Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


Justice Anthony Kennedy announces retirement, giving Trump 2nd Supreme Court pick


 Quote:
Justice Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday that he is retiring, giving President Trump a critical opportunity to move the Supreme Court more solidly to the right in what promises to be an epic confirmation fight.

The 81-year-old senior associate justice informed the White House in a letter of his intention to step down from the high court after 30 years, effective July 31. Rumors of another vacancy have reverberated across Washington in recent months, and it comes a year after Kennedy's former law clerk Justice Neil Gorsuch, took over the seat occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Trump, reacting to the news, called Kennedy a "great justice" and said he'd begin the search for a replacement immediately.

Arguably the most powerful member of the Supreme Court, Kennedy's moderate-conservative views often left him the "swing" -- or deciding -- vote in hot-button cases ranging from abortion to gay rights to political campaign spending.

A Supreme Court vacancy will likely become a key issue in a midterm congressional election year, when control of the Senate is at stake.

That body will consider Trump's latest high court nominee, requiring only a simple majority for confirmation. GOP leaders changed the rules when Gorsuch was being considered, to get rid of the 60-vote procedural filibuster threshold.



But Democrats are expected to try and transform the court opening into a broader political referendum on Trump's leadership, and the future of social issues like immigration, gun rights and race.

Republicans, for their part, hope Kennedy's replacement helps them in the November elections.

Kennedy was nominated to the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 and sworn in the following year.

While often voting with the court’s conservative bloc, he has been a key swing vote in a number of cases and occasionally sided with the court’s liberal wing, particularly on issues such a gay rights an abortion. Most notably, he wrote the 2015 ruling on Obergefell v Hodges, which found that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

His retirement had been rumored in recent years, with several of his former clerks having said they thought he was considering stepping down.

While it is not clear whom Trump will nominate, the eventual nominee is likely to face resistance from Senate Democrats -- who are still bristling from Senate Republicans’ blockade of Obama-pick Merrick Garland in 2016 and would balk at the possibility of Trump hardening the conservative bloc on the court.

Kennedy’s retirement comes as both Gorsuch and Kennedy were key votes in two controversial decisions this week -- upholding Trump's 'travel ban' and ruling against union's 'fair share' fees.

Both decisions were 5-4.



The one I was expecting to retire was Ruth Bader Ginsberg. This was unexpected. And of course, if Ginsberg retires, Trump will get to have selected at least 3 justices during his term as president.





Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
It was often rumored that Kennedy wanted to retire during a Republican presidency.

Ginsberg would die before she let a Republican pick her successor.

Hell, if she does die while Trump is in office, the unhinged left will "Weekend at Bernies" her until the corpse is mummified. ;\)

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


I wonder what you, as a lawyer, think of Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a Supreme Court justice.

As we touched on in a previous topic, I (as a non-lawyer) see her as a USSC justice who is a partisan and a liberal activist on the Court, rather than a justice who rules based on legal precedent and preservation of the true intent of the Constitution.

A few examples I can think of offhand.

1) Ginsberg ruled on gay marriage a few years ago, and it turned out that just a few weeks before the ruling, Ginsberg had conducted the ceremony at a gay wedding! Manifesting a certain bias in her ruling, where she should have recused herself.

and

2) Where some African country was forming a new government, she said that forming a nation's constitution now, she wouldn't use the U.S. Constitution as a model for forming a new government. Which was quite alarming to me, since it is her job to judge laws that conform to that U.S. Constitution, that she seemed to have an ironic contempt and disregard for!

Her and Sotomayor are the two weak links on the Court, that seem (my opinion) the most prone to rule on their own biases and personal liberal advocacy, rather than the Constitutionality of the law.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
If rumors/alleged insider leaks prove true, Ginsberg is going to be next very soon.

None of this is by coincidence. The chickens are finally coming home to roost for that corrupt, pedo-cunt (see also: she advocated for lowering age of consent to twelve years old).

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy


I wonder what you, as a lawyer, think of Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a Supreme Court justice.

As we touched on in a previous topic, I (as a non-lawyer) see her as a USSC justice who is a partisan and a liberal activist on the Court, rather than a justice who rules based on legal precedent and preservation of the true intent of the Constitution.

A few examples I can think of offhand.

