Senator's dramatic demand spurs Trump to order FBI Kavanaugh probe

[Thaidream]

The drinking age in Maryland waas raised to 21 in 1982  with a grandfather clause and in the District of Columbia in 1986 with a Grandfather Clause.  People in Maryland; Virginia and D.C travel back and forth within the area easily - the Judge could easily been legal when drinking. His statements do not indicate any deception and on their face accurate.  We're going to need alot more than this to find the Judge in a lie.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/28/supreme-fiasco-did-the-kavanaugh-drama-just-break-the-senate-220741

 

This is an interesting read -- an article with a series of high level law professors from major universities across the country giving their reads on the Judiciary Committee's hearings and confirmation process. Overall, I'd say most of those quoted leaned toward Ford, and were troubled by Kavanaugh's demeanor and visible judicial intemperance.

 

But this one comment below, coming from a professor at Kavanaugh's alma mater, was the one I found most productive and interesting looking forward:

 

 

Quote

 

‘Unless the old rules are put back in place… the credibility of the court will be grievously damaged’

Bruce Ackerman is Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University.
 

The Kavanaugh fiasco was made possible by the earlier decision authorizing only 51, rather than 60, senators to confirm appointments to the Supreme Court. This made it unnecessary for presidents to appeal to centrists of the opposing party in making nominations. Unless the old rules are put back in place—very unlikely—the credibility of the court will be grievously damaged by a series of hyperpoliticized appointments by future administrations, whether they be Republican or Democratic.

 

 

[Thaidream]

4 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

But this one comment below, coming from a professor at Kavanaugh's alma mater, was the one I found most productive and interesting looking forward

 

Excellent point and that is why the votes for confirmation  under the 60 vote rule were  so high in voting yes- for the nominee.  The court should be centrist and when a case reaches the court- the justices should be voting based upon the law and the Constitution as well as fairness and equality.

 

 

On 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Here's what seems to be a pretty fair and balanced history of how we got to the so-called 51 vote nuclear option in the Senate. Both the Republicans and the Dems had their fingers in it at different points in time. But the idea first originated with the Republicans (Trent Lott) and was first used for a Supreme Court nomination (after previously being used for lower level appointments) by the Republicans with the Gorsuch.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-option-why-trumps-supreme-court-pick-needs-only-51-votes-in-the-senate/

 

Quote

 

Mr. Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat in 2017, but with the GOP possessing only a narrow majority in the Senate, McConnell and his Republicans reached for the nuclear option.

...

The Senate rules were changed for Supreme Court nominees, allowing them to be confirmed by a simple majority. The conservative Gorsuch was confirmed days later to the Senate in a 54-to-45 vote.

 

 

The part I find particularly objectionable is nominees for Supreme Court justice and other appointments, regardless of who has appointed them, DESERVE a right to have a vote up or down on their confirmation. As the article points out, the Republicans simply filibustered most of Obama's judicial nominees, and then simply ignored his Supreme Court nomination, never even giving him a hearing.  That was simply WRONG.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Now even Kavanaugh's alma mater (the dean of the Yale Law School had called for the confirmation to be postponed pending an FBI inquiry) and the anti-abortion Catholic Jesuits (who withdrew their endorsement entirely) are bailing:

 

https://apnews.com/bca3ab37eff44685bbc0fc3702a4fa33
 

Quote

 

The Jesuits took an even stronger stance. Following Thursday’s testimony by Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, the magazine of the Jesuit religious order in the United States publicly withdrew its endorsement of Kavanaugh. An editorial in America Magazine declared that “this nomination is no longer in the best interests of the country.” Kavanaugh was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School, a Jesuit high school, when the alleged assault took place.

...

“If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman’s report of an assault,” it states. “Were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disproved, it would hang over his future decisions on the Supreme Court for decades and further divide the country.”
 

The magazine had previously given Kavanaugh a full-throated endorsement, stating that his addition to the Supreme Court may furnish the fifth vote needed to overrule Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide. The Catholic Church firmly opposes abortion.

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

It might be fun to have a poll right now about the end result after the one week FBI probe.

