That's all I need to see.
Maddow and Hannity can both go away. Cable TV "news" discourse would improve.
Less of them, more of people like Shep Smith, please.
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
That's all I need to see.
He's not the hero we need, he's the hero we deserve.pr0ner wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:49 amAvenatti is the equivalent of an ambulance chasing huckster whose 15 minutes are about to be over.
I agree. He's built a fast and very public reputation now that I'm willing to bet he will guard more fiercely than he guards his clients. I don't think he'd grab the spotlight with anything that's easily proven to not hold water - ruining his shiny new rep.Scoop20906 wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:47 amFor those not trusting Avernatti and while I agree with trust but verify I have one simple question: when he makes a claim like this please refer me to when he was wrong.
Agreed on that.pr0ner wrote:That's all I need to see.
Maddow and Hannity can both go away. Cable TV "news" discourse would improve.
Less of them, more of people like Shep Smith, please.
Ditto. Both sides have way too many attack dogs and not enough actual journalists. Shep is one of the rare bright spots.Scoop20906 wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:54 amAgreed on that.pr0ner wrote:That's all I need to see.
Maddow and Hannity can both go away. Cable TV "news" discourse would improve.
Less of them, more of people like Shep Smith, please.
Actually had to go look him up. I don't watch TV and get my news from the interwebs, with references back to YouTube. Does he do something I can listen to while I work?
I don't watch FOX, so I have no direct view to him, but he seems to be available by links. Generically speaking though this is probably what you want
It would also allow Kavanaugh to demonstrate a faith in the US Judicial System (and trumpet it for PR purposes, even if the investigation is inconclusive) and clear his name.Asked if there should be an FBI investigation into Judge Kavanaugh’s past, Sen. Murkowski says: “It would sure clear up all the questions, wouldn’t it?”
There are now rumors flying Avenatti was setup by 4chan on this one.LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:03 amI skeptical. Or maybe more accurately, I'm cynical. I have fears that it's a honeypot set up for Avenatti/Maddow. I'm not confident in their vetting process. If it proves to be false, any true accusations would be burned on the "fake news" bonfire.Paingod wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:58 am A nice in-depth with Maddow reviewing Kavanaugh's second accuser, accusations of gang rape against Mark Judge (Kavanaugh's friend) provided by one of Judge's ex's, and Avenatti's new client (one with multiple instances of US Security clearance) that claims Judge and Kavanaugh were involved in multiple gang rapes after drugging women.
The rumor is based on claims from 4chan itself, so take that as you will.pr0ner wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:36 pm There are now rumors flying Avenatti was setup by 4chan on this one.
This whole thing is truly a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Darkest timeline, etc.
Avenatti would have nothing to sell if there was no ambulance. Hate him all you want, but he has an incentive to deliver something. Or he stops getting paid.pr0ner wrote: Avenatti is the equivalent of an ambulance chasing huckster whose 15 minutes are about to be over.
I don't accept that thought process. You could say the same thing about Hannity or McConnell for that matter.Zarathud wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:09 pmAvenatti would have nothing to sell if there was no ambulance. Hate him all you want, but he has an incentive to deliver something. Or he stops getting paid.pr0ner wrote: Avenatti is the equivalent of an ambulance chasing huckster whose 15 minutes are about to be over.
Except, of course, the ones lying about it and using it as a weapon or tool for manipulation. This does happen. While I've never been dragged in by the cops and accused of sexual assault, I can imagine that it's a life-ruining experience if there's a woman standing in the background with a self-satisfied sneer on her face.
Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally.
Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch."
But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.
Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.
At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke.
Avernatti claimed to have other women lined up ready, to attest to affairs with Trump and presumed payouts right after the Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougall announcements, but nothing ever came of that.Scoop20906 wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:47 am For those not trusting Avernatti and while I agree with trust but verify I have one simple question: when he makes a claim like this please refer me to when he was wrong.
He has a client and that client will show up with some kind of story and probably supporting testimony from others.
Now if any senators care is another story.
What do they call that? Distinction without a difference or some such thing?Zarathud wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:01 pm Hannity sells fear because there is an audience for it.
McConnell will do anything for power because as long as he wins, he can get away with it.
Avenatti is at least working for a client.
Yes he did announce that but even if he didn’t make a public announcement I am willing to grant that these things were discussed non-publicly to the possible benefit of his clients. His claim of other women isn’t disproven just because his clients did not become public to us.Grifman wrote:Avernatti claimed to have other women lined up ready, to attest to affairs with Trump and presumed payouts right after the Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougall announcements, but nothing ever came of that.Scoop20906 wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:47 am For those not trusting Avernatti and while I agree with trust but verify I have one simple question: when he makes a claim like this please refer me to when he was wrong.
He has a client and that client will show up with some kind of story and probably supporting testimony from others.
Now if any senators care is another story.
Just for the record, a post got interjected between mine and the choice Sanders quote above. I wasn’t commenting on the Kavanaugh accusers and how much benefit of the doubt they should or shouldn’t be afforded. I was responding to the Sanders quote that “every single one” of the nominees to the SCOTUS goes before the Senators and gets a vote, and that’s why Trump wants a vote on Kavanaugh post haste. Hello Merrick Garland????Paingod wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:17 amExcept, of course, the ones lying about it and using it as a weapon or tool for manipulation. This does happen. While I've never been dragged in by the cops and accused of sexual assault, I can imagine that it's a life-ruining experience if there's a woman standing in the background with a self-satisfied sneer on her face.
Benefit of the doubt to the accusers, though, and treat them with dignity - but it doesn't mean every accusation is accurate.
At this point, I'm of the mind that Kavanaugh should simply be withdrawn. The Supreme Court nomination should be pristine and not tainted. It's not like there's not a hundred other people they could choose from. With something like this, if there's even the faintest whiff that a story could be true, they should get tossed. Evidence or no evidence. It doesn't need to be a black mark on his career or haunt him, but he's clearly going to contaminate anything he touches with this.
Seems impossible, sure. This is the GOP we're talking about though.Holman wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:09 am Unless this story somehow all falls apart right away, it seems impossible now to limit the hearings to just Dr. Ford and just a few minutes.
Duke.Hockey.Team.
PSA
Kurth wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:37 amJust for the record, a post got interjected between mine and the choice Sanders quote above. I wasn’t commenting on the Kavanaugh accusers and how much benefit of the doubt they should or shouldn’t be afforded. I was responding to the Sanders quote that “every single one” of the nominees to the SCOTUS goes before the Senators and gets a vote, and that’s why Trump wants a vote on Kavanaugh post haste. Hello Merrick Garland????Paingod wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:17 amExcept, of course, the ones lying about it and using it as a weapon or tool for manipulation. This does happen. While I've never been dragged in by the cops and accused of sexual assault, I can imagine that it's a life-ruining experience if there's a woman standing in the background with a self-satisfied sneer on her face.
Benefit of the doubt to the accusers, though, and treat them with dignity - but it doesn't mean every accusation is accurate.
At this point, I'm of the mind that Kavanaugh should simply be withdrawn. The Supreme Court nomination should be pristine and not tainted. It's not like there's not a hundred other people they could choose from. With something like this, if there's even the faintest whiff that a story could be true, they should get tossed. Evidence or no evidence. It doesn't need to be a black mark on his career or haunt him, but he's clearly going to contaminate anything he touches with this.
Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |