« Hurricane? We don't need no stinkin' .... OT | Main | It’s Not Always All About Us »

September 12, 2018

Comments

Andy Pudzer weighs in and gets the shit kicked out of him. Read the thread.

https://twitter.com/andypuzder/status/1043327830694739968

Some (D)'s in Congress have already promised to continue investigating Kavanaugh if they flip either house in November.

I'm not sure that depends on him being approved for the SCOTUS.

If they can demonstrate that he lied in his confirmation hearings (either set), his position on the Federal bench is at risk, regardless of whether he is on the SCOTUS. I'm skeptical that they can, but if....

The Nuclear Family.

Geez, at least Michael Corleone waited until the Corleone matriarch was dead before doling out family justice to Fredo:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gosar-siblings-endorse-democratic-opponent-campaign-ad

https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-gosar-responds-siblings-democratic-campaign-ad-2018-9

....and a pretty seemingly useless "investigation"

Whitewater
Vince Foster
Travel Office
Benghazi
Hillary Clinton emails

...and of course, the granddaddy of them all, the Army McCarthy hearings...might be before wj's time :)

and of course, the granddaddy of them all, the Army McCarthy hearings...might be before wj's time :)

Well, as a 7 year old I wasn't exactly paying a lot of attention. ;-)

Conservative apostate Bruce Bartlett, who so-called conservatives tried to shut up years ago by clamping their hands over HIS mouth, advises Dr. Blasey-Ford on the considerable upside for her, and her family, and the Left during the hearing.

There will so much winning for her that she'll get tired of winning. Thoroughly exhausted by it, the sheer surfeit of it, like the rest of us these past 23-plus months.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/09/22/psa-debunking-social-media-rumors-about-christine-blasey-ford-open-thread/

And with every insulting or dimissive comment, another 10,000 women will vow to vote their sorry @sses out of office.

Probably a couple of hundred guys, too.

HT BJ for the list of questions this decent family man "wanted asked of Bill Clinton".

But I keep forgetting. Turn and turn about is *not* fair, and taking a dose of your own medicine isn't prescribed, because ... IOKIYAR.

Georgetown Prep : $60K+ a year for residential tuition. That's more than the median household income in the US. For tuition, to a prep school.

Then Yale and Yale Law. Not unusual for folks in his circle. Most people are not in that circle.

Kavanaugh was treasurer of the "100 kegs or bust" club. The other guy at the party is somewhat famously a former black-out drunk with... issues with women.

Career before being appointed to the DC Circuit court was as a partisan political hatchet man.

His testimony under oath during the hearings was notable for its general dodgeyness.

Refused to shake the hand of a guy whose kid was shot and killed. Looked like he thought the guy had some kind of cooties.

If you went to central casting and asked for a guy who oozed entitlement, privilege, and general lack of broad personal appeal, they'd send you Kavanaugh. Probably played by Charlie Sheen.

The part that Kavanaugh is ending up playing in this particular drama is entitled frat boy who acted like a dick and has always skated on it.

Fair? Unfair? What goes around, comes around. And Kavanaugh is well past the point where "they're not being fair to me" is going to have any traction with anybody other than (a) folks in his circle, and (b) folks who just want to win this to stick it to the libs.

Keep digging that hole.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/09/23/gop-venality-open-thread-kavanaughs-latest-murder-board/

via Eschaton:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/23/amy-chua-denies-telling-female-students-to-be-model-like-for-brett-kavanaugh?CMP=share_btn_tw

No surprise that Graham says whatever Ford’s testimony, it won’t alter his vote.
I’m sure Marty can justify that, too.

No surprise either that Republicans are losing independents rapidly:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/407979-fox-news-poll-shows-dems-with-edge-ahead-of-midterms

Graham is a bit of an oddball when it comes to SCOTUS nominees. he pretty much always votes to confirm whoever gets a vote (AHEM!). he even votes for people nominated by Democrats.

And now we read that Ford will testify on Thursday. That is, what she was asking for before all Grassley's artificial deadline, ultimatums, etc. Could it be they are beginning to get a glimmer that they aren't holding a royal flush here?

he even votes for people nominated by Democrats...
And also, pre-emptively, commits to voting for those who might be someone who shouldn’t be on the acourt, irrespective of their politics.

Reading this, a couple of things struck me:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/23/rewatched-anita-hill-testimony-kavanaugh-metoo-220526

First, it’s pretty creepy that several of the characters who judged Anita Hill’s testimony are still there.
Which kind of reinforces the point that the character test for those given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court ought to be a little more demanding than innocent until proved guilty...

I am briefly back in the land of the living, and just want to add (to Janie's posting of the questions Kavanaugh wanted Bill Clinton asked) the full text of the memo which contained that list. I know I posted this some days ago, but it bears repetition (and reading, for anyone who missed it first time around).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/read-the-memo-from-brett-kavanaugh-to-judge-starr/2322/?tid=a_inl_manual

I think, as well as the list of questions, in the context of considering the nature of the President who has nominated him to the SCOTUS, one should pay particular attention to Kavanaugh saying:

it is our job to make his pattern of revolting behaviour clear - piece by painful piece

and:

Aren't we failing to fulfill our duty to the American people if we willingly "conspire" with the President in an effort to conceal the true nature of his acts?

From the bj link, the hoarse whisperer notes the following:

There are a whole lotta Republicans who are suddenly going to start asking why they’re setting themselves on fire for Brett F*cking Kavanaugh.

I assume when this happens, we on the left are going to be told that we need to be nice to these erstwhile allies because we have to make alliances and we are the ones who should move.

This juxtaposition is interesting from
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-response-grassley-committee-deadline.html

and

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/grassley-to-blasey-ford-witnesses-and-who-will-question-them-are-non-negotiable

from the first
Ford requests denied by GOP:
-Kavanaugh testify first
-Hearing be Thursday (offering Wed)
-Only senators do Qs (Rs want option of female staff lawyers for questioners)
-Subpoena Mark Judge
-Call more witnesses requested by Ford

but the second
Grassley aide tells Ford camp that panel “cannot hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses. The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them. These are non-negotiable”

It sounds like Grassley wanted female lawyers to substitute so as not to make it look like 'manel' was questioning Ford, but then, in response to her requests, they invoke the sacred 'constitutional duties'. Telling that...

where there's smoke. there's Ronan Farrow

As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University. The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.

better rush to get him in! no time wait! The Base will be angry if they don't get this one particular guy who they never heard of until last month ito SCOTUS as fast as possible!

though for some reason it was OK to leave a seat open for months and months and months and months when the nominee was ... MERRICK GARLAND

fuck the GOP

I have to wonder what the hell those staffers were thinking. Ram the confirmation thru knowing that more allegations are coming -- and that others know that they knew? Are they trying to guarantee losing the Senate as well as the House? It's either that or totally lost to both reality and basic thinking skills.

Perhaps they want a compromised Supreme Court Justice ?

If you can get away with that, what cannot you get away with ?
It seems strange, but what about the Trump administration is not strange ?

Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote....

Whatever one might think of the truth of these allegations, surely this destroys any idea of the possibility of good faith on the side of those attempting to confirm Kavanaugh ?

Marty ?

Sorry, wanted to make some wry comment about Ed Whelan being at the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, but the truth is probably irony enough.

https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1043286782568103936

Are they trying to guarantee losing the Senate

thing is... if they push K through now, they risk losing the Senate from backlash, so they have to push him through now, which guarantees backlash. or, they can no push him through now, which guarantees backlash from their own base, which also risks losing the Senate.

I cant think of anything less convincing than Ronan Farrow and Avenetti suddenly coming up with women willing to make vague claims, I dont remember much about it I think was a quote. Read enough to know this makes Swift Boating look like an endorsement.

When this is a sorted out it may guarantee a Republican president and Senate for another few terms. It runs the risk of reelecting dumbass. It should concern everyone that this much unsupported bs is now deemed acceptable.

But Kavanaugh is toast.

It should concern everyone that this much unsupported bs is now deemed acceptable.

Indeed.

Horses, barns.