1) Ginsberg ruled on gay marriage a few years ago, and it turned out that just a few weeks before the ruling, Ginsberg had conducted the ceremony at a gay wedding! Manifesting a certain bias in her ruling, where she should have recused herself.

and

2) Where some African country was forming a new government, she said that forming a nation's constitution now, she wouldn't use the U.S. Constitution as a model for forming a new government. Which was quite alarming to me, since it is her job to judge laws that conform to that U.S. Constitution, that she seemed to have an ironic contempt and disregard for!

Her and Sotomayor are the two weak links on the Court, that seem (my opinion) the most prone to rule on their own biases and personal liberal advocacy, rather than the Constitutionality of the law.


I see her as very intelligent, quite collegial, but extremely partisan.

And if she passes away while a republican is president, you're going to see liberals driving their kids out to the desert for mass murder suicides.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


 Quote:
And if she passes away while a republican is president, you're going to see liberals driving their kids out to the desert for mass murder suicides.


\:lol\:

That was funny to read, but I'm not entirely sure you're joking.

Ginsberg has been in poor health, so it's a very real possibility that she could either resign or die in office.


It does seem that Republicans look for a justice who will rule according to precedent and the Constitutional rule of law, even if it contradicts their own political views on issues like gay rights, abortion, gun control and Obamacare. Whereas Democrats seem to want liberal advocates who will vote the party line as a liberal advocate creating new precedents, rather than respecting the true intent of the law, and past precedent.

The one ruling that bothered me as a conservative Republican was over Obamacare, and that was because John Roberts, who clearly said Obamacare is unconstitutional should have been the vote to overturn it, but voted to keep it, because "it is not the job of the Court to overturn bad law" but is instead something to be decided in popular elections. Which was both voting on political considerations and not the law, and also passing the buck, on what it is the U S Supreme Court's job to do. And Roberts did it in two different rulings on Obamacare!

And of course, liberals loved that ruling, because by whatever circumnavigation of the law, it allowed the Democrat political victory of Obamacare to stand (the only legislative victory of Obama's entire 8 years.)

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


In any case, Trump will announce his new court nominee tonight.

The opposition by Democrats is allegedly a grudge match because of the Republican opposition to Obama replacing Scalia in the concluding months of his presidency (even though Democrats did the same in previous replacement battles). If not for the Gorsuch appointment, Democrats would find some other manufactured pretext to oppose any Republican court replacement pick.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29



Trump will announce his pick within a few hours, at which the field of four nominees will narrow to one.

It's hilarious to me that the left has already arranged to have angry protests to coincide with the announcement. They don't even know who the nominee is, but they still arrange in advance to create the spectacle of a large protest, NO MATTER WHO the nominee is!

They did the same with the Gorsuch nomination.


  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


A great question by Lou Dobbs tonight on his program, speaking with Ed Rollins (Reagan's campaign manager).

Dobbs asked: Why didn't Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in failing health, retire from the Court while Obama was president, to assure a liberal would replace her on the court?
To which Dobbs himself answered: "Because she didn't trust the man!"

Ginsberg likely was confident Hillary Clinton would win the election, and would be the one to appoint her replacement. But it's an interesting thought, that she didn't trust Obama to appoint her replacement.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

It was announce at 9PM last night. Hannity's program included Trump's announcement, Brett Kavenaugh's speech immediately after, and commentary on the nomination:


President Trump announces Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court pick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSRkCAWpMzE


The left's kneejerk protests and backlash were, of course, instant. And insane. The guy clerked for Justice Kennedy, and if Kennedy had selected his own replacement it likely would have been Kavenaugh. He has a reputation as an impeccable and impartial judge by both conservatives and liberals who worked with him, was hired by Justice Elena Kagan to teach law at Harvard, his mom taught at predominantly black schools and taught him to appreciate the underprivileged, and he devotes holidays to helping the pastor of his Catholic church in a soup kitchen feeding the homeless. And his family is like something out of a Norman Rockwell painting.

I mean geez, how do you condemn this guy?



Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

Great commentary also by Laura Ingraham as well, who is a lawyer, and who clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. So she had a lot of insightful firsthand legal opinion of the Supreme Court.

Laura Ingraham, July 9 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtrEU_x-XwQ



And just for laughs, the petty and mean commentary I saw on CNN with Don Lemon. They literally couldn't bring themselves to say anything nice about the guy or Trump's selection of him.

Don Lemon, July 9 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJioBv8KfIQ


It's unintentional comedy.





Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
At this point it's whoever controls the senate gets whatever they want when it comes to this. Just remember that won't change after your party loses it.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
At this point it's whoever controls the senate gets whatever they want when it comes to this. Just remember that won't change after your party loses it.


Maybe someone should've told Harry Reid that before he nuked the filibuster

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
He made the right choice. The GOP would have just had more vacancies to fill if Reid had continued letting them obstruct.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
At this point it's whoever controls the senate gets whatever they want when it comes to this. Just remember that won't change after your party loses it.


I'm very aware of that. And it frankly terrifies me that your party could ever regain power, given the Democrat Central Committee's escalating propensity for abuse of power, weaponizing of federal agencies, and complete lawlessness.
Lois Lerner, and all the other federal agencies that coordinated abuse of Tea Party and religious conservative groups.
Frank Vandersloot, who had to spend $80,000 to defend himself against vindictive IRS audits, just to prove he did nothing wrong.
The EPA used to shut down Gibson Guitars, again because they were Republican supporters. All the wood seized to prevent them from producing guitars, the exact same wood a number of other companies use as well (NOT Republican donors), who were never raided, never subjected to the same seizure.

And needless to say, the whole FBI/DOJ Hillary exoneration, despite overwhelming evidence, immunity handed out to her underlings and evidence destroyed with FBI/DOJ's blessing, then FBI/DOJ's rush to defame and indict Trump despite no evidence. Using the fraudulent Russia Dossier to get FISA warrants from a judge. Using FBI agents and subcontracted Russians as bait to entrap Trump campaign officials.

Then opening a Meuller investigation on false pretenses, and stacking it with 17 Democrats, 13 of whom are Democrat campaign donors. One of whom, attorney Jeannie Rhee (mind-blowing conflict of interest!) was just prior employed by the Clinton foundation to suppress FOIA requests, and now she is tasked with getting records from the Clinton Foundation she is a loyal zealot to. Andrew Weissman, Meuller's prosecutor, was at Hillary's election night victory party, and has Facebook-posted his contempt for Trump, who he is investigating.

Conflict of interest up the ying yang.

Your party is dangerous, M E M. They practice the ruthless tactics of Lenin and Stalin. Precisely because those are their heroes. And I have posted articles and video of their quoted words over and over to prove that. These are people who worship Mao, Castro, Hugo Chaves, the Sandinistas, and Che. In addition to William Ayers and Saul Alinsky, who are next generation Marxist radicals. Your party has become antithetical to the Constitution that the rest of us vow to preserve, protect and defend.

You can't even pretend the Democrats respect the law anymore. All you can do is look the other way as they trample on it.



  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

Just in case you've forgotten:


Discoverthenetworks listing, Barack Obama:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511

Discoverthenetworks, Hillary Clinton:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=18

William Ayers, the benefactor who sponsored Obama's political development, and first campaign fundraiser:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2169

An FBI agent who infiltrated Willam Ayers' Weather Underground:
[youtube]VlN2t0oERHk&t=57s[/youtube]

Ayers and Dohrn envisioned a joint occupation of the U.S. by the Russians, Chinese and Cubans, and the "liquidation" of about 10% of the U.S. population who were too capitalist to be "re-educated" to a Marxist ideology and government.

Valerie Jarrett:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2418

Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's mentor from age 10 till college, and a Stalinist who was under FBI surveillance his entire life. Who also had close ties to both Valerie Jarrett's parents, and to Barack Obama's mother, with whom he shared radical ideology, as well as a sexual relationship:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2323

The ties between all these people is just TOO coincidental to be coincidence. Obama was cultivated since at least his time at ACORN to be a Manchurian candidate by Ayers and Jarrett to advance their revolution.

Oh. I forgot Bernie Sanders:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2266

Who has praised Soviet Russia, Castro's Cuba, the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, Mao's China, and even displayed a Soviet flag in his office for 10 years while mayor of Burlinton, Vermont, out of solidarity.

So yeah, I'm very aware the Democrats will likely at some point return to power. And it is not the slightest bit hyperbolic to say they are dangerous radicals, increasingly more so, and it terrifies me.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

Events over the last two weeks during the Senate hearings for the Kavenaugh nomination, and the vile bomb unleashed on the last day by Sen Diane Feinstein (D-CA) just continue to manifest that the Democrats are the party of chaos, slander, and contempt for the rule of law.


