Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono on Kavanaugh

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

certainly seems that way.

I mean its Guilty until proven Innocent in the court of public opinion

Senator Horino was on TV last night, she said we "all need to believe her".

In other words, Senator Horino thinks we all "need" to ignore the Constitution, at least when a liberal women accuses a conservative man.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If an unsubstantiated allegation is enough to derail his nomination, how will anyone ever get confirmed again? The opposition party will always get someone to make an allegation, and then where are we, Pete?

Not saying he shouldn't be confirmed but have an independent investigatative arm of the gov. (the FBI) do an investigation and have a fair hearing w/witnesses.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Senator Horino was on TV last night, she said we "all need to believe her".

In other words, Senator Horino thinks we all "need" to ignore the Constitution, at least when a liberal women accuses a conservative man.

And Orrin Hatch said

“The judge who I know very, very well, is an honest man, said this didn’t happen,” Hatch said, according to The Hill.

Sounds like he has already made his mind up that K is innocent so the so called hearing will be a joke.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Not saying he shouldn't be confirmed but have an independent investigatative arm of the gov. (the FBI) do an investigation and have a fair hearing w/witnesses.



And Orrin Hatch said

“The judge who I know very, very well, is an honest man, said this didn’t happen,” Hatch said, according to The Hill.

Sounds like he has already made his mind up that K is innocent so the so called hearing will be a joke.

"have an independent investigatative arm of the gov. (the FBI) do an investigation and have a fair hearing w/witnesses."

I have no quarrel with that, but its very likely it will boil down to he said / she said. And the time to do this, as Senator Feinstein well knows, was when the FBI was already doing his background check. Paul, why do you suppose they didn't ask for the investigation then, in which case this would be behind us now?

"The judge who I know very, very well, is an honest man, said this didn’t happen,” Hatch said, according to The Hill."

He shouldn't be saying that, it's wrong for him to say that.

Now Paul, what do you think of Senator Horino, saying on TV that we "need to believe" Kavanaugh's accuser? She has also made up her mind ahead of time, which further contributes to the hearing being a joke.

I cannot possibly know what happened. But I'm pretty certain that the allegation will never be proven to any rational level of certainty, in which case no one should oppose his nomination based on this event.

I gotta hand it to the democrats, this is win-win. If they derail his nomination, and they re-take the senate, they can stop Trump from shifting the court to the right. If he gets confirmed, all of them will be shrieking right up until the midterms, that republicans have no empathy for victims of sexual assault. The only political risk, is that if this tactic (it's pretty underhanded) turns off voters in the key swing states. Sure it will increases the margin of victory in places where they would have won anyway, but does it help in WV and OH? We'll see.

Paul, why do you suppose that Senator Horino says we need to believe Kavanaugh';s accuser, but she's not saying we need to believe Keith Ellison's accuser? This kind of dirty fighting from the left is exactly why Trump got elected, and at times like this I thank God we have a POTUS who is more than wiling to take off the boxing gloves, and out on the brass knuckles, when his opponents do the same.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, why do you suppose they didn't ask for the investigation then, in which case this would be behind us now?
prob. for some of the same reasons the Repubs. waited until the night before to release 17K?? pages of docs.


Now Paul, what do you think of Senator Horino, saying on TV that we "need to believe" Kavanaugh's accuser?

Politics - same as Hatch's statement.

Paul, why do you suppose that Senator Horino says we need to believe Kavanaugh';s accuser, but she's not saying we need to believe Keith Ellison's accuser? PoliticsThis kind of dirty fighting from the left is exactly why Trump got elected, and at times like this I thank God we have a POTUS who is more than wiling to take off the boxing gloves, and out on the brass knuckles, when his opponents do the same.

Both parties do it but you are so blinded that you think 1 party does it more than the other.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Both parties do it but you are so blinded that you think 1 party does it more than the other.

one party consistently takes it to all new levels of ick....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Both parties do it but you are so blinded that you think 1 party does it more than the other.

Both parties do it, no question. Even in the age of Trump, I see no comparison in frequency. But I know I'm biased.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Both parties do it but you are so blinded that you think 1 party does it more than the other.

