myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Kavanaugh should be disbarred for lying under oath
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1263

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And blackout is a whole different level of drinking. Which he declined to answer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 6405

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bluefish1 wrote:
50% chance of smear Matty. 50% chance he lied under oath and remembers exactly the night.



35 years ago retard.....with ZERO people backing her, obvious political timing and orchestrated by a rabid left wing retard who is well know for her sleazeball tactics....


Grow the fuck up, what you scumbag liberals are doing is disgusting and very dangerous........
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 7367
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

He was a terrible pick. Partisan to the core...
NEW RULE: The United States of America should never put someone on the Supreme Court when they say "I love Beer" on National TV, Unless its a Simpson's episode.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 6405

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
He was a terrible pick. Partisan to the core...
NEW RULE: The United States of America should never put someone on the Supreme Court when they say "I love Beer" on National TV, Unless its a Simpson's episode.




OMG did you really say that....he likes beer so he is disqualified. Does that include brown liquor and wine???

But you are okay with a weed, cigarette, cocaine user, like Obama admitted??.

you're a funny dude....hopelessly liberal...aka brain dead!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1263

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pin-the-asterisk-on-kavanaugh-11568673826
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 7367
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
boggsman1 wrote:
He was a terrible pick. Partisan to the core...
NEW RULE: The United States of America should never put someone on the Supreme Court when they say "I love Beer" on National TV, Unless its a Simpson's episode.




OMG did you really say that....he likes beer so he is disqualified. Does that include brown liquor and wine???

But you are okay with a weed, cigarette, cocaine user, like Obama admitted??.

you're a funny dude....hopelessly liberal...aka brain dead!!!!


I'm fine with all of it. I am referring to his Homer Simpson moment, didn't really seem like he held a candle to Gorsuch, or Merrick Garland. A liar, and a partisan . He was Kenneth Starr's right hand man, and none of the details of his work were available for the taxpayer to see.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 12838
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
September 17 at 10:15 AM
I believed Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony that as a teen, now-Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh assaulted her. I also believe Kavanaugh did not tell the truth under oath, at the very least, about his drinking. However, as much as we might want to rewind this horror show and play it out with the benefit of a diligent FBI investigation, that is impossible. Given the composition of the Senate, Kavanaugh’s removal is impossible. (I’m not even going to qualify this as “near impossible.”)

However, this does not mean the House should do nothing. There is certainly public interest in knowing if the FBI and/or White House approved or had knowledge of an effort to conceal evidence from the Senate. For that determination we need FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, former White House counsel Donald McGahn and any others with relevant knowledge to testify under oath.

Regular oversight does not end simply because we are in the midst of an impeachment investigation. The country benefits in several ways by conducting regular oversight of the FBI’s handling of the matter.


[The latest: Inaction on Kavanaugh sex misconduct allegations reignites political rancor]

First, it recognizes that the House Judiciary Committee barely has enough bandwidth to deal with Trump’s impeachment without pursuing a separate impeachment of a Supreme Court justice (without any hope of removal). Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) made clear on Monday, “We have our hands full with impeaching the president right now and that’s going to take up our limited resources and time for a while.”

Opinion | Perjury is hard to prove. But that's not how we should judge Kavanaugh's testimony.
Post contributor Randall D. Eliason walks through the perjury claims around Brett M. Kavanaugh's Senate testimony, from the blackout denials to "boofing." (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

Second, there is a need to determine if the FBI was manipulated for political reasons, and, if so, by whom and, further, why Wray did not report this to Congress. (By the way, an inspector general can also investigate the Kavanaugh vetting.) If and only if there is evidence tying President Trump to an effort to effectively shut down an investigation — and then spin it as exoneration — should the matter fall into the umbrella of “abuse of power” that is the subject of Trump’s impeachment.


Third, a factual inquiry could very well provide guidance and new rules regarding alleged wrongdoing against future judicial nominees. Making it up as we go along, and concealing the scope of the FBI investigation, proved to be a fiasco.

Finally, it is better to have a rule-bound hearing than to let drips and drabs leak out from books and other sources. This is the people’s government, and they have every right to know how this all went down and how Kavanaugh got on the bench — if for no other reason than this reflects on the conduct of senators on the ballot in 2020 and beyond.

Not investigating alleged wrongdoing has gotten us in enough trouble. Now we are going to ignore possible wrongdoing associated with the Kavanaugh vetting? Not a good idea.


But, you protest, that still leaves Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court and the court a damaged institution. That is right, and why I warned about the perils of curtailing the FBI investigation into Kavanaugh. We pay a terrible and irreversible price for having the White House and/or Senate run a sham investigation.

