The whole Uranium One 'scandal' was Fox News exposed for what it is. Thankfully one person at that network had the balls to shut it down by actually stating facts.
Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)
- Thread starter Dylan
- Start date
- Status
The whole Uranium One 'scandal' was Fox News exposed for what it is. Thankfully one person at that network had the balls to shut it down by actually stating facts.
Okay, then. Our difference is that you describe his response as "extreme partisan behavio(u)r." I describe it as the honest response of a man responding to lies, slander, and a well plotted conspiracy. I believe Kavanaugh. Live with that. Any further discussion of this is pointless. America will react to this at the ballot box.
If the Democrats succeed completely, they will gain control of Congress and proceed with their impeachment plans, as well as rejecting Kav. Trump will be impeached and removed, and your president until 2020 will be Mike Pence of Indiana. The commercial bonanza that this will uncover for a dying media empire of cable and newspapers will be lifesaving, at least for a few years. It will be all we see until Trump is removed or not. In the meantime, who knows what he will be capable of doing in his defense, with the power of the executive branch at his fingertips? Do a mental exercise on Trump as cornered rat and see what you squeeze out. We will then live in that republic and have a 2020 election.
If they fail completely, they will return to a seriously reduced minority in the Senate and still fail to take control of the House, which will prevent them from starting the process of impeachment, which seems to be their one great goal, if I interpret their message correctly. At that point, Trump could resubmit Kav and have him confirmed, if he chooses to make a point (and you have to admit, this is exactly Trump's style of business), or he could submit a far more conservative jurist to the bench and force it through a comfortable majority of the Senate.
Carefully analyze the senate dynamics in this years' race. The leadership is placing three or four members in serious jeopardy ( mostly Missouri, WV, and Indiana) by forcing them to be strong in opposition to Kav in states where that doesn't play as well as you think it might from your perspective.
It's a dangerous game these folks have engaged. They are pressing very very high on the pitch, and I only see Ashley Williams deployed in their back half to watch out for the break. All the GOP needs is a finisher.
Ask me if I'm happy about any of this. He is a repellent shambles of a human being. His opposition is much, much worse. It is what it is.
Rush is a radio jock, and what he does and did is entertainment. Any attempt to turn this into a political movement misses the whole point of Rush, despite the fact that he encourages his supporters to do so. Same with Fox and Ailes. They are serving an under served market with their single outlet of news that doesn't make conservatives scream at the set. Those further to the left have a variety of choices.
They've done amazingly well with this, as a career decision.
good for them, it's only costing our democracy.
Kavanaugh should be rejected because the confirmation experienced has ruined his mind. He's damaged now and can no longer think in the properly judicial way that was once within his capacity. A moderated version of that argument is that people will worry that he's now damaged and skewed and that's reason enough to keep him off the Court, to preserve the belief in the legitimacy of the institution.
True or False?
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-cruelest-anti-kavanaugh-argument-yet.html
The counter example is that Justice Thomas was wrongly accused and pilloried, and his tenure on the bench has worked out just fine.
True or False?
Ghoat
Player Valuation: £500k
To peteblue's point, about it being a hostile room, and Kavanaugh not being a dummy, knowing where a line of questioning was going, and where he could get relief (any of the GOP members) I agree with all of that. But I truly don't believe any of the 21 members went in with an open mind about their vote based on the 2 testimonies. He had 11 allies and 10 adversaries. None of the 11 challenged him on anything of relevance, they simply gave him a 5 min break with praise, indignation at the democrats and a few softball questions. None of the 10 tried to ascertain if he was genuine in denial, they simply built straw men and tried to walk him into a bear trap where they could attack his credibility. It's an effective strategy when a lawyer knows he can't prove a claim or denial or directly attack. Find something else you may be able to use or create doubt over, link them however necessary and then *poof* You have "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" and now have a backdoor to attack the claim or denial.
**This is 100% opinion that I believe to be totally correct, so it's fact-ish. Sorta.**
All the yearbook, college roommate quarrels, gang-rape, "demand an FBI investigation to clear your name" and such were general scatter-shot probes at credibility and forcing repeated denials.
The bear trap was his alcohol habits, and to get him to admit he got hammered to the point of alcohol-related "gaps". Blackouts would be better, but gaps would suffice. He's a lawyer, he's smart, and he saw that from a mile away. Heck I saw it. If I recall, just every democrat that questioned him at some point tried to lead him to down the path to drank, drank too much, drank to the point of memory gaps. He wouldn't fall into it, because if he would have admitted or conceded the possibility, whoever had the floor would have responded with "So it's possible the night Dr Ford alleges the sexual assault, could have been one of those nights you drank to the point of gaps or memory loss? Would you agree that the reason you have no memory or something she remembers so clearly could because you drank too much and blacked out?" Boom, he can't assert otherwise with any credibly or logic and he is guilty by default.
Even if we were to assume he truly never assaulted her, if he stepped in to that trap, it was over. After repeated attempts to get him to that point, he seemingly got frustrated with the game, and started pushing back with his questions, and started becoming more and more evasive with alcohol questions Eventually to the point of obfuscation and evasiveness on the most basic alcohol questions. No matter how credible he may have been, or reasonable it may have been when he got frustrated with those same questions over and over, it looked bad. Evasive at the least, if not outright disingenuous. I was sitting there thinking "Could I sit here and say that I drank too much several times 35-36 years ago, but I'm certain I remember everything clearly?" Hell no, and I don't think he can either.
Do I blame him for not letting himself get pulled into a trap. No. Do I think the questioning was honest, he had any chance of one of the 10 supporting him and the truth would have set him free? As lawyer friends (and cop friends) have told me, "When a cop asks you to take a breath test or sobriety test, he isn't trying to determine if you are sober or not, he's trying to build his case against you". This was no different.
Nonetheless, he did serious damage to his credibility during the late stages. Even the most partisan GOP would be hard pressed to agree, even if begrudgingly.
p.s. sorry for the length. I could have just said, yes I think he evaded or even lied, but I don't blame him. That's a rough summation, but I did want to at least explain the thought process behind my logic/opinion instead of just going "pfft, yeah yeah but"
Regardless if you believe him or not it was a disqualifying moment in his confirmation. He can't be trusted to be non partisan by invoking a right wing conspiracy theory. You would be disgusted if it were the other way around.
I suppose if you are someone who consumes right wing media it is the norm to invoke conspiracy theories. It's what they have built an empire upon.
There would still remain one perfectly legal and valid exit ramp from this lowdown circle of hell. In the increasingly likely event that the Democrats take the House this November, the new Democratic majority on the House Judiciary Committee could revisit Kavanaugh’s testimony last week for evidence of deception. Indeed, the senior Democrat on that committee, New Yorker Jerry Nadler—as smart and progressive a congressman as the Democrats have—has already indicated the committee, which he’d be chairing, would do just that.
It’s almost impossible to envision the Senate convicting Kavanaugh—it requires a two-thirds vote, which is to say, Republican support, and given that party’s commitment to anti-empiricism, all evidence will become beside the point—but a House-enacted resolution to impeach would in itself throw the Court into crisis.
First, additional revelations from a House investigation might compel Kavanaugh to resign. Second, were he to stay on the court, the Senate would have to hold a trial (unless, if the Republicans still control the Senate, they refuse to, which would lead to a constitutional impasse that would doubtless have to be decided by, yep, the Supreme Court). Third, whether Kavanaugh could continue to hear and rule on cases while all this was proceeding would be hotly disputed and, again, a matter that the Court would have to decide since there would be no one else who could decide it. Fourth, if after all this Kavanaugh remains on the Court, the legitimacy of its rulings would be questioned as never before in our history, laying the groundwork for the addition of at least two justices to the current nine should the Democrats control the White House and Congress following the 2020 election.
http://prospect.org/blog/tapped/back-way-defeating-kavanaugh
It’s almost impossible to envision the Senate convicting Kavanaugh—it requires a two-thirds vote, which is to say, Republican support, and given that party’s commitment to anti-empiricism, all evidence will become beside the point—but a House-enacted resolution to impeach would in itself throw the Court into crisis.