And sorry I didn't say it immediately, I respect your post (not the part calling me blind), it was uncommonly honest. Not uncommon for you, uncommon for all of us.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This kind of dirty fighting from the left is exactly why Trump got elected,

Your completely indoctrinated in rights proganga if you think

1 the dems fight dirty ( compared to the Republicans )

2 and thats what help elect Trump .


your detached from reality

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Your completely indoctrinated in rights proganga if you think

1 the dems fight dirty ( compared to the Republicans )

2 and thats what help elect Trump .


your detached from reality

If you’re going to accuse people of being detached from reality, it would help your argument if knew the difference between you’re and your. Most of us learned that in elementary school.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by fishbones

If you’re going to accuse people of being detached from reality, it would help your argument if knew the difference between you’re and your. Most of us learned that in elementary school.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thanks for adding nothing to the conversation. it must be liberating

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by wdmso

thanks for adding nothing to the conversation. it must be liberating

You’re welcome. See how I used the word correctly there? It is liberating to be smarter than people who are not only narrow minded but simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Your completely indoctrinated in rights proganga if you think

1 the dems fight dirty ( compared to the Republicans )

2 and thats what help elect Trump .


your detached from reality

OK. So what happens when liberal speakers give a speech on college campus - nothing. WHat happens when conservatives try to give a speech - a riot. Compare the tea party to Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter. Look at this case.

Of course the left's habit of fighting dirty helped lead to Trump.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK. So what happens when liberal speakers give a speech on college campus - nothing. WHat happens when conservatives try to give a speech - a riot. Compare the tea party to Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter. Look at this case.

Of course the left's habit of fighting dirty helped lead to Trump.

Of course you wouldn’t be guilty of any of these things

In these times, however, it’s a joke to focus on incivility by Democrats even as the Republican president routinely says things that are as bad as or worse than the attacks of the most irresponsible Democratic no-name precinct chair. Nor is President Donald Trump as much of an outlier as one might imagine. After all, his crusade to declare President Barack Obama a non-citizen was taken up by many Republican politicians; his repeated ethnic slur against Senator Elizabeth Warren, repeated this past weekend, was adapted from one used against her by Massachusetts Republicans.

This strain of Republican rhetoric goes back to Newt Gingrich in the 1980s and 1990s. The lawmaker from Georgia who became House speaker was not just prone to excessive rhetoric himself, but trained Republican politicians to use extreme wording.

Then there’s Republican-aligned media, a constant source of institutionalized incivility that encourages a politics of grievance by searching out any examples of Democratic rhetorical excess.


Basically, anyone who thinks the parties are even remotely equivalent on this score is treating Trump as if he doesn’t count. And anyone who thinks the parties are roughly equivalent if you remove Trump from the equation should take Kevin Drum’s advice and spend more time critically monitoring Republican-aligned media. And, as Norm Ornstein reminds us, critical monitoring is not the same as reacting to the problem of incivility with a “knee-jerk response” of trying to find equal fault on both sides. and using conservative outlets only as a source for finding examples of poor Democratic behavior.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Of course you wouldn’t be guilty of any of these things

In these times, however, it’s a joke to focus on incivility by Democrats even as the Republican president routinely says things that are as bad as or worse than the attacks of the most irresponsible Democratic no-name precinct chair. Nor is President Donald Trump as much of an outlier as one might imagine. After all, his crusade to declare President Barack Obama a non-citizen was taken up by many Republican politicians; his repeated ethnic slur against Senator Elizabeth Warren, repeated this past weekend, was adapted from one used against her by Massachusetts Republicans.

This strain of Republican rhetoric goes back to Newt Gingrich in the 1980s and 1990s. The lawmaker from Georgia who became House speaker was not just prone to excessive rhetoric himself, but trained Republican politicians to use extreme wording.

Then there’s Republican-aligned media, a constant source of institutionalized incivility that encourages a politics of grievance by searching out any examples of Democratic rhetorical excess.


Basically, anyone who thinks the parties are even remotely equivalent on this score is treating Trump as if he doesn’t count. And anyone who thinks the parties are roughly equivalent if you remove Trump from the equation should take Kevin Drum’s advice and spend more time critically monitoring Republican-aligned media. And, as Norm Ornstein reminds us, critical monitoring is not the same as reacting to the problem of incivility with a “knee-jerk response” of trying to find equal fault on both sides. and using conservative outlets only as a source for finding examples of poor Democratic behavior.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is stupid....did you write this pete or are you plagiarizing again?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Senator Horino was on TV last night, she said we "all need to believe her".

In other words, Senator Horino thinks we all "need" to ignore the Constitution, at least when a liberal women accuses a conservative man.

What does this have to do with the Constitution?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

What does this have to do with the Constitution?

