Octopus Overlords

Feinstein knows something that she's not telling.

Defiant wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:35 am Spokesman for GOP on Kavanaugh nomination resigns; has been accused of harassment in the past

Jesus, is there a single person who works with/for the GOP that isn't rapey as hell?

em2nought wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 1:58 pm Feinstein knows something that she's not telling.

em2nought wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 1:58 pm Feinstein knows something that she's not telling.

I think the something may just be this: Kavanaugh is a turd with a history that most people will find beneath their expectations for a supreme court judge. However - that will not keep the GOP from putting him on the bench, and Feinstein is trying to make them at least pay the price for it, with keeping his annoinment as close to the 2018 elections as possible.

What do you think is behind the urgency to get him nominated ASAP? care to answer?

"I want to testify Thursday."
"Now or never!"
"Thursday."
"Friday or we vote without you!"
"Nope."
"Ok, we'll give you one more day, but we're not indecisive."
"Nope."
"How about Thursday?"

Unagi wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:28 pm

em2nought wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 1:58 pm Feinstein knows something that she's not telling.

I think the something may just be this: Kavanaugh is a turd with a history that most people will find beneath their expectations for a supreme court judge. However - that will not keep the GOP from putting him on the bench, and Feinstein is trying to make them at least pay the price for it, with keeping his annoinment as close to the 2018 elections as possible.

What do you think is behind the urgency to get him nominated ASAP? care to answer?

Don't engage.

From Twitter:

So we're going to see the summer-party calendar Kavanaugh supposedly kept as a 17-year-old, but we still can't see professional communications from his time in the Bush administration?

--

Also, this:



Very minor State Department and Pentagon and etc staffers have to answer these questions or they don't get hired.

Unagi wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:38 pm Police Report or It Didn't Happen.


This is our president. omg.

To be honest, one thing that really bothers me about this whole mess is we as a country have seemed to have bypassed that whole aspect of establishing a crime has been committed before we vilify anyone as the criminal responsible. Step one should be the investigation to establish what actually happened. If you can't establish something was done, how do you intend establishing who did it?

I understand the rush, I don't want that guy on the court either. But damn! Do we really want to resort to 'the ends justify the means' for everything now? Isn't that the method the bad guys use?

I know that victims of certain types of terrible crimes don't report them, and I don't find fault with that. I don't take issue with people talking about what they went through as part of their healing process. But when the decision is made not to report it, then it might have serious repercussions later. I don't know the accuser or accused. I don't have the luxury of saying "I know her, she wouldn't lie about this". I'd have to go by the evidence. And if so much time has gone by, there might not be any evidence. I'm not prepared or willing to say "You know what? Who cares, I don't want that guy on the court so let's just go with he's guilty."

gameoverman wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:22 pm

Unagi wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:38 pm Police Report or It Didn't Happen.


This is our president. omg.

To be honest, one thing that really bothers me about this whole mess is we as a country have seemed to have bypassed that whole aspect of establishing a crime has been committed before we vilify anyone as the criminal responsible. Step one should be the investigation to establish what actually happened. If you can't establish something was done, how do you intend establishing who did it?

I understand the rush, I don't want that guy on the court either. But damn! Do we really want to resort to 'the ends justify the means' for everything now? Isn't that the method the bad guys use?

I know that victims of certain types of terrible crimes don't report them, and I don't find fault with that. I don't take issue with people talking about what they went through as part of their healing process. But when the decision is made not to report it, then it might have serious repercussions later. I don't know the accuser or accused. I don't have the luxury of saying "I know her, she wouldn't lie about this". I'd have to go by the evidence. And if so much time has gone by, there might not be any evidence. I'm not prepared or willing to say "You know what? Who cares, I don't want that guy on the court so let's just go with he's guilty."

He's not going through a trial. He's applying for a job. The level of evidence needed is much lower. Given the time frame, the best they can do is investigate what's available, listen to both sides and decide if they believe Professor Ford. If there's nothing that sticks out as "yes, he did it" or "no he didn't" then they (the Senate) have to decide: if there's a chance this is true, do we put him on the Supreme Court?

