There are so many shenanigans going on here, I can't see how anybody could ever trust the Democrats again after all of this crap.
There are so many shenanigans going on here, I can't see how anybody could ever trust the Democrats again after all of this crap.
Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.
Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
Grassley Sends Searing Letter To Ford’s Attorneys: Turn Over Your Contacts With Democrats, Other Kavanaugh Accusers
By Hank Berrien - The Daily Wire
On Thursday, Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent a searing letter to the attorneys representing Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in 1982. Grassley reiterated his already twice-stated request for the attorneys to turn over the “therapy notes, polygraph materials, and communications with The Washington Post that Dr. Ford has relied upon as evidence.”
Grassley began by noting that as the Senate is charged by the Constitution to advise the president on his nominees for the Supreme Court, the Committee had a “constitutional obligation to investigate and evaluate independently the President’s nominees.” He pointed out that the Senate’s “obligation is unrelated to anything the FBI does … We have to make our own assessment.”
Grassley then set the record straight about the attorneys using their objections to the FBI investigation as an excuse to deny the Judiciary Committee access to the information they were demanding. He wrote, “The FBI’s investigative decisions aren’t our concern. Even if the FBI never interviews Dr. Ford, or interviews her ten times, this Committee has a constitutional obligation to investigate Dr. Ford’s allegations, and that’s what we’ve been doing since we became aware of her allegations.”
Grassley pointed out that the attorneys had “claimed repeatedly that the evidence I have requested supports Dr. Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. She even provided some of this evidence to national news. Indeed, if the evidence supported your client’s allegations, you surely would produce it as quickly as you could.”
Then Grassley really got to the nitty-gritty: “But you have repeatedly refused to produce this evidence to the Senate. In doing so, you are preventing the Senate from considering the evidence most crucial to Dr. Ford’s allegations. I don’t know what other inference we should draw from your refusal but that the withheld evidence does not support Dr. Ford’s allegations in quite the way you have claimed.”
Grassley’s concluding paragraph indicated he thought there might have been some interesting communication going on between Ford or her attorneys and some of the alleged witnesses she named to the alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh:
In addition to the evidence I requested in my October 2 letter, in light of recently uncovered information, please turn over records and descriptions of direct or indirect communications between Dr. Ford or her representatives and any of the following: (1) U.S. Senators or their staffs, particularly the offices of Senators Feinstein and Hirono, other than your communications with me and my staff in preparation for the September 27 hearing; (2) the alleged witnesses identified by Dr. Ford (Leland Keyser, Mark Judge, and Patrick “P.J.” Smyth); and (3) Debbie Ramirez, Julie Swetnick, or their representatives.
Complete letter below:
I’m writing in response to your response to my letter dated October 2. You said that Dr. Ford is willing to turn her documents over to the FBI, but my request of you was not for documents to be turned over to the FBI. I asked you to provide the documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Your response on behalf of your client is a non-sequitur. The Constitution charges the Senate with advising the President on his nomination. Senators have a constitutional obligation to investigate and evaluate independently the President’s nominees. Our obligation is unrelated to anything the FBI does. That’s why we don’t just vote on nominees after the President loans us the FBI background investigation. We have to make our own assessment.
The U.S. Senate doesn’t control the FBI. If you have an objection to how the FBI conducts its investigations, take it up with Director Wray. But don’t raise that objection as a reason not to respond to this Committee’s demand for relevant evidence. The FBI’s investigative decisions aren’t our concern. Even if the FBI never interviews Dr. Ford, or interviews her ten times, this Committee has a constitutional obligation to investigate Dr. Ford’s allegations, and that’s what we’ve been doing since we became aware of her allegations.
It’s not even clear to me what purpose turning over these materials to the FBI would accomplish. The FBI would simply turn over that evidence to the Senate. That is precisely the outcome I seek with this request.
You have claimed repeatedly that the evidence I have requested supports Dr. Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. She even provided some of this evidence to national news. Indeed, if the evidence supported your client’s allegations, you surely would produce it as quickly as you could.
But you have repeatedly refused to produce this evidence to the Senate. In doing so, you are preventing the Senate from considering the evidence most crucial to Dr. Ford’s allegations. I don’t know what other inference we should draw from your refusal but that the withheld evidence does not support Dr. Ford’s allegations in quite the way you have claimed.
I urge you once again, now for the third time in writing, to turn over the therapy notes, polygraph materials, and communications with The Washington Post that Dr. Ford has relied upon as evidence. In addition to the evidence I requested in my October 2 letter, in light of recently uncovered information, please turn over records and descriptions of direct or indirect communications between Dr. Ford or her representatives and any of the following: (1) U.S. Senators or their staffs, particularly the offices of Senators Feinstein and Hirono, other than your communications with me and my staff in preparation for the September 27 hearing; (2) the alleged witnesses identified by Dr. Ford (Leland Keyser, Mark Judge, and Patrick “P.J.” Smyth); and (3) Debbie Ramirez, Julie Swetnick, or their representatives.
DemonGeminiX (10-05-2018)
Kavanaugh Releases Surprise Op-Ed Before Confirmation Vote
By Ryan Saavedra - The Daily Wire
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday ahead of his confirmation vote this weekend, pledging that he will be a fair and impartial judge on the nation's highest court.
Kavanaugh stressed that "a good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy" and who is not "swayed by public pressure."
The op-ed comes as some have questioned whether he can remain politically neutral on the court after the Democratic Party launched a vicious smear campaign against him that dominated national headlines for nearly three weeks.
"My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate," Kavanaugh wrote. "That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled."
