Kavanaugh Confirmation

[evillawyer]

MG was a low - this is below the basement.

Ah, worse to hold a guy off the SCOTUS because he may have attempted a rape than to hold a guy off the SCOTUS because he was nominated by a Dem. Gotcha.

 

[Stew Cook]

So I just read the letter and DiFi's story doesn't hold up. Some relevant parts:

"I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak."

"I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED"

No where in the letter does it say that she wishes to remain anonymous (just confidential until she and DiFi speak).

Would be interesting to put DiFi on the stand to see exactly what she discussed with Ford between this time and sending this to the FBI.

Would require a breach of confidentiality, at least, if she subsequently spoke to her, and she asked to not be named.

 

[volinbham]

I hear ya. It's just that I'm able to see more than one possibility. The prevalent theory hear is Feinstein and Ford cahoots. I only offer the alternative as a plausible theory.

Mine is a theory though the cahoots part is not that Ford invented this story but just that Feinstein saw an opportunity and managed the introduction of this information to do maximum damage to the nominee.

 

[volinbham]

Ah, worse to hold a guy off the SCOTUS because he may have attempted a rape than to hold a guy off the SCOTUS because he was nominated by a Dem. Gotcha.

You're better than this. C'mon

 

[Stew Cook]

Mine is a theory though the cahoots part is not that Ford invented this story but just that Feinstein saw an opportunity and managed the introduction of this information to do maximum damage to the nominee.

Plausible as well

 

[volinbham]

Would require a breach of confidentiality, at least, if she subsequently spoke to her, and she asked to not be named.

Di hasn't exactly been forthcoming about their conversations or even if they had any conversations.

 

[volfanjustin]

Blindsided. Call a foul but it still might knock him out of the game. Dirty politics suck but by not giving Garland a vote for 14 months was ridiculous and a new low.

I think you issue may be with Biden since he was the first one who was prepared to block a vote

 

[volfanjustin]

You're better than this. C'mon

You sure about that?

 

[evillawyer]

You're better than this. C'mon

McConnell refused to even hold hearings on Garland for no reason other than who nominated him. Sorry, that seems much worse than what's happening to Kavanaugh--especially if Kavanaugh did what was alleged.

 

[SLICKYINC]

McConnell refused to even hold hearings on Garland for no reason other than who nominated him. Sorry, that seems much worse than what's happening to Kavanaugh--especially if Kavanaugh did what was alleged.

Yep, you're not better than this.

 

[hog88]

McConnell refused to even hold hearings on Garland for no reason other than who nominated him. Sorry, that seems much worse than what's happening to Kavanaugh--especially if Kavanaugh did what was alleged.

That can never be proven so it's worse since they are assassinating the mans character.

 

[evillawyer]

MG character wasn't drug through the mud like this. It not the same.

I'm sorry, maybe I missed it. Was Kavanaugh not free to decline the nomination? He's a big boy. Let him wear the big boy pants.

 

[SLICKYINC]

I'm sorry, maybe I missed it. Was Kavanaugh not free to decline the nomination? He's a big boy. Let him wear the big boy pants.

Losing elections since 08 and can't figure out why..

 

[volinbham]

McConnell refused to even hold hearings on Garland for no reason other than who nominated him. Sorry, that seems much worse than what's happening to Kavanaugh--especially if Kavanaugh did what was alleged.

Disagree wholeheartedly. Tactics matter.

 

[volinbham]

I'm sorry, maybe I missed it. Was Kavanaugh not free to decline the nomination? He's a big boy. Let him wear the big boy pants.

Interesting standard you are advocating.

 

[T-TownVol]

They (Rs with MG) did it within the bounds of Senate rules and procedures. They didn't attack MGs character to destroy his viability. It was more severe form of judicial nomination delay that the Senate has practiced for years.

The tactics matter.

Mick is just regurgitating Dem talking points.

 

[evillawyer]

Disagree wholeheartedly. Tactics matter.

It seems like what's questionable here is the timing of the disclosure of the accuser, not the content of her accusations. How does the timing of the disclosure impugn Kavanaugh's character? It doesn't. The content does. You're objecting to the timing, which may look bad for the Dems, but how does it harm Kavanaugh more that he has to address this now as opposed to during the main hearings?

 

[hog88]

It seems like what's questionable here is the timing of the disclosure of the accuser, not the content of her accusations. How does the timing of the disclosure impugn Kavanaugh's character? It doesn't. The content does. You're objecting to the timing, which may look bad for the Dems, but how does it harm Kavanaugh more that he has to address this now as opposed to during the main hearings?

The timing and handling makes the contents highly suspicious.

 

[T-TownVol]

I'm sorry, maybe I missed it. Was Kavanaugh not free to decline the nomination? He's a big boy. Let him wear the big boy pants.

This reeks of desperation, congrats.

 

[Grand Vol]

Wait what? Does she want the lawyers to then testify? Would those lawyers then brief the committee and how on earth would that work?

If I were Grassley, I'd give them all the rope in the world.

 

[evillawyer]

The timing and handling makes the contents highly suspicious.

But that's Feinstein's doing, not the accuser's.

 

[T-TownVol]

It seems like what's questionable here is the timing of the disclosure of the accuser, not the content of her accusations. How does the timing of the disclosure impugn Kavanaugh's character? It doesn't. The content does. You're objecting to the timing, which may look bad for the Dems, but how does it harm Kavanaugh more that he has to address this now as opposed to during the main hearings?

The "content" is targeted to destroy with NO proof. Don't be so stupid.

 

[hog88]

But that's Feinstein's doing, not the accuser's.

The accuser could have handled it differently. She didn't have to go to DiFi.

 

[volinbham]

It seems like what's questionable here is the timing of the disclosure of the accuser, not the content of her accusations. How does the timing of the disclosure impugn Kavanaugh's character? It doesn't. The content does. You're objecting to the timing, which may look bad for the Dems, but how does it harm Kavanaugh more that he has to address this now as opposed to during the main hearings?

The timing's intent is to stop the nomination rather than provide for a fair hearing of the claim. The PR strategy executed was designed to sway public opinion against him before he had any chance to defend himself. As you yourself have acknowledged repeatedly we will never know the truth here. As a result, the strategy (the tactics I'm referring to) were designed to maximize the damage to his reputation and minimize his ability to present his own defense. It is cynical exploitation of an allegation.

So comparing to MG - the intent (stop the fair hearing) is the same. However in the case of MG it didn't involve trying to maximize damage to a person in order to achieve the goal.

Also disturbing is how Dems are presenting themselves as pure and virtuous in the process when they are simply making Machiavellian moves to achieve their goals.

 

[SLICKYINC]

But that's Feinstein's doing, not the accuser's.

Then she has no one to blame but herself when she gets dragged down through there. It's going to happen, mark it down..