I'd argue that they shouldn't. I do believe in redemption and that people should be forgiven for past actions. However, the first step is admitting it happened. The accused isn't admitting anything. That leaves me questioning his judgement, his honesty and that means I'd rather see someone else on the Supreme Court. However, if the hearings add nothing to the process, I could easily see someone using thoughtful analysis coming to the other conclusion and deciding that without more, they can't withhold their support.

Fortunately it won't come to a thoughtful analysis by each Senator followed by a reasoned explanation to their constitutes. Nor will the attempt to dig into what information there is, nor will they ask tough but fair questions, they'll pander and/or try not to look to assholish.

After the hearing they'll vote based upon their party. Since there are two highly partisan parties the decision for each Senator is easier: Yes if you're a Republican, No if you're Democrat with a slightly more complex decision if the Senator is running for re-election.

Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer: There's more.

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. The Democratic Senate offices reviewing the allegations believe that they merit further investigation. “This is another serious, credible, and disturbing allegation against Brett Kavanagh. It should be fully investigated,” Senator Mazie Hirono, of Hawaii, said. An aide in one of the other Senate offices added, “These allegations seem credible, and we’re taking them very seriously. If established, they’re clearly disqualifying.”

This is not the news Republicans want to hear.

gameoverman wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:22 pm I know that victims of certain types of terrible crimes don't report them, and I don't find fault with that. I don't take issue with people talking about what they went through as part of their healing process. But when the decision is made not to report it, then it might have serious repercussions later. I don't know the accuser or accused. I don't have the luxury of saying "I know her, she wouldn't lie about this". I'd have to go by the evidence. And if so much time has gone by, there might not be any evidence. I'm not prepared or willing to say "You know what? Who cares, I don't want that guy on the court so let's just go with he's guilty."

You realize that it's more-or-less established that she spoke about this years ago, while in therapy, right?

That's the evidence that most people are taking to the bank on this one.

Holman wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:02 pm Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer: There's more.

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. The Democratic Senate offices reviewing the allegations believe that they merit further investigation. “This is another serious, credible, and disturbing allegation against Brett Kavanagh. It should be fully investigated,” Senator Mazie Hirono, of Hawaii, said. An aide in one of the other Senate offices added, “These allegations seem credible, and we’re taking them very seriously. If established, they’re clearly disqualifying.”

This is not the news Republicans want to hear.

According to the reporting, Senate Republicans knew about this story *last week*, and they dedicated all their efforts towards forcing testimony and a vote before it could be made public.

And now there is talk of a third allegation coming forward tomorrow.

I think Kavanaugh might be circling the drain.

Time to break out the popcorn?

While I’d welcome the chance for Kavanaugh to disappear into oblivion, I’m confident that the GOP will produce someone equally as horrid in short order. They’ll just be a little less rapey.

Maybe.

I'm fairly certain that the only reason that the GOP hasn't dumped Kavanaugh already (this circus is not helping them in the midterms) is that Trump specifically wants Kavanaugh, due to the fact that Kavanaugh holds the opinion that a sitting president is essentially above the law.

Yeah, it might take Trump some time to find another judge who will take a tacit loyalty oath.

I do wonder if having multiple accusers will matter more than having one accuser. Trump himself has, what, 15?

This turd was a sycophantic pick from the start. Opening press conference: No president has ever vetted so many blah blah. Can't remember exactly what it was but it was enough to make my stomach turn.

Skinypupy wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:42 pm While I’d welcome the chance for Kavanaugh to disappear into oblivion, I’m confident that the GOP will produce someone equally as horrid in short order. They’ll just be a little less rapey.

Maybe.

Given what we've seen from people involved with the GOP recently, "a little less rapey" might be a tall order.

I definitely come down on the side of this feels credible enough to disqualify him from the court. Of course, there's plenty that came before that already should have disqualified him from the court. And it looks like there's even more that's coming out that continues to disqualify him for the court.

