Octopus Overlords

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:03 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:19 pm I totally get what he's saying.

Did you ever talk about Mueller or the investigation with someone who works for Exxon? Maybe? Exxon employs a lot of people.

Why didn't she just be more specific?

I think its fair he should have said "probably."

It is a law firm directly tied to Trump. She literally named the lawyer involved. The fact that he pretends not to know the name of the firm was preposterous and frankly a huge tell. Once he did that he was caught. Lee threw him a lifeline for a reason - he was flat out caught out.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:13 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:03 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:19 pm I totally get what he's saying.

Did you ever talk about Mueller or the investigation with someone who works for Exxon? Maybe? Exxon employs a lot of people.

Why didn't she just be more specific?

I think its fair he should have said "probably."

It is a law firm directly tied to Trump. She literally named the lawyer involved. The fact that he pretends not to know the name of the firm was preposterous and frankly a huge tell. Once he did that he was caught. Lee threw him a lifeline for a reason - he was flat out caught out.

Is there some reason to believe he actually has discussed it with someone at the firm?

geezer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:20 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:13 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:03 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:19 pm I totally get what he's saying.

Did you ever talk about Mueller or the investigation with someone who works for Exxon? Maybe? Exxon employs a lot of people.

Why didn't she just be more specific?

I think its fair he should have said "probably."

It is a law firm directly tied to Trump. She literally named the lawyer involved. The fact that he pretends not to know the name of the firm was preposterous and frankly a huge tell. Once he did that he was caught. Lee threw him a lifeline for a reason - he was flat out caught out.

Is there some reason to believe he actually has discussed it with someone at the firm?

She claimed she had credible information that he did. I don't recall if it was in the CNN clip or elsewhere that I saw that.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:13 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:03 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:19 pm I totally get what he's saying.

Did you ever talk about Mueller or the investigation with someone who works for Exxon? Maybe? Exxon employs a lot of people.

Why didn't she just be more specific?

I think its fair he should have said "probably."

It is a law firm directly tied to Trump. She literally named the lawyer involved. The fact that he pretends not to know the name of the firm was preposterous and frankly a huge tell. Once he did that he was caught. Lee threw him a lifeline for a reason - he was flat out caught out.

Is there some reason to believe he actually has discussed it with someone at the firm?

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:26 pmIt never came to that. I however doubt she asked the question without knowing the answer. She said it was very specific for a reason. Again the guy nominated for the SCOTUS pretended to not know a law firm that represents the President who nominated him. There is a 0% chance that was real.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:55 pm

BREAKING: Kavanaugh testified he never received any docs that even “appeared to … have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff.” Well, he got 8 pages of material taken VERBATIM from my files, obviously written by Dem staff, LABELED “not [for] distribution”.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:31 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:26 pmIt never came to that. I however doubt she asked the question without knowing the answer. She said it was very specific for a reason. Again the guy nominated for the SCOTUS pretended to not know a law firm that represents the President who nominated him. There is a 0% chance that was real.

Ok. Fair enough. I wish she would have said it like that.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:37 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:55 pm

BREAKING: Kavanaugh testified he never received any docs that even “appeared to … have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff.” Well, he got 8 pages of material taken VERBATIM from my files, obviously written by Dem staff, LABELED “not [for] distribution”.

Wait - so what's happening here? Someone on Leahy's staff sent documents to Kavanaugh to help him prepare?

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:37 pm
Wait - so what's happening here? Someone on Leahy's staff sent documents to Kavanaugh to help him prepare?

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:39 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:37 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:55 pm

BREAKING: Kavanaugh testified he never received any docs that even “appeared to … have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff.” Well, he got 8 pages of material taken VERBATIM from my files, obviously written by Dem staff, LABELED “not [for] distribution”.

Wait - so what's happening here? Someone on Leahy's staff sent documents to Kavanaugh to help him prepare?

No No. This is some wayback machine stuff. Back in the day someone stole documents from Leahy's office and provided it to people amongst them Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh testified in the past and in this process that he never saw any "spy" emails come to his attention. Leahy is basically saying how can he pretend to not know considering it literally was "marketed" as spy material and was stamped with confidentiality markers.