I cant think of anything less convincing than Ronan Farrow and Avenetti suddenly coming up with women willing to make vague claims

did you read the article?

When this is a sorted out it may guarantee a Republican president and Senate for another few terms.

over here, in the real world:

The poll found that Democrats are benefiting from a strong showing of support among women. By 3 percentage points, men want Republicans rather than Democrats to control Congress, 47% to 44%. Women, by contrast, favor Democratic control by 25 percentage points—58% to 33%.

the stupid party is too stupid to realize that the country has more people in it than just white men.

Wait, did somebody mention "swift boating"?

Wait, did somebody mention a cigar?

Or a birth certificate?

It should concern everyone that this much unsupported BS is now deemed acceptable.

The tip of the iceberg. Or should I say wave.

One of these women is running for office. One of the many.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-kavanaugh-i-am-with-him-all-the-way

Tomorrow a third alleged victim will surface:

mp will rally the base with this: "This dude is a player! Once he's on the Court, I'm going to ask him to get ME some of that. He's very, very good. Very. Did I say very? And his wing man, this guy Judge ... it's gonna be great when liberal vermin are addressing HIM as Judge Judge when I nominate that champion pussy hunter to replace the 60-pound dead weight when she kicks, Ruth what'shervodkaburg."

"It should concern everyone that this much unsupported bs is now deemed acceptable."

This reminds me of a guy I knew in junior high and high school. When graduation time came around, he was 21 years old, having been held back numerous times for chronic attendance deficits, among his no less blatant failings. He was a funny guy. Why I haven't seen him doing stand up on Netflix, I don't know, but I'm sure his antics found their way on to his "permanent record", as my mother would term Kavanaugh's problem.

At the assembly roast for my graduating high school senior class, among whom, finally, my classmate was included, our principal, a ex-Marine, one Dr. Tranquil, yes, one of the great names in school administration, he had a funny bone too, but he had spent years of his lafe and career tracking down my "classmate" for non-attendance. It was a little Roadrunner versus Coyote or maybe Bugs Bunny having it over on Elmer Fudd.

Anyway, Dr. Tranquil told this story to we assembled graduates that Spring.

One day, during senior year, school was canceled because of a couple feet of snow fell overnight. Around 10:00 am that morning, having heard the dreadful cancellation news on a local news program, my reprobate classmate rang up Dr. Tranquil at his home and, in this squirrelly, nasally, pedantic voice the former affected to great aplomb over the years and said to the latter: "Doctor Tranquil, I'm deeply concerned about this latest cancellation of classes today. I want to express how unacceptable and frankly, unsupportable, I find your decision to deprive myself and my esteemed fellow classmates of our district's rich educational experience because of a mere 22 inches of snow. I'm very disappointed in you."

That's a true story. Marty may rest assured though that truth, as Mayor Guiliani would say, isn't truth, so on we go, on our merry way down the tubes.

The permanent record:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/09/misty-water-colored-memories-2

Rosenstein is... out?

https://www.axios.com/rod-rosenstein-resign-justice-department-trump-cf761f4c-fca3-4794-92d4-a56c9e32ff43.html

everything is fine.

While I’m unhappy that these women went through bad experiences, I’m glad for the nation if there is more than one who have soecific instances to speak up against Kauvanaugh. Having it all turn on a single he said/she said interest would have been much worse.

It should concern everyone that this much unsupported bs is now deemed acceptable.

Certainly that is a concern. But I note without comment which people are OK with, indeed asking for, investigation into the accuracy of the claims. Vs which people are insisting on not investigating. Extremely strange behavior is those making the allegations are the ones lying.

We may have much worse things going on. Apparently triggered by the NYT being unable to report sarcasm as sarcastic, it looks like Rosenstein may be out!

Over here, in the real world, one of two things happens. Kavanaugh is outed as a lifetime reprobate serial rapist or Avenneti and his cohorts are outed for getting women to stretch the truth for political purposes.

The first is unlikely but the damage is already done, the second would create a backlash the fury of which is barely imaginable.

Even as a staunch conservative, I'm hoping for the first alternative. The damage to our ability to maintain democratic institutions of the second would be almost unsurvivable from the second.