THE LYNCHING OF BRETT KAVANAUGH


 Quote:
by Wayne Allyn Root


I told you so. Once the GOP allowed Judge Roy Moore (Alabama U.S. Senate candidate) to be publicly lynched with zero evidence, zero witnesses, based on “he said, she said” charges 40 years old, it would never end. This would become a tool of the left.

I was right.

By the way, if Judge Roy was really a “pervert,” how come we’ve never heard a word about it, ever again? Where did all the victims go? Why no lawsuits against Judge Moore? They appeared out of thin air. As soon as he lost, they all disappeared into thin air.

Anyone can make up anything, anytime, without proof, or witnesses. Any desperate liberal who wants to stop a fine conservative from being elected, or becoming a Supreme Court Judge can invent, out of thin air, any fantastic fiction they want.

And never forget about the money factor. Anyone can be bribed to falsify a story by committed liberal billionaires like George Soros, with $1 million deposited into a Swiss bank account.

All of that is in play here with accuser Christine Blasey Ford and the public lynching of Brett Kavanaugh. The story is unbelievable. It’s clearly a last-minute Hail Mary by the left. It’s not even original. It’s almost an exact copy of the lynching of Clarence Thomas, another GOP Supreme Court nominee forced to defend himself against slanderous, unprovable charges. It’s a liberal gameplan, taken right from the previous script.

Ford can’t prove Kavanugh was there. She can’t prove he was in the room. She doesn’t remember key details. It happened 36 years ago. She has no idea how she got to the party, or how she got home. The only witness says it never happened. She reported it to no one- not parents, friends, or police.

Then there’s the absurd “coincidences” and “connections.” The accuser hates Trump. She is an ultra-liberal Bernie Sanders donor. She marched in the “I hate Trump” parade in DC filled with liberal feminists, wearing pink vagina hats. Her social media was filled with hatred for Trump. She scrubbed it clean in the past few days.

Her parents were in foreclosure proceedings in 1996. The presiding judge? Judge Kavanaugh’s mother. Liberals argue it doesn’t matter because they didn’t lose the home. Of course, it matters. It’s a massive red flag.

And the accuser’s lawyer just happens to be major donor to the DNC, Obama, Hillary and George Soros’ MoveOn.org.

But here’s the real clincher. US Senator Feinstein has known about the charges leveled against Kavanaugh since late July. She interviewed Kavanagh personally and never said anything about…rape? Her fellow Democrat Senators submitted thousands of questions, but never thought to mention…rape?

This is a purposeful, desperation frame job. This is a liberal conspiracy- just like the DNC fixing the Democrat primary for Hillary; and Obama conspiring with the DNC, Hillary and FBI to spy on Trump and fix the general election against Trump.

This is a national disgrace. Even I never imagined Democrats could go this low. It doesn’t get any lower than the public lynching of a fine All-American gentleman like Brett Kavanagh.

How All-American is Judge Brett Kavanaugh? Forget the fact he’s a loyal husband. Forget the fact he’s a wonderful father of two young daughters. Forget the fact he’s a girl’s basketball coach. Forget that his record is spotless. Forget all he’s accomplished in life. This guy is such a gentleman and boy scout that his ex girlfriends have publicly come forward in support of him. Do you have former girlfriends or boyfriends willing to vouch for you?

This guy is a cross between Jimmy Stewart and Mother Teresa.

This is the guy every father wants to marry his daughter. This is the guy everyone wants to coach your daughter’s basketball team. This is the guy everyone wants on the Supreme Court.

Except Democrats suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” They want to lynch Kavanaugh. After all, they believe he deserves it. He’s a white, straight, male Republican.

____________________________________

Wayne Allyn Root is the host of “WAR Now: The Wayne Allyn Root Show” on Newsmax TV, nightly at 8 PM ET, found on DirecTV channel #349, or at http://www.newsmaxtv.com/Shows/The-Wayne-Allyn-Root-Show He is also a nationally syndicated radio host of “WAR Now: The Wayne Allyn Root Show” found at http://usaradio.com/wayne-allyn-root/





Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

65 women defend Kavanaugh as 'a good person' amid allegations

 Quote:
More than five dozen women came forward Friday to defend Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh against an alleged high school incident, calling President Trump’s pick for the high court “a good person.”

The 65 women, who claim to have known Kavanaugh for more than 35 years, penned a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee to vouch for his character.


“We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983. For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect,” the letter read.
“We strongly believe it is important to convey this information to the Committee at this time.”