TLDR; Kavanaugh has basically been caught with his hand in the cookie jar and possibly perjured himself to Congress in the past and present. Much SCOTUS very WOW.

Moliere wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:55 pm Cory Booker Risks Senate Expulsion, Releases Confidential Kavanaugh Emails About 'Racial Profiling'

Defiant wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:27 am Brett Kavanaugh Referred to Contraception as 'Abortion-Inducing Drugs' During Confirmation Hearing

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:39 am Maddow made the interesting point last night that the Dems are not just throwing a fit for the sake of political theater.

The "committee confidential" documents being highlighted have not been seen by non-committee Republicans either. When Dems show private emails where Kavanaugh discusses the possibility of overturning Roe, it very publicly demolishes Kav's assurance to Senators Collins and Murkowski (both pro-choice Republicans) that "Roe is settled law." When they show emails where Kav dismisses the concerns and status (and funding) of native peoples in Hawaii and Alaska, it puts Murkowski on the spot over an issue that matters to her state.

There are a couple more targeted examples like this, all designed to give a small number of Republicans very particular, local reasons to withdraw support if it looks like Kav is taking on too much water.

He'll probably still be confirmed, but it's no longer a foregone conclusion.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:15 am Booker would also like you to notice the nomination process is so rushed that no one knows what documents they can refer to. Not a single Republican knew the email was unclassified at the time.

That said, I would have preferred that the Democrats establish Kavanaugh has a clear bias despite claiming to "just follow the law" and "better arguments." As someone who was heavily involved in preparing Bush nominees, his agenda is well-known.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:52 am

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:39 am Maddow made the interesting point last night that the Dems are not just throwing a fit for the sake of political theater.

The "committee confidential" documents being highlighted have not been seen by non-committee Republicans either. When Dems show private emails where Kavanaugh discusses the possibility of overturning Roe, it very publicly demolishes Kav's assurance to Senators Collins and Murkowski (both pro-choice Republicans) that "Roe is settled law." When they show emails where Kav dismisses the concerns and status (and funding) of native peoples in Hawaii and Alaska, it puts Murkowski on the spot over an issue that matters to her state.

There are a couple more targeted examples like this, all designed to give a small number of Republicans very particular, local reasons to withdraw support if it looks like Kav is taking on too much water.

He'll probably still be confirmed, but it's no longer a foregone conclusion.

As in now there is a 99.999% chance of confirmation? This is all theater. This is just more reinforcement that our government is completely broken. The Republicans are abusing the process so the Dems are 'acting out'. They are being called petulant but honestly it is more like a jester pointing out that this is a farce (and flexing for 2020 -natch). It feels that the serious types are criticizing it out of some misguided duty to keep pretending this is still a legitimate process.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:39 am That is old world thinking. Pre-Trump thinking. Kavanaugh has been pretty much caught perjuring himself. For this, he has so far received a pass so I still put his odds at way higher than 90%. There is no thin margin since this is a sham. Everyone of these R Senators knows they'll be put on Twitter blast if they don't toe the line. They are all scared of Trump. That much is certain. They'll pretend to be concerned about his positions but they have no good reason to vote No. Thus, I also agree that the Dems should take shots because why the hell not. We don't live in a world with meaningful consequences anymore...well importantly except for the angry polarized primary voter but that only makes this whole thing worse.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:32 am

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:39 am That is old world thinking. Pre-Trump thinking. Kavanaugh has been pretty much caught perjuring himself. For this, he has so far received a pass so I still put his odds at way higher than 90%. There is no thin margin since this is a sham. Everyone of these R Senators knows they'll be put on Twitter blast if they don't toe the line. They are all scared of Trump. That much is certain. They'll pretend to be concerned about his positions but they have no good reason to vote No. Thus, I also agree that the Dems should take shots because why the hell not. We don't live in a world with meaningful consequences anymore...well importantly except for the angry polarized primary voter but that only makes this whole thing worse.

I don't want to get too hung up on specific odds. I'm just saying that there's a non-zero chance that he gets voted down, basically dependent upon the right kind of political bomb coming out of his White House documents. Remember that McConnell didn't want Kavanaugh (reports are due to fears about his White House documents potentially being a problem), and the conservative base didn't really want Kavanaugh (they wanted Barrett, who is younger and more evangelical). So it's just that the right amount of pressure could cause the whole thing to collapse. Very unlikely, but not totally out of the realm of possibility.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:42 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:32 am

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:39 am That is old world thinking. Pre-Trump thinking. Kavanaugh has been pretty much caught perjuring himself. For this, he has so far received a pass so I still put his odds at way higher than 90%. There is no thin margin since this is a sham. Everyone of these R Senators knows they'll be put on Twitter blast if they don't toe the line. They are all scared of Trump. That much is certain. They'll pretend to be concerned about his positions but they have no good reason to vote No. Thus, I also agree that the Dems should take shots because why the hell not. We don't live in a world with meaningful consequences anymore...well importantly except for the angry polarized primary voter but that only makes this whole thing worse.

I don't want to get too hung up on specific odds. I'm just saying that there's a non-zero chance that he gets voted down, basically dependent upon the right kind of political bomb coming out of his White House documents. Remember that McConnell didn't want Kavanaugh (reports are due to fears about his White House documents potentially being a problem), and the conservative base didn't really want Kavanaugh (they wanted Barrett, who is younger and more evangelical). So it's just that the right amount of pressure could cause the whole thing to collapse. Very unlikely, but not totally out of the realm of possibility.

Fair enough. I don't think McConnell factors in much anymore. Meaning once the die was cast McConnell was going to ensure the railroading happened no matter what. Also, the base might have been against it but the great leader picked someone. In other words, once the die was cast the fix was in. The real action was before he was announced. Deep in the drained swamp.

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:39 am it very publicly demolishes Kav's assurance to Senators Collins and Murkowski (both pro-choice Republicans) that "Roe is settled law."

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:09 am That's literally the exact opposite of bribery. Has Collins learned nothing about political corruption from the Trump administration?

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:06 am

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:09 am That's literally the exact opposite of bribery. Has Collins learned nothing about political corruption from the Trump administration?

I mean, I wouldn't call it the exact opposite of bribery. It's a promise of a net gain of campaign funds (not donating to your political opponent) in exchange for the carrying out of an official act (voting against Kavanaugh).

That said, calling this bribery would call into question the legality of the conduct of huge numbers of PACs / interest groups / campaign donations. "We'll only support you in the next election if you're with us on this" is pretty standard, and the promise of campaign donations with that support is pretty well explicit.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:32 amAt any rate, I suspect that most people that were willing to sign on for this will end up donating to the Democratic candidate regardless of how Collins votes on Kavanaugh.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:32 am At any rate, I suspect that most people that were willing to sign on for this will end up donating to the Democratic candidate regardless of how Collins votes on Kavanaugh.

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:15 amI would also think governor's are less likely to be as partisan as an equivalent Senator (where you're generally pressured to vote with your party).

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:15 am

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:32 am At any rate, I suspect that most people that were willing to sign on for this will end up donating to the Democratic candidate regardless of how Collins votes on Kavanaugh.

My guess is that most of these are coming from out of the state, and my understanding is that Collins is probably looking to run for Governor rather than run for reelection. I think if she does, those people from out of state would look elsewhere or not donate. Governor's have less influence outside of their state than a Senator does (they do sometimes have influence in gerrymandering, but that probably doesn't matter as much in a small state like Maine), and I would also think governor's are less likely to be as partisan as an equivalent Senator (where you're generally pressured to vote with your party).

Paingod wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:51 am

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:15 amI would also think governor's are less likely to be as partisan as an equivalent Senator (where you're generally pressured to vote with your party).

Maine Republican Governor Paul LePage is like a little Trump. He was embarrassing Maine before Trump started mooning our allies. I don't know how he got elected and re-elected.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:17 pm
The Maine governor's race is this year. Collins gave a lot of thought to leaving the Senate to run for governor, but decided not to, apparently in favor in seeking Senate reelection in 2020.

Different sources provided different accounts of the contents of the letter, and some of the sources said they themselves had heard different versions, but the one consistent theme was that it describes an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school. Kept hidden, the letter is beginning to take on a life of its own.

The woman who is the subject of the letter is now being represented by Debra Katz, a whistleblower attorney who works with #MeToo survivors.