Mitchell makes her assesment and it ain't looking good for Libs

[onwebcam]

"The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Fords attorneys likely affected Dr Fords account"

[$5 submissions]

She's a republican so this will probably go over like a lead balloon with liberals.

That's like asking Jimmy Kimmel to judge Greg Gutfeld's comedy stylings.

[~Ray]

Are there any more pages?

[bronco67]

It's not a trial. It's a job interview and he failed horribly.

If you sat down for a job interview and acted entitled and enraged, should that boss hire you? Even if this whole thing is a cooked up scam by the Democrats (which its not) his rancid temperament and extreme partisanship is enough to disqualify him. He's already committed perjury twice in the past and lied several times during this hearing -- expecting everyone to believe the devil's triangle is a drinking game. Whether or not he was involved in that kind of stuff isn't the point.

[beerptrol]

lol Mitchell is full of shit.
If it was a real investigation more evidence and witnesses would have been interviewed and brought before a grand jury. Not just a he said she said and some vague statements on having no knowledge.

We all know that it was a partisian investigation.

Chump tied the FBI's hands in the follow up investigation even though he lied and said they had free reign

this hearing was like only the defense providing any info to a trial against their client and the judge was on their side from the start

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by beerptrol

lol Mitchell is full of shit.
If it was a real investigation more evidence and witnesses would have been interviewed and brought before a grand jury. Not just a he said she said and some vague statements on having no knowledge.

We all know that it was a partisian investigation.

Chump tied the FBI's hands in the follow up investigation even though he lied and said they had free reign

this hearing was like only the defense providing any info to a trial against their client and the judge was on their side from the start

LOL @ tied hands
LOL @ evidence
LOL @ witnesses

[dyna mo]

another reason repubs hid behind her for interrogating Blasey Ford but not kavanaugh, she can't assess his testimony to her because there was none.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by bronco67

If you sat down for a job interview and acted entitled and enraged, should that boss hire you?

Exactly

There are 10 other judges on the GOP Federalist Society list. Trump is putting the country through all this bullshit because he thinks Kavanaugh is the only one that will rule in his favor when a case involving him and presidential powers inevitably ends up before the Supreme Court.

Nobody would hire an unstable yeller & cryer who felt they had a right to the job and talked back at you fuck that lol

[ilnjscb]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Exactly

Trump is putting the country through all this bullshit because he thinks Kavanaugh is the only one that will rule in his favor when a case involving him and presidential powers inevitably ends up before the Supreme Court.

This isn't a job interview, it's a confirmation hearing. The president picks who he wants to appoint; Kavanaugh has already passed the job interview, he now has to be confirmed.

And, you're correct about the case. It is 100% inevitable that Trump will be subpoenaed, that he will assert executive privilege, and that it will end up before the supremes. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, He, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito will decide for Trump. Maybe Goresuch and Roberts won't. All the others will decide against him. I don't think it is 100% certain they will rule the way he wants.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

This isn't a job interview, it's a confirmation hearing.

If he's confirmed he gets the job

If he's not confirmed he doesn't get the job.

It's a job interview

I think adding 2 more judges to the supreme Court, for a total of 11, should be done when the next Democrat is POTUS.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by bronco67

It's not a trial. It's a job interview and he failed horribly.

If you sat down for a job interview and acted entitled and enraged, should that boss hire you? Even if this whole thing is a cooked up scam by the Democrats (which its not) his rancid temperament and extreme partisanship is enough to disqualify him. He's already committed perjury twice in the past and lied several times during this hearing -- expecting everyone to believe the devil's triangle is a drinking game. Whether or not he was involved in that kind of stuff isn't the point.

I agree. Even if you take away the accusations.... He still is horrible.

[TheSquealer]

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

This isn't a job interview, it's a confirmation hearing. The president picks who he wants to appoint;

According to Senator Feinstein, it is a job interview:

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Exactly

There are 10 other judges on the GOP Federalist Society list. Trump is putting the country through all this bullshit because he thinks Kavanaugh is the only one that will rule in his favor when a case involving him and presidential powers inevitably ends up before the Supreme Court.

Nobody would hire an unstable yeller & cryer who felt they had a right to the job and talked back at you fuck that lol

this guy put the list together for trump and said you could throw a dart at it and be fine

[marlboroack]

This is all a fucking joke

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I agree. Even if you take away the accusations.... He still is horrible.

Well, seems to be the best available in all the USA ......

[directfiesta]

waiting for the Nunes memo .... :1orglaug

FBI investigation is basically finished ... Here is the scope:

The previous day, the Times reported that the FBI had only been authorized to speak to four witnesses: Mark Judge, the friend of Kavanaugh’s who Ford had said was in the room during the alleged assault; Leyland Keyser, a friend of Ford’s who she says was a guest at the party where the alleged assault occurred but was not told about it; P.J. Smyth, another guest at the party, and Deborah Ramirez, who has also made an allegation that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party at Yale University.

all smoke ....

[kane]

[Acepimp]

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Acepimp

Poll: Josh Hawley Takes Lead Over Claire McCaskill After She Announces Opposition to Kavanaugh
https://truepundit.com/poll-josh-haw...-to-kavanaugh/

[american pervert]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

This isn't a job interview, it's a confirmation hearing. The president picks who he wants to appoint; Kavanaugh has already passed the job interview, he now has to be confirmed.