But anyone who believes Ronan and Avenetti are anything but opportunists are kidding themselves.

And I did read the article, there is nothing that can proven or disprodisproved in any of the claims. Almost as if they were carefully constructed that way. Oddly, within hours one of the womens bf at the time came out and said there's no way it could have happened and me not know about it, and I didnt.

anyone who believes Ronan and Avenetti are anything but opportunists are kidding themselves.

I suppose that included the Pulitzer committee, who awarded a Pulitzer to the New Yorker for his stuff ?
And Jane Mayer is an exceptional journalist.

Who do you think you are kidding, Marty ?

What, if anything, do we know about Solicitor General Noel Francisco (who is next in line after Rosenstein, his deputy having already gone) ?

But anyone who believes Ronan and Avenetti are anything but opportunists are kidding themselves.

Avenetti strikes me as an opportunist, but that's just my opinion based on limited information. I have no opinion either way on whether Farrow is an opportunist. The only remotely relevant thing I know is that he broke the Weinstein story, which turned out to be at least generally true.

What any of that has to do with the truth of Ford's allegations, I have no idea. Perhaps it bears on the credibility on this latest allegation. In any case, opportunists are just as capable (after the fact) of riding a true scandal as they are of riding a fabricated one.

There is this on Francisco:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/02/the-official-next-in-line-to-oversee-the-russia-probe-is-skeptical-of-special-counsels/

What, if anything, do we know about Solicitor General Noel Francisco (who is next in line after Rosenstein, his deputy having already gone) ?

there's some">https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1044253503798087680">some doubt as to whether or not he could actually oversee Mueller.

but, here's what Vox knows about him: https://www.vox.com/2018/9/21/17888022/rod-rosenstein-fired-trump-noel-francisco

That twitter link of cleek's is
https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1044253503798087680

Will Trump fire Rosenstein based on the same kind of unsupported (and denied) allegations that he decries with respect to Kavanaugh...?

...the second would create a backlash the fury of which is barely imaginable.

I remember the backlash when Trump's birtherism was decisively proved to be a pack of lies. It made his party unelectable for a generation. Er, if you're a housefly, but let's not ask too much of his supporters.

Over here, in the real world

your real world and mine, they are not the same.

in any case, your deep concern over the negative effects of government by rat-f*cking are duly noted.

what strikes me in all of this is the irony of a guy who made his political bones by, among other things, relentlessly digging into and publicizing other people's private sexual behavior, being undone by allegations about his own.

karma is a thing.

you can't piss on the institutions, protocols, and habitual practices that help people iron out their differences, and then object when some of that same piss rains on your own head.

you can't deliberately, for years, break stuff, and then complain when it's broken.

"Even as a staunch conservative ...."

The staunchness of one's conservatism among conservatives is judged only by the staunchest of conservatives these a days, and I think you'd fail that test in their eyes, which their single non-myopic one can spot a RINO and insufficient conservative quisling staunchicity at a distance of some light years.

Stauncher conservatives than you, now in the apostate stocks dodging republican cabbages, would vote for George McGovern in 2020 if he ran, and he might.

In some ways, perhaps in foreign policy, Hillary Clinton might be more conservative than you are.

This must make me a staunch left of center moderate when it really comes down to it, but since the Overton Window itself has been defenestrated, I'm now a staunch a little to the left of whoopy Bolshevik Maoist.

"what strikes me in all of this is the irony of a guy who made his political bones by, among other things, relentlessly digging into and publicizing other people's private sexual behavior, being undone by allegations about his own."

This is most abhorrent claim that keeps being repeated. He was investigating the, at least, inappropriate acts of a sitting President, not what the President did 35 years ago as a 17 year old. This equivalence is ridiculous and accentuates the lack of good faith in any of these arguments.

"I remember the backlash when Trump's birtherism"

Very few people actually believed that crap, and the ones that really did don't believe it was proved to be a pack of lies.

This is most abhorrent claim that keeps being repeated. He was investigating the, at least, inappropriate acts of a sitting President, not what the President did 35 years ago as a 17 year old.