The women wrote that while Kavanaugh attended Georgetown Preparatory School, an all-boys high school in Bethesda, Maryland, they knew him through “social events, sports, church, and various other activities.”

“Many of us have remained close friends with him and his family over the years. Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity,” they wrote. “In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day.”

They added: “The signers of this letter hold a broad range of political views. Many of us are not lawyers, but we know Brett Kavanaugh as a person. And he has always been a good person.”

The letter comes amid a controversy ignited by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who released a statement this week saying that she turned information about Kavanaugh over to the FBI. She did not detail the accusation, and Republicans accused her of trying to orchestrate a last-minute smear.

“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Senator Feinstein said in a surprise statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”

Fox News confirmed that the letter involved an allegation about Kavanaugh while in high school in the 1980s. A woman who was also in high school at the time, accused Kavanaugh of holding her down and trying to force himself on her during a party, before she got away. The details were first reported by The New Yorker.

The woman also claimed Kavanaugh was joined at the time by a friend who turned up music to conceal her protests. The unnamed classmate, quoted in the New Yorker article as having "no recollection of that," is Mark Judge, Fox News confirmed. His identity was first reported by The Weekly Standard.

"It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way," Judge said, adding that he still does not know the identity of the woman who made the allegations.

Kavanaugh denied the allegations Friday.

“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” Kavanaugh, 53, said in a statement.

The White House blasted the charges on Thursday.

“Not until the eve of his confirmation has Sen. Feinstein or anyone raised the specter of new ‘information’ about him,” White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement.

The accusations come after Kavanaugh’s Capitol Hill confirmation grilling, and ahead of the committee vote on sending his nomination to the full Senate.

The FBI conducts background checks on all major government appointees, including Supreme Court nominees.

“Upon receipt of the information on the night of September 12, we included it as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process,” the FBI said in a statement.

Fox News has learned that the White House would need to request that the bureau follow up on the letter for the matter to be investigated further.

Despite the controversy, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said there is no plan to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Grassley set the panel’s vote on Kavanaugh for Sept. 20 and Republicans hope to confirm him by the start of the new court session on Oct. 1.




No one too important, just every woman in his personal and professional life since high school. Every legal colleague, every subordinate, every past girlfriend.



Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
Broaddrick: FBI Probe Ford Allegation? Then ‘Investigate My RAPE Allegations’ Against Clinton

 Quote:
CNSNews.com) -- Commenting on Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her at a beer party some 36 years ago and that the FBI must investigate the matter now before she will testify about the supposed incident, Juanita Broaddrick tweeted that if the FBI goes back that far then it must also "investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too."

"If you want the FBI to go back that far @HillaryClinton @MSNBC to investigate Ford's allegations .... let's investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too. Seems only fair," Broaddrick tweeted on Sept. 18.

Juanita Broaddrick, a retired nursing home administrator, has long maintained that Bill Clinton, when he was the Arkansas Attorney General, raped her -- a "forcible, brutal rape" -- in a hotel room in Little Rock, Ark., on April 25, 1978. At the time, Broaddrick was 35, Clinton was 31.




Democrats didn't (and still don't) give a damn about Juanita Broaddrick. They wouldn't even take her statement into the congressional record. Or any of Bill Clinton's other assault victims.

Democrats don't care about Keith Ellison's assault on a former girfriend either. Who they likewise don't even want to listen to.

Or the indiscretions of Ted Kennedy and so many other Democrats. Hey, all he did was drive a car off a bridge and leave a girl in the car to drown, which she did. If he had reported the incident, the woman could have been rescued instead of dying in the submerged car.

Democrat Senators' concern about women, and about sexual assault of women, is very selective. Basically, if a woman's assailant is a Democrat, they don't believe you and won't even listen to you.


Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Actually I think Ellison is going to lose but don't let that interrupt your tantrum


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

If a "tantrum" is posting three articles. I think your accusing me of a tantrum is your tantrum, and an attempt to distract from the facts presented.

And if Keith Ellison loses his current election, it won't be because the Democrats did the right thing. Quite the opposite, it will be because the Democrats did their damnedest to pretend Ellison's abused ex-girlfriend doesn't exist (her own words), the polar opposite of the Democrats' call for accuser Christine Blasey Ford to be believed.
VERY CLEAR: the Democrats just want Blasey-Ford to be believed, scouts' honor, without any investigation of the facts. They portray asking her to testify as victimizing her again. Because the "facts" are a house of cards that will collapse on investigation. Sen. Diane Feinstein gambled that the mere accusation would destroy Kavanaugh's nomination, but now that there are calls for an actual hearing under oath, both Blasey-Ford and the Democrat leadership are panicking.

