OT: Twitter Thread on 3 Decades of Russian & Mafia Relationships with Trump

[GONYK]

For partisan purposes only, so that has nothing to do with a desire for maintaining just protocols. The point of hearings is to find out if there are any potentially objectionable reasons and there are, they now are being investigated. Corroboration could require a charge, indictment, trial and conviction, but if your point about due process for nomination were true then the mere likelihood of multiple accusations of sexual offenses, some of which could result in a long-term sentence would require backing off from this nominee. Sorry, man, but this idea that if it hasn't been proven in a court of law yet invalidates the path to a nomination is silly. When you are faced with this claims you hold off from putting someone on SCOTUS, that's the point, NOT that you must first prove it in a court of law. Not that you believe that, but I think your point is that would be the GOP tacit assumption of how to proceed. And what I'm telling you is if the FBI comes back and says there is a credible basis for prosecution for (a) lying under oath or (b) rape and other sexual offenses, then SCOTUS due process has been served and you do not push through someone because they would have to undergo a trial first. I mean what do you think a short-term FBI probe is for? It's a witness corraboration and fact-finding mission, not a prosecution. So, NO, NO, NO, Kavanaugh does not have to proven guilty of anything beyond all reasonable doubt to be disqualified even by the GOP's rotten standards.

I didn't say anything about a court of law. It hasn't even been corroborated anecdotally. It's her word vs. his.

I don't think the GOP isn't going to let a seat on SC go over that. They were all set to vote him in this weekend if it weren't for 3 Senators.

If the FBI doesn't uncover something that sticks, I don't see any reason for the R's to punt on Kavanaugh just to avoid a PR hit in an election cycle they are probably going to take a big hit on anyway.

So let's see if the FBI probe is able to uncover something. I do believe that they have free reign, because the R's want to dodge a bullet if Kavanaugh is actually proven to be verifiably toxic.

[Clyde_Style]

For partisan purposes only, so that has nothing to do with a desire for maintaining just protocols. The point of hearings is to find out if there are any potentially objectionable reasons and there are, they now are being investigated. Corroboration could require a charge, indictment, trial and conviction, but if your point about due process for nomination were true then the mere likelihood of multiple accusations of sexual offenses, some of which could result in a long-term sentence would require backing off from this nominee. Sorry, man, but this idea that if it hasn't been proven in a court of law yet invalidates the path to a nomination is silly. When you are faced with this claims you hold off from putting someone on SCOTUS, that's the point, NOT that you must first prove it in a court of law. Not that you believe that, but I think your point is that would be the GOP tacit assumption of how to proceed. And what I'm telling you is if the FBI comes back and says there is a credible basis for prosecution for (a) lying under oath or (b) rape and other sexual offenses, then SCOTUS due process has been served and you do not push through someone because they would have to undergo a trial first. I mean what do you think a short-term FBI probe is for? It's a witness corraboration and fact-finding mission, not a prosecution. So, NO, NO, NO, Kavanaugh does not have to proven guilty of anything beyond all reasonable doubt to be disqualified even by the GOP's rotten standards.

I didn't say anything about a court of law. It hasn't even been corroborated anecdotally. It's her word vs. his.

I don't think the GOP isn't going to let a seat on SC go over that. They were all set to vote him in this weekend if it weren't for 3 Senators.

If the FBI doesn't uncover something that sticks, I don't see any reason for the R's to punt on Kavanaugh just to avoid a PR hit in an election cycle they are probably going to take a big hit on anyway.

So let's see if the FBI probe is able to uncover something. I do believe that they have free reign, because the R's want to dodge a bullet if Kavanaugh is actually proven to be verifiably toxic.

You keep repeating this notion that something must stick. No, all the FBI has to do is return a recommendation for either further investigation due to the already credible gathered information or actual prosecution.

But what's your point ultimately if those 3 Senators won't support it? McConnell doesn't have the votes now. If you think they will ultimately vote for confirmation then I don't understand why you believe they will. I explained what they are doing. They are dragging this out so the FBI can torpedo this, not because they want to vote on it at all. So unless you're saying they will ultimately have to vote on this then you're suggesting all three will fall in line with the GOP. That's a bigger assumption then my assertions. If they don't, this is a dead nomination.

[Clyde_Style]

Here is proof Kavanaugh lied under oath. That's a federal offense GO

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/brett-kavanaugh-georgetown-prep.html

In a 1983 letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The New York Times, the young Judge Kavanaugh warned his friends of the danger of eviction from an Ocean City, Md., condo. In a neatly written postscript, he added: Whoever arrived first at the condo should “warn the neighbors that we’re loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us. Advise them to go about 30 miles...”

[thebuzzardman]

A conservative writing for The Atlantic weighs in why you don't confirm Kavanaugh

(TLDR - that Kavanaugh lost his sh*t and acted like a nutty partisan and not a judge)

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/

[GONYK]

Read on Twitter

[Clyde_Style]

Read on Twitter

Some days I still have that strange feeling this can't really be happening and a disorientation over the repeated reminder that that thug is actually sitting in the WH

[HarthorneWingo]

I believe there is strong evidence that Kavanaugh spearheaded a coordinated effort to tar and feather Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez in July 2018 as a preemptive strike against her credibility in anticipation that the incident would come up in the process. Kavanaugh, however, testified that he wasn't aware of the allegation until it appeared in the newspapers in September. Clearly, that's a lie.

But this guy was a proven liar even before these sex and alcohol issues came up. That rant about this conspiracy involving the Clintons was whacked.

______________________________________________________

"Bart O'Kavanaugh"?

Watch on YouTube

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/brett-kavanaugh-georgetown-prep.html

[KnicksGadfly]

Read on Twitter

Don't get distracted. He did this to detract attention from the news about his taxes. This guy would start a war if it would save his skin.

[thebuzzardman]

Read on Twitter

Very presidential.

Does this MF'er do anything except hold rallies? What kind of 3rd World dictator sh*t is this?

[GONYK]

Read on Twitter

They are going to confirm Kavanaugh this weekend

[whocurrz]

This is a major reasonwhy they are in such a hurry to confirm quickly.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/hillreporter.com/the-supreme-court-case-fueling-republicans-rush-to-confirm-brett-kavanaugh-8463/amp

They will likely choose party over country because more than a typical party over country vote this can have a major effect on the future of the Republican Party. The Mueller investigation likely won’t just incriminate Trump so this is their last ditch effort to minimize that damage as much as they can.

They know of the Dems win over the house and launch more investigations this becomes ever more important

[HarthorneWingo]

This is a major reasonwhy they are in such a hurry to confirm quickly.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/hillreporter.com/the-supreme-court-case-fueling-republicans-rush-to-confirm-brett-kavanaugh-8463/amp

They will likely choose party over country because more than a typical party over country vote this can have a major effect on the future of the Republican Party. The Mueller investigation likely won’t just incriminate Trump so this is their last ditch effort to minimize that damage as much as they can.

They know of the Dems win over the house and launch more investigations this becomes ever more important

These motherfckers. They are so devious! And they're good at it.

[HarthorneWingo]

Read on Twitter

They are going to confirm Kavanaugh this weekend

I don't think they have Flake, Murkowski and Collins.

[GONYK]

Read on Twitter

They are going to confirm Kavanaugh this weekend

I don't think they have Flake, Murkowski and Collins.

McConnell wouldn't have pushed for cloture if they didn't

[HarthorneWingo]

Read on Twitter

They are going to confirm Kavanaugh this weekend

I don't think they have Flake, Murkowski and Collins.

McConnell wouldn't have pushed for cloture if they didn't

One would think. It'll be very disappointing is he's confirmed.

[duetta]

The idea of expanding the Court to 11 Justices has become extremely popular on the activist left, and McConnell is the one is making it so - by making this process so obviously rigged.

When FDR tried this, there had no attempts to rig the court by Republicans / conservatives in previous Administrations; however, when the next Democratic President, Majority Leader, and Speaker of the House are urged to do this, there will have been - and we will have all been witnesses to the extraordinary extent to which Republicans have gone to deny, first, a center-left President who won the popular vote and electoral college in two consecutive elections, his third fully-qualified Justice (over 8 years), but also rig the process so that a former GOP operative with red flags could become the swing vote on the Court.