There is, however, a political solution: the ballot box. The voters can decide that Trump and/or the Republicans in the Senate have shown themselves to be utterly unfit and untrustworthy. In enumerable ways, they have damaged our democratic norms and launched an unprecedented assault on the rule of law. Let the voters render a verdict. But first, let’s find out what happened.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 6405

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
mat-ty wrote:
boggsman1 wrote:
He was a terrible pick. Partisan to the core...
NEW RULE: The United States of America should never put someone on the Supreme Court when they say "I love Beer" on National TV, Unless its a Simpson's episode.




OMG did you really say that....he likes beer so he is disqualified. Does that include brown liquor and wine???

But you are okay with a weed, cigarette, cocaine user, like Obama admitted??.

you're a funny dude....hopelessly liberal...aka brain dead!!!!


I'm fine with all of it. I am referring to his Homer Simpson moment, didn't really seem like he held a candle to Gorsuch, or Merrick Garland. A liar, and a partisan . He was Kenneth Starr's right hand man, and none of the details of his work were available for the taxpayer to see.



Dude he was highly vetted and highly qualified....just ask Ruth.

Even if your point is legit, what the left has done to him is disgusting, but when you can't destroy him on his resume I guess you go low...reeeeal low.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 6405

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Quote:

By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
September 17 at 10:15 AM
I believed Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony that as a teen, now-Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh assaulted her. I also believe Kavanaugh did not tell the truth under oath, at the very least, about his drinking. However, as much as we might want to rewind this horror show and play it out with the benefit of a diligent FBI investigation, that is impossible. Given the composition of the Senate, Kavanaugh’s removal is impossible. (I’m not even going to qualify this as “near impossible.”)

However, this does not mean the House should do nothing. There is certainly public interest in knowing if the FBI and/or White House approved or had knowledge of an effort to conceal evidence from the Senate. For that determination we need FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, former White House counsel Donald McGahn and any others with relevant knowledge to testify under oath.

Regular oversight does not end simply because we are in the midst of an impeachment investigation. The country benefits in several ways by conducting regular oversight of the FBI’s handling of the matter.


[The latest: Inaction on Kavanaugh sex misconduct allegations reignites political rancor]

First, it recognizes that the House Judiciary Committee barely has enough bandwidth to deal with Trump’s impeachment without pursuing a separate impeachment of a Supreme Court justice (without any hope of removal). Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) made clear on Monday, “We have our hands full with impeaching the president right now and that’s going to take up our limited resources and time for a while.”

Opinion | Perjury is hard to prove. But that's not how we should judge Kavanaugh's testimony.
Post contributor Randall D. Eliason walks through the perjury claims around Brett M. Kavanaugh's Senate testimony, from the blackout denials to "boofing." (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

Second, there is a need to determine if the FBI was manipulated for political reasons, and, if so, by whom and, further, why Wray did not report this to Congress. (By the way, an inspector general can also investigate the Kavanaugh vetting.) If and only if there is evidence tying President Trump to an effort to effectively shut down an investigation — and then spin it as exoneration — should the matter fall into the umbrella of “abuse of power” that is the subject of Trump’s impeachment.


Third, a factual inquiry could very well provide guidance and new rules regarding alleged wrongdoing against future judicial nominees. Making it up as we go along, and concealing the scope of the FBI investigation, proved to be a fiasco.

Finally, it is better to have a rule-bound hearing than to let drips and drabs leak out from books and other sources. This is the people’s government, and they have every right to know how this all went down and how Kavanaugh got on the bench — if for no other reason than this reflects on the conduct of senators on the ballot in 2020 and beyond.

Not investigating alleged wrongdoing has gotten us in enough trouble. Now we are going to ignore possible wrongdoing associated with the Kavanaugh vetting? Not a good idea.


But, you protest, that still leaves Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court and the court a damaged institution. That is right, and why I warned about the perils of curtailing the FBI investigation into Kavanaugh. We pay a terrible and irreversible price for having the White House and/or Senate run a sham investigation.

There is, however, a political solution: the ballot box. The voters can decide that Trump and/or the Republicans in the Senate have shown themselves to be utterly unfit and untrustworthy. In enumerable ways, they have damaged our democratic norms and launched an unprecedented assault on the rule of law. Let the voters render a verdict. But first, let’s find out what happened.



please don't waste out time with Rubin, she is as un-hinged as the get...right up there with baldwin and deniro......bat shit crazy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 12838
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did the idiot who didn't have time to read anything mean "our"? Attention to detail and accuracy are not in his playbook.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group