (or at any other time). That could happen in only a few months.
If a future majority in either chamber convenes an investigation and issues subpoenas the Republican members could be faced with difficult and costly choices for many years to come. Perjury is something lawyers really hate. They don’t toss the charge around lightly, and neither do I. Congress was absolutely correct in voting articles of impeachment over President Clinton’s perjury in Jones. You’ll want to recall that was over a blowjob. This would be about lying your way onto the highest court. There may yet be more than one or two Republican in the Senate who take the Constitution seriously enough to have concerns about that.
It’s entirely up to the current Senate majority whether or not this nominee answers these questions and clears this up before he is confirmed. But it is not up to the current Senate majority whether or not these questions are answered.
@ 38
It will be interesting if they restore certain rules or no if they get a majority.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR…
That response has been posted by a Dumbfuck. Numerous times.
38,
in which Shortbus demonstrates that Doctor Dumbfuck is just as stupid as he is.
I’m not sure which of you two should be prouder.
@35 All those bad Italian’s and Germans. How dare they! Let us blame them for all of humanities ills. The fact the Italians and Germans who gave us Hitler and Mussolini are now dead is helpful as they cannot push back here. Just tear up a couple of copies of Time from the 1930’s, and forget to mention the support MI-5 gave both of them. Fortunately the US was withdrawn and not participating much in the game and world politics. NOt even a member of the League of Nations, so none of all that stuff was any of our fault. Not even turning awayJ ews from Germany, not our fault. Nope we had no role whatsoever in giving the world WWII. And people like General Patton who said Hitler and the war was our fault was just to be ignored and told to shut up. And if we cannot blame them then blame the Russians, as they are all bad people for supporting that jack booted Putin. Well at least he is not a fascist.
@41 Of course Ii also believe the Democratic and Republican parties can go the way of the Whigs and most likely will at some point in history, or the names maybe coopted by another group. There is no guarantee a political party will continue as is into the indefinite future. Like rock musicians parties must change to stay relevant. There is always the challenge of switching from a regular guitar to a electric guitar can screw your career for sometime. You certainly loose fans for awhile.
Turns out Spartacus is everywhere!
Like I said, not about ideology or even bias.
By now voters fully expect elected officials and pols to have pitched battles over ideology and political bias when it comes to these nominations. Most of them probably don’t expect them to set aside the criminal codes in the process and place a nominee above the law.
He will be confirmed.
But at what cost? And who will make them pay?
43,
regardless of how the political parties and their respective ideologies may change in the many-worlds sci-fi fantasy of your comic book future, there will almost certainly still be a criminal statute making it illegal to swear a false statement in front of a US Senate hearing.
Some things are just timeless like that.
Like you and Dumbfuck always being idiots.
“How hard can it be to say Nazis are bad?” former two-term President Obama asked Illinois college students today.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/07/politics/barack-obama-illinois-midterms-speech/index.html
I guess it depends on who you are.
You, too, can be replaced.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-montana-rally-people-replaced_us_5b926b14e4b0162f472c5612
All it takes is a little Photoshopping.
Photoshopped off the face of the earth! How you like them apples?
Sorta like what Hitler did, but without the smokestacks.
@36 You talking to me? I didn’t post #25, dumbfuck. Learn how to read.
@37 “And gee all these federal judges must be doing a lot of good behavior as not one has had impeachment started in the house, nor been impeached, nor removed by the senate in decades. And then like only one.”
Not true. A federal judge was impeached and removed in 2010, and another resigned in lieu of impeachment proceedings in 2009. Three federal judges were impeached and removed in the 1980s.
You really should research statements like that before posting them, my little kitten. It’s called fact-checking. In this day and age of the internet, it’s not hard and doesn’t take very long. You may be able to get away with sloppy facts on the righwing blogs you frequent — in fact, it’s probably encouraged there — but on this blog, intellectual rigor is more demanding, and factual accuracy is expected. You’ve been here for a while now, so you should know by now that when you get facts wrong you’re going to be called out on it. You’ve had plenty of experience with that, so you know better, and it’s time for you to clean up your act.