IMHO, it's only going to take one alarming decision from this Court to spur a majority of the voting public into action on this issue. I don't know whether Schumer has the stones to lead on this issue - but if enough pressure can be brought to bear on him, he will certainly follow.

I don't expect that we will take back the Senate until 2020 - but once we have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, we will be able to move forward on this.

[cgmw]

The idea of expanding the Court to 11 Justices has become extremely popular on the activist left, and McConnell is the one is making it so - by making this process so obviously rigged.

When FDR tried this, there had no attempts to rig the court by Republicans / conservatives in previous Administrations; however, when the next Democratic President, Majority Leader, and Speaker of the House are urged to do this, there will have been - and we will have all been witnesses to the extraordinary extent to which Republicans have gone to deny, first, a center-left President who won the popular vote and electoral college in two consecutive elections, his third fully-qualified Justice (over 8 years), but also rig the process so that a former GOP operative with red flags could become the swing vote on the Court.

IMHO, it's only going to take one alarming decision from this Court to spur a majority of the voting public into action on this issue. I don't know whether Schumer has the stones to lead on this issue - but if enough pressure can be brought to bear on him, he will certainly follow.

I don't expect that we will take back the Senate until 2020 - but once we have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, we will be able to move forward on this.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but how would expanding to 11 stop one party from devious tactics to control at least 6, if not more?

It's incredible that your post is the first time I've heard somebody describe the very obvious truth about Kavanaugh that he's blatantly a party shill and "Republican operative" as you put it.

Having blatant party politics at the level of the Supreme Court certainly seems like the result of a big fat flaw in the Founding Fathers' plans for checks and balances. I lived in DC for a long time, and it is impossible for me to tell the difference culturally between Brett Kavanaugh the Supreme Court justice and, say, any two-bit shill on the Hill loyal to his party because that's his main social/cultural identification in life. Kavanaugh very clearly identifies with the Senate Judiciary Committe (and vice versa) because, for all intents and purposes, he's one of them. A lifelong politician whose allegiance is to the party that got him into power and not the underlying principles (if we're talking about a Judge) or voters (if we're talking about a politician).

I'm sure Gorsuch and others before him have also been political shills, but it's truly jarring to see how Kavanaugh and the Republicans aren't making any attempts to hide it.

[thebuzzardman]

The idea of expanding the Court to 11 Justices has become extremely popular on the activist left, and McConnell is the one is making it so - by making this process so obviously rigged.

When FDR tried this, there had no attempts to rig the court by Republicans / conservatives in previous Administrations; however, when the next Democratic President, Majority Leader, and Speaker of the House are urged to do this, there will have been - and we will have all been witnesses to the extraordinary extent to which Republicans have gone to deny, first, a center-left President who won the popular vote and electoral college in two consecutive elections, his third fully-qualified Justice (over 8 years), but also rig the process so that a former GOP operative with red flags could become the swing vote on the Court.

IMHO, it's only going to take one alarming decision from this Court to spur a majority of the voting public into action on this issue. I don't know whether Schumer has the stones to lead on this issue - but if enough pressure can be brought to bear on him, he will certainly follow.

I don't expect that we will take back the Senate until 2020 - but once we have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, we will be able to move forward on this.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but how would expanding to 11 stop one party from devious tactics to control at least 6, if not more?

It's incredible that your post is the first time I've heard somebody describe the very obvious truth about Kavanaugh that he's blatantly a party shill and "Republican operative" as you put it.

Having blatant party politics at the level of the Supreme Court certainly seems like the result of a big fat flaw in the Founding Fathers' plans for checks and balances. I lived in DC for a long time, and it is impossible for me to tell the difference culturally between Brett Kavanaugh the Supreme Court justice and, say, any two-bit shill on the Hill loyal to his party because that's his main social/cultural identification in life. Kavanaugh very clearly identifies with the Senate Judiciary Committe (and vice versa) because, for all intents and purposes, he's one of them. A lifelong politician whose allegiance is to the party that got him into power and not the underlying principles (if we're talking about a Judge) or voters (if we're talking about a politician).

I'm sure Gorsuch and others before him have also been political shills, but it's truly jarring to see how Kavanaugh and the Republicans aren't making any attempts to hide it.

