Jump to content

Captainant

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    14674
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by Captainant

  1. 3 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

    You fucking idiot he was criticized for not showing emotion on his Fox News interview last week. It’s a game of gotcha which the Republican base is sick of.

    Holy shit it's like there's no middle ground between HRC-esque overpracticed/overtested statements and pure trumpian shouting and bluster.

    You're pretty despicable for acting like every sexual assault victim is just some democratic party operative. And it isn't really all that surprising, just disappointing because I know there's lots of other folks just like you who are willfully uninformed spouting off the same false talking points.

  2. 12 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

    You're missing what I think is the issue: I think this FBI exercise is an "opportunity" for the anti-Kavanaugh forces to produce a confirming witness - somebody who saw Kavanaugh at the party with Ford, or saw him expose himself to Debbie.  If the FBI goes through the list of "prospects" identified by Ford and Ramirez and there is no witness that can say one of those two things then we're done.  And I think this article says there is no witness to the Ford party.  All we're left with is the second question.

    And the multiple other accusers, AND investigating a number of his statements made under oath that one their face are untruthful and/or misleading. But who am I kidding? Most GOP'ers love a good liar now a days and don't consider honesty an important quality for the top jurist seat.

  3. 36 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

    The CR is a cesspool, and it's worse here than it was on the Shag. I used to post in the CR on the old board , but I got tired of being called a racist ect, so I gave it up. Now the surly libs now have their leader and have anointed him as rep champion, it's really a waste of time. If only they would stay in there....

    That fact that you think people you don't agree with are just looking for someone with a big number under their name to agree with says quite a lot about you

  4. 4 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

    Stupid question, and probably an elementary political science answer - but can we not confirm the guy and run a wide open federal investigation simultaneously or immediately after?  Can't it be that he gets the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty, but also give her allegations a full deserved investigation?

    In my mind - if there is any credible evidence that is uncovered, then he shouldn't have the job and the republicans supporting him will have earned their black eye. If there isn't any credible evidence, then he shouldn't be denied the confirmation if that is who the R's want.

    I don't think you should be sitting on the bench and making rulings if your credibility and honesty are in question. Credible allegations and corroborations HAVE been brought to light, and the FBI has been specifically instructed to ignore anything outside of their extremely limited scope. The GOP knows they stepped in shit and they're trying to tell us that smell is really roses.

  5. I don't think people are being banned due to CR posts, they're being banned due to using hate speech and/or racism in their posts. Calling people faggots and telling them to go bite a pillow, or referring to japanese people as japs, etc, should not be ok anywhere. Having a reprehensible political opinion is fine, and you'll probably be called out for it. Using hate speech that attacks core facets of people that they have no control over is real fucked up and I'm all for punishing it.

  6. 29 minutes ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

    If you want perspective on how Texans outside the the larger cities feel about the Kavanaugh confirmation, please read the responses in this thread on different forum.

     

    https://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=707133

    "There isn’t anything credible about her statement or the Dems “questioning”. This is nothing more than a circus that is resulting in character assignation."

    Wow, some top shelf dialogue over there. Found that on the first page amidst a fair bit of misogyny and victim blaming. I bet 8mofo would love if

  7. 22 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    The scary part of kavanaugh is that he and his temperament are 7 days away from a 30 year job.  He answers to no one at that point.  Not even the Chief Justice.   He never has to speak to Congress, the WH or the general public unless he wants to.

     

    Well, he's still subject to the impeachment process

  8. 12 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

    If you asked me what “boof” meant under oath, I would have told you what it meant to me - pigging out at an all you can eat buffet like Gatti’s or Lucky Village. I should be strung up for perjury. Never heard of the others phrase before

    FWIW... That WOULD be perjury, as you would be giving testimony you knew to be false. You're supposed to be truthful, even if "I don't know" is your answer.

  9. 6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    Well, that looks like another point to argue.

    Certainly expect another doozy of a week.

    Agreed. Seems sloppy from Grassley to not tighten up the language unless this is a tactic to distract more about what is and isn't credible while trying to run out his (again) arbitrary clock.

  10. Just now, Incredulity said:

    Anyone know what the "scope" of the FBI investigation is?  

    I would assume to be limited to one week there are specific instructions.  Anyone?

    I haven't read the doc yet but CNN reported that it is constrained to "current credible allegations", so there's quite a bit of gray area on whether or not it's just Dr. Ford's allegations or if it includes Avenatti's which DOES have a signed affidavit by the alleged victim who is a federal employee, but has not been recognized by the judiciary committee republicans.

  11. 4 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

    if he didn't do this, he handled it all wrong yesterday.  I do not want a guy spouting things about democratic conspiracies, etc. on the supreme court.  He's a partisan hack that would make Scalia and Kagan blush. 

    Well see now, you're just making chrispy and sacky and all the red hats want him more

  12. 1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

    Sexual assault is a state crime. The President has no pardon power there.

    Unless there's a supreme court case coming up that Hatch even wrote an amicus brief on, that would extend presidential pardon power down to the state level?

    Quote

    The Utah lawmaker Orrin Hatch, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, filed a 44-page amicus brief earlier this month in Gamble v. United States, a case that will consider whether the dual-sovereignty doctrine should be put to rest. The 150-year-old exception to the Fifth Amendment’s double-jeopardy clause allows state and federal courts to prosecute the same person for the same criminal offense. According to the brief he filed on September 11, Hatch believes the doctrine should be overturned. “The extensive federalization of criminal law has rendered ineffective the federalist underpinnings of the dual sovereignty doctrine,” his brief reads. “And its persistence impairs full realization of the Double Jeopardy Clause’s liberty protections.”

     
     

    Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trump’s power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldn’t be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example—he was convicted last month in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud—both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws. (Both states have a double-jeopardy law that bars secondary state prosecutions for committing “the same act,” but there are important exceptions, as the Fordham University School of Law professor Jed Shugerman has noted.) If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed, as Hatch wants, then Trump’s pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action.

    Nah no reason he'd want Kavanaugh, who has written many opinions and papers in favor of expanding executive powers on the supreme court.

  13. 1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

    Someone can press charges against Kav at any time. SCOTUS justices arent unreachable in criminal or civil trial. 

    They are if the president pardons them, and then the recipient of said pardon was in a position to rule on the legality of a pardon.

  14. Just now, Buzzrock said:

    Fuck whoever leaked her identity.

     

    Yeah you're right, the guy who caused lifelong psychological damage to it is completely in the right. Fuck you for not believing her extremely credible testimony and not even giving her the dignity of a full fact-finding effort.

×
×
  • Create New...