For example, after the FBI probe will Kavanaugh

 

-- get confirmed

-- not get confirmed

-- withdraw from the process

 

The third option is entirely possible if things get too hot for comfort for BK during the upcoming week. Then he might be able to go back to his current job without the findings being released to the public. 

[Thaidream]

He well may withdraw if there is a lot of  'evidence' he was a really heavy drinker who at times passed out from drink.  It is entirely possible there will be some statements that he may have 'grabbed ass' while drunk.  I don't think any of this is illegal but  if reported as such puts a cloud over his nomination and his integrity.

 

I do believe that this is a 'hit job; by the Democrats to try and block this  nominee in the same way the Republicans  blocked the Dems nominee from moving forward while Obama was in power.

 

The end game is to try and get thru the November election and hope the Dems gain power which means a more centrist nominee will come forward.

 

To me there is something radically wrong  with the whole process and it starts with the voting process; the search for nominees that fit a particular political philosophy and the  desire to put party and politics first rather than truth and fairness.

 

Whatever happens, the whole process leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I blame both Repubs, Dems and the President.  These people are in charge of America.  God help us!!!

[KMartinHandyman]

Here's what seems to be a pretty fair and balanced history of how we got to the so-called 51 vote nuclear option in the Senate. Both the Republicans and the Dems had their fingers in it at different points in time. But the idea first originated with the Republicans (Trent Lott) and was first used for a Supreme Court nomination (after previously being used for lower level appointments) by the Republicans with the Gorsuch.
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-option-why-trumps-supreme-court-pick-needs-only-51-votes-in-the-senate/
 

 
Mr. Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat in 2017, but with the GOP possessing only a narrow majority in the Senate, McConnell and his Republicans reached for the nuclear option.
...
The Senate rules were changed for Supreme Court nominees, allowing them to be confirmed by a simple majority. The conservative Gorsuch was confirmed days later to the Senate in a 54-to-45 vote.
 

 
The part I find particularly objectionable is nominees for Supreme Court justice and other appointments, regardless of who has appointed them, DESERVE a right to have a vote up or down on their confirmation. As the article points out, the Republicans simply filibustered most of Obama's judicial nominees, and then simply ignored his Supreme Court nomination, never even giving him a hearing.  That was simply WRONG.
 

Merrick Garland fell under the Biden rule. Turnabout isn’t fair play and elections don’t have consequences when it comes to republicans?
Republicans cited a 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, arguing that if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer, President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement, or else appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate.

[KMartinHandyman]

Confirmed [emoji736]

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

10 minutes ago, KMartinHandyman said:

Merrick Garland fell under the Biden rule. Turnabout isn’t fair play and elections don’t have consequences when it comes to republicans?
Republicans cited a 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, arguing that if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer, President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement, or else appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate.

 

Garland WAS a moderate who probably would have been acceptable to at least a good portion of Republican senators -- had the Republican leadership ever allowed a confirmation hearing and taken his nomination to a vote. But they refused to do anything.

 

No one was accusing him of being a drunken sexual assaulter...

Edited September 29, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Jingthing]

Confirmed [emoji736]

Your vote is NOT recorded.
My post was a suggestion to the management to open up a poll topic on that.
Members are not allowed to open political topics.
To add I would probably vote conformed as well because that's probably the highest probability right now but doesn't reflect what I want to happen.
So those are two separate questions.
Maybe a two part poll with BOTH questions?

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[watcharacters]

5 hours ago, KMartinHandyman said:

An additional quote from your article. Seems you cherry picked or didn’t read past the gotcha headline.
"The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school, and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school," he said, adding, "I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone."

 

But he wasn't 18 at the time the accusations are made about him was he?

[attrayant]

In addition to his aggressive/angry demeanor (imagine the fate of a female candidate shouting angrily at senators like that), he shouldn't be confirmed based solely on his obfuscation and failure to answer so many questions during the hearing.

 

[dundee48]

17 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Since the terms of the investigation specifically preclude looking into any new allegations, that would be irrelevant even if it does happen.