But Kavanaugh has the right to face his accuser.





Blasey-Ford thought she could throw daggers and destroy Kavanaugh from the shadows, now she is being forced into the light. As are Senator Feinstein and the rest of her evil minions. Their deception is exposed.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
Alinsky-style Cultural Marxism. That which serves the revolution is moral, that which doesn't is immoral.
No standards or ethics whatsoever.
Lawlessness and chaos, the Democrat way.

Or as FBI deep-state agent labelled "FBI Attorney 2" (revealed as 36 year old Kevin Klinesmith) said in texts while plotting against Trump: "Viva La Resistance!"



Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29




Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29




Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Actually I think Ellison is going to lose but don't let that interrupt your tantrum


Whether or not the voters reject Ellison is in no way relevant to the double standard being demonstrated by the DNC here.

A double standard made especially egregious by the fact of the evidence against Ellison is stronger and involves an incident much more recent in time then "he said she said" from nearly 40 years ago when people were in high school

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

If a "tantrum" is posting three articles. I think your accusing me of a tantrum is your tantrum, and an attempt to distract from the facts presented.

And if Keith Ellison loses his current election, it won't be because the Democrats did the right thing. Quite the opposite, it will be because the Democrats did their damnedest to pretend Ellison's abused ex-girlfriend doesn't exist (her own words), the polar opposite of the Democrats' call for accuser Christine Blasey Ford to be believed.
VERY CLEAR: the Democrats just want Blasey-Ford to be believed, scouts' honor, without any investigation of the facts. They portray asking her to testify as victimizing her again. Because the "facts" are a house of cards that will collapse on investigation. Sen. Diane Feinstein gambled that the mere accusation would destroy Kavanaugh's nomination, but now that there are calls for an actual hearing under oath, both Blasey-Ford and the Democrat leadership are panicking.

But Kavanaugh has the right to face his accuser.





Blasey-Ford thought she could throw daggers and destroy Kavanaugh from the shadows, now she is being forced into the light. As are Senator Feinstein and the rest of her evil minions. Their deception is exposed.



Why are you assuming Ford is lying? I understand why you would want to but you really don't know.


Fair play!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
And g trying to rape somebody doesn't become more okay because it happened x years ago.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: M E M
 Originally Posted By: WB

If a "tantrum" is posting three articles. I think your accusing me of a tantrum is your tantrum, and an attempt to distract from the facts presented.

And if Keith Ellison loses his current election, it won't be because the Democrats did the right thing. Quite the opposite, it will be because the Democrats did their damnedest to pretend Ellison's abused ex-girlfriend doesn't exist (her own words), the polar opposite of the Democrats' call for accuser Christine Blasey Ford to be believed.
VERY CLEAR: the Democrats just want Blasey-Ford to be believed, scouts' honor, without any investigation of the facts. They portray asking her to testify as victimizing her again. Because the "facts" are a house of cards that will collapse on investigation. Sen. Diane Feinstein gambled that the mere accusation would destroy Kavanaugh's nomination, but now that there are calls for an actual hearing under oath, both Blasey-Ford and the Democrat leadership are panicking.

But Kavanaugh has the right to face his accuser.

Blasey-Ford thought she could throw daggers and destroy Kavanaugh from the shadows, now she is being forced into the light. As are Senator Feinstein and the rest of her evil minions. Their deception is exposed.



Why are you assuming Ford is lying? I understand why you would want to but you really don't know.




1) Because it has been a consistent vicious last-minute Democrat tactic, going back to at least the 1991 Clarence Thomas nomination.

And unleashed on Trump as an October surprise in 2016.

And unleashed again on Roy Moore earlier this year. I'm probably forgetting the names of several other Republicans who withdrew their candidacy and immediately caved in to these tactics. Last-minute vile and baseless sexual allegations are a consistent Democrat tactic, from a Democrat leadership that is fiercely cynical, destructive to the nation, ruthlessly seizing whatever gives them political advantage, with absolutely no ethics or moral restraint.