First, additional revelations from a House investigation might compel Kavanaugh to resign. Second, were he to stay on the court, the Senate would have to hold a trial (unless, if the Republicans still control the Senate, they refuse to, which would lead to a constitutional impasse that would doubtless have to be decided by, yep, the Supreme Court). Third, whether Kavanaugh could continue to hear and rule on cases while all this was proceeding would be hotly disputed and, again, a matter that the Court would have to decide since there would be no one else who could decide it. Fourth, if after all this Kavanaugh remains on the Court, the legitimacy of its rulings would be questioned as never before in our history, laying the groundwork for the addition of at least two justices to the current nine should the Democrats control the White House and Congress following the 2020 election.
http://prospect.org/blog/tapped/back-way-defeating-kavanaugh
It’s an decision whose problems could continue to be felt some time in the future . I totally get the desire for a conservative justice but Given the nature of the allegations and the obvious issues with his testimony wouldn’t it be easier to just select another one ? I don’t understand the desire to die in a ditch over this fella , he came across are a deeply divisive not to mention unpleasant individual surely the sensible thing would be just to select another candidate?
I do also understand there would be concern we’d see potentially politically motivated allegations but we didn’t see anything like that with Gorsuch.
lol No worries about length, it does help to see someones thought processes!
I fully agree that some of the credibility landmines that he stepped on were because he was trying to dodge the bear trap of “could you ever have had memory issues from too much beer”. However I’d argue that he would have just been better to front up to the possibility and rely on the lack of corroborating evidence and his character witnesses to relax the jaws of that trap. Not only do I think it would have been more persuasive to anyone on the fence (although it is doubtful any if the 21 were in that bucket) but he was under oath - I perhaps naively feel you shouldn't abandon your own principles just because you are under pressure and certainly not if you are going to be a judge that sends others to jail if they do likewise.
However some of your points are why I found his opening statement so peculiar. There he could reflect on his words and chose the most persuasive way to describe uncomfortable items yet instead chose to flagrantly lie about such a trivial thing as the Renate alumnus comment which to me speaks more to his character than even the alcohol stuff.
FWIW I think the Democrats questioning was generally poor and it baffles me why no-one asked if Kav was involved or had any knowledge of Ed Whelan’s attempted twitter defense. And I’m amazed that Grassley tried the high risk gamble of seeing if Dr Ford would testify instead of reopening the FBI background check early on where if anything more was found Kav could be allowed to quietly “withdraw his name for the good of the court”
I totally understand trying to protect yourself but if you’re lying under oath then it’s just not appropriate, the beach week Ralphing , come on it’s ridiculous. he’s lying under oath and it means the process means nothing to him so he’s clearly not suitable for the role for reason that alone .
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
what made you join the dark side, Uncle Muzzruh?
what's the real history?
remember, us simpleton newphews can only follow clear, precise sentences, not .gifs or cryptic metaphors ; )
It's a story that can only be truly conveyed via the cryptic metaphor. The more cryptic the metaphor, the more truth it contains.
Admittedly, it's like listening to Webern sometimes. It's a good thing most of us have stopped smoking. Art is like that.
(OT - dang, that was quick #thatssospursy)
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
you prolly think meemaw won't have you 'round for thanksgiving no more cause-a yer deplorable politics, but it's actually just cause no one can figure out what in tarnation yer yappin' and hollerin' about...
please tell me it was at least someone smarter than Ayn Rand or Jordan Peterson what did it!
- Status