•  

Haha,that will stop them.

[dundee48]

16 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

 

Crimes like rape and sexual offense (Maryland sex crimes) are state crimes, unless they occur on federal property.  Trump has no power to pardon state crimes, only the state governors do.  Doubtful that Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), who is not a Trump supporter, would pardon Kavanaugh.

Stop being logical,it doesn`t fit the libtard narrative.

[dundee48]

15 hours ago, ReMarKable said:

Kavanaugh lied to the senate judiciary committee when he said he was of legal drinking age as a senior in high school.  He said the drinking age was 18, but it was 21.  Why wouldn't he lie about assaulting a teenager and attempting to rape her.  He seemed unstable during his testimony and the kind of partisan judge everyone knows he is.

So you (allegedly) lie about the legal drinking age and that makes you rapist,brilliant logic from libtards.

You`re also unstable when denying allegations,keep them coming,comedy gold.

[Basil B]

17 hours ago, alfalfa19 said:

It seems Brett managed to fit in a few acting classes between his drinking sessions at Yale. 

Yes, should get an Oscar...

[dundee48]

Can you please provide a link to this,

 "as friends and associates of ford had become aware of the existence of the letter and allegations."

 

[SuperTed]

But there are three current allegations; two are credible on their face, harder to say with the third.

As others have posted, the contradictions in Kav testimony may be enough to take him out. It will be a political decision, and it will impact the mid-terms.

Trump has boxed himself in by saying this is another witch hunt. Some GOP Senators will have to take the personal political hit to stop the nomination going through. Trump screws everyone in his orbit.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SuperTed]

Kavanaugh lied to the senate judiciary committee when he said he was of legal drinking age as a senior in high school.  He said the drinking age was 18, but it was 21.  Why wouldn't he lie about assaulting a teenager and attempting to rape her.  He seemed unstable during his testimony and the kind of partisan judge everyone knows he is.

Huh? 21 in 1982? It took Reagan most of his Presidency to get States to switch to 21. Was MD an early adapter?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[dundee48]

13 hours ago, farcanell said:

 

???? right.... so... as a Brit, you would probably be aware that between 80 and 85% of rapes in Britain Are unreported..... therefore her non reporting of her (fords) attempted rape (or molestation) falls into the category of normal, in your country, as well as mine.... as well as the US... so no need to hammer that nail

 

as to timing... it was first raised in 2012, I believe.... and the subsequent letter by Ford, which was to be kept confidential at fords request, to her congresswoman, got leaked. (Ford feared for the country, in the event of the appointment of a sexual predator to the highest court... hence her civil duty on learning of his nomination)

 

the timing of the leak was undoubtedly political,... the nomination is a political process, in itself.. but who leaked it is unknown, as friends and associates of ford had become aware of the existence of the letter and allegations, and obviously someone figured that an alleged sexual predators nomination should be properly challenged.... and most people seem to agree.

 

We see “bombshells” in every part of life... (a shattering or devasting event)... these are almost always unexpected... this is just another example of a bombshell announcement, so is it that hard to swallow?

 

regardless, the take away should be that these allegations (broadly ,not specifically) should alway be addressed in an attempt, as a minimum, to increase the level of reporting worldwide.... and the judiciary committee specifically, should see this as a priority

 

this investigation, regardless of the outcome, is the responsible way forward... its disappointing that it took such efforts to get, and that it is under strict restrictions... but it’s a positive step

 

I credit the two women who accosted flake, for the turnaround.

 Please provide link for this so that I and your little `likers` can rule out Feinstein`and her democratic ilk "but who leaked it is unknown, as friends and associates of ford had become aware of the existence of the letter and allegations".

[Jingthing]

37 minutes ago, SuperTed said:

 

Huh? 21 in 1982? It took Reagan most of his Presidency to get States to switch to 21. Was MD an early adapter?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Seriously?

Maryland. 1982.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._history_of_alcohol_minimum_purchase_age_by_state

Next … 

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, SuperTed said:

 

Huh? 21 in 1982? It took Reagan most of his Presidency to get States to switch to 21. Was MD an early adapter?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Actually, until june 0f 1984 the Reagan administration opposed legislation to trim highway funds in states that had a drinking age lower than 21.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/06/14/reagan-now-wants-21-as-drinking-age/60358394-31d9-4961-b630-7eda7af850f0/?utm_term=.f61d4b213d6f

[bristolboy]

On the one hand there's this:

"Geoff Bennett
✔@GeoffRBennett

.@realDonaldTrump tells me on the South Lawn that “the FBI is talking to everybody. I would expect it’s going to turn out very well for the judge." Says the agency has "free reign.They’re going to do whatever they have to do"

 

And on the other hand:

 

"According to multiple sources, the White House has given the bureau a list of witnesses it is permitted to interview and topics it is permitted to ask about. Christine Blasey Ford and Debbie Ramirez’s allegations will be investigated; Julie Swetnick’s will not. What’s more, the FBI will not be investigating Kavanaugh’s college drinking or the way he described it in his testimony, despite the fact that his Yale classmates are coming out of the woodwork to tell the country that he was a “sloppy drunk” who is lying about his past. Kavanaugh has categorically denied all of the sexual assault allegations, and has also testified under oath that the phrase “Beach Week Ralph Club—Biggest Contributor” in his high school yearbook referred to his difficulties with spicy food."

https://slate.com/culture/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-limited-trump-swetnick-ramirez-blasey-ford.html

[neeray]

But according to up-to-the-minute television news here in North America, Trump has said "no limits".

[neeray]

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It might be fun to have a poll right now about the end result after the one week FBI probe.

For example, after the FBI probe will Kavanaugh

 

-- get confirmed

-- not get confirmed

-- withdraw from the process

 

The third option is entirely possible if things get too hot for comfort for BK during the upcoming week. Then he might be able to go back to his current job without the findings being released to the public. 

 

Choices 2 and 3 are most likely. As for which, it's a coin toss.

Your final sentence ....... The dirt could possibly be so damaging that returning to his "current job" is not possible. But even if he could, any respect he once had is kaput after his display of emotions when under scrutiny.

Lesson: Being part of the Trump inner circle stands you a pretty good chance of self destruction.

[zaphod reborn]

7 hours ago, dundee48 said:

Stop being logical,it doesn`t fit the libtard narrative.

 

I'm more concerned that if Kavanaugh gets on the Court, he could decide Gamble v. U.S.

Quote

The case has been analyzed in the context of the Special Counsel investigation into the Trump campaign; if the separate sovereigns doctrine is overturned, a pardon of federal charges from Donald Trump may prevent state prosecution. United States Senator Orrin Hatch filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing against the separate sovereigns doctrine; a spokesperson for him denied any relation of the brief to the investigation, saying that Hatch wants the doctrine to be overturned due to "the rapid expansion of both the scope and substance of modern federal criminal law."

 

NY has a law in place which prohibits dual federal-state prosecutions for the same act.  I'm hopeful that this law will be repealed next year so that Trump can't pardon his despicable spawn. https://observer.com/2018/06/new-york-trump-pardon-double-jeopardy-loophole/

 

Quote

New York City Public Advocate and state attorney general Letitia James called on Monday for the state Legislature to hold a special session to reform state law so that President Donald Trump’s associates can be held accountable for crimes they may have committed, even if they’re pardoned by the president.

 

James and Attorney General Barbara Underwood have both previously said the Legislature should, in Underwood’s words, “close New York’s double-jeopardy loophole.” On Thursday morning, Gov. Andrew Cuomo joined them, issuing a statement that read, in part, “New York must have the ability to stand up against the abuse of power. I call on the State Legislature to amend current State law to close the double jeopardy loophole and ensure that these wrongdoers cannot escape justice.”

 

[Burma Bill]

When will this "Soap Opera" end???

[attrayant]

Just as soon as we get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi.

[newatthis]

19 minutes ago, Burma Bill said:

When will this "Soap Opera" end???

 

Wars seem a good way to get people's minds off domestic problems.