2) Sen. Diane Feinstein knew about this allegation since mid/late July, and waited till the 2nd week of September to unleash it. That is not the mark of someone who is pursuing the truth wherever it leads, but of someone calculating a slanderous ambush to destroy a nominee, giving Kavanaugh the minimum recovery time to defend himself. And a deceitful delay tactic, to stall Kavanaugh's confirmation as long as possible.
If Feinstein believed the charges and were an honest broker, she would have investigated in July, and either publicly or in closed hearings given Kavanaugh the chance to respond.

3) Diane Feinstein just yesterday hummed and hawed before an interviewer, and said she "can't vouch" for the truthfulness of the allegation Ford is making. As Tammi Bruce ( a lesbian conservative, and former leader in NOW in their California branch, who abandoned liberalism precisely because of this kind of vicious liberal hypocrisy and deceit) said that Diane Feinstein gambled that the allegation alone would be enough to destroy Kavanaugh's candidacy, that she promised Ford she wouldn't have to testify. And now that it is coming down to Ford no longer being able to hurl her knives from the shadows, that her name is in the national media, that she is being compelled to face the man she accused and testify under oath for things she knows are slanders and not true, Ford is now panicking. She doesn't want to perjure herself. And now Feinstein is panicking, because her slander campaign is crumbling, hence Feinstein hums and haws that she "can't vouch" for Ford's allegations. Ford blinked. Feinstein blinked. Because it is a lie.

3) And from the outset, and for 3 months, it has been clear that the Democrat leadership has been hell-bent on destroying Kavanaugh's confirmation, despite Kavanaugh's impeccable personal and legal record.

For no reason other than he is Trump's nominee. Schumer, Durbin, Hoyer, Gillibrand, Feinstein, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, you name it, NONE of these Senators were EVER going to vote yes for Kavanaugh. Or even fairly weigh the evidence before deciding to vote no. And clearly, not because Ford's rape allegation has any whiff of truth, but just because it has the potential to rationalize rejecting Kavanaugh, they are leaping on it.

This is way beyond politics, the malice with which they attempt to destroy Kavanaugh. And your vicious party does it over and over. Destroying so many people. Contrast their eagerness to believe this Ford woman with their eagerness to kick down and destroy Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, who they WOULDN"T EVEN LISTEN TO, WOULDN"T EVEN READ THEIR ACCOUNTS INTO THE CONGRESIONAL RECORD! Oh, the irony.
And beyond that, looked the other way while these Clinton accusers were publicly destroyed and their lives ruined. Juanita Broaddrick talked about being directly threatened back in 1978 by Hillary Clinton, in an interview a few days ago, and described that encounter as "the first time I became afraid of that woman." 40 years these women's lives have been destroyed. Not the slightest Democrat interest in knowing the details of their assaults, or the threats and intimidation they've endured for four decades after.


So why don't I believe Ford?
Because it didn't follow a natural path of discovery and investigation.
Because of Dems' selective double-standard.
Because the sexual allegations are typical of orchestrated Democrat character assassination, across multiple campaigns and nominations.
And because your party has proven itself consistently capable of this kind of destructive evil.
And because both Ford and Feinstein have already blinked. Because even they know it's a lie.



Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
As I understand it Ford has confided in people about this as far back as 2012. She took and passed a lie detector test. And she had to have known coming forward was going to earn her a lot of death threats from your side. You want to assume she's lying but in reality she very well could have had a drunken Kavanaugh with buddy try to rape her.


Fair play!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6


You do know that we don't elect Federal Judges precisely because we don't want them subject to the political whims of the voters, don't you?

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Voters do pick the ones who pick the judges though and you would be foolish if you think your pols are not concerned about what their constituents think.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29



Because of the lying propaganda of Democrats on the selection committee, and of their allies in the 80% liberal media who are hell-bent on destroying Kavanaugh's nomination.

I think like Clarence Thomas, his best revenge is to endure it and be confirmed, and serve 40 years on the Court. That's the dignified professional man's fuck you to the Democrat/Left.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
As I understand it Ford has confided in people about this as far back as 2012. She took and passed a lie detector test. And she had to have known coming forward was going to earn her a lot of death threats from your side. You want to assume she's lying but in reality she very well could have had a drunken Kavanaugh with buddy try to rape her.


Aside from being a far-Left college professor who rabidly hates Trump (and deceitfully scrubbed her social media of the angry anti-Trump propaganda there before making her allegations against Kavanaugh), Ford comes across as a coward who is too fagile and neurotic to follow through on her allegations. She comes across as someone who can't follow legal procedure, precisely because she is not telling the truth, and will end up nationally shamed when the truth comes out, and possibly jailed for perjury when deposed about it under oath.