@37 “Leaving us with your patisan rhetoric you trot out every time … ”
It’s what we do here. This is a political blog and it’s frequented by two kinds of posters: Liberal shills and conservative trolls.
I’m a Democratic party hack and liberal propagandist. I’m not sure what you are, besides factually and logically challenged most of the time.
@37 “when the two Democratic Senators from West Virginia and Indiana vote for the guy to sit as a Supreme”
Maybe you should wait to see how they actually vote before posting something that could end up making you look like a dunce. Hey, I’m not saying they’ll vote “nay”; I don’t know. And neither do you.
@38 “I agree it’s not going to be in the next 5 years that the Dems will get 60 votes in the Senate.”
I won’t happen in this year’s midterms, because the Dems need 11 to get to 60, and only 8 GOP-held seats are up for election in 2018. But on paper, at least, it could happen in 2020, when 23 seats not held by Democrats will be up for election.
The rest of this discussion is about probabilities. In that respect, I think it’s a stretch, but possible.
@38 “In ten years they could have 60 votes because they ran a great candidate who had tails It happens. Might involve some great calamity or economic crises …”
I don’t think you’ll have to wait 10 years for the Trump clusterfuck to play out.
And what do Democrats need 60 Senate votes for? Does anyone really believe they’ll let Republicans obstruct a Democratic president and Congress again? The filibuster is already as good as gone for most purposes.
@40 I think Doctor Dumbfuck just called you a dumbfuck.
@42 “All those bad Italian’s and Germans. How dare they!”
It was taken care of.
“Let us blame them for all of humanities ills.”
As I recall, they were hanged only for the ones for which they were directly responsible.
“Just tear up a couple of copies of Time from the 1930’s, and forget to mention the support MI-5 gave both of them.”
I’m not sure you want to go there. In the 1930s, Time was run by a harcore conservative, and Nazi sympathizers in the U.S. were rightwingers.
Jason Kessler, who organized the Charlottesville Nazi/KKK rally, got socked in the mouth by a protester. “I was attacked in front of the whole world, and then people made fun of me for it,” Kessler later complained. Well yes, they did, because he’s a fucking clown. I mean, you organize a violent gathering, and then whine because somebody hit you? Anyway, a jury found his assailant guilty, and set the fine at $1. Well, that’s juries for ya. Next time, don’t hold your Nazi/KKK rally in a college town.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/man-who-punched-charlottesville-organizer-jason-kessler-fined-1_us_5b92943be4b0cf7b003f3d6e
No word on whether the jurors were laughing as they left the courthouse.
@ 39
It will require a simple majority to compel document production from the White House necessary to determine if the nominee committed perjury in 2004 (or at any other time). That could happen in only a few months.
The House and Senate majorities are GOP, and the GOP-led State and Justice Departments have been dragging their feet on document production for years in some recent cases. What makes you think that the DOJ and State will respond more favorably to opposition-party requests?
House is still waiting for some 302s requested quite awhile ago and they are nowhere near being produced.
Curious
”Nike is getting Hammered”
60,
why do you do this to yourself? Has this lately common practice of public self humiliation by GOP owngoals become universal?
The records are the property of the National Archives. Every fucking piece of correspondence, every memo, every email, every note Mr. FedSoc Robot ever wrote, responded to, or marked up while he was working for W has been scanned, digitized, and archived because it is public property. Perhaps with enough encouragement from dipshits like you, PornSweat will cotton on to the fact that he runs the NA, and somehow order them to refuse to comply with a lawful subpoena. But unless you are suggesting the the records would somehow be “oopsie-daisey” destroyed they are there forever, available to be revealed and investigated. Which means that if at any future date the documents establish that the nominee lied under oath during his 2004 confirmation he can be charged with perjury, among other things.
Moreover, these aren’t the sensitive records of complex criminal investigations involving national security secrets. This is the backroom scheming of partisan hacks working in the Bush WH to railroad through an earlier batch of nominees – using stolen documents to do it, no less.
