Will Ford's attorney, who happens to be a Clinton donor, allow Ford to testify on Monday? Kavanaugh is ready to go today if asked. She essentially needs to testify, right?

---

Will Ford's attorney, who happens to be a Clinton donor, allow Ford to testify on Monday? Kavanaugh is ready to go today if asked. She essentially needs to testify, right?

Yes. She needs to be heard and her story given consideration, but unless there are additional witnesses or things we haven't been told yet, it's going to be a very short testimony.

---

Will Ford's attorney, who happens to be a Clinton donor, allow Ford to testify on Monday? Kavanaugh is ready to go today if asked. She essentially needs to testify, right?

Yes. She needs to be heard and her story given consideration, but unless there are additional witnesses or things we haven't been told yet, it's going to be a very short testimony.

My guess is her attorney will advise her not to testify on Monday to the wishes of the democratic party and allow speculation to continue. The only problem for them are the countless female ex-colleagues, girlfriends, etc, going to bat for Kavanaugh.

---

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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

So, "moral and ethical deficiencies" constitute weaponizing the DOJ for political reasons?

You are INSANE if you think Hillary would have had similar problems with independent counsels. We wouldn't know anything about the corrupt deep state had she won.

---

Yes. She needs to be heard and her story given consideration, but unless there are additional witnesses or things we haven't been told yet, it's going to be a very short testimony.

My guess is her attorney will advise her not to testify on Monday to the wishes of the democratic party and allow speculation to continue. The only problem for them are the countless female ex-colleagues, girlfriends, etc, going to bat for Kavanaugh.

She needs to poo or get off the pot. If you're going to make a claim that holds up a Senate hearing, you'd better be ready to testify yesterday. If her lawyer "advises" her not to testify, then her complaint should be disregarded as insincere political gamesmanship.

---

My guess is her attorney will advise her not to testify on Monday to the wishes of the democratic party and allow speculation to continue. The only problem for them are the countless female ex-colleagues, girlfriends, etc, going to bat for Kavanaugh.

She needs to poo or get off the pot. If you're going to make a claim that holds up a Senate hearing, you'd better be ready to testify yesterday. If her lawyer "advises" her not to testify, then her complaint should be disregarded as insincere political gamesmanship.

I don't know if it's that simple.  I don't think we're likely to learn anything we don't already know from her testifying in person.  The article in WaPo seemed to have every relevant thing she remembers, and referenced things she is not certain of.  It's simply a matter of what the US Senate is comfortable selling We the People as their due diligence. Obviously some senators would rather she come in person. But is it a majority? Will they subpoena her?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

My guess is her attorney will advise her not to testify on Monday to the wishes of the democratic party and allow speculation to continue. The only problem for them are the countless female ex-colleagues, girlfriends, etc, going to bat for Kavanaugh.

She needs to poo or get off the pot. If you're going to make a claim that holds up a Senate hearing, you'd better be ready to testify yesterday. If her lawyer "advises" her not to testify, then her complaint should be disregarded as insincere political gamesmanship.

Shouldn't her complaint be disregarded as insincere political gamesmanship solely based on the fact that Diane Feinstein has been withholding it since early July?

---

Kavanaugh MIGHT have touched a drunk girl 36 years ago?
OUR DEMOCRACY WILL IMPLODE IF WE DON'T INVESTIGATE THIS!!

or

Here's concrete proof that Kavanaugh covered up Hillary Clinton's murder of Vincent Foster?
Meh. Old news.

---

She needs to poo or get off the pot. If you're going to make a claim that holds up a Senate hearing, you'd better be ready to testify yesterday. If her lawyer "advises" her not to testify, then her complaint should be disregarded as insincere political gamesmanship.

Shouldn't her complaint be disregarded as insincere political gamesmanship solely based on the fact that Diane Feinstein has been withholding it since early July?

Anyone who makes an accusation of sexual assault should be heard. At the same time, a single, unprovable accusation of sexual assault should not be allowed to destroy the accused. I believe that this is purely designed to put some shake into Republicans' boots. Do you reject Trump's nominee and possibly give Democrats enough ammo to hold back a confirmation hearing until January? Or do you push Kavanaugh through and pray that he doesn't have another sex scandal come up between now and 2020?

If this is purely a political ploy, Democrats will regret it. Amy Coney Barrett will almost certainly be the replacement, she'll pass with flying colors, and she'll be much more conservative than Kavanaugh would be.

---

Shouldn't her complaint be disregarded as insincere political gamesmanship solely based on the fact that Diane Feinstein has been withholding it since early July?

Anyone who makes an accusation of sexual assault should be heard. At the same time, a single, unprovable accusation of sexual assault should not be allowed to destroy the accused. I believe that this is purely designed to put some shake into Republicans' boots. Do you reject Trump's nominee and possibly give Democrats enough ammo to hold back a confirmation hearing until January? Or do you push Kavanaugh through and pray that he doesn't have another sex scandal come up between now and 2020?

If this is purely a political ploy, Democrats will regret it. Amy Coney Barrett will almost certainly be the replacement, she'll pass with flying colors, and she'll be much more conservative than Kavanaugh would be.

Mitch McConnell advised Trump not to pick Kavanaugh. He allegedly gave Trump two names that would be better.
A better Republican President would have nominated someone like Gorsuch who will vote to restrict abortion and not overly defer to bureaucrats, but who doesn't have any accusation of sex crimes and doesn't have any past of using stolen goods.
A better Republican President would cancel the nomination of Kavanaugh ASAP in favor of, perhaps Comey Barrett, perhaps someone else.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Anyone who makes an accusation of sexual assault should be heard. At the same time, a single, unprovable accusation of sexual assault should not be allowed to destroy the accused. I believe that this is purely designed to put some shake into Republicans' boots. Do you reject Trump's nominee and possibly give Democrats enough ammo to hold back a confirmation hearing until January? Or do you push Kavanaugh through and pray that he doesn't have another sex scandal come up between now and 2020?

If this is purely a political ploy, Democrats will regret it. Amy Coney Barrett will almost certainly be the replacement, she'll pass with flying colors, and she'll be much more conservative than Kavanaugh would be.

Mitch McConnell advised Trump not to pick Kavanaugh.  He allegedly gave Trump two names that would be better.
A better Republican President would have nominated someone like Gorsuch who will vote to restrict abortion and not overly defer to bureaucrats, but who doesn't have any accusation of sex crimes and doesn't have any past of using stolen goods.
A better Republican President would cancel the nomination of Kavanaugh ASAP in favor of, perhaps Comey Barrett, perhaps someone else.

Mitch McConnell is an idiot.

With that out if the way, had Trump just gone with Barrett in the first place, the hearing would be over already.

---

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.

Lol.  

Steele established probable cause?  U actually typed that of ur own free will?  

In sworn testimony he said he himself couldn't vouch for the veracity of his accusations and his point of contact at the FBI said it would never hold up in court.  

Lol.  

Still waiting to see the quote where McConnell said he would never consider a Hillary nominee for the duration of her term

---

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

Go home, drifter. You are shooting right wing taking points again.

---

Go home, drifter. You are shooting right wing taking points again.

What? Can't handle the truth?

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

She probably can't figure out her gender either

---

If a citizen calls 911/police and reports false crimes or emergencies it is a crime and they would face legal consequence. If this woman's accusation proves to be a political ploy designed to delay then all involved should face legal consequences. If it proves out Kavanaugh did something then likewise for him. All aspects of this point to a complete sham IMO. If the man cannot be prosecuted for any crimes related to the alleged incident then it is a sham and merely a political tactic that should be a crime and prosecutable against the accuser.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Both should take lie detector tests. I know they are not 100% accurate but at least it would provide another indication if the results differ as it relates to each persons responses.

---

She probably can't figure out her gender either

I see no gender
I see no color

---

Both should take lie detector tests.  I know they are not 100% accurate but at least it would provide another indication if the results differ as it relates to each persons responses.

---

She probably can't figure out her gender either

I see no gender
I see no color

They aren't 100% accurate, so what would that prove?

---