So, she's going to testify again. Should be sometime next week. Both her and Kavanaugh are going to testify, no word if Judge or anyone else will be.
If everyone were being honest here: If the accusations prove true - Democrats will oppose him, Republicans will support him If the accusations are nothing more than a clusterfuck of bullshit that becomes he said, she said - Democrats will oppose him, Republicans will support him If the accusation prove to be blatant lies by someone with an axe to grind - Democrats will oppose him, Republicans will support him
I saw a supposed list of her lawyers' demands. They included: Kavanaugh can't be in the same room, has to go first and can't have a lawyer present. Uhhh....how can he answer to what he's accused of if he goes first and has no idea of exactly what she's going to accuse him of?
There are plenty of reasons for the dems to not support him. Plenty of reasons for conservatives to like his views and support him as well. His alleged sexual assaults aside, he’s been less than honest in many of his responses at his initial confirmation hearing. Not just him not wanting to answer speculative legal questions, but questions pertaining to his use of stolen material, and inconsistent views with respect to investigating presidents, especially since he was instrumental in investigating Clinton. Blatant lying and misdirection to cover up obvious partisan hackery is disqualifying to me. The best thing for presidents to do is to nominate someone with the least impeachable record possible. To show full senate support for a respectable jurist. This isn’t that and the GOP have been disgusting in not only how they have been covering for him, but also how they have run interference with respect to this guy’s legal past, hiding records and keeping possibly disqualifying information hidden from the rest of the senate. If this guy is so good, why so much secrecy surrounding him?
I don't know. When the Moore stuff came out they didn't support him, and then even when Trump did most still wouldn't give their endorsement. It doesn't matter anyway though. It would only take 2 of the 51 republican senators to shoot Kavanaugh down and if something truly corroborating comes out that will happen easily. If her testimony ends up being as worthless as what she's said so far I wonder if the democrats will have the common sense not to charge into a lose everything, win nothing gamble.
I have seen the exact opposite. He's been perfectly honest, and then Vox, CNN, the senators,etc just start making shit up. But I haven't read through all of it by any stretch. What did he lie about? I've seen him be what might be considered evasive on a few things(which is normal to a point because the nominees always answer on their legal opinion despite senators continually pushing for their personal opinion), but nothing that warranted a brow beating.
I don’t see how the democrats lose in this even if he’s confirmed, putting aside the court’s balance for now. She’d have to literally fall apart and admit it’s a fabrication. Any thing else they will trumpet “war on women by FUCKING WHITE MEN “ narrative and the base will eat it up.
I agree. I think she should testify. At this point, Trumps victim blaming tweet this morning only makes her look better when they inevitably ask why she didn’t call the cops after.
Well, this happened. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/us/politics/rod-rosenstein-wear-wire-25th-amendment.html
Rosenstein has already denied it: Given how desperately Trump wants a pretext to fire Rosenstein, I'm a little suspicious of this one.
Reactions to this story will be interesting because it’s the “failing New York Times”, peddler of “fake news”. So if Trump tries to fire Rosenstein because of it, his motivations behind the attacks will be even more transparent. The fake news sucks until it’s a story that benefits him. Conversely, supporters of liberal media who’ve been jacking off to the NYT, will now be skeptical of the veracity of this story because it gives Trump a pretext to fire Rosenstein.
The NYT's solid journalism is literally the only reason I'm giving it any credibility at all. It just seems so... sloppy for Rosenstein. But if the NYT says it's true, I'll wait and see.
I’d be curious to know their sourcing on this only because it feels like we are getting really close to more explosive happenings with the Mueller investigation. This is a great opportunity for him to try to derail the investigation. Fortunately he can’t fire the entire DOJ. The only thing I can see him doing would be to get rid of all the security clearances of the people in the investigation. Even then, it might be too late.
FWIW, I think Rosenstein gets the boot by end of today or over the weekend. All of Trumps advisors(Fox News assholes) are calling for his removal. This story doesn’t feel like an accident.
There seems to be some corroboration from a Justice Department spokesperson... take "sarcastically" how you will, it sounds like it was indeed said. A Justice Department spokeswoman also provided a statement from a person who was present when Mr. Rosenstein proposed wearing a wire. The person, who would not be named, acknowledged the remark but said Mr. Rosenstein made it sarcastically.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. That sounds like you're implying there could've been backroom, selfishly-motivated, political maneuvering within Washington DC. Come on, man. That's unheard of.