There's no stopping controlling "6" out of 11, but the assumption is by appointing 2 new "liberal/left" judges, if the current makeup is 5/4 conservative/liberal, then the tilt is now 5/6.

Of course, then the conservatives could come in and make the number 13. Or 15. There isn't any limit.

What stops this from happening is "traditional norms".

But those got knocked off course (by one line of thinking) when McConnell pulled that stunt and denied Obama his appointment for 2 years. Technically allowed. But no one had done it, because bad practice against "norms". But it's going down a slippery slope. You can even think of what the democrats did to Kavanaugh, if you are inclined to think of it as "purely politics" (as opposed to an exposure of an unfit, partisan judge) as another loosening of the "democratic norm" guardrails, but inspired by the conservatives first move against Obama. And then, if Kananaugh gets rammed through, I'd think those inclinations against "judge stacking" would go out the window. Which would then lead the conservatives to some other erosion of a democratic norm. And so on. But it might be time for the Dems to make that move, if Kavanaugh is appointed.

FDR was being blocked by a very conservative court and he wanted to expand the # of justices but his OWN PARTY blocked him for the chain of events it would likely set off.

The debate "are we already there"

[cgmw]

The idea of expanding the Court to 11 Justices has become extremely popular on the activist left, and McConnell is the one is making it so - by making this process so obviously rigged.

When FDR tried this, there had no attempts to rig the court by Republicans / conservatives in previous Administrations; however, when the next Democratic President, Majority Leader, and Speaker of the House are urged to do this, there will have been - and we will have all been witnesses to the extraordinary extent to which Republicans have gone to deny, first, a center-left President who won the popular vote and electoral college in two consecutive elections, his third fully-qualified Justice (over 8 years), but also rig the process so that a former GOP operative with red flags could become the swing vote on the Court.

IMHO, it's only going to take one alarming decision from this Court to spur a majority of the voting public into action on this issue. I don't know whether Schumer has the stones to lead on this issue - but if enough pressure can be brought to bear on him, he will certainly follow.

I don't expect that we will take back the Senate until 2020 - but once we have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, we will be able to move forward on this.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but how would expanding to 11 stop one party from devious tactics to control at least 6, if not more?

It's incredible that your post is the first time I've heard somebody describe the very obvious truth about Kavanaugh that he's blatantly a party shill and "Republican operative" as you put it.

Having blatant party politics at the level of the Supreme Court certainly seems like the result of a big fat flaw in the Founding Fathers' plans for checks and balances. I lived in DC for a long time, and it is impossible for me to tell the difference culturally between Brett Kavanaugh the Supreme Court justice and, say, any two-bit shill on the Hill loyal to his party because that's his main social/cultural identification in life. Kavanaugh very clearly identifies with the Senate Judiciary Committe (and vice versa) because, for all intents and purposes, he's one of them. A lifelong politician whose allegiance is to the party that got him into power and not the underlying principles (if we're talking about a Judge) or voters (if we're talking about a politician).

I'm sure Gorsuch and others before him have also been political shills, but it's truly jarring to see how Kavanaugh and the Republicans aren't making any attempts to hide it.

There's no stopping controlling "6" out of 11, but the assumption is by appointing 2 new "liberal/left" judges, if the current makeup is 5/4 conservative/liberal, then the tilt is now 5/6.

Of course, then the conservatives could come in and make the number 13. Or 15. There isn't any limit.

What stops this from happening is "traditional norms".

But those got knocked off course (by one line of thinking) when McConnell pulled that stunt and denied Obama his appointment for 2 years. Technically allowed. But no one had done it, because bad practice against "norms". But it's going down a slippery slope. You can even think of what the democrats did to Kavanaugh, if you are inclined to think of it as "purely politics" (as opposed to an exposure of an unfit, partisan judge) as another loosening of the "democratic norm" guardrails, but inspired by the conservatives first move against Obama. And then, if Kananaugh gets rammed through, I'd think those inclinations against "judge stacking" would go out the window. Which would then lead the conservatives to some other erosion of a democratic norm. And so on. But it might be time for the Dems to make that move, if Kavanaugh is appointed.