Of course, you are right about one thing, Dumbshit. Arrogant perverts in the PornSweat White House can engage in criminal obstruction to conceal or destroy records of a criminal conspiracy involving computer theft and lying under oath to the Senate. Yup. That is a thing. A thing they can do.
Promise me they will.
Correction to 62 in the interests of degrading a troll accurately:
This statement: Which means that if at any future date the documents establish that the nominee lied under oath during his 2004 confirmation he can be charged with perjury, among other things.
should be corrected to read:
Which means that if at any future date the documents establish that the nominee lied under oath during the 2004 Senate investigation into computer theft originating from the Bush White House or later at his 2006 confirmation hearing, he can be charged with perjury, among other things.
Perjury traps abound. And with less than 10% of the documents available for review. The mind boggles.
Dumbfuck, you might also want to ask yourself at this point, seeing as how you claim to be in it only for the judges and the hippie tears, why this nominee?
It’s probably true that at this point, and especially if PornSweat has a holiday surprise in store, you don’t have time to change horses (but you can still fuck ’em – sorry, I digress).
Still leaves me wondering why this guy? The courts are stacked deep with FedSoc Robots just waiting for the chance to padlock all the terrifying vajayjays, etc. etc.
And really, under the circumstances, this should have been a trouble free, painless walk-in run for the GOP. We’ve all seen this dance before. We know how it should go.
Seems to me you guys have allowed this thing to be done quite poorly. So poorly that, while I remain confident the nominee will be confirmed, his future may remain openly controversial and perhaps even in doubt (at least Thomas was black, eh?). On top of that, a process that should have resulted in committee Dems looking like whiny, sore losers so far has them appearing almost, dare I say, heroic? “No” votes have gotten easier for the Dems and “yes” votes have gotten harder for one or two Child Molesters. That is the exact opposite of how the leadership was supposed to stage manage this.
And to think all of this could have been avoided with a different nominee without all the baggage. Shouldn’t you guys be a little bit pissed that just because this nominee has a personal relationship with McGahan, Bash*, and a coterie of BushBots (most of whom PornSweat absolutely hates) you find yourselves jumping on grenades instead of tossing them?
I find myself wondering when Roypublicans will grow tired of the abuse.
*My money says Bash had to accompany AF1 out to Montana so she could “explain” her nominee prep work to Il Douche and join the “mile-high tear-filled apology club”. Good thing she inherited money.
Trump’s first crisis, and how he handled it.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/07/politics/trump-inauguration-photos/index.html
School cop tasers student sleeping in class.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ohio-cop-accused-of-using-taser-to-wake-sleeping-student_us_5b929283e4b0511db3e1cbb1
“And if that doesn’t wake him up, I’ll shoot him!!!”*
* The cop didn’t actually say that. I made it up. This is a political blog, and we sometimes take literary license to drive home a point.
Doing God’s work.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-mormon-leader-used-position-to-swindle-church-members-feds-say_us_5b92966ae4b0162f472ca964
And some for himself on the side, too.
@62 “why do you do this to yourself?”
Because he’s a dumbfuck.
At least Shortbus has an alibi. A doctor can’t get away with pleading stupidity.
@63 “Perjury traps abound.”
I noticed Giuliani announced his client will not submit to questioning about obstruction. Trump’s lawyer has a smidgeon of brains. It still remains to be seen whether his client does.
Trump is the kind of person who would eagerly confess to murders he didn’t commit because he craves the attention and notoriety it brings. It’s hard to represent clients like that.
@64 “you find yourselves jumping on grenades”
They finally figured out how to get medals.
Most of us were content just to not get blown to bits.
Speaking of getting blown up, candles are like mushrooms — don’t light ’em if you’re not sure what they are.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bridgeport-connecticut-woman-mistakes-dynamite-for-candle-during-power-outage-suffers-severe-injuries/
She moved into a black neighborhood and put up a Confederate flag, then Zeus tossed one of his lightning bolts with unerring accuracy …
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-a-confederate-flag-tore-a-neighborhood-apart-before-it-came-together/
@23 No voters in any of the nations that were signatory had any part in the treaty of Versailles. In fact the US Senate never got around to passing the treaty. So politically the treaty was dead and remains dead in these United States though to some degree US administrations kept to the treaty.
