btw: The American Bar Association - the national, central, and famously conservative professional association of American lawyers most often relied upon for professional assessment of the skills of prospective Federal judges - has taken the unusual step of intervening in an ongoing confirmation process: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tt-kavanaugh-vote-until-fbi-investigates.html they were willing to rate Kavanaugh "well qualified" legally and technically, but not to lend their tacit approval to this travesty of a confirmation for the Supreme Court. They officially and formally recommend the confirmation vote be postponed until the withheld evidence of Kavanaugh's personal behavior and professional career has been produced and examined. Like everybody - literally, everybody - except the Republican Party leadership and its media flacks, they think an FBI investigation is indicated and routine and expected here. And there is no reason to dismiss their recommendation. There is no rush, no emergency, no hurry, in this matter.
Quite. I cannot see how an FBI investigation can be avoided now and, if they were to decide there is a case to answer, we will have the damaging situation of a Supreme Court judge in the dock in a criminal trial, within months of taking office. Frankly, while I find it a bit suspect that these allegations surface only now, Kavanaugh's reaction: nakedly partisan, emotional and full of open appeal to the Religious Right through his anecdote about his daughter praying, strikes me as evidence that the man is quite unsuitable to be a Supreme Court judge. If you have a situation in which half the country can no longer respect the judgement of the Supreme Court, you have destroyed one pillar of the constitution. Bannon would be proud of that, of course, but basically it's Turkey here we come.
?? What do you mean? Trump tells the FBI "do not investigate." And they don't. Without an investigation, no crime can be proven. And why would the republicans have a problem with that? They'd see that as a feature, not a bug.
Why are those not the issue if so easily proven? Why prop up a woman who can't even offer proof other than her recollection? If he's such a jerk, we wouldn't be where we are now, a she said he said.
Like discrediting a man with no evidence. She might be a victim, but she's provided no evidence other than her words. I would wish you or anyone else at least the presumption of evidence before rushing to a conviction.
it's 12:00 est, 90 minutes and we'll know It seems most likely that the vote will be divided along party lines. Any claims that this ain't political are just silly.
You didn't answer my question. Would you hire the guy, yes or no? Other than the testimony of several people. And a calendar entry that lists " 'skis with Tim around the right time. And records from a therapist from 2012. If this were a poor black man, he'd already be in jail based on that level of evidence.
Can the president halt a criminal investigation? Really? That's pretty shocking if true. Suggests our good old monarchy has something to recommend it, then, where the prosecuting authority is "The Crown", rather than the government. If the Prime Minister tried to nobble the Director of Public Prosecutions there would be an immediate scandal. I would hope there would be some Republicans who would understand that the rule of law in a free society depends on the consent of the people to abide by it.
That's why we often use independent counsels, specifically because the president can interfere with most investigations. It's harder (but not impossible, ex. Nixon) to interfere with those. Not if it costs them even a little bit of power.
It is not recommended, but it can fall within his power to do so. One Senator blatantly came out and said that they would file false charges or allegations in retaliation. I don't think they actually care what the rule of law actually is. It is all about power and maintaining said power against all cost or sense of reason.
Hmm. I've always been brought up to admire the exquisite balance in the US Constitution. Trump is exposing its weaknesses, though. But perhaps the Founding Fathers never quite envisaged such a c*nt being elected to office. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
HL Mencken predicted Trump a hundred years ago: ======== . . When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or count himself lost. … All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. ==========
Except the GOP won't allow any evidence - case in point, the person called out to have been a witness to the event, they voted (along party lines) not to subpoena...
There is. There is his own calendar, with a " 'skis with Tim" entry around that time. There are several people who have testified that he was often drunk and aggressive, supporting her description of him and contradicting his own claims. There are other women who he sexually assaulted. So there is a fair amount of evidence already. There would, of course, be much more if it was investigated instead of ignored for political reasons.
Based on an accusation, would I refuse him the job? I don't know. What testimony? Also, what and whose calendar entry? If I tell my therapist a tale, does that make it true? I don't know about being poor, but I doubt color of skin matters to the Dem's...
