Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett

Recommended Posts

The main reason the Democrats did not fight that hard for Garland is because they expected Hillary to win and she would nominate him, then Ginsberg would retire and HRC would replace her with another liberal and the SC would be 5-4 liberal. second term. 

So much for those plans huh. 

You all can blame RBG for not retiring early in Obama's.  

But they all thought she would win. :no:

"The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Qanon said:

The main reason the Democrats did not fight that hard for Garland is because they expected Hillary to win and she would nominate him, then Ginsberg would retire and HRC would replace her with another liberal and the SC would be 5-4 liberal. second term. 

So much for those plans huh. 

You all can blame RBG for not retiring early in Obama's.  

But they all thought she would win. :no:

"The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry".

Gosh.  What a fresh original take.  Using news from the current day to talk trash about the 2016 election like it was a sporting event.  Does Q command you to make posts like these to lure us into thinking you’re a standard-issue Trump supporter who gets all their news and beliefs from Fox and Trump’s Twitter account?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The seat is legitimately held, and pure politics, I hope, will never include 2/3 of the Senate doing things so constitutionally offensive that any sane electorate would vote them out at the soonest possible opportunity. (Half of the House is more realistic, but impeachment doesn't matter so much without any possibility of removal.)

If the Dems ever get 2/3 of the Senate then, IMO, it is a sane electorate giving them a super majority to correct the wrongs of the past. Which includes removing Gorsuch and/or Kavanaugh (removal of Kavanaugh is assuming Trump conspired with Russia - otherwise Kavanaugh is a legitimate selection and should remain). Personally, I would allow them to stay, however I would recommend adding 2 more justices to the SC and attempt to get statehood approved for DC and Puerto Rico.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sn0mm1s said:

If the Dems ever get 2/3 of the Senate then, IMO, it is a sane electorate giving them a super majority to correct the wrongs of the past. Which includes removing Gorsuch and/or Kavanaugh (removal of Kavanaugh is assuming Trump conspired with Russia - otherwise Kavanaugh is a legitimate selection and should remain). Personally, I would allow them to stay, however I would recommend adding 2 more justices to the SC and attempt to get statehood approved for DC and Puerto Rico.

I'm strongly against political vigilantism -- two eyes for each eye in an ever-escalating cycle of destruction. One of the main benefits of having laws is the prevention of spiraling violence, and the same general principle should apply to non-violent (political) feuds. If each side is always trying to one-up the other side's wrongs (of course, they are just trying to equalize the wrongs in their own view, but escalating them in their opponents' view) we just end up with a whole lot of wrong, wrong, wrong.

Using laws to redress such grievances is much preferable to using vigilantism.

If what the Republicans did to Garland was wrong -- and I very much think it was -- the appropriate response isn't to try to do something just as wrong in return. It's to use whatever constitutional remedies are available to redress the situation. That certainly includes pointing out incumbent Republicans' egregious wrongdoing during their reelection campaigns. I'm not sure what else it can include (I'm open to creative ideas), but it does not include impeaching duly confirmed judges for purely partisan reasons. People should go watch a Charles Bronson movie to get that urge out of their system.

When the law doesn't effectively prohibit a given type of wrongdoing, I think members of the aggrieved political party should work on solving the problem by fixing the law -- not by taking their turn at flouting the principle that, just five minutes ago, they purported to cherish.

If one party rigs the system in its favor by gerrymandering, the appropriate response by the other party is to prohibit gerrymandering -- not to gerrymander even more egregiously in its own favor.

If one party suppresses the vote among demographics unfavorable to it, the appropriate response by the other party is to make it harder to suppress votes -- not to start muffling the other sides's voters as soon as it gets the chance.

If one party uses unethical means to tilt the court in its own favor, I don't know the exactly appropriate response -- that's a hard one -- but I'm pretty confident that it's not to engage in court-packing. That way lies spiraling offense against sane and orderly government. The first thing Democrats should do when they have enough power is to prohibit any President from embiggening the Supreme Court beyond its current number. Fix the maximum number of seats at nine. They should also feel free to require an up-or-down vote on nominations after they are made. Both might require constitutional amendments, but that doesn't seem impossible.

