Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*michaelsean*]

(09-06-2018, 10:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Bring It

Did you just challenge me knowing full well that that could be seen as a violation of the CoC that could result in your suspension or banishment?

[*bfine32*]

(09-06-2018, 10:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Did you just challenge me knowing full well that that could be seen as a violation of the CoC that could result in your suspension or banishment?

Nah, I was just grandstanding, but there will be those that compare me to MLK.

[NATI BENGALS]

Interesting.

Asking a hostile foreign government to hack a political opponents emails is ok.

Wanting the public to know who the person is interviewing for a lifetime position at the highest level of government that will effect every American is bad.

I dont know if it is the lead, fluoride, fox news, or russian brain washing.

But holy shit...

[GMDino]

(09-06-2018, 10:13 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Who cares.  He expresses his favor of race neutral security.  Sometimes when people get exactly what they want, they're still not happy with it.

Has anyone said that that email is bad for Kavanaugh?

Seems very reasonable.

So why block it?

[*michaelsean*]

(09-06-2018, 10:32 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Interesting.

Asking a hostile foreign government to hack a political opponents emails is ok.

Wanting the public to know who the person is interviewing for a lifetime position at the highest level of government that will effect every American is bad.

I dont know if it is the lead, fluoride, fox news, or russian brain washing.

But holy shit...

I see you skipped the story and went right to the comments. This was totally Fox News. No doubt about it.

[*bfine32*]

Wrap up of Kamala Harris' questions:

Harris: I'm thinking of someone you talked; did you talk to them?

Kavanaugh: Could you tell me who it is?

Harris: No, I know who I'm thinking of. So you're refusing to answer the question?

Kavanaugh: No, I just need to know who you're talking about.

Harris: Never mind, I see you're not going to answer the question, so let's move on

Harris: I'm thinking of a number....

[*michaelsean*]

(09-06-2018, 11:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Wrap up of Kamala Harris' questions:

Harris: I'm thinking of someone you talked; did you talk to them?

Kavanaugh: Could you tell me who it is?

Harris: No, I know who I'm thinking of. So you're refusing to answer the question?

Kavanaugh: No, I just need to know who you're talking about.

Harris: Never mind, I see you're not going to answer the question, so let's move on

Harris: I'm thinking of a number....

Just setting him up for down the road. Remember when you said you didn’t know who I was thinking about? I was thinking about your wife. Are you telling this committee you don’t talk to your wife?

[GMDino]

(09-06-2018, 11:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just setting him up for down the road.  Remember when you said you didn’t know who I was thinking about?  I was thinking about your wife. Are you telling this committee you don’t talk to your wife?

All she asked was did he talk to any lawyer there.  He claimed to not know if any of the lawyers he talked to worked there.

Maybe he never heard of Alex Jones either.  

[*michaelsean*]

(09-06-2018, 11:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: All she asked was did he talk to any lawyer there.  He claimed to not know if any of the lawyers he talked to worked there.

Maybe he never heard of Alex Jones either.  

She’s definitely trying to set him up for something down the road. Probably needs to cajole a denial from him first.

[GMDino]

I remember the right going out of their minds (and taking out of context) Hillary Clinton saying "What difference does it make" during hours of testimony.

(For those who "never heard of it" or "don't remember" just google it.   )

Now you can't ask a man trying to get a job for life any questions that might require a yes or no answer.  Nor can you talk about his answers (non-answers) because of "politics".

[*michaelsean*]

(09-06-2018, 11:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: I remember the right going out of their minds (and taking out of context) Hillary Clinton saying "What difference does it make" during hours of testimony.

(For those who "never heard of it" or "don't remember" just google it.   )

Now you can't ask a man trying to get a job for life any questions that might require a yes or no answer.  Nor can you talk about his answers (non-answers) because of "politics".

Can’t believe a nominee won’t give a yes or no answers to such simple questions like does the president have the power to pardon himself. He’s got to be the first nominee to not answer questions like that. I wonder what Justice Ginsburg would say about that.

[BmorePat87]

(09-06-2018, 08:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well now we know that at least in the years 2013-2016 this never occurred as I am sure Senator Booker would have had no choice but to make a stand.

