Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[TwiceHorn 31450]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I like Harris, but she could have narrowed that down a bit.  She could have started with the 3 named partners . . . "have you discussed the Mueller case with any of these guys?"

If the answer is "no", then she could move on to "have you discussed the Mueller case with any other employee of that firm?", at which point K would be back at square one, which frankly is a little understandable.  He was probably going through his mental Rolodex of all the attorneys with which he had had such discussions and trying to figure out if anyone worked at that firm.

There is probably good strategic/tactical reasoning why the above is silly.

There is probably no good reason for him to not just say "I've discussed the investigation with many attorneys, but I don't recall if any of them work at that firm" . . . unless, of course, he knows the answer is "yes" (which it probably is).

Yeah, that was kind of unfair, all around.  Probably would have drawn a sustained objection in court.

I think basically the latter is what he's fumbling around trying to say.  Make no mistake, guys like Kavanaugh are not trial lawyers and even if they were, that doesn't make them good jousters with nasty counsel.

And she should let him answer "I don't know."  If it's Kasowitz, then he looks like a dumbass, which is the point rather than trying to trap him into some lie.

[TwiceHorn 31450]

40 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that was kind of unfair, all around.  Probably would have drawn a sustained objection in court.

I think basically the latter is what he's fumbling around trying to say.  Make no mistake, guys like Kavanaugh are not trial lawyers and even if they were, that doesn't make them good jousters with nasty counsel.

And she should let him answer "I don't know."  If it's Kasowitz, then he looks like a dumbass, which is the point rather than trying to trap him into some lie.

Also, did she ever get to the point?  I am intrigued by implications of her question.  Of course that may be all she was trying to achieve. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[pyrohornIII 4814]

So, is there anymore talk of the $200k?

 

Also anyone know what this snub is all about?

 

[RomaVicta 29905]

Rosenstein didn't seem eager to face him, either. I don't know what all that is about. I'd appreciate any enlightenment.

[RayDog 682]

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

The Dems should pack the fucking court in 2020. But they won't, because they're idiots.

If all 3 allegations of perjury are true and Democrats have the presidency, both houses and all the proof, they can send Kavanaugh to jail in 2021. Or, offer him a slap on the wrist if he resigns.

[horncyclist 1387]

If all 3 allegations of perjury are true and Democrats have the presidency, both houses and all the proof, they can send Kavanaugh to jail in 2021. Or, offer him a slap on the wrist if he resigns.

Agree. He shouldnt be confirmed though. I'm not sure this is a done deal. But the political consequences for failing to deliver the Supreme Court (thanks Vladimir) are probably greater than putting a perjurer up there for the GOP so they'll ram it through no matter what. Every member of the republican party is a traitor to the US and it's constitution, and I'm going to remember that every time I vote for the rest of my life.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Is it perjury perjury, or Bill Clinton perjury?

It depends on your definition of what party he's from....republican- perjury democrat- get the hell outta here with that perjury stuff

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 hours ago, deech said:

Because he perjured himself in his confirmation hearings, allegedly.  See the Leahy tweets.

The documents need to be produced. The facts need to fall where they may.

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

Yeah, that was kind of unfair, all around.  Probably would have drawn a sustained objection in court.
I think basically the latter is what he's fumbling around trying to say.  Make no mistake, guys like Kavanaugh are not trial lawyers and even if they were, that doesn't make them good jousters with nasty counsel.
And she should let him answer "I don't know."  If it's Kasowitz, then he looks like a dumbass, which is the point rather than trying to trap him into some lie.

But what is unfair these days? She definitely knows a lot more than what the question was it was a trap question easy.

[HenryJames 66041]

 

[TwiceHorn 31450]

28 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:

But what is unfair these days? She definitely knows a lot more than what the question was it was a trap question easy.

I suppose so.  The thing is, the way she worked it, the stupidity concerning trying to trap him about a Kasowitz Benson lawyer starts to overshadow the two more salient facts 1) why was he conversing with presumably Marc Kasowitz (or a close associate) about the investigation and 2) what did they talk about.

Of course that may have been the intention all along, to make an innocent or unprovable conversation look insidious.

 

Also, from a purely lawyerly standpoint, the question was "compound" or "multifarious" and actually a poor question, if there's any substance to the allegation that he had an insidious conversation with one of Teh Donald's lawyers about the Mueller investigation.  If the goal was to craft a "when did you stop beating your wife question," then 10/10.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

[EMAWesome 101]

You might as well get around to accepting that Kavanaugh is going to get somewhere around 53 to 56 votes because that is what is going to happen.

[SubliminalHorn 6786]

Yes we know he’s going to be confirmed. Thanks for the input 

[EMAWesome 101]

10 hours ago, mchookem said:

the dems seem like they know something...but are they not allowed to say it directly? are they trying to set a trap?