FDR was being blocked by a very conservative court and he wanted to expand the # of justices but his OWN PARTY blocked him for the chain of events it would likely set off.

The debate "are we already there"

I'm still lost on how the new 2 would be appointed by liberals. I suppose you're saying the expansion should happen while Dems control the House & Senate? I mean, what's stopping Republicans from expanding it to 11, 15, 101 or 1001 lifetime appointments right now while they control both houses?

Anyway, my take is that 24% of the American voting population wasn't ready for the double gut-shot of a black president followed by legal gay marriage; while 25% of the American voting population was cool with it but complacent. It's also just a fact of modern politics that the Republican Party is where you want to be if you're a person who wants to keep the powerful powerful by nearly any means. And when I say "powerful" I mean more than just financially. It should come as no surprise that the Republican Party is the one resorting to dirty tricks and gerrymandering to keep cultural power in the hands of (straight Christian) white people.

The interesting part for our Democracy now will be whether an opposition party made of constituent cultural parts can overcome the focused, concentrated might of a (straight Christian) white people's party. It's hard to see how Dems could maintain cultural sincerity to a diverse and just electorate while also resorting to hard-line dirty tricks. I mean, they COULD but it's very likely that such tricks would have the perverse effect of turning off their slim 25% electorate.

More likely is that whatever dirty-trick safeguards Republicans put in place will be eroded over time by the inevitable statistical decline of white people in America. Ultimately social causes like protecting the rights of white men accused of rape have NO chance of longterm survival. I mean unless the Republican strategy is to kill the physical Earth before (straight Christian) white people lose power?

Anyway, I have enjoyed living abroad and think I'll keep it up a while.

[JohnStarksTheDunk]

I don't think they have Flake, Murkowski and Collins.

McConnell wouldn't have pushed for cloture if they didn't

One would think. It'll be very disappointing is he's confirmed.

Unless there is something truly damning in the FBI's findings, the investigation has provided cover for Collins, Murkowski, and Flake to vote YES. Which was always the point. We need to remember that these three senators don't want to vote against their party, so they welcome the excuse to say "the FBI looked into it and didn't find anything new."

In the event that the FBI investigation uncovered a bombshell, they likewise would have had the cover to vote NO. But this was unlikely to happen anyway, because the scope was on assault allegations, not whether or not Kavanaugh lied to Congress during hearings about his drinking, his past career, or anything else. It's left up to the Senate to draw those conclusions, and we already know that Democrats will try to do so, while Republicans will not. If the FBI's findings don't leak, we won't have the opportunity to see what they found, so it will be left up to the White House and Congress to provide their own interpretations, which will undoubtedly be primarily partisan spin.

The FBI only interviewed six people. Not Kavanaugh, not Ford, not Ford's husband who has stated that she told him specifically about Kavanaugh back in 2012, not Ford's psychiatrist, not any of the several witnesses and friends that Ramirez has referred to the FBI, not any other character witnesses from Kavanaugh's time at Yale.

They only interviewed Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth (PJ), Ford's high school friend Leland Keyser, Tim Gaudette (Timmy), Chris Garrett (Squi), and Ramirez. According to Ford, none of PJ, Keyser, Timmy, or Squi were in the room when the assault took place, so there is no reason for any of them to remember this specific pre-gaming gathering from 35 years ago, and indeed PJ and Keyser have already publicly stated that they don't remember this night. Squi has acknowledged that he dated Ford briefly, so he could potentially confirm that Kavanaugh had met Ford through him, but even that doesn't say anything about the alleged assault. Ramirez has already shared her story publicly and it's doubtful she has anything new -- the only thing that her interview would show is that she believes her story enough to risk penalty for lying to the FBI, and it's not a coincidence that others who could refute her (specifically Kavanaugh) or confirm her were not interviewed and therefore not subject to the same standards of truth. And then there is Judge, a well-documented alcoholic, who could very reasonably have no memory of that night because he was far too drunk.

So it basically comes down to whether Judge shared anything truly damning, or whether Collins and Murkowski feel that the Ramirez statements are credible enough to risk voting NO. I'm not putting my money on either, especially given that the track record for these two senators, as well as Flake, isn't particularly encouraging. From what we currently know, it's still more likely than not that Kavanaugh will be confirmed.