I'm fully on board with granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, but that's based on the merits of doing so, not based on partisan gamesmanship. I'd be in favor of it just the same if they were likely to vote Republican. Puerto Rico would be the 29th largest of the 51 states (by population) if it were included. Washington DC is significantly smaller than Puerto Rico, but it is still bigger than Vermont or Wyoming. If Wyoming gets two Senators and a (voting) Representative, Washington DC should as well.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I'm strongly against political vigilantism -- two eyes for each eye in an ever-escalating cycle of destruction. One of the main benefits of having laws is the prevention of spiraling violence, and the same general principle should apply to non-violent (political) feuds. If each side is always trying to one-up the other side's wrongs (of course, they are just trying to equalize the wrongs in their own view, but escalating them in their opponents' view) we just end up with a whole lot of wrong, wrong, wrong.

Using laws to redress such grievances rather than vigilantism is much preferable.

If what the Republicans did to Garland was wrong -- and I very much think it was -- the appropriate response isn't to try to do something just as wrong in return. It's to use whatever constitutional remedies are available to redress the situation. That certainly includes pointing out incumbent Republicans' egregious wrongdoing during their reelection campaigns. I'm not sure what else it can include (I'm open to creative ideas), but it does not include impeaching duly confirmed judges for purely partisan reasons. People should go watch a Charles Bronson movie to get that urge out of their system.

When the law doesn't effectively prohibit a given type of wrongdoing, I think members of the aggrieved political party should work on solving the problem by fixing the law -- not by taking their turn at flouting the principle that, just five minutes ago, they purported to cherish.

If one party rigs the system in its favor by gerrymandering, the appropriate response by the other party is to prohibit gerrymandering -- not to gerrymander even more egregiously in its own favor.

If one party suppresses the vote among demographics unfavorable to it, the appropriate response by the other party is to make it harder to suppress votes -- not to start muffling the other sides's voters as soon as it gets the chance.

If one party uses unethical means to tilt the court in its own favor, I don't know the exact appropriate response -- that's a hard one -- but I'm pretty confident that it's not to engage in court-packing. That way lies spiraling offense against our Constitution. The first thing Democrats should do when they have enough power is to prohibit any President from embiggening the Supreme Court beyond its current number. Fix the maximum number of seats at nine. They should feel free as well to require an up-or-down vote on nominations after they are made. Both might require constitutional amendments, but that doesn't seem impossible.

I'm fully on board with granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, but that's based on the merits of doing so, not based on partisan gamesmanship. I'd be in favor of it just the same if they were likely to vote Republican. Puerto Rico would be the 29th largest of the 51 states (by population) if it were included. Washington DC is significantly smaller than Puerto Rico, but it is still bigger than Vermont or Wyoming. If Wyoming gets two Senators and a (voting) Representative, Washington DC should as well.

One party is not playing the game legally.  That makes no difference to you?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Johnnymac said:

One party is not playing the game legally.  That makes no difference to you?

What difference are you asking about? It makes a difference with respect to whether I think everything is going swimmingly right now. It doesn't make a difference with respect to whether I support the rule of law over political vigilantism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

What difference are you asking about? It makes a difference with respect to whether I think everything is going swimmingly right now. It doesn't make a difference with respect to whether I support the rule of law over political vigilantism.

But if Trump was elected illegitimately, his appointments should become null & void.  When we are talking about a lifetime appointment to the highest court in this country, choices that can change this country dramatically over the next 30-40 years, no way should they be allowed to stay on the court!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Johnnymac said:

One party is not playing the game legally.  That makes no difference to you?

History is littered with civilizations that were pacifists. There are thousands of these cultures that we've never heard of, nor will because they were swallowed up and/or destroyed by those that fight. It's not just MT, but many others that don't want the Democrats to fight. Well, I think they should and it sounds like you think they should too, for the same reason as those long dead civilizations should have. Those that are fighting for positive change in the universe tend to break the rules, because it is those that fight for positive change are without power. Those that support status quo and following rules in the context of fighting for positive change tend to be for those that are in power and that oppress people. It's always been like this and will be for a long time after we are all dead.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

This strikes me as a distinction without a difference -- one can't happen without the other.  For me removing Gorsuch would be no worse than blocking Garland.  So I think we'll have to agree to disagree. 

Leave it to the left to open Pandora's box and then whine about it when the tables are turned.  This is the type of shortsightedness that made Cavanaugh a slam dunk confirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one side breaks the established rules of the game repeatedly and the other side spends all its time trying to change the rules instead of fighting back it's pretty easy to see how the game ends.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dedfin said:

History is littered with civilizations that were pacifists. There are thousands of these cultures that we've never heard of, nor will because they were swallowed up and/or destroyed by those that fight. It's not just MT, but many others that don't want the Democrats to fight. Well, I think they should and it sounds like you think they should too, for the same reason as those long dead civilizations should have. Those that are fighting for positive change in the universe tend to break the rules, because it is those that fight for positive change are without power. Those that support status quo and following rules in the context of fighting for positive change tend to be for those that are in power and that oppress people. It's always been like this and will be for a long time after we are all dead.

:goodposting: I'm extremely angry with both parties to be honest.  Neither party has given a #### about most of the people in this country my entire life.  I'm ####### sick and tired of all of it!  The republican party is the mafia imo and has been for decades.  I am dumbfounded about how they have been gaining so much power in this country.  Everything they stand for is backwards imo.  The democrats just seem to like being run over all the time.  Its a dirty business and you cant win without it.  The whole thing with politics in this country disgusts me!  Fox News has spread so much hate and bull####, and have gained such a cult following in this country.  They know exactly what they are doing too, along with making money.  The democrats need to start listening to the majority of working people in this country.  I dont know about the rest of you but the people I talk to are sick of it.  We need real change in this country and the right isnt going to like it, even though most of them would benefit.  Democrats need to start playing the game before they go into extinction.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Qanon said:

Do you guys finally agree that Kavanaugh will be sitting on the Supreme Court in October?

 

Finally? That was virtually agreed on before you joined the board. Maybe not October, but in general. And no one would be surprised by October. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Short Corner said:

Leave it to the left to open Pandora's box and then whine about it when the tables are turned.  This is the type of shortsightedness that made Cavanaugh a slam dunk confirmation.

LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johnnymac said:

But if Trump was elected illegitimately, his appointments should become null & void.  When we are talking about a lifetime appointment to the highest court in this country, choices that can change this country dramatically over the next 30-40 years, no way should they be allowed to stay on the court!

Or, if the people he appointed had any morals, they would save the country time and resources and resign. But, in the recent past, many Republicans have demonstrated zero morals or care for the country... so, don't hold your breath.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I'm strongly against political vigilantism

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sn0mm1s said:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I chose it carefully. I'm referring to the idea that Democrats should get their revenge on Republicans not by following proper legal and constitutional procedures, but by taking things into their own hands, using self-help to extract their pound of flesh through procedurally improper means that they themselves would have criticized just a short time ago.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If what the Republicans did to Garland was wrong -- and I very much think it was -- the appropriate response isn't to try to do something just as wrong in return. It's to use whatever constitutional remedies are available to redress the situation. That certainly includes pointing out incumbent Republicans' egregious wrongdoing during their reelection campaigns. I'm not sure what else it can include (I'm open to creative ideas), but it does not include impeaching duly confirmed judges for purely partisan reasons. People should go watch a Charles Bronson movie to get that urge out of their system.

Yeah, because that really worked the last few elections. Pointing out the obstruction and hypocritical nature of the right sure did make a difference.

Quote

If one party rigs the system in its favor by gerrymandering, the appropriate response by the other party is to prohibit gerrymandering -- not to gerrymander even more egregiously in its own favor.

Yeah, because all that work trying to get rid of gerrymandering is going swimmingly. No, the proper response is to take control of the House during the census year and purge the cancer that is plaguing the country.

Quote

If one party suppresses the vote among demographics unfavorable to it, the appropriate response by the other party is to make it harder to suppress votes -- not to start muffling the other sides's voters as soon as it gets the chance.

Oh.. you mean we need *more* Constitutional Amendments to prevent the cheating. 