The XVII amendment was passed just in time that voters had voted in all the Senators who voted on whether to accept the treaty, but when Congress voted to go to war not all of the Senators had been elected by voters in their state.
As with the recent Iranian treaty we the people in the US do not get a vote on the treaty. Nor did the people of any other nation including Iran get an actual vote. Most of the signatories are some sort of democracy with citizens voting in elections, but frankly none of their citizens had any direct vote in the matter, and the treaty took many years to accomplish, and international politics played far more into the treaty than any nations voters. It lays bare as tripe this notion of elections having consequences or that the voters have a real say, when at least the framers of the US constitution did not entirely trust the citizenry. Giving the citizenry only direct election of their Representative in the House, a body left out of the treaty making endeavors of the United State.
This apparently is the perjury Elijah is talking about.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-to-congress-while-under-oath/
The Repukes will confirm him anyway. It’s who they are now.
@45 Last time I checked if the Senate feels they must go after someone for perjury they can start the proceedings, and hold hearings, but if it is to have merit it must be tried in a court of the United Sates. Perjury is notoriously hard to prove and the courts are sometimes reluctant to take such cases and federal trial judges often dismiss them out of hand citing separation of government and that the Congress is the body where arguments happen and they cannot come to the courts to resolve those arguments.
@40 In Congress or any legislature and especially parliaments it is great to the party in power, and it sucks to be the party out of power. And usually it’s a good thing neither party has a supermajority able to automatically overcome Presidential vetoes. In fact President Johnson survived removal from office because of 10 Republicans (Johnson was a democrat) who felt removing him from office would set a precedent where the party in power would remove any President of the opposite party and fully support their candidate. Since Nixon I thin those 10 Republicans all of whom lost their seats were very wise and did the country a great service.
@44 Most stories say he died in battle. Some say his body was never found. Still the Romans would have crucified the 6000 survivors of the revolt along the Appian way. The movie Spartacus is great theater and that is a great climax, but it’s not true, and it leaves out that Spartacus was only one of three leaders of the slave revolt. Was it plunder you wanted oh Spartacus when the way across the Alps was open to thee?
@46 Certainly helps if the guns are not pointed at you. Just ask Indian Jones. You can’t make some of those movies in Germany.
@51 Out of how many Federal judges, and clearly the number of judges facing impeachment has gone down. I don’t count judges who resign. And the majority of impeachments have not resulted in removal from office. And I suggest you not look up party affiliation of said judges who have been impeached. A lot of them are from one particular party. We have over a thousand trial judges and appeals and supreme court judges do manage to piss off congress from time to time. I guess we just got such great these days. None of them are corrupt and none have ever taken a bribe, my goodness the current judges of our United States are just full of good behavior and thank you for pointing that very fact out comparing the historical record to today. I noticed you have not suggested a single US federal judge who the house should impeach (Kavanaugh gets a pass due to the current hearings as his behavior has not been bad enough to begin an impeachment in the house. You got a list of judges not on good behavior there RR? Writing your representative because you are hoping mad and you want vigorous action? Please share.
@53 I don’t know how they will vote, but I bet their aides have tried to have discussion with Senator Schumer that they be allowed to vote their conscience,,,ie allowed to vote for the nominee so they keep their seats. And Senator Schumers remarks are thus far mixed, particularly since the Republican’s all seem to be likely to vote the nominee to the Supremes. And they surely think given the opportunity they can get through the process one more time prior to the end of the session. Though they are probably thankful for the gift Justice Kennedy has given them, might keep the Senate in the parties hands. All the actors are on the stage lets watch…of course the actual vote in the Senate matters. These Democratic gyrations do work better when a President is a lame duck, though in that case Trump may have elected a Republican leaning former Senator from Illinois, just to screw with them. I think the former Senator would be a somewhat conservative justice.