Of course, the argument is "well, you can't prove anything, and you can't disqualify someone for allegations." Which is crap. Not only can you, I'd argue that you should. Being appointed to the Supreme Court is an incredibly high honor. The bar to be put on the court should be sky freaking high. Justices should be above reproach before they're given that honor. Will that disqualify some people who did some things they regret decades ago? Yup. Tough. Those people aren't being thrown in jail or denied other work. Hell, if Kavanuagh doesn't get through, he goes back to his other lifetime appointment as a Federal Court judge. If that equals destroying his life, then can I also get my life destroyed? The entitlement it takes to suggest that this guy, or anyone, is owed a position on the Supreme Court is staggering.

Skinypupy wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:42 pm While I’d welcome the chance for Kavanaugh to disappear into oblivion, I’m confident that the GOP will produce someone equally as horrid in short order. They’ll just be a little less rapey.

Maybe.

It seems like the obvious replacement is Barrett. She's the one that the conservative base (esp. the religious right) wanted from the beginning, she's even younger than Kavanaugh (late 40s I think), she's even more conservative, and (because she's a woman) she's probably the safest bet from the pre-vetted list to have not raped someone in the past.

The only concern is that it would be marginally more difficult for her to pretend that she's not going to vote to overturn Roe, but there's no reason to think that Collins and Murkowski are actually being honest when they pretend to care about that, so that's probably not an issue.

She's also a woman and not from an Ivy League school, though, which could be issues for Trump.

If the GOP wasn't as insane as it is today, I would say that Kavanaugh is 100% done. With them being that crazy, though, feels more like a coin flip still. We should know more tomorrow.

They're fully committed at this point and the White House has already come out in support of Kavanaugh despite everything that's been floated. The only way this ends is if Kavanaugh withdraws himself. Even then, the GOP is scrambling for a replacement.

Merrick Garland - still available. Just saying, Mitch.

This week will tell us how much the GOP thinks about the electorate. If they press ahead as Mitch argues with all this swirling...well it will only be more evidence we are boned. The point above about leadership is correct. They knew he had a sordid past. There is evidence someone tipped Whelan about Ford before it broke. They knew he had more accusers in the wings. And they are doing everything they can to still ram his nom through. The GOP is evil. And there is little we can do about it.

Max Peck wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:49 pm I'm fairly certain that the only reason that the GOP hasn't dumped Kavanaugh already (this circus is not helping them in the midterms) is that Trump specifically wants Kavanaugh, due to the fact that Kavanaugh holds the opinion that a sitting president is essentially above the law.

In all honesty, does that even matter? NOt being flippant...no matter what comes out(if the public even gets to hear it) from the Mueller probe, is there even a 1% chance that Trump is both impeached AND removed as president? It's been established ad nauseum that trump can figuratively get away with murder and hold on to his base...which is all GOP political types care about. So the likelihood of getting 2/3 of the Senate is essentially zero. Is there any reason to think he couldn't literally get away with conspiring with Russians to win the election and not keep his base? The GOP and the white house would just spin an impeachment as political mudslinging by democrats(while calling the conspiring proof of trump's political savvy) to fire up the base while the rest of America does what it usually does and not care.


My point being, it's kind of surprising to me that the GOP is trying so hard to hold on to this guy when the ramifications for doing so RE: the midterms are so dangerous while the one benefit he might provide probably won't even matter.

GungHo wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:21 am

Max Peck wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:49 pm I'm fairly certain that the only reason that the GOP hasn't dumped Kavanaugh already (this circus is not helping them in the midterms) is that Trump specifically wants Kavanaugh, due to the fact that Kavanaugh holds the opinion that a sitting president is essentially above the law.

In all honesty, does that even matter? NOt being flippant...no matter what comes out(if the public even gets to hear it) from the Mueller probe, is there even a 1% chance that Trump is both impeached AND removed as president? It's been established ad nauseum that trump can figuratively get away with murder and hold on to his base...which is all GOP political types care about. So the likelihood of getting 2/3 of the Senate is essentially zero. Is there any reason to think he couldn't literally get away with conspiring with Russians to win the election and not keep his base? The GOP and the white house would just spin an impeachment as political mudslinging by democrats(while calling the conspiring proof of trump's political savvy) to fire up the base while the rest of America does what it usually does and not care.


