They're wrong. For typical example, thread relevant: https://www.thewrap.com/cnn-slammed-over-gop-women-panel-defending-kavanaugh/amp/ (On some other thread, I can run you through a few dozen major issues while comparing CNN's coverage to the standard center-left viewpoint, if you are interested.) Not really. People who don't know that CNN is rightwing biased, or understand what that means, as a category, are central players in pushing Kavanaugh's nomination. That's what ignorance and gullibility will do to a person - makes them functionally stupid. They end up, for example, thinking that whether or not these assault allegations against Kavanaugh can be proved in court is some kind of relevant issue instead of a Republican-instigated media deflection. CNN has given a lot of time and bandwidth to that and related "arguments", see, and if you don't understand that CNN is acting in the service of its corporate Republican financial and management interests when it behaves like that, you could easily miss what's going on.
Perhaps researching Tourette Syndrome might provide insight.. https://tourette.org.au/about-tsaa/what-is-tourette-syndrome/
Then you give me a list of stuff about Kavanaugh He wasn't on the list Choice was one of 20 with minor pimples or a 5***** bland As I said I don't have a dog in the fight but I am intrigued with the fight gymnastics Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, and many times. That anyone pretending political awareness bothers asking, still, is kind of funny; thank you for that.
"repetitive" Farks are non repetitive interestingly , use to watch several hours of CNN nearly every day for months same with BBC, Reuters(& one or two others) i have watched a fair bit of fox purely for comparrison fox appear to be a republican leaning liberal(note a liberal is anti regulation and anti lots of laws & pro smaller govt) what turns me right off about fox is that it looks more like cheer leading than journalists delivering storys. its fast paced and has varied content which is good. but im far more of an intellectual artsy cultural science viewer so they are never likely to appeal as a main coarse. i percieved a shift in CNN after obama left the presidency. it started out subtley, now as you point out they appear on the surface to have a right lean to them. which is a little odd. it appeared as if they responded when Trump started making comments about main stream media bias. what i do notice now is a patter with cnn which is very similar to the more middle of the road parts of the fox political animal. i find that a bit dissapointing as i think having media being clearly biased against a mechanism of propoganda is essential in a non free market(one controlled by profit or out right facism). [sure independant media would be ideal but in a capitalist reality where profit is everything its hardly an honest reality to the full end of the scale, it is a measure of magnitudes and popular support, which is a little ironic]{i do like cnn still, very much like some of their journalists and presenters, some i watch because i like their artistry skill and ability, even if im not soo interested in that particular story} if any person, leader, politician etc can threaten a news channel to bend its content to their whim, then it is a serious problem for democracy. considering trump was able to damage profit margins from his position of power that is a serious concern. comparatively soo... shoes on other feet etc, switching hats around etc... how does the securaties exchange commision feel about "The right to free speech?" is the SEC now the anti free speech government body that can legally punish people for free speech ? how does that sit in the senate ? what do they think about it ? is a big punch up looming ? (probably not but it certainly would be exciting to watch)
That's where I would argue that Libertarians have failed themselves -- some ground should be ceded toward social safety nets. Certainly there is plenty of money invested by our government that could be privatized and I think that it is an issue, but to make blanket claims that all government spending is bad... That is where the philosophy is lost on me.
Nothing odd about a 20 year old consistent pattern. CNN skewed rightwing - from center, not left - when Time Warner bought them in 1996, and pitched camp in the solidly rightwing overlook after 9/11 and especially during the Iraq invasion of 2003. Their cheerleading coverage of the Iraq War and the W administration became famous and much mocked in leftwing circles. They are currently devoted to the "bothsides" frame of news coverage they adopted in the wake of that War - the alternative being a serious demolition/reconstruction of their entire news coverage operation, informed by hindsight of their performance between 1996 and 2006. CNN picked up an American media promulgated identity as leftwing for the same reason Scientific American did (and Science, and Nature, and the Journal of the American Medical Association, and NOAA, and NASA, and so forth) - it occasionally got its facts straight in controversial matters, especially in its early days. Since its adoption of the bothsides approach (a corporate rightwing propaganda frame, replacing the principle of getting the facts straight) this reputation has become increasingly difficult to maintain.
Meanwhile, FBI agents are telling us that this supposed investigation of the week is not actually going to happen: https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/ms...l-reveals-white-house-limits-kavanaugh-probe/ Edit: ran into this on a blog That is a logical conclusion - - - -
When I heard about the extended FBI probe being limited to 1 week, I told my girlfriend that seems to indicate that it will not actually happen. She told me it still could, because the FBI did an extended background check on Clarence Thomas in only 4 days or some such. That gave us some (very small) hope. But what we both failed to see, even though it should have been expected at this point, was that the White House (read "Trump") would hand-cuff the FBI's investigation. Now, why would they have a need to do that?