Kavanaugh was investigating acts between consenting adults. Not acts which are crimes under Maryland law . . . and for which, be it noted, there is no statute of limitations.

Now it may well be that there isn't sufficient proof for a criminal prosecution. But then, we aren't in the midst of a trial (in which, be it noted, the defense couldn't refuse to have a law enforcement investigation of the charges), but a job interview. I don't know about anyone else's experience, but in mine the standard of "proof" required to have the employer decide not to hire you is pretty darn low. Lower even than the preponderance of the evidence standard for civil trials.

This is most abhorrent claim that keeps being repeated.

Consensual affair between two adults. Inappropriate, because one party worked for the other.

Drunken teenage assault on a 15 year old, complete with wing man to assist.

The equivalence is ridiculous.

My argument throughout about Kavanaugh is that he has no business on the court, because:

* Starr Report
* Vince Foster
* Florida 2000

I merely find the fact that what might deny him the SCOTUS seat is sexual misbehavior - criminal behavior if true - to be... ironic. In the full Greek tragedy "Nemesis is gonna bite you on the @ss" sense.

Hoist by his own petard, as it were.

You're entitled to your own reading of the situation.

the ones that really did don't believe it was proved to be a pack of lies.

More fools, them.

“Kavanaugh was investigating acts between consenting adults. Not acts which are crimes under Maryland law . . . and for which, be it noted, there is no statute of limitations.”

I’m not a fan of whitewashing Clinton. He was being investigated for lying during a lawsuit for sexual harassment. Which Jones only lost because the judge said she couldn’t prove damages (a relatively ridiculous interpretation at summary judgment which Clinton settled to avoid an appeal on).

If Democrats want to say that they’ve evolved on sexual harassment/rape we should admit that Bill Clinton fits the profile to a T, and that Paula Jones made a credible case of sexual harassment, and Juanita Broadrrick made a credible case of rape.

At some point we probably need to figure out what kind of evidence counts and what doesn’t, and what kind of penalties last for how long. But treating similar cases differently based on which political side they are on isn’t a good start. We can’t change the past, but we can be honest about it. Bill Clinton wouldn’t survive the metoo era IF we apply the idea symmetrically to people we do and do not otherwise politically support. (I’m not convinced that will actually happen, we will see in a case where Al Franken like behavior takes place with a senator who has a Republican governor replacing him).

in a fun bit of coincidence, Rob Rosenstein also worked on the Starr report.

The claim is "abhorrent" because of an "equivalence" that is "ridiculous." Or it's ridiculous to assume that the claim rests at all on an equivalence, making the characterization that it is abhorrent ridiculous as well. Forget that the claim has virtue of being demonstrably true.

"Very few people actually believed that crap, and the ones that really did don't believe it was proved to be a pack of lies."

https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/51-of-gop-voters-obama-foreign-049554

But, otherwise, unpacking your statement, especially that oddly formulated second clause, might look a little like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1SV0LInE-s


I’m not a fan of whitewashing Clinton.

Who's whitewashing Clinton?

He used his office to get laid. He arguably preyed on women. All of that is reprehensible.

He deserved to have his behavior investigated, and he deserved to be accountable to the law for his actions.

And, for his actions, he was investigated, for years, was censured, impeached, and disbarred.

Next topic please.

I’m not a fan of whitewashing Clinton.

Is someone here doing that?

Marty: Very few people actually believed that crap ...

Even fewer Republican pols or pundits called it crap. Because they feared their moron "base", perhaps.

I'm too busy to search through the ObWi archives to find out whether Marty ever explicitly called birtherism crap back during the Obama years, or whether he ever denounced the Republican demands for Obama's birth certificate. I'd hate to think Marty never did either of those things at the time.

--TP

I was responding to “Kavanaugh was investigating acts between consenting adults.” Which definitely whitewashes the sexual harassment.

I was responding to “Kavanaugh was investigating acts between consenting adults.”

Noted.

The salacious details that Kavanaugh insisted Clinton speak about under oath, and which were described in detail in the Starr Report, and which Marty believes - likely correctly - were included to provoke a reaction making impeachment more likely, were between Clinton and Lewinsky.