What they know is that they have no chance of stopping Kavanaugh from being confirmed and are just throwing shit against the wall hoping some of you nitwits who are following them are gullible enough to believe it.  I'll give the Democrats credit in one regard--they know their audience.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Unindicted co-conspirator appointing his own judge might seem like a conflict of interest but Kamala Harris’s questions concerning it were totally unfair and way out of line.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, EMAWesome said:

What they know is that they have no chance of stopping Kavanaugh from being confirmed and are just throwing shit against the wall hoping some of you nitwits who are following them are gullible enough to believe it.  I'll give the Democrats credit in one regard--they know their audience.

Selecting a Supreme Court justice should be all business and no politics. Sadly politics does play a part, and both sides are taking part.  Having said that, the documents not being released are a big problem for me personally. Why aren't they being released ?  Executive privilege is required to protect a SCOTUS prospect ?  That sounds very bad.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Unindicted co-conspirator appointing his own judge might seem like a conflict of interest but Kamala Harris’s questions concerning it were totally unfair and way out of line.

It's what she does......

[Incredulity 11665]

19 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Selecting a Supreme Court justice should be all business and no politics. Sadly politics does play a part, and both sides are taking part.  Having said that, the documents not being released are a big problem for me personally. Why aren't they being released ?  Executive privilege is required to protect a SCOTUS prospect ?  That sounds very bad.

The exact same situation occured in the Kagan confirmation.  

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The exact same situation occured in the Kagan confirmation.  

 

No it didnt. Quit lying. 

https://www.brookings.edu/research/unresolved-recusal-issues-require-a-pause-in-the-kavanaugh-hearings/

"Unlike with Kagan’s nomination, where no White House documents were withheld on privilege grounds,⁵ 101,921 of the Kavanaugh documents were abruptly withheld, without adequate explanation of the privilege assertions made in conclusory form, late on the last business eve before the hearings were to begin."

[Brisketexan 105095]

34 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

What they know is that they have no chance of stopping Kavanaugh from being confirmed and are just throwing shit against the wall hoping some of you nitwits who are following them are gullible enough to believe it.  I'll give the Democrats credit in one regard--they know their audience.

Perjury was a big deal for President Clinton.  I certainly thought so at the time.

It would seem to arguably be an even BIGGER deal for a nominee to be a Supreme Court Justice.  Yet the GOP is purposefully concealing evidence that we have reason to believe would reveal that perjury in his prior confirmation hearing.

Either the rule of law matters, or it doesn't.  

And of course, we know he's going to be nominated, because we know where the criminal syndicate in charge of the country right now falls on that whole "rule of law" thing.  We know.  Kinda like the gal who wanders into the wrong biker bar at the end of the dirt road, hears the door lock behind her, KNOWS she's gonna get raped.  We know.  That doesn't make it right.  It makes the GOP even bigger criminals than we thought they already were.  Oh, and it makes for one other thing -- it's something the rest of us won't ever forget.  That will not bode well for the GOP in future elections.  They damned well BETTER get their licks in now -- and they're acting just like a party that understands that would.

[Incredulity 11665]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics/kavanaugh-documents-bush-katrina-roberts/index.html

 

. Such documents were also withheld by the Barack Obama administration when former solicitor general Elena Kagan was nominated for the Supreme Court in 2010.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Incredulity said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics/kavanaugh-documents-bush-katrina-roberts/index.html

 

. Such documents were also withheld by the Barack Obama administration when former solicitor general Elena Kagan was nominated for the Supreme Court in 2010.

Can't be true, you didn't use quotation marks....

[Biff Tannen 45673]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Kinda like the gal who wanders into the wrong biker bar at the end of the dirt road, hears the door lock behind her, KNOWS she's gonna get raped.

Brisket outta the gates to a dark place this morning.

[Js1 85311]

Woah

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics/kavanaugh-documents-bush-katrina-roberts/index.html

 

. Such documents were also withheld by the Barack Obama administration when former solicitor general Elena Kagan was nominated for the Supreme Court in 2010.

"Such documents" there refers to similar documents from work as solicitor general that were withheld during the Roberts confirmation. It compares nothing to Kavanaugh. Still, Obama released those documents anyway. CNN is wrong on that. 

The Kavanaugh issue is documents being withheld for "executive privilege."  Obama withheld no documents in the Kagan nomination and never cited executive privilege. The Clinton library withheld a couple thousand documents from the public for personal privacy reasons. 

Do you ever have any integrity at all?

[Publiushorn 113]

It's hard to believe McConnell's assertion that Kavanaugh would be easier to get through the Senate than Amy Coney Barrett. 

[Incredulity 11665]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

"Such documents" there refers to similar documents from work as solicitor general that were withheld during the Roberts confirmation. It compares nothing to Kavanaugh. Still, Obama released those documents anyway. CNN is wrong on that. 

The Kavanaugh issue is documents being withheld for "executive privilege."  Obama withheld no documents in the Kagan nomination and never cited executive privilege. The Clinton library withheld a couple thousand documents from the public for personal privacy reasons. 

Do you ever have any integrity at all?

First, fuck you.

Second, multiple news sources cite documents being withheld by O during Kagan confirmation.  You say they were not and CNN is "wrong".   I am unsure on what basis you make that claim.  

What a perfectly distilled example of current political discourse.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Publiushorn said:

It's hard to believe McConnell's assertion that Kavanaugh would be easier to get through the Senate than Amy Coney Barrett. 

Not sure why they didnt just go straight to the vote. They are only increasing public scrutiny on themselves. Are there any GOP senator fence sitters really?

[TwiceHorn 31450]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Unindicted co-conspirator appointing his own judge might seem like a conflict of interest but Kamala Harris’s questions concerning it were totally unfair and way out of line.

That's not the point.  People here were jizzing over her lawyerly magnificence and from a lawyerly perspective, that was a big-ass cheapshot.  If the goal were to make insinuations, great, mission accomplished.  If the goal was to show some influence by Trump lawyers, big fail.

I ask again, what was the upshot of the exchange?  Did she provide evidence or secure an admission that he had some conversation with Marc Kasowitz about the Mueller investigation?  If so, that's of great interest.  But by being a showboat, that never seemed to come to light.

Edited September 6, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[InkaUtexas 25907]

Damn Booker showing some serious balls. Wether you agree or not he deserves some accolades standing his ground. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

First, fuck you.

Second, multiple news sources cite documents being withheld by O during Kagan confirmation.  You say they were not and CNN is "wrong".   I am unsure on what basis you make that claim.  

What a perfectly distilled example of current political discourse.

What news sources? Obama didnt withhold any requested documents. All news sources say in early June 2010 that Obama could cite executive privilege if he wanted to. All news sources in late June 2010 say he didn't.  The only requested documents withheld were by the Clinton library for personal privacy reasons. And even those docs were withheld from the public, not the Senate. 

You may be under the false assumption that documents dont need to be requested first. Obama didn't produce documents that the Senate didnt request. How and why would he?  He produced everything the Senate requested, however.

And fuck you more.  You dont have an honest bone in your body. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[TwiceHorn 31450]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

What news sources? Obama didnt withhold any requested documents. All news sources say in early June 2010 that Obama could cite executive privilege if he wanted to. All news sources in late June 2010 say he didn't.  The only requested documents withheld were by the Clinton library for personal privacy reasons. And even those docs were withheld from the public, not the Senate. 

You may be under the false assumption that documents dont need to be requested first. Obama didn't produce documents that the Senate didnt request. How and why would he?  He produced everything the Senate requested, however.

Yeah, this withholding on vague unstated grounds is a bunch of horseshit.  Rather typical of the Trump Administration, but as usual, hard to evaluate on the merits.  And, the point of withholding from the Senate entirely is extremely valid.

 

Also, a symptom of nominating government/poltiical sycophant lawyers to the Supreme Court. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29349]

41 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The exact same situation occured in the Kagan confirmation.  

 

It's like you idiots think history was somehow wiped out immediately before Trump took office and you can just blatantly lie about anything that happened before. This shit wasn't even long ago. 

[Brian Fantana 6685]

7 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

First, fuck you.

Second, multiple news sources cite documents being withheld by O during Kagan confirmation.  You say they were not and CNN is "wrong".   I am unsure on what basis you make that claim.  

What a perfectly distilled example of current political discourse.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Kagan-issues_privilege-June-301.pdf

Quote

In a June 1 letter from President Obama’s top lawyer, Bob Bauer, the Administration asserted that it did “not intend to assert executive privilege over any of the documents requested by the Committee . . . [although] consistent with the document productions for the nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Committee would not receive classified national security information or personal privacy information.” President Obama’s decision not to claim executive privilege eliminated a major potential roadblock in the release of documents.

Quote

Under the PRA, roughly two thousand documents from the Clinton Administration have been withheld from the public and deemed “Committee Confidential,” under the PRA statutory restrictions related to privacy.

Quote

In sum, the fact that document release has not become a major issue during the Kagan nomination process indicates to us that the process has gone relatively smoothly. From a logistical standpoint, approximately 171,000 pages were reviewed and released in a sufficiently timely fashion to allow Senators (and their staffs) adequate time for review. Had this not been the case, there surely would have been far more criticism from the Republicans. The Obama administration’s decision not to claim executive privilege or attorney-client- privilege in withholding documents diffused a potentially contentious political standoff.