@55 Or the Democrats could screw it up like they nearly did with Nixon. They house almost impeached Nixon on the secret bombings in Cambodia, clearly a high crime or misdemeanor, (were some Senators complicit?) and had they done so and not gotten a conviction in the Senate history would be different. When the committee finally went to impeach Nixon in the final days the bombing charge was there, but it did not survive the committee and was not going to be charged. And yes Nixon should never have installed the tape machine in his office. Without the tapes his Presidency would have likely survived with no impeachment. And the imperial Presidency only slightly tattered.
@73 “No voters in any of the nations that were signatory had any part in the treaty of Versailles.”
That’s beside the point, and a red herring, as is your argument that we, as U.S. citizens, “do not get a vote” on the Iran nuclear agreement. Treaties are negotiated by the President and ratified by the Senate, and we elect both the President and our state’s Senators. The same rationale applies to France and Britain, both of which were parliamentary democracies at the time of the Versailles treaty.
The Versailles treaty didn’t cause the Third Reich. The German voters who voted the Nazi Party into power made it possible and brought it into being. Hitler didn’t overthrow the Weimar Republic. He was appointed chancellor because of his party’s strong showing in what were then still relatively free and open elections.
@56 I see we agree on a point, though it maybe some time before we get there, and Democrats will have to choose between substance and payback and whatever they promised the voters.
If it’s President Bernie Sanders and a bunch of new Democratic Senators, under a new leader in the Senate they may just take the high road. That of course maybe scary to the bunny caucus of the party.
@75 Last time I checked, the House approves articles of impeachment, and the Senate decides on removal or not. Impeachment isn’t a judicial proceeding, and no court gets involved. It is conducted entirely by and within Congress.
Of the two articles of impeachment preferred by the House against Bill Clinton, one was for perjury and the other for obstruction of justice. Two federal judges were impeached and removed in 1988 and 1989 for perjury. Clearly, perjury is grounds for impeachment and removal.
It boils down to Congress’ willingness to exercise that remedy in any given case.
Being in his own apartment while black. What on earth was he thinking?? We’ll never know.
“Off-Duty Texas Cop Enters Wrong Apartment, Kills Man Inside: Police”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dallas-texas-police-officer-wrong-apartment-kills-man_us_5b92d672e4b0511db3e2217e
And there is some chance that one or both parties may split during the nomination process. Not likely either will but the conditions are right for one or both to do so.
@76 “Since Nixon I thin those 10 Republicans all of whom lost their seats were very wise and did the country a great service.”
Are you saying Nixon shouldn’t have been impeached or compelled to resign for the crimes he committed in office?
@83 “Democrats will have to choose between substance and payback and whatever they promised the voters.”
There’s nothing to choose. If Democrats retake the House this fall, they will exercise its oversight function when Congress reconvenes in January. Somebody added up 52 potential investigations. Undoubtedly, they’ll also legislate, and who knows, Trump might cooperate with a Democratic House on issues where they find common ground.
But a House majority is not a government. If Democrats are elected to govern in 2020, they will govern, including carrying out government’s law enforcement functions. There may or may not be prosecutions of crimes committed by or under Trump; but enforcing the nation’s laws is not “payback” or revenge; it’s law enforcement, it’s about justice and accountability. This shouldn’t have to be explained to you.
75,
What is that garbled mess?
I sure can’t tell. Either way, you started this off with your idiotic speculation at 43 that the nominee might escape consequences of lying in his earlier confirmation if the parties underwent some kind of radical ideological shift.
I responded at 45 that, regardless of party ideology, perjury would remain a criminal act for which a supreme court justice, as a civil officer, could be impeached.
Now you claim @75 “if it is to have merit it must be tried in a court of the United Sates.”
You just made that up.
Most of us already know that. And after they read this and check for themselves, so will everyone else, incuding you I guess.
What is the fucking point of that? Does that actually make you feel better? What kind of pathetic emotional retard does that? How exactly does that work? Do you convince yourself that the bullshit you know you just made up is “true”? Then what? Drink yourself into unconciousness and hope that the blackout erases all the built up cognitive dissonance?