Consenting adults.

What goes around, comes around. It's a pretty basic concept.

You don't get to break stuff and then complain when it's broken.

Another fun bit of coincidence was that Bobby Kennedy worked for Joe McCarthy for seven months during the commie witch hunt and John Kennedy was the only Democrat who voted against McCarthy's later censure, though both later agreed the man far overstepped American values.

But the most coincidental part is that only when the brothers were labeled pinko liberals and possibly commies themselves by the far right wing movement, just then nascently insinuating itself into mainstream republican politics, were they both shot in the head.

There is only one kind of political extremism, even fake and insinuated, that gets you murdered in America and it ain't being a goddamned conservative.

Sebastian, I certainly didn't intend to whitewash sexual harassment. Just to point out that, while Clinton's behavior was IMO reprehensible, it was not (so far as I know) illegal. Whereas the behavior alleged for Kavanaugh definitely was, and is, illegal. And thus they are by no means comparable.

For what it's worth, Bill Clinton will never be nominated as a Supreme Court Justice.

Ok. Well in any case, I agree that there is a certain irony in Kavanaugh’s position. For me it is more a “the investigator seems too interested” situation like homophobes who turn out gay.

Or perhaps it's like Trump choosing what bad behavior to accuse people of by taking things that he himself has done.

Clinton is not my favorite guy, mostly because he took what were enormous gifts, and squandered them on pleasing himself.

Much more could have been accomplished, if he had had a basic sense of self-discipline and restraint. The kind we expect of any adult.

We all have feet of clay, but when the stakes are high, the damage is greater.

but in mine the standard of "proof" required to have the employer decide not to hire you is pretty darn low...

And it’s not as though firing a justice is quite as easy as it is for most jobs in the US....

hell, it would take an impeachment to get K out of his current job. and that ain't happening.

it would take an impeachment to get K out of his current job. and that ain't happening.

On the other hand, I believe he could be disbarred for lying under oath during his confirmation hearings. Or possibly for other reasons -- IANAL. Which might have some interesting implications for any cases on which he sat.

A reminder of the kind of arbiter we have on the Judiciary Committee...
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/187870/HATCH-SAYS-HILLS-ALLEGATIONS-ARE-TOO-CONTRIVED-TO-BE-BELIEVED-NO-DOUBT-SENATOR-SAYS-A-KANSAS.html

Bill Clinton wouldn’t survive the metoo era IF we apply the idea symmetrically to people we do and do not otherwise politically support.

Ya' know, that's most likely true. He wouldn't. So why should Kavanaugh?

The outcome of Professor Park’s questioning has already been decided:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408144-mcconnell-promises-senate-vote-on-kavanaugh

I’m ok with Kavanaugh not making it if there are two or three credible accounts.

Since we're playing time machine, I'd guess that Clinton would have dropped out of the presidential race had a tape of him bragging about grabbing women by the p**sy surfaced, even back then.

There is only one kind of political extremism, even fake and insinuated, that gets you murdered in America and it ain't being a goddamned conservative.

Could be our assassins are simply inept...cf Scalise, Wallace.

Here's another interesting little nugget from our past.

Good times.

"My argument throughout about Kavanaugh is that he has no business on the court, because:
* Starr Report
* Vince Foster
* Florida 2000

Yes standard list one more time of an attorney doing what he was hired to do. Nothing on that list is even unethical much less disqualifying.

I don't like my guys being investigated so that guy that did it is bad, and I really don't like that he worked hard to get the side he was hired by to win in 2000.


https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/two-republicans-temporary-replacements-west-virginia-supreme-court-justices

"Juanita Broadrrick made a credible case of rape."

She didn't call it rape until her check cleared.

Nothing on that list is even unethical much less disqualifying.

What is disqualifying, and for what, and in what sense? I don't think russell is making a legal argument so much as expressing his opinion about a standard that would exclude such a blatantly partisan nominee. I would guess that russell would prefer that someone with Kavanaugh's resume not be nominated in the first place for the SCOTUS, so we wouldn't have to be having this discussion at all.