Oh that dastardly Obama. Try again, dipshit.

[Gap03 3304]

14 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

First, fuck you.

....

What a perfectly distilled example of current political discourse.

You people have broken my irony meter ...

[TwiceHorn 31450]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Kagan-issues_privilege-June-301.pdf

Oh that dastardly Obama. Try again, dipshit.

Also raises an interesting legal question.  Kagan's documents were generated during service to a sitting President.   Kavanagh's during service to a President that hasn't held office for 2.5 terms.  Can Executive Privilege even be asserted on behalf of a former President?  I would suppose the "national security" variant of it could be and might apply to many of Kavanagh's documents, but again, Senate eyes-only.

[Brian Fantana 6685]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also raises an interesting legal question.  Kagan's documents were generated during service to a sitting President.   Kavanagh's during service to a President that hasn't held office for 2.5 terms.  Can Executive Privilege even be asserted on behalf of a former President?  I would suppose the "national security" variant of it could be and might apply to many of Kavanagh's documents, but again, Senate eyes-only.

It does raise an interesting question, but who is there to oppose the executive privilege assertion if it's inappropriate?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, this withholding on vague unstated grounds is a bunch of horseshit.  Rather typical of the Trump Administration, but as usual, hard to evaluate on the merits.  And, the point of withholding from the Senate entirely is extremely valid.

 

Also, a symptom of nominating government/poltiical sycophant lawyers to the Supreme Court. 

One valid complaint in all confirmation hearings is that there isnt enough time for review between document production and the hearings. 

[Incredulity 11665]

12 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

What news sources? Obama didnt withhold any requested documents. All news sources say in early June 2010 that Obama could cite executive privilege if he wanted to. All news sources in late June 2010 say he didn't.  The only requested documents withheld were by the Clinton library for personal privacy reasons. And even those docs were withheld from the public, not the Senate. 

You may be under the false assumption that documents dont need to be requested first. Obama didn't produce documents that the Senate didnt request. How and why would he?  He produced everything the Senate requested, however.

And fuck you more.  You dont have an honest bone in your body. 

Factually,  the Obama Administration withheld documents in the Kagan confirmation.  What difference does it make if they were withheld for executive privilige or national security?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, Incredulity said:

Factually,  the Obama Administration withheld documents in the Kagan confirmation.  What difference does it make if they were withheld for executive privilige or national security?

Do you understand what "committee confidential" means? 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Factually,  the Obama Administration withheld documents in the Kagan confirmation.  What difference does it make if they were withheld for executive privilige or national security?

Quite a lot potentially.

[Fozzz 152]

 

Poor Susan Collins will have to fart out another excuse for assisting in the confirmation of this justice.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also raises an interesting legal question.  Kagan's documents were generated during service to a sitting President.   Kavanagh's during service to a President that hasn't held office for 2.5 terms.  Can Executive Privilege even be asserted on behalf of a former President?  I would suppose the "national security" variant of it could be and might apply to many of Kavanagh's documents, but again, Senate eyes-only.

Well that's happening so I guess the question is answered. 

[TwiceHorn 31450]

3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

It does raise an interesting question, but who is there to oppose the executive privilege assertion if it's inappropriate?

In the ordinary course of things, the Senate could issue a subpoena, and if the proper response were not forthcoming, initiate a contempt of congress proceeding where it would be adjudged.  Obviously not time for that.

[RayDog 682]

19 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Damn Booker showing some serious balls. Wether you agree or not he deserves some accolades standing his ground. 

His seat is up in 2020, so he has to make up his mind at some point if he is running for Senate or president. This would be a good way to kick off his presidential campaign.

[TwiceHorn 31450]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Well that's happening so I guess the question is answered. 

I should have said "validly" asserted.

[RayDog 682]

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

 

Poor Susan Collins will have to fart out another excuse for assisting in the confirmation of this justice.

Collins is out in 2020 either way. She should vote her conscience if she has one.

[Fozzz 152]

That could jeopardize her exit options, though, which is what matters more than anything!

[Longhorn94 2448]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that was kind of unfair, all around.  Probably would have drawn a sustained objection in court.

I think basically the latter is what he's fumbling around trying to say.  Make no mistake, guys like Kavanaugh are not trial lawyers and even if they were, that doesn't make them good jousters with nasty counsel.

And she should let him answer "I don't know."  If it's Kasowitz, then he looks like a dumbass, which is the point rather than trying to trap him into some lie.

but THIS guy shouldnt be discussing the Mueller probe with anyone at Trump's personal attorney's firm. this should have been a simple NO.