Paingod wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:40 am
To my ears
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.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:52 am
by Smoove_B
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.
He's not the hero we need, he's the hero we deserve.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:52 am
by Paingod
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.
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.
I am concerned, though. Now that Trump has shown that anyone can do it, I'm worried that even more people who have no business running a country are going to step up and try. I think I've heard the names of one or two other billionaires who may - and Maddow mentioned Avernatti might in 2020. I don't want any of that nonsense. While I may not like politicians, they at least understand the machine they're a part of.
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.
He's not the hero we need, he's the hero we deserve.
I blame Trump for him existing publicly at all.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:54 am
by Scoop20906
pr0ner wrote:
Paingod wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:40 am
To my ears
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.
Agreed on that.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:20 am
by Holman
I'm not even slightly worried about a Michael Avenatti winning the Dem nomination.
He is watched with interest the way televisions are watched with interest, but he sets no one's political hearts aflutter. He's got a certain pugnacious anti-hero charisma, but Dems are looking for the strong-woman steadiness of a Kamala Harris or the RFK-sincerity of a Beto O'Rourke.
Paingod wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:40 am
To my ears
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.
Agreed on that.
Ditto. Both sides have way too many attack dogs and not enough actual journalists. Shep is one of the rare bright spots.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:43 pm
by Paingod
hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:36 amShep is one of the rare bright spots.
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?
hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:36 amShep is one of the rare bright spots.
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
Shep works for Fox but refuses to become part of the state run news division. He isn't afraid to call out Trump (or anyone) that he thinks is lying. But he does it with well researched facts instead of sound bites meant to rile up the left or the right. Most of the Fox News audience must absolutely hate him. That Fox keeps signing him to contracts gives me some hope that someday there will be more objective reporting than there are talking heads expressing their opinions as news.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:28 pm
by Holman
TV anchors aren't really journalists but packagers of journalism. Maddow is very good at her news essays, but they're built on other people's actual reporting (which is more than can be said for Sean Hannity).
Shep Smith stands out on Fox because he's willing to quote WaPo, the NYT, etc as actual sources rather than attacking them as Fake.
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?”
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.
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.
I 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.
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.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:46 pm
by Holman
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.
The rumor is based on claims from 4chan itself, so take that as you will.
I would assume that Avenatti at least did basic homework before getting himself deeply into this, including meeting the accuser and getting background. If the accuser is truly a government employee with security clearances, as he says, it's impossible that she would be playing a 4chan game.
Erik Erickson is the highest-profile figure embracing and spreading the narrative, but he was also all-in on Ed Whelan's story hours after Whelan retracted and apologized. It seems he'll believe anything.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:56 pm
by Scoop20906
Sounds like desperate Russian bullsh#T.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:09 pm
by Zarathud
pr0ner wrote:
Avenatti is the equivalent of an ambulance chasing huckster whose 15 minutes are about to be over.
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.
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.
I don't accept that thought process. You could say the same thing about Hannity or McConnell for that matter.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:57 pm
by Fitzy
If Republicans are really bringing in an outside sex crimes “prosecutor”, I kind of wish the Democrats would do the same to ask their questions of Kavanaugh.
For some reason I’m skeptical this Republican prosecutor is going to be tough on Kavanaugh.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:01 pm
by Zarathud
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.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:45 pm
by Enough
I may have missed it, so sorry if this is a repeat. But Kav said legal drinking age was 18 when he was in high school in that interview. Turns out this is a very Trumpian statement by him as the legal drinking age was apparently raised to 21 when he was 17. No grandfathered in, and tons of MD kids went to DC back then to get beer (still illegal). There's no way a legendary drinker like him doesn't remember that, such a minor thing (even completely irrelevant like his virgin comment) to lie about but certainly unsettling behavior for a potential SC justice.
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.
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.
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.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:07 am
by Grifman
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.
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.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:34 am
by LordMortis
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.
What do they call that? Distinction without a difference or some such thing?
McConnell works for the people of Kentucky and would have nothing if they didn't empower him to be a slime and bring home more federal dollars than they pay.
Hannity works for Fox and delivering fear pays their bills which pays his bills.
If McConnell's well runs dry they stop voting for him and he stops fucking us.
If Hannity doesn't doesn't get ratings and therefore advertisers, Fox goes another way.
The difference it would seem is that Avanatti is using is fifteen minutes that is not inherent to the job but is inherent to this job as a tool or weapon, whereas McConnell and Hannity's view from the public are inherent to their job and even necessary for them to continue to retain their job.
What were we talking about again?
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:39 am
by Scoop20906
Grifman wrote:
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.
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.
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.
It is a good point but it doesn’t change my opinion he will have something announced before the end of the day. Let’s wait and see.
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.
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.
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????
It's pretty extreme stuff, up to and including participating in getting girls drunk enough to rape.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:05 am
by Captain Caveman
Holy fuck, these are some extreme allegations. Wow.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:09 am
by Holman
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.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:11 am
by Captain Caveman
I mean, her allegations make Ford’s seem mild by comparison. She claims she was gang raped. She claims Kavanaugh was in line for gang rapes. She claims he would target vulnerable girls for drinks and drugs, grind on them, all sorts of horrible stuff. And she swears to these claims under the threat of perjury.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:13 am
by Captain Caveman
Asks for privacy and then shares a pic. I’m sure it was with her consent of course, and he knows it’s needed to drive the story.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:25 am
by Skinypupy
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.
Seems impossible, sure. This is the GOP we're talking about though.
Can't recall if we covered the fact that a vote has been set for Friday. Hopefully, these new allegations will push that back a bit.
Seriously GOP, this slimy motherfucker is the absolute best you can do? There has to be at least someone else who is willing to say Trump is above the law (as Kavanaugh will do) who doesn't have the absurd number of skeletons this guy does.
SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:29 am
by Scoop20906
So I guess this can’t be investigated either? Jeez. She is accusing him of being involved in multiple gang rapes.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:03 pm
by Max Peck
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:12 pm
by Holman
Swetnick has signed her affidavit under penalty of perjury.
In addition to the perjury penalties if she's lying, it appears that her work depends on her security clearances, which she would lose. Perjury would absolutely end her career.
She is putting everything on the table and at great risk. It's hard to imagine a liar willing to do this.
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.
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.
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????