Jesus. It’s no wonder you people keep blowing your own brains out.
Trump won. Elections have consequences. Everything has changed.
This is really who Republicans are now.
@85 Just one more piece of evidence that America’s cops put too little value on human life, a natural result of lax police department policies, hamstringing union contracts, and laws that gives legal cops immunity for wanton use of force.
Washington is one of the worst states in the latter respect. This fall, we voters have an opportunity to rein in police use of deadly force in our state. Vote “yes” on Initiative 940.
@78 WTF does that have to do with #46?
@58 Actually many silver shirts were the remainders and hard core of the KKK that did go mainstream. There was certainly a lot of American corporate interests in Germany and Italy and vice versa, most were not particularly politically motivated. American neutrality was not a German, Japanese or Italian plot. And Japan and Italy were allies in WW I. So Mussolini was cool. And our friends in MI-5 liked him too.
Of course firing all those Baath party members because they NAZI’s did not work out so well in Iraq.
Wanna know who else is excited to see a criminal perjurer seated on the court?
This crazy asshole who once helped build an explosive device and tried to blow up a medical clinic filled with healthcare providers and their patients.
@79 “clearly the number of judges facing impeachment has gone down”
Wrong, and if you don’t count judges who resigned, you’re even more wrong.
Federal judges were impeached in 1803, 1804, 1830, 1862, 1868, 1873, 1904, 1912, 1926, 1933, 1936, 1986, 1988, 1989, and 2010.
Of these 15 judges, 8 were removed, 3 resigned, and 4 were acquitted and remained in office. Of the 4 impeached since the 1980s, 3 were removed and 1 resigned.
Since the Constitution took effect in 1789, an average of 1 federal judge was impeached every 17.8 years between 1789 and 1985; and 1 federal judge was impeached every 8.0 years between 1986 and 2018. As a matter of simple mathematical calculation, the number of federal judges facing impeachment has doubled in the last three-plus decades, compared to the preceding historical average. Prior to 1986, there were none in the preceding 50 years.
Your comment, “And the majority of impeachments have not resulted in removal from office,” also is wrong; of the 15 federal judges who’ve been impeached in American history, 11 or 73% were removed from office, either by conviction in the Senate or resignation in lieu of removal after being impeached by the House.
This is typical of your comments. You post factually incorrect statements. You make no effort to research, fact-check, or verify the factual elements of your statements. Then you make arguments based on those factual untruths. Needless to say, if your factual premises are inaccurate, that invalidates your arguments based on those false premises.
I’m not cherry-picking here. I’m not singling out a lone comment where you made factual mistakes. You post horseshit all the time. You do it routinely. You’ve earned a reputation on this blog as a guy who’s full of shit. That’s why nobody here takes you seriously. You’ve destroyed your credibility, and the only reason anyone bothers to reply to your posts anymore is because we can’t let falsehoods stand unchallenged or allow you to mislead casual readers of this blog — we have to reply to liars, and that’s why we reply to you.
@93 The woman served two years in prison for a failed attempt to bomb an abortion clinic and claims the accusations against her are “crap”? She doesn’t look very innocent — or truthful — to me.
But … doing God’s work. A martyr for the Lord. Threw herself on a pyre to save the babies and became a political prisoner of a godless and soulless state.
@92 “American neutrality was not a German, Japanese or Italian plot.”
Don’t shield rightwing Americans’ support for Hitler and fascism behind the facade of “neutrality,” you little shit. I’ve been patient with you, but that tests the limits of my patience.
Nazis are bad people. They were then, and are now. Anyone who supports them or excuses them are also bad people. Nazism must be persistently and universally condemned so it never rises again.
@63 There is a statute of limitations on perjury. It is 5 years.
@80 Do you seriously believe any Democratic senator thinks he or she needs Schumer’s permission to vote for Kavanaugh? If so, you’re even dumber than you look.
@97 Wherein the dumb cluck troll claims there’s a 5-year statute of limitations on impeachment for perjury.
http://gif-finder.com/bunny-laugh/
@82 Not that the citizens of German East Africa were consulted before becoming British citizens.
And it really did not help Wilson that he did not include any Republican’s on his team even though the Republicans took the Senate in 1918. Those pesky Senators would haunt Wilson later.
@98 Well it is all about the resistance. Or not so much as the Dems really want a shot at the Senate, meaning you accept my analyst, and that the whole hearings is just unnecessary theatre.
@87 What I am saying is that the House and Senate knew of the bombings in Cambodia and a house member initiated a proper impeachment for a true high crime and misdemeanor and Democratic leadership stopped it out of fear Nixon would win and Dems would loose face and not be able to act afterwards/ When subsequently articles of impeachment were voted on by committee years later the bombings were a charge the committee killed. Without the tapes Nixon would have survived politically. Limped to the finish line though we might have gotten to see the 25th amendment properly used. It should have been activated when Reagan was shot, but was not implemented. Guess Mrs Wilson could pull off the charade even today.
@99 You are welcome to argue that there is no statute of limitations. Assuming you truthfully believe there is a clear case of perjury. It is a maybe, but attornies who are representing clients even if their client is the President of the US are in a different status than Judges, and one is not a judge ubtil one takes an oath of office. Kavanaugh has been on the appeals court for 10 years so for a Federal prosecutor to pursue this should a sitting Senator contact their office, that tolling of the statute might come up as well as well as prosecutorial independence and discretion. Lil ol me being an unwashed members of the masses cannot be expected to know such things, you though as a highly sophisticated attorney familiar with such things could explain these things to the unwashed masses. Or you would rather not because you maybe professionally obligated to give a truthful objective analysis and you would rather not?
@96 In the 1920’s and 1930’s America they were generally a phenomenon the American public was ignorant of. Perhaps willfully ignorant of. There were some that vilified NAZI’s and fascists. There were certainly Americans who vilified Japanese for racist reasons than for any great understanding of Japanese politics. And the fact was Japan and Italy had been allies and that counted. Perhaps you should try reading a little Hemingway. I could suggest “The Sun Also Rises” for a more nuanced view of the lost generation, and “A Farewell to Arms” certainly “Fo Whom the Bell Tolls” impacted the American public, but did little to move America away from neutrality.
If you are hopping mad well good. I am saving some General Patton quotes. So go ahead and throw down. just your being less than truthful and are bullying your view. Even when anyone familiar with history can easily point out flaws, of course history is more complex and nuanced than what your propaganda requires. The KKK is frankly all American and very much a Democratic institution, and in the 20’s it went mainstream. It fell apart internally and many became silvershirts….sure there was influence from the demagogue in Germany, but the folks in charge wanted power for themselves. they were American fascists. Tactics similar to the American Communist party and neither went as mainstream as the KKK at its height. Canada and Great Britain both had prominent NAZI’s. And there were plenty of folk in France who collaborated and kept Vichy France operating…some but not all were fascists.
@96 And if you really believe that then please go to Germany and confront real NAZI’s or the current crop of Neo-NAZI’s. They are not supposed to exist in Germany and are not nice people and have an attitude of a biker who wears a one percent patch. You go right ahead and confront. I am of the opinion you might get the bear or the bear will get you if you put your actions in line with your words. Because ideas are very difficult to kill and fascists do intermix some good ideas into their mix of stupidity and hate you cannot simply call them evil and they go away or get others to rush up and deal with the skinhead NAZI wannabe. Most Republicans do not associate with such people. A few like a few Democrats will, and some young Dems and Republicans will dabble with communists. Maybe visit Cuba and talk to real communists, maybe even true believers if any are left.
@94 And how many federal judges were there in each year a judge was impeached? With more judges there should be more impeachments. This is 2018 and the last you say was in 2010 and he resigned. Before that 1989. So one judge resigned so that is now 29 years of great behavior by all the judges on the Federal bench. We have either cured corruption or there is corruption in our legislative processes preventing congress from doing its basic tasks. I think both parties want us voters to think we have all these fine federal judges on some fine behavior,,,or do we have federal judges protected by partisan politics?