Senator Horino said we "need to believe" the accuser, which necessarily means we need to disbelieve Kavanaugh, and deny him a SCOTUS seat, without any due process.

She is saying we should punish Kavanaugh without any due process.

I'll ask you Spence, and have fun with this question...why is Senator Horino saying we "need to believe" Kavanaugh's accuser, but she isn't saying we need to believe Keith Ellison's accuser?

Why would anyone who feels this disqualifies Kavanaugh, not feel that Keith Ellison should step down? Both men have been accused of domestic violence against women. One gets a pass form the left, one is presumed guilty from the left. How come?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Senator Horino said we "need to believe" the accuser, which necessarily means we need to disbelieve Kavanaugh, and deny him a SCOTUS seat, without any due process.

She is saying we should punish Kavanaugh without any due process.

He's not being charged in a criminal court, I'm not sure how due process really applies in a legal sense in this case. I do think it's fair to ensure the allegation is properly looked into now that it's out in the open.

I'll ask you Spence, and have fun with this question...why is Senator Horino saying we "need to believe" Kavanaugh's accuser, but she isn't saying we need to believe Keith Ellison's accuser?

I'm not aware of anyone asking her about Ellison.

Why would anyone who feels this disqualifies Kavanaugh, not feel that Keith Ellison should step down? Both men have been accused of domestic violence against women. One gets a pass form the left, one is presumed guilty from the left. How come?

I think one difference here is that Ellison's accuser has undercut her own credibility by changing her story, offering evidence but refusing to produce it etc...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

He's not being charged in a criminal court, I'm not sure how due process really applies in a legal sense in this case. I do think it's fair to ensure the allegation is properly looked into now that it's out in the open.


I'm not aware of anyone asking her about Ellison.


I think one difference here is that Ellison's accuser has undercut her own credibility by changing her story, offering evidence but refusing to produce it etc...

"I'm not aware of anyone asking her about Ellison."

Ahhhh, you dodging skills are second to none.

"Ellison's accuser has undercut her own credibility by changing her story"

Mrs Fords version that she is telling today, differs from what she told her therapist, so she is also apparently changing her story. She's having trouble remembering where and when it happened, isn't it possible she's misremembering the who as well? This is exactly why we have statutes of limitations.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Mrs Fords version that she is telling today, differs from what she told her therapist, so she is also apparently changing her story. She's having trouble remembering where and when it happened, isn't it possible she's misremembering the who as well? This is exactly why we have statutes of limitations.

The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist. As for her making a mistake on the assailant, that's what an investigation would be for. I don't think she would have come forward unless she personally was sure it was him.

In the Ellison case the initial allegation was actually made by her son which she eventually went along with. She's told the press multiple stories about a video that would prove her story and that she wouldn't give it to them anyway...it's all very strange.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist. As for her making a mistake on the assailant, that's what an investigation would be for. I don't think she would have come forward unless she personally was sure it was him.

In the Ellison case the initial allegation was actually made by her son which she eventually went along with. She's told the press multiple stories about a video that would prove her story and that she wouldn't give it to them anyway...it's all very strange.

"The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist"

True, or it could be a mistake by her.

Spence, Kavanaugh's best ability to prove innocence, would be to show he was somewhere else at the time. How can he begin to do that, when the accuser can't specify the when and the where? There's literally no possible way to defend himself against this.

It's a morally disgusting tactic, but politically very shrewd. No one knows how to bring a gun to a knife fight, like a liberal.

Oh, OK, you don't believe Ellison's accuser because her story is strange. But nothing strange about sending a letter, telling the senate to hold onto it while the FBI is doing a background check, not mentioning it during 38 hours of questioning. Nah, that's normal, at least by current liberal standards.

If I was Trump, if there's another vacancy (please Ginsberg), I'd go out of my way to fill it with the person that the liberals would hate the most, someone who would make them beg Trump to re-nominate Kavanaugh.. "Ability to infuriate liberals", would be near the top of my list of attributes I'd look for.

Your side won big by fighting dirty against honorable men like McCain and Romney. They still haven't learned that Trump likes fighting dirty, and is better at it, than they are. They're lucky he's limited by separation of powers.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

What does this have to do with the Constitution?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,..... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

or we could "Just Believe Her"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,..... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

or we could "Just Believe Her"

According to Horino, you "need to believe her". Or else...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

What does this have to do with the Constitution?

you are right...the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the Constitution