My point being, it's kind of surprising to me that the GOP is trying so hard to hold on to this guy when the ramifications for doing so RE: the midterms are so dangerous while the one benefit he might provide probably won't even matter.

Whether or not the GOP clings to the Kavanaugh nomination in spite of the proximity of the midterms and increasingly negative optics seems like an indicator of how just much they are under Trump's thumb. Trump doesn't want any old conservative on the SCOTUS, he wants a loyal conservative.

The biggest thing I see in this mess is that this is exactly the kind of crap that made me suggest Amy Barrett. Total ham fisted move not seeing this kind of shit coming.

It'll be hard for the declared pro-choice Republicans Collins and Murkowski to vote for Barrett when she is known only for her intention to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Kavanaugh almost pulled off the pretense of not threatening it.

Holman wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:22 am It'll be hard for the declared pro-choice Republicans Collins and Murkowski to vote for Barrett when she is known only for her intention to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Kavanaugh almost pulled off the pretense of not threatening it.

I agree that that's the biggest risk if they try to make Barrett the new nominee. BUT I don't think there's much reason to think that either *actually* cares about the pro-choice bona fides of the nominee, they just need to fake it. And yeah, Kavanaugh can fake it better than Barrett could, but his promises on that were already paper thin. Barrett's would be even thinner....but I'm skeptical that either Collins or Murkowski would be willing to see what's staring them in the face and vote no.

GungHo wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:21 am In all honesty, does that even matter? NOt being flippant...no matter what comes out(if the public even gets to hear it) from the Mueller probe, is there even a 1% chance that Trump is both impeached AND removed as president?

Depends on one thing: Trump benefits the GOP, and Trump hurts the GOP. As soon as the balance shifts far enough into "hurts", Trump is gone. And this Justice is the biggest weight still on the 'benefits' side of the scale.

Blackhawk wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:27 am

GungHo wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:21 am In all honesty, does that even matter? NOt being flippant...no matter what comes out(if the public even gets to hear it) from the Mueller probe, is there even a 1% chance that Trump is both impeached AND removed as president?

Depends on one thing: Trump benefits the GOP, and Trump hurts the GOP. As soon as the balance shifts far enough into "hurts", Trump is gone. And this Justice is the biggest weight still on the 'benefits' side of the scale.

But every time they double down on him, he becomes more too-big-to-fail. Eventually they will have no choice but to go all in on him. If they haven't already.


Same strategy he used to get banks to bail out his bankrupt business ventures. Keep stringing them along until they have no choice.

Just saw a headline that Rosenstein is going to resign before Trump fires him. Here we go. It was CNBC.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Enough wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:36 am Just saw a headline that Rosenstein is going to resign before Trump fires him.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Go over to the Trump Investigation thread.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:37 am

Enough wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:36 am Just saw a headline that Rosenstein is going to resign before Trump fires him.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Go over to the Trump Investigation thread.

Heh, now seeing that I should avoid posting on my phone. Wrong thread, apologies!

Is four the number where someone withdraws themselves from the running for a lifetime seat in deciding the fate of the nation? I feel like it should be.

Paingod wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:35 pm Is four the number where someone withdraws themselves from the running for a lifetime seat in deciding the fate of the nation? I feel like it should be.

Maybe, but probably not when the source is RawStory.com.

Kurth wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:56 pm

Paingod wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:35 pm Is four the number where someone withdraws themselves from the running for a lifetime seat in deciding the fate of the nation? I feel like it should be.

Maybe, but probably not when the source is RawStory.com.

I'm all for investigating, but I think it's worth reserving some skepticism.. As usual, The New Yorker produced a good article on Debbie Ramirez, but there's a lot of people saying it didn't happen.

Also, when did we get to 4? I count the original, Ramirez, and now this whatever it is in MD county being reported by rawstory.

Which one am I missing?