Or we can quit trying to pretend this was an act of civil disobedience.

There were no  Supreme Court justices considered between 2013-2016 (though one nominated) so this particular situation never occured, but I am not sure if this was done in other situations. 

By definition, though, this would be an example of civil disobedience. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-06-2018, 09:40 PM)Vlad Wrote: That damning Kavanaugh "racial profiling" document?

I don't know if Booker said it was damning. I think that's just a narrative by conservative commentators to spin this. He tried to ask Kavanaugh a question related to it and was barred from doing so because of it's status, so he released it to make it public and get around that, though it was cleared overnight so it was unnecessary. 

[GMDino]

(09-06-2018, 11:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Can’t believe a nominee won’t give a yes or no answers to such simple questions like does the president have the power to pardon himself. He’s got to be the first nominee to not answer questions like that.  I wonder what Justice Ginsburg would say about that.

Or to questions like: Did you talk a lawyer from a firm?  Did you know about the surveillance program before you said you did in two previous times under oath?  did you you know about the racial profiling problem when you said you didn't?

Yes or no is so hard.

[GMDino]

(09-07-2018, 12:35 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't know if Booker said it was damning. I think that's just a narrative by conservative commentators to spin this. He tried to ask Kavanaugh a question related to it and was barred from doing so because of it's status, so he released it to make it public and get around that, though it was cleared overnight so it was unnecessary. 

Booker was pointing out the foolishness of the process.

The originally blocked inane things and they are blocking important things.

His questioning that is too much for people who complain that he is "running in 2020".  Same people who love Trump rallies.

[BmorePat87]

(09-07-2018, 09:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: Booker was pointing out the foolishness of the process.

The originally blocked inane things and they are blocking important things.

His questioning that is too much for people who complain that he is "running in 2020".  Same people who love Trump rallies.

Yep, it was a straw man attack being used to spin it that apparently has spread here to the self proclaimed "rational person". 

[*michaelsean*]

So the fact that he lied about falling on the sword adds nothing to the equation? We just pretend that didn't happen?

[Benton]

(09-06-2018, 03:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you have no problem with any Senator releasing confidential documents they have been instructed not to release if he/she deems them OK to release?

Gotta say, I can't roll with that regardless the content; however, I have admitted numerous times that we don't always need to see behind the curtain

Yes, so long as he understands what happens next.

These are people chosen to be representatives of the people and work in the people's best interest. With that, they have access to information, conversations and documents we don't know about. They're bound by rules in regard to how they can act with that information, but they're still supposed to be acting in the public's best interest, not the Senate, not the White House, not the DoD. 

Open information laws largely have little teeth, from federal down to local levels. I deal with this on nearly a daily basis. 

Anecdotal story: There's a city I cover where the clerk is accused of stealing tens of thousands of dollars. She's disappeared. The mayor is in trouble because he was signing blank checks and taking other liberties so he didn't have to be in the office. In Kentucky, there are a limited number of reasons a body can go into executive session (barring the public). One of those is pending litigation. Well, the council has gone into it twice since the story came out. Back in regular session, one of the council members asked the city attorney if what they discussed about stolen money, the investigation, the mayor's incompetence, etc., was pending litigation since they weren't actually suing anyone. Most of the information (like signing blank checks and leaving them where anyone could access them) wouldn't have come to light if the council member hadn't broken the rules. (Sidebar, the attorney said he would need a few weeks to determine if they could discuss what they already discussed).

Governments at all levels try to hide information. The more we let them because we like them, the more they're going to abuse that.

Edit to add: two wrongs don't make a right, but if someone doesn't break a rule we may never know that the rules are being broken in far more significant ways.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-07-2018, 12:19 PM)Benton Wrote: Governments at all levels try to hide information. The more we let them because we like them, the more they're going to abuse that.

Exactly. We need to stop defending our side and attacking the other side for the same thing. Wrong is wrong. And while I may be preaching to the choir here, I still think it needs to be said.

[Yojimbo]

Any thoughts on this article pointing out that during his confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006 he perjured himself. Is there a statute of limitations on perjury?

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/new-documents-indicate-kavanaugh-likely-committed-perjury/