  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
She took and passed a lie detector test.


Performed in her attorney's office by an examiner hired by her attorney.

Putting aside that lie detectors are so unreliable that they aren't allowed as evidence in court, do you really believe one conducted under the above circumstances would be dispositive?

If so, then let's have Trump perform one about "Russian collusion" at Rudy Guiliani's office and put that whole matter to rest.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Well since we know it doesn't work on sociopaths that would be a nonstarter to begin with. While lie detector test are not used as evidence (never claimed otherwise btw), law enforcement and our intelligence agencies do use them. It is also better than say a partisan just claiming somebody is lying because the allegations are from a dem.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Well since we know it doesn't work on sociopaths that would be a nonstarter to begin with. While lie detector test are not used as evidence (never claimed otherwise btw), law enforcement and our intelligence agencies do use them. It is also better than say a partisan just claiming somebody is lying because the allegations are from a dem.


Two words, M E M: Keith Ellison.


The lying Democrat/Left are trying to pretend his abused girlfriend (for whom there are far more witnesses, police reports, medical documentation and supporting evidence than Ford's politically motivated lies.)




KEITH ELLISON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACCUSER SAYS DEMOCRAT PARTY DOESN'T BELIEVE HER, WON'T LISTEN

 Quote:
The woman who accused Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of domestic abuse said on Monday that Democrats don’t believe her story and threatened to isolate her over the allegations.

Karen Monahan, a former girlfriend, came forward last month alleging that Ellison sent her threatening text messages and once screamed obscenities at her as he dragged her off a bed by her feet.

Ellison has denied the accusations, saying he “never behaved this way.” He did acknowledge he was in a relationship with the woman.

The allegations didn’t lead to any immediate action against the congressman, except for the announcement that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) would review the accusations. He went on to win the Democratic primary election for Minnesota attorney general.

Monahan slammed the Democratic Party for its response to her allegations when compared to its treatment of Christine Blasey Ford. Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to force himself onto her during at a high school party nearly four decades ago, prompting prominent Democrats to get behind Ford’s allegations.

“No, they don't,” Monahan tweeted in response to a question whether the party believes women’s stories. “I've been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party. I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. Visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse.”

She added: “Four people, including my supervisor at the time, stated that I came to them after and shared the exact story I shared publicly, I shared multiple text between me and Keith, where I discuss the abuse with him and much more. As I said before, I knew I wouldn't be believed.”

Her comment came after another user pointed to comments made by Peter Daou, a Democratic strategist and former advisor to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, who wrote in a tweet that the Kavanaugh accuser will be “attacked, smeared, and demonized” and that people must “believe women.”

Many other Democrats and progressives – who stayed silent when the accusations against Ellison emerged – came out in support of Ford, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Tom Perez, chairman of the DNC, who urged to investigate the claims and Kavanaugh.





  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
i think the accusations against Ellison will cost him his election. It certainly would finish him off as ever being considered for a lifetime appointment like the Supreme Court. Here's where we're different again, I'm not calling his accuser a liar automatically like you do when there's a republican to protect. Nor attacking the press for reporting on it.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
i think the accusations against Ellison will cost him his election. ...


Again, that is wholly irrelevant to the fact that the democrat party has circled the wagons around him and treated the allegations against him completely different than the allegations against Kavanaugh.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
i think the accusations against Ellison will cost him his election. It certainly would finish him off as ever being considered for a lifetime appointment like the Supreme Court. Here's where we're different again, I'm not calling his accuser a liar automatically like you do when there's a republican to protect. Nor attacking the press for reporting on it.



As G-man partly just said, the difference is that the Republican leadership (unlike me, for my clearly stated reasons above) are willing to give Ford a chance to be heard and reserving judgement until she tells her side.

In contrast, the Democrat leadership WON'T EVEN LISTEN to Keith Ellison's ex-girlfriend's abuse allegations, and are pretending they don't exist. Likewise the Democrat-aligned liberal media. They won't even allow the issue to be debated.
And likewise the Democrat leadership and liberal media wouldn't (and still won't) listen to Bill Clinton's accusers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willie and Juanita Broaddrick. To this day, 40 years later, no hearings, no expressions of sympathy or overtures that they should be believed, no televised interviews, from either the Democrat leadership, or from the liberal media.



  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5