And, you're correct about the case. It is 100% inevitable that Trump will be subpoenaed, that he will assert executive privilege, and that it will end up before the supremes. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, He, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito will decide for Trump. Maybe Goresuch and Roberts won't. All the others will decide against him. I don't think it is 100% certain they will rule the way he wants.

100% huh, you got a crystal ball stuffed up your ass?

[ilnjscb]

Originally Posted by american pervert

100% huh, you got a crystal ball stuffed up your ass?

I keep it on the shelf, thanks. But fair point, let's say 95%.

[ilnjscb]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

If he's confirmed he gets the job

If he's not confirmed he doesn't get the job.

It's a job interview

I think adding 2 more judges to the supreme Court, for a total of 11, should be done when the next Democrat is POTUS.

It isn't. It's a confirmation hearing. And you'd have to change the law to add judges to the supreme court, which would require passage in congress and white house.

The democrats wish Harry Reid hadn't used the nuclear option. And if democrats pull changing the court, they'll wish they hadn't, because the next time a republican is president, judges will be added or taken away. Roosevelt tried to add 6!

[VRPdommy]

Trying to give some shelter to republicans who vote to push this though.

it is her own independent assessment. As seemingly meaningless as those from the other side saying the opposite.

Why should anyone put weight on her opinion over others opinion.

I'm guessing some folks would commit suicide than to admit they have picked the wrong folks to lead them through this jungle.

Remembering that after Nixon resigned, nobody would admit they voted for him and he won with the widest majority in our lifetime.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

It isn't. It's a confirmation hearing. And you'd have to change the law to add judges to the supreme court, which would require passage in congress and white house.

The democrats wish Harry Reid hadn't used the nuclear option. And if democrats pull changing the court, they'll wish they hadn't, because the next time a republican is president, judges will be added or taken away. Roosevelt tried to add 6!

A confirmation hearing is a job interview where they decide to approve or deny the nominee for a new job.

Confirmation hearing: A hearing held by the US Senate to gather information on whether to approve or reject candidates for high federal office who are nominated by the president.

[VRPdommy]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

If he's confirmed he gets the job

If he's not confirmed he doesn't get the job.

It's a job interview

I think adding 2 more judges to the supreme Court, for a total of 11, should be done when the next Democrat is POTUS.

This is the thing that most disturbs me.
With full respect, you can't keep changing the government to see your side prevails.
That is what got us in this mess.

Regan wanted to make it 13 and compromised using the argument that the court was over tasked. But they are not tasked more or less with more of them in the court.
But I am comfortable with more on the court. It should take a 3/4 vote to change it. AND consent of the house.

The Senate has been particularly guilty of changing it's rules to fit partisan need.
You don't have to actually filibuster a bill, just say you will and that stops it.

Everyone has twisted our rules of governance to the point it is just UGLY !
more of it will not make things better.

A good start would be to set the rules back to where they were in 1991. Then require a 3/4 majority to change them.

They have been changing the rules on simple majority whereas it used to be 2/3's.
So you need to seek NO COMPROMISE !

[PornDiscounts-V]

His testimony reminded me of that presidential campaigner who lost the nomination shortly after acting like a jackass.

We're going to Michigan, beeyahhh!
We're going to Wisconsin, beeyahhh!

[kane]

Originally Posted by PornDiscounts-V

His testimony reminded me of that presidential campaigner who lost the nomination shortly after acting like a jackass.

We're going to Michigan, beeyahhh!
We're going to Wisconsin, beeyahhh!

Howard Dean. I remember that. Those were such innocent days where simply appearing a little loony was enough to disqualify you from being president.

[ilnjscb]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

A confirmation hearing is a job interview where they decide to approve or deny the nominee for a new job.

Confirmation hearing: A hearing held by the US Senate to gather information on whether to approve or reject candidates for high federal office who are nominated by the president.

It isn't, or they'd call it that. It is a confirmation hearing.

Halloween and Easter. They're both based on pagan traditions, children receive treats during each one. But they're not the same.

Any thing X can have similarities to something else, without being equivalent to that thing.

Surely you understand this.

[kane]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

It isn't, or they'd call it that. It is a confirmation hearing.

Halloween and Easter. They're both based on pagan traditions, children receive treats during each one. But they're not the same.

Any thing X can have similarities to something else, without being equivalent to that thing.

Surely you understand this.

If we want to get technical, yes it is a confirmation hearing where a committee interviews a person and asks them questions. Many of the committee members will also meet with that person in private to ask them questions. After this "interview" they decide of the person is "qualified" to take the job they have been offered. If the committee decides they are not, they don't get the job.

So, no, it isn't a job interview, it only works exactly like one.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

It isn't, or they'd call it that. It is a confirmation hearing.

Halloween and Easter. They're both based on pagan traditions, children receive treats during each one. But they're not the same.

Any thing X can have similarities to something else, without being equivalent to that thing.

Surely you understand this.

I've already shown you that even senators call it a job interview. Surely you understand what advise and consent means.