Given the previous exposition on this point, it shouldn't need to be explained yet again.

Very few people actually believed that crap

Ah, I see. So your issue with the allegations against Kavanaugh is that they might be true.

I don't think russell is making a legal argument so much as expressing his opinion about a standard that would exclude such a blatantly partisan nominee.

Thank you.

Imagine, if you will, SCOTUS Associate Justice Rahm Emanuel.

I would oppose him. Too partisan.

To my eye, the person on this board with the most partisan, "as long as my side wins I'm OK with it" attitude is Marty.

Of course, that's because I'm just a hard-core partisan myself.

"Nothing on that list is even unethical much less disqualifying.

We should look into that:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaughs-ken-starr-work-he-violated-justice-department-policies.html

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a22638554/brett-kavanaugh-vince-foster-investigation/

That and the unethical treatment of cantaloupes plus the Brooks Brothers Riot, which Kavanaugh surely had a hand in encouraging and organizing.

And, by the way, when those dozen or so rioters trampled people in 2000 in Broward County over the hanging chads, they should have been shot dead by riot police like so many inner city blacks would have been had they rioted in the building on behalf of Al Gore.

The law is Kavanaugh's day job. By night, he's nothing more than a hack political arsonist.

I'm for Rod Rosenstein, even though he's doing what he was hired to do AND, on his own time, attended the Kavanaugh hearings in person these last few weeks to support the nominee.

He's a Republican and a conservative member of the Federalist Society.

But I'll hold my nose. mp won't.

And yes, Mueller is still a republican as much as that fact is unbelievable.

"I don't like my guys being investigated so that guy that did it is bad, and I really don't like that he worked hard to get the side he was hired by to win in 2000."

What's your plan when Mueller is fired?

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/09/24/theres-a-pony-in-there/

mp, Pence, and pray for rain?


Yes standard list one more time of an attorney doing what he was hired to do.

We need a public policy such that attorneys pursuing frivolous claims are punished severely.

Just sayin'

Imagine, if you will, SCOTUS Associate Justice Rahm Emanuel.

I see a David Souter in reverse. So no. Thanks.

What's your plan when Mueller is fired?

And in cities across the country, rallies would be hastily scheduled for 5 p.m., if Mueller is fired before 2 p.m. on any given day. If he’s fired in the late afternoon or evening, the protests would be set for noon the following day.

I'm on the alert list for that. Everyone should be.

Somewhere between 3 and 5 million people hit the streets the day after Trump's inauguration. Over half a million just in DC.

Go ahead and pull the plug on Mueller.

So no. Thanks.

Yeah, not for me, either.

"I see a David Souter in reverse."

What of the goats and the children in the reverse of Erick Erickson's judgement of Souter.

What Alex Jones would do:

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/09/24/alex-jones-trump-needs-surround-white-house-apcs-big-guns-and-missile-batteries-manned-trump/221424

I wonder how many of his 2.5 million YouTube subscribers are military.

All 2.5 million had better be svelt and slim after choking down all of those fake dietary supplements.

Another couple,of ideas for interfering with the amueller investigation:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-lawyers-demand-mueller-probe-time-out-if-rosenstein-quits

Staunch Republican President mp staunchly unstaunches:

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/09/trumps-loyalty-only-goes-one-way.html

The skipper leaves the sinking ship ahead of the and the women and the children ... and the rats.

He's going to jump in the Staunchmobile and hit the links.

The Overton Window is now a skylight.

What is disqualifying? As Assistant Whit House council Justice Kagan worked on the other side of some of those same issues

from 1995–1996, when her mentor Judge Mikva served as White House Counsel. Kagan worked on controversial issues that plagued the Clinton White House such as the Whitewater controversy, White House travel office controversy, and Clinton v. Jones. [34] 

As Assistant Whit House council Justice Kagan worked on the other side of some of those same issues

If memory serves, pretty much all of the documents concerning her service in the White House were made available to the Senate. So they could judge based on facts just what she had said and done in that position. But somehow the same information on Kavanaugh has been deemed off limits.

Which doesn't come close to being on point.

Guess I'm too dense to understand what the point was then.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad