(09-18-2018, 09:03 AM)jj82284 Wrote:

(09-18-2018, 07:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: There's no real connection between what McConnell did and what Biden proposed in 1992. Senator Biden specifically said that they should take up any nomination the day after the election in a lame duck session. McConnell specifically excluded that possibility and in fact intended to ignore anyone Hillary nominated as well if she won and McConnell also remained majority leader.  McConnell created an entirely new precedent of simply not allowing a judge to be added to the supreme Court unless the party of the President and the Majority Leader match.  This is a terrible precedent that is sure to bite us in the future even if it isnt now.

1.) It was cited as the BIDEN rule, there are tapes.  2.) Please show me anywhere that Mitch McConnel said he would not hold hearings on a Clinton Nominee during her presidency.  

I agree that the letter alleging sexual assault is not really testable in terms of proof, but, like impeachment, Senate confirmation is not a process intended to prove anything.  It is a political process where the judge and jury are the same. The senators don't want to react to stuff that we don't understand, they want us, voters, to be engaged.  They already tried to show that Kavanaugh, about 15 years ago, while working for a President, used confidential documents that his friend stole off of Democrats' computers to give people he liked a heads up on what questions would be asked.  This indicates strongly that he thinks executive officials are allowed to spy on the other political party.  And he played dumb, saying he thought the Democrats wanted his nominees to have advance notice of questions.  Anyone shoukd be able to see the parallels between what he did to serve Bush 43 and what Trump alleges Obama did in spying on his campaign.  This is MUCH more indicative of the type of smarmy, corrupt, nakedly partisan judge he is likely to be, than which parts of which fully clothed girl he and a drunk friend may have groped 35 years ago.  
But the public is fickle.  15 year old female flesh is an easier story to sell.

---

Again, asking the wrong questions.
RollerJag only mentioned the process of blacking Garland.  And I agree with him there.
If someone had mentioned anything about Garlands legal opinions, you'd probably see me agreeing that Gorsuch was better to fill that seat.

---

Again, asking the wrong questions.
RollerJag only mentioned the process of blocking Garland.  And I agree with him there.
If someone had mentioned anything about Garlands legal opinions, you'd probably see me agreeing that Gorsuch was better to fill that seat.

Unfortunately, you don't have that much credibility to loose, but any and all of it just went out the window when you compared passing along a leaked staffer's copy of a few confirmation questions to a multi million dollar counter intelligence operation against American citizens in violation of pretty much every rule we have on using American intelligence assets for the purpose of spreading disiniformation, providing a foundation for foreign (including Russian) propaganda used to deceive the FISC court and resulted in the frivolous prosecution of American citizens including a uniformed General and National Security Adviser Designee.  

Please, do your homework next time!

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...minations/

You're clearly triggered by this Russia investigation stuff from two years ago.  You might want to find a brown paper bag and hold it over your nose and mouth while breathing slowly.
Slow down the thought process.  You have a multip-part allegation and you keep rushing to the end of it.
You're alleging that 
(1) politically sensitive secrets, but nothing illegal, were within the Trump campaign
(2) people in the DoJ or FBI or NSA used wiretaps and call logs to get these secrets
(3) there was no probable cause for (2)
(4) the information did not stay at DoJ but ended up in the hands of the other campaign.

(1) on its own is a naive belief, to me, because we know Trump's character and the company he keeps.  It was publicly known that Manafort was in debt to Ukrainian oligarchs before Trump named him campaign manager.  

(2) is of course true

(3) is again super-naive.  Michael Steele as a private citizen was able to construct probable cause against Trump and his circle.  Just imagine what someone with actual government tools could figure out.

(4) while we know that the Steele report was paid for by the Clintons, Steele did not have government tools or warrants at his disposal.  He supplied his info to the Clinton campaign but it also leaked to McCain.  It is more likely than not that he also told the FBI everything he figured out on his own before Clinton or McCain got his report.  No one has alleged otherwise, after all.

Everything that happened to the Trump campaign is exactly what you would want to happen to the other party if they ever ran a candidate with so many moral and ethical deficiencies.  And remember, Clinton was under investigation too. If she had won we would have similar problems with independent counsels, etc.

---