Kavanaugh said he was more emotional during the hearing than he has ever been before and that he "might have been too emotional at times" during his testimony due to "vile and violent threats" that his wife and daughters have faced in recent weeks.
"I do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences," Kavanaugh continued. "I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge."
Kavanaugh called the judicial system the "crown jewel of our constitutional republic" and noted that the Supreme Court is "the last line of defense for the separation of powers, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution."
Kavanaugh repeatedly stressed the importance of the U.S. Constitution and vowed that if confirmed to the Supreme Court, he will "will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law."
DemonGeminiX (10-05-2018)
RBP (10-05-2018)
If Feinstein has anything to do with these allegations, I hope they nail her ass to the wall.
Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.
Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
You know as well as I do, that if they start investigating her and she feels threatened, she'll find some staffer to throw under the bus that she discovered by her own 'internal investigation of her staff' and claim she had absolutely no knowledge that her staff member leaked anything.Originally Posted by DemonGeminiX
No one's untouchable. And she's an idiot. She's gonna slip up. She's gonna be caught.
Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.
Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
Senate votes to advance Kavanaugh nomination, setting up final vote for Saturday
By Adam Shaw | Fox News
The Senate voted Friday to end debate on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, moving the chamber to a final vote Saturday evening amid a rancorous fight over decades-old sexual assault allegations against him.
The vote to invoke cloture was 51-49.
While the vote was not necessarily indicative of the final confirmation vote, it moved him one step closer to sitting on the highest court in the land and three out of four key senators voted "yes" to advance the nomination.
Kavanaugh’s nomination was embroiled in a controversy that gripped the nation after multiple women made sexual assault allegations originating from his time in high school and college. The most prominent allegation was from California professor Christine Blasey Ford, who said that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a high school party. That allegation resulted in a high-stakes Senate Judiciary hearing last week where both Ford and Kavanaugh testified.
Democrats said the allegations were credible and deserved a full investigation, while Republicans accused Democrats of using uncorroborated allegations to scuttle or delay the nomination -- leading to a stream of angry flashpoints between lawmakers. The accusations eventually led to President Trump ordering an FBI investigation. Republicans who had seen the FBI’s report said the FBI had produced no credible corroboration of the allegations.
Ahead of Saturday’s vote, all eyes were on four undecided senators who are widely seen as the swing votes: Republican Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, as well as West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin. Collins, Flake and Manchin all voted "yes" on cloture, with Murkowski voting "no."
With a 51-49 majority in the Senate, Republicans can afford no more than one defection from their ranks if all Democrats vote together. Collins was expected to announce her decision in a speech on the Senate floor at 3 p.m. Friday.
Protesters flooded the capital in the days ahead of the vote, and clashed with Republican lawmakers in an effort to sway their votes, and initially appeared to have some success. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., demanded the limited FBI investigation last week after being cornered in an elevator by screaming protesters moments before a Senate Judiciary Committee vote to recommend Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Other Republicans later pushed back against protestors. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told protesters chasing him to “grow up” while Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., responded to one protester’s call for Kavanaugh to take a polygraph test, asking: “Maybe we can dunk him in water and see if he floats?”
Ahead of the cloture vote, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, urged the Senate to say “no to mob rule.” He also blasted Democrats for their treatment of Kavanaugh, describing it as “nothing short of monstrous.”
“The conduct of left-wing dark money groups and allies in this body have shamed us all,” he said. “The fix was in from the very beginning.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said that the vote was "a pivotal day for us here in the Senate."
"The ideals of justice that have served our nation for so long are on display," he said, calling the last two weeks a "disgraceful spectacle."
But Democrats had pointed to not only the sexual assault allegations, which they described” but also questions about Kavanaugh’s temperament during the hearing last week and whether he had lied about his drinking during high school and college, and what certain references in his high school yearbook meant. They also sought to paint him as a justice that would swing the court deeply to the right.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, accused him of being evasive in his answers during his confirmation hearings on key topics. He said his views are “deeply at odds with the progress America has made in the last century of jurisprudence and at odds with what most Americans believe.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on the Senate floor before the vote, raised concerns that Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe v Wade -- the 1973 decision that found a constitutional right to abortion -- and was extreme on gun rights.
But she said the last few weeks had raised further concerns, particularly his emotional defense in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he had blasted Democrats for their treatment of the sexual assault allegations against him.
“This behavior revealed a hostility and belligerence unbecoming of someone seeking to be elevated to the Supreme Court,” she said.
Kavanaugh defended his behavior in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal late Thursday, in which he expressed some regret for his fiery attack on Democrats.
“I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times,” he said. “I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said.”
He added: "I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters."
RBP (10-05-2018)
Vote 50-48.
KevinD (10-07-2018), lost in melb. (10-07-2018), RBP (10-06-2018), Teh One Who Knocks (10-08-2018)
LOL well he got in 50-48
funny pic that previous one
Are all these results always voted on part lines?
Can a supreme court judge be neutral and not affiliated with a party?
Annnnd...Democrats successfully galvanise the unification of Republicans in time for mid-terms
RBP (10-07-2018)
But...just to check...is that a massive keg of beer?Vote 50-48.
That's what is it is, yes. A keg... as in kegger party.But...just to check...is that a massive keg of beer?
Fun fact. The hardest part of being a fraternity pledge is carrying kegs down stairs.
I wanted to be a Monk, but I never got the chants.
lost in melb. (10-07-2018)
Pretty much yes but a republican President is gonna nominate someone who he feels will make decisions favorable to conservative values and vice versa. Judges are supposed to be impartial but looking at the history of court case decisions usually reveals which way they lean.
Vote 50-48.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
