Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dunamisdeos]

I am often too dry with my sarcasm, it's true.

Our politicians coincidentally find sex accusations every time an opposing one is ready to be elected or sworn in or confirmed, but only then. It doesn't mean they aren't true, or that they shouldn't be looked into, but it does mean that our nation is now one where a politician should prudently plan ahead for his career by having 60+ women ready to speak on his behalf when it's time for him to move up.

If you said that 10 years ago, people would assume you were joking rather than reading the actual news. This is awful for all of the reasons Giraffe posted.

[smjjames]

The whole #metoo movement is also putting more scruitiny on it, which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but that's just the reality of the political climate right now.

[sluissa]

Thing is, even that doesn't prove anything. Murder someone and you can find 60 people who'll say you never murdered them.

Neither does a body buried in your back yard prove you killed anyone either.

That said, this isn't a trial. This is a job interview. Nor is this the only possible judge that could sit on the court. Ideally we could get off this shitfit of a identity politics rollercoaster and have a president that nominates someone that's reasonably moderate and bi/nonpartisan and have the senate if not unanimously confirm, at least have some sort of bipartisan support for it.

This is not a difficult process until people start making it difficult. And let's be honest, the Republican are the ones with the biggest hand in making this difficult in the last 10 years.

[misko27]

Our politicians coincidentally find sex accusations every time an opposing one is ready to be elected or sworn in or confirmed, but only then.

This is not consistent with what I've seen. I think of the case of our old Attorney General in New York: he wasn't even up for election, and we're having one now specifically because he resigned. I'm just noting that confirmation bias is real: you probably don't think much about the times when a scandal hits in the middle of a term.

It doesn't mean they aren't true, or that they shouldn't be looked into, but it does mean that our nation is now one where a politician should prudently plan ahead for his career by having 60+ women ready to speak on his behalf when it's time for him to move up.

I feel like A: having BINDERS FULL OF WOMEN ready to speak on your behalf is already slightly suspect, and B: this never would have happened to Merrick Garland. Yes, I'm still better. Garland was too good for this sinful world.

Finally, Kavanaugh was part of the Ken Starr investigation into Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Now here he is, defending himself from accusations of misconduct. I think if anything, he's one of the people you would be blaming for the current environment.
 

Ideally we could get off this shitfit of a identity politics rollercoaster and have a president that nominates someone that's reasonably moderate and bi/nonpartisan and have the senate if not unanimously confirm, at least have some sort of bipartisan support for it.

Well, speaking of that...

The Judicial Committee will have the accuser come forward to testify on Monday, a week from today. I recall reading Kavanaugh will also return to testify, but I cannot source that at the moment. Presumably, this means they've also decided to delay the vote that was scheduled for this Thursday. Trump has more-or-less given the delay a shrug of acceptance (presumably he's more interested in Florence, or complaining about Puerto Rico), while McConnell is much angrier.

[sluissa]

Problem being that if they're going to go with a new nominee and still get it in before the midterms, they need to do it now. The time table is getting tight. If this drags on and turns out they can't nominate him, they're looking at awkwardly trying to shove a nominee through between the midterm and a January when potentially the Senate doesn't look the same (and very likely the House won't look anything at all the same.)

McConnell is probably thinking in these terms. (Aside from the fact he's never been TOO fond of Kavanaugh anyway.)

[smjjames]

I think the entire problem is the fact that they're trying to shove this in before the midterms, thus doing it without any proper vetting (other than the Hertiage Institute or whatever their name was again, but they wouldn't do a full thorough vetting of everything since that's not what they would have done anyway).

[sluissa]

It's not as if the Republican party doesn't have a list of nice, clean, conservative friendly names to throw in the hat. It's just that Trump wants this guy, for whatever reason, even though he DOES have baggage. So it's up to the party to try to cover up that baggage.

It's not as if they were surprised by the July retirement announcement with absolutely nobody listed or vetted whatsoever. The listing and the vetting is there, it's just that Trump picked someone that wasn't.

[Trekkin]

It's not as if the Republican party doesn't have a list of nice, clean, conservative friendly names to throw in the hat.

I'm not sure that's necessarily as true as ever it was. A lot of those nice clean names have either failed to show sufficient deference to the Bigliest Leader and would therefore never be nominated, especially now in mid-meltdown, or have jumped into the Trump camp with moderate conservative-alienating enthusiasm.

[Dunamisdeos]

That just means they have the names, their criteria has simply changed to friends with Trumply/No

[smjjames]

It's not as if the Republican party doesn't have a list of nice, clean, conservative friendly names to throw in the hat. It's just that Trump wants this guy, for whatever reason, even though he DOES have baggage. So it's up to the party to try to cover up that baggage.

It's not as if they were surprised by the July retirement announcement with absolutely nobody listed or vetted whatsoever. The listing and the vetting is there, it's just that Trump picked someone that wasn't.

I seriously doubt the Heritage Foundation did much vetting beyond 'Does he/she have solid conservative credentials?'. They might have done a cursory check for any obvious problems, but nothing deep like an FBI background check.

It's not as if the Republican party doesn't have a list of nice, clean, conservative friendly names to throw in the hat.

I'm not sure that's necessarily as true as ever it was. A lot of those nice clean names have either failed to show sufficient deference to the Bigliest Leader and would therefore never be nominated, especially now in mid-meltdown, or have jumped into the Trump camp with moderate conservative-alienating enthusiasm.

Kavanaugh isn't exactly kissing Trumps ass either. Also, I'm sure you all remember how Trump hated the Bush family, somehow he was able to set aside Kavanaughs work under Bush 43 (and all the baggage that entails) when you'd think that would otherwise turn Trump off to such a nominee.

[Kagus]

Imma let you finish, but eyy let's declassify some unredacted materials!

[Rolan7]

The most important part:

“President Donald J. Trump has directed the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to publicly release all text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction, of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr.”

Demanding that they and only they offer up all their texts.

[scriver]

He cant seriously order that, right? It has to go through some kind of check or balance and get approval?

I think we just hit another level of desperation.

[sluissa]

I imagine this is something a judge could put a stay on due to the circumstances if the DOJ pushes for it, but if I'm understanding the system right, Presidents are more or less the ultimate power in deciding what's secret.

Stuff that's undergoing investigation though? That's a little murkier.

[Trekkin]

They can, at the very least, undertake a very thorough and time-consuming declassification review to buy time.