WASHINGTON — The White House has authorized the F.B.I. to expand its abbreviated investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh by interviewing anyone it deems necessary as long the review is finished by the end of the week, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/trump-fbi-kavanaugh.html
Thanks, that is somewhat reassuring. Except for this part: "Mr. Trump said he instructed his White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, over the weekend to tell the F.B.I. to carry out an open investigation, although he included the caveat that it should accommodate the desires of Senate Republicans." Why should the Senate Republicans be able to limit the FBI investigation? Does Lindsey Graham, for example, seem like the go-to man of reason on this matter? And why were such limits on the FBI put in place in the first place? SMH
So what was a week is now four days, and it's still limited in ways we won't find out about for another day or two. As predicted: not happening. The Republican Senate wants a very partisan political lawyer with multiple questions of character both personal and financial, a long record of dubious legal hackery and equally dubious professional associations (John Yoo? C'mon), and a belligerent, immature, injudicious temperament when under pressure, on the Supreme Court for life. Meanwhile, another wtf moment, brought to you by the Republican Party and its amazing leadership: "His only concerns he said, were that the investigation be wrapped up quickly and that it take direction from the Senate Republicans who will determine whether Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed." The FBI has been ordered - by the Head of State - to take direction from the Republican Senators who have been obstructing all along; and to wrap up quickly, regardless of what is found, for no reason at all. "-- draw no limits - - to the impudence of an impudent man" (Jane Austen).
Because otherwise they might find bad stuff 'bout Brett. And the Republicans have already said that they plan to confirm him no matter what.
Senate hearings ? note, if they are called "hearings" why are the senators allowed to ask questions that the hearingee is not forced by law to have to answer ? its like a big joke mocking the democratic process at the expense of the working class poor. while all the politicians are holding one hand out to be legally bribed by lobbyists, while the other hand is in the public till. busy "hearing" no answers to the questions they are not supposed to be asking. its like a show'n tell for 5 year olds.
From a statement by yet another eyewitness to Kavanaugh's behavior at Yale, a man who states he will deliver a written account of his knowledge of Kavanaugh's behavior to the FBI field office in Raleigh, NC, this week: “I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18 or even 21 year old should condemn a person for the rest of his life,” Ludington wrote. “However ... if he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences.” So aside from the matter of having committed sexual assault as a young man, another central question regarding Ford's testimony and Kavanaugh's injudicious response is, as it has been among honest people so far in this mess: should the fact that Kavanaugh lied under oath to the US Senate Judiciary Committee affect his elevation to the Supreme Court?
mocking the law & the political system(lying during a senate hearing) but if the senate hearing is just a Public relations stunt where the person can sell snake oil then pursueing the legality of what they say is useless. is he required to be legally honest ? your post reminds me of 3 things the death penalty children tried as adults and sent to prison for life intentional homicide as an assault or direct act Vs an accident where no assault or robbery was taking place why would any candidate be above those 3 things ? surely the law should be equal. are they about to pardon every child tried as an adult ?(doubt it)
I would think the answer is obvious. Perjury in the Senate is a serious offence. Especially in this instance, regardless of the reasons for or content of.
well... from a laymens perspective the releasing of tax returns was an obvious non law for elected presidents. is there a lawyer who knows the legal answer ? taking an oath in office as a public official is all well and good, but if the senate is not actually the office, and the oath is in his own personal time and holds no legal court, then its all a bout how it looks publicly. public image is obviousely not a criminal law. i was thinking about comparrisons for corporate settings to determine a moral equvilent and my best example was being an employee of a bank and comitting theft of money from the bank. not the removal of items, like property, but the actual taking of currency. many to most companys expect employees o take pens and such like as part of what they do. taking one too many cookies from the staff cafateria is not a big issue. but, the simple theft of even a few dollars as currency from the bank and it changes everything. as the bank deems theft of currency to be far more important than theft of a stapler that has already been written off the books etc... the same in theory for lying under oath or purgery for a judge. a police officer running a illegal brothel of underage adults(say 19yo for example, using USA because prostitution is illegal and the age of consent and age of legal adult & drinking age are a complete mess) would be deemed a complete loss of all ethics and morals of the position. soo.. why do we seem to hear a different message of moral equity from the political right ? is it because they know it is not actually a law and so power is king ? or because they are smply hypocrites ? or because they think / know ... ? is the senate a court ? is the oath taken a legal oath of office as a sitting judge/lawyer ? musing here ... is "forgetting" equal to purgery ? probably not as it requires proof, and since no one is going to legaly define the proof(only a guilty verdict in a court of law), there is nothing to sit the premis of burdon on, aside from public opinion. mean-while 50 million dollar bill(who knows what it actually costs are, and are those appearing all doing so while on unpaid leave?) for the working class poor to pay so their kids cant get a proper education or health care... see how obvious it is with google https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b&q=is the senate a legal courtroom ?&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5hbO4j-fdAhWWbisKHQAoBAUQBQgoKAA&biw=1920&bih=923 no answer not even anything vaguely close to an answer https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1926121600
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Lying to Congress is lying to Congress, and is enforced by Congress. Lying to the FBI, however, is the purview of the Department of Justice, and of all the corruption people might imagine of law enforcement, a president forcing the Bureau to take it on the chin in a high-profile public spectacle is the sort of thing that would leave a mark. Cops don't like being lied to, regardless of which political appointee is in charge. If President or AG tries to make them tank, it would be obvious. If Director went along, the repercussions would be tectonic, because he would lose the entire Bureau. Someone close to President Trump will explain it to him, and #DonnySmalls will turn around and eff it up before you can blink. But lying to the FBI would be the perfect pretense, at some point here in the next couple days, for the President to cut Kavanaugh loose and try to posture himself against lying to the FBI. Okay, okay. I might, after I stop laughing at that last, remember to come up with a better one.
