Displaying 1 - 10 of 46 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Sep 10, 2018 01:12 PM
    Last: 4mo
    3.6k
    wwjd Wrote:

    I am going to call it. Jeff Flake will not vote to confirm along with at least one other Republican Senator. Kavanaugh will not be confirmed to the SC and is at risk of loosing his current appointment.

    It appears that many other Republicans Senators have their reservations too, but don't want trump targeting them as traitors in tweets and at rallies. They want other senators to be the Republican bad guys so they don't have too. And Privately nearly all Republicans in congress feel there are better conservative judges that can get confirmed without controversy, so they know the best move is to find a better conservative candidate. And its almost certain the investigation into Kavanaugh will not end if he makes it to the SC. Afterwards, as more dirt and victims are made public, Republicans would be blamed for pushing hard for a SC Justice that has attacked women... Just think about Kavanaugh ruling on Women issues after it has been factually exposed to have attack one or more women. It's likely that current SC justices don't want Kavanaugh either.

    Bold call, I like it!

    I will also make a stab at a call. Although I very much hope you're right, I think he will be confirmed. I think Flake will vote no, but Collins will vote yes. I think Murkowski has more of a potential for voting no, and actually might do that, due to other issues going on in her state regarding native Americans, but ultimately I think she will be pressured into a yes also. Heitcamp and Manchin will be forced into a no, due to the fact their polls are dropping in their respective states in the last week.

    I do agree with the rest of your post, and most R's would be happy if they could turn back the clock and put through another nominee, since K's such a poor choice. I think he will end up going through, the bottom line being that R's will not chance that they don't get another chance of getting a conservative nominee, since the midterms could blast them out. I think the R's are more afraid of losing this chance than they are afraid of the potential backlash they will get in the midterms. One midterm compared to decades of a conservative court is a small trade off in their eyes.

    As a woman who feels absolutely certain K will do everything he can to ensure he overturns Roe, I have an such an emotional stake in this, and now I also feel certain K will remain vindictive enough to ensure he really 'sticks' it to Dems and liberals in any way he can, for as long as he can. It's absolutely frightening to the point of keeping me up at night of what Trump will be able to accomplish and hide from with him on the SC. I'd bet anything that the SC justices are in fact dreading his confirmation, with the exception of Thomas, possibly, since the spotlight will be less on him from here on out on the allegation issue.

    Anyone else care to take a stab how the keys senators will vote?

  • Sep 10, 2018 01:12 PM
    Last: 4mo
    3.6k
    wwjd Wrote:
    Dockadams Wrote: Some people here are forgetting that the head of the FBI is a Trump appointee. I see conflict in that, and I see a biased investigation too.
    Naw, if what you say were true, the Mueller investigation would have been over a long time ago, nobody would have been charged\convicted, and Trump would have been fully cleared. Plus, the FBI would have arrested HC and charged her conspiring with the Russians based on false evidence create by Trump's allies. Not only her, but several political enemies of Trump.
    Yes, agree. I see no conflict overall with Wray. I see a biased investigation, but not because of Wray, who I believe is overall a principled appointee.
  • Sep 10, 2018 01:12 PM
    Last: 4mo
    3.6k
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Trump is their boss and he is outlining their work publicly. By limiting the scope and duration of the investigation he is dictating the outcome. If the FBI is limited and Judge knows the limitations that can effect his testimony. If he knows he can't be contradicted then he doesn't worry about perjury.
    Said much better than I in a nutshell.
  • Sep 10, 2018 01:12 PM
    Last: 4mo
    3.6k

    Just to clarify further, cross checks with the twitter feed of Ken Dilanian from NBC and others, as well as this AM's reporting on cable news, including FOX, does show that Trump is limiting the scope to disallow an investigation into Michael Avanetti's client Swetnik. The reports state that the WH provided a witness list the FBI is permitted to interview. Also indicated is that limited investigation can be looked into regarding Kavanaugh's drinking back in that time period. This appears to be the 'limited scope' the WH is referring to. Again, this is the reporting coming out, but this morning on CNN and FOX, Sarah Sanders and others are denying this.

    That being said, that is a far cry and a big leap from what some here are misinterpreting that as meaning the FBI being in Trump's pocket, or the FBI going along with obstructing justice on behalf of Trump. Just that the FBI is being limited to certain witnesses and maybe some subjects. I don't at all believe the FBI is complicit, which to me is ridiculous, just constrained.

    Avanatti, I'm sure, will come out swinging about this during the week, and has already expressed concern about this Saturday evening on Twitter.

    I think it's likely that the reports are true, and another indication our free press is digging out the true facts about this investigation. I found it very strange that Trump as well as Lindsay Graham acted just peachy about the one week delay even before these reports came out, leaving me queasy and very uneasy on Friday, but I couldn't quite put my finger on why. I think there is a high chance that this investigation, while not meant to be by Flake or others, is a sham, an excuse to vote yes at the end of the week.

  • Sep 10, 2018 01:12 PM
    Last: 4mo
    3.6k
    Is Seth Abramson credible? I've read differing things on him on both sides from other sources....anyone have more info on him?
  • Sep 10, 2018 01:12 PM
    Last: 4mo
    3.6k
  • Sep 10, 2018 01:12 PM
    Last: 4mo
    3.6k

    theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/w...

    Great article that helps me understand the republican mind about this nomination and why they would still support Kavanaugh (and even embrace him further with all his current problems) even if it hurts them politically

  • Sep 10, 2018 01:12 PM
    Last: 4mo
    3.6k

    nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/whit...

    this is not good news about the limitations of the FBI per the WH

  • Sep 10, 2018 01:12 PM
    Last: 4mo
    3.6k
    wwjd Wrote:

    We shall see if Kavanaugh was bluffing during the hearing when he said he was open to having these accusation fully investigated. He likely believed he could get confirmed without the FBI investigating him further.

    Kavaugh is smart enough to know that the FBI is likely to uncover factual evidence that either clears him or support the accusations. If he was bluffing during the hearing, I expect him to withdraw before the FBI has a chance to complete their investigation. If the FBI makes public damning evidence that he sexually assaulted anyone, his entire career is over. I think he is smart enough to withdraw and so he is able to keep his current judicial appointment. He better hope the FBI does not find evidence that he was at that party because that evidence will end his career.

    I don't agree with this, although I hope it is true. I don't at all think he's smart enough to withdraw, and has no intention of doing so, no matter what. He is just like Trump, and will handle this as Trump has, by continuing to state (if anything is found) that it is all a conspiracy against him. He will revert back to Trump's views that the FBI is partisan and against Trump, and is therefore against him too, and dug up false dirt. I will not be surprised at all that Trump will also throw cold water on anything the FBI comes up with for the same reason. The R's will agree and vote him in as a result.

    A family member asked me today, who does not follow the news but has heard snippets of Trump since he became president, 'is the FBI credible enough to do this check'?

    That says it all. I haven't heard the pundits today bring up the issue of how likely Trump is to undermine any FBI investigation, but it is the likely scenario should the investigation bring forth something incriminating. It's no wonder that Trump does not appear to be agonizing about the week delay or causing much of a fuss about it. Why would he have any different opinion about the FBI in this matter than he has had prior, given his discrediting Comey, Page, Mueller, et al?

  • Sep 27, 2018 12:18 PM
    Last: 1yr
    296
    not for me either could you repost Dutch?