Quote

If one party uses unethical means to tilt the court in its own favor, I don't know the exact appropriate response -- that's a hard one -- but I'm pretty confident that it's not to engage in court-packing. That way lies spiraling offense against our Constitution. The first thing Democrats should do when they have enough power is to prohibit any President from embiggening the Supreme Court beyond its current number. Fix the maximum number of seats at nine. They should feel free as well to require an up-or-down vote on nominations after they are made. Both might require constitutional amendments, but that doesn't seem impossible.

C'mon... you think adding to the Constitution is even remotely possible? States are effectively gerrymandered by design. You have red states with the populations of no-name cities in California. You aren't getting 3/4 of the states to agree on anything. Super majorities of Congress and 3/4 of states have to agree? NFW.

Quote

I'm fully on board with granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, but that's based on the merits of doing so, not based on partisan gamesmanship. I'd be in favor of it just the same if they were likely to vote Republican. Puerto Rico would be the 29th largest of the 51 states (by population) if it were included. Washington DC is significantly smaller than Puerto Rico, but it is still bigger than Vermont or Wyoming. If Wyoming gets two Senators and a (voting) Representative, Washington DC should as well.

At least we agree on that. Maybe after getting 3000+ people killed by this administration they will come to their senses and become a state.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I chose it carefully. I'm referring to the idea that Democrats should get their revenge on Republicans not by following proper legal and constitutional procedures, but by taking things into their own hands, using self-help to extract their pound of flesh through procedurally improper means that they themselves would have criticized just a short time ago.

Everything the reds have been doing is legal (aside from the stuff Mueller has turned over - which seemingly go unnoticed by those in power). Gerrymandering, court stacking, obstruction, impeachment etc. etc. etc. are neither illegal nor procedurally improper. Redressing innumerable wrongs within the confines of the law isn't vigilantism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Johnnymac said:

But if Trump was elected illegitimately, his appointments should become null & void.  When we are talking about a lifetime appointment to the highest court in this country, choices that can change this country dramatically over the next 30-40 years, no way should they be allowed to stay on the court!

That is far more likely to happen to Obama so watch what you wish for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Qanon said:

That is far more likely to happen to Obama so watch what you wish for. 

False

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dedfin said:

History is littered with civilizations that were pacifists. There are thousands of these cultures that we've never heard of, nor will because they were swallowed up and/or destroyed by those that fight. It's not just MT, but many others that don't want the Democrats to fight. Well, I think they should and it sounds like you think they should too, for the same reason as those long dead civilizations should have. Those that are fighting for positive change in the universe tend to break the rules, because it is those that fight for positive change are without power. Those that support status quo and following rules in the context of fighting for positive change tend to be for those that are in power and that oppress people. It's always been like this and will be for a long time after we are all dead.

When are people going to get it?  It freakin baffles me.  They don't fight because they are paid not to.  Why else would dems vote for bank deregulation and to give more money to the military under Trump.  Why does over 60% of the people want Medicare for all but we don't have it?  Corporate money, this is why.  Grow up and face the truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Qanon said:

That is far more likely to happen to Obama so watch what you wish for. 

What the #### are you talking about. You believe this stuff? Why are you allowed to post here. If a poster in the Shark Pool spammed a "don't draft Gurley, he tore both his ACL's this summer" lie in every thread for months they'd surely be banned. 

I get that people like knocking the stuffing out of you in your Q thread but you contribute nothing to the conversation here but weird vague conspiracy bull####. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I'm strongly against political vigilantism -- two eyes for each eye in an ever-escalating cycle of destruction. One of the main benefits of having laws is the prevention of spiraling violence, and the same general principle should apply to non-violent (political) feuds. If each side is always trying to one-up the other side's wrongs (of course, they are just trying to equalize the wrongs in their own view, but escalating them in their opponents' view) we just end up with a whole lot of wrong, wrong, wrong.

Using laws to redress such grievances is much preferable to using vigilantism.

If what the Republicans did to Garland was wrong -- and I very much think it was -- the appropriate response isn't to try to do something just as wrong in return. It's to use whatever constitutional remedies are available to redress the situation. That certainly includes pointing out incumbent Republicans' egregious wrongdoing during their reelection campaigns. I'm not sure what else it can include (I'm open to creative ideas), but it does not include impeaching duly confirmed judges for purely partisan reasons. People should go watch a Charles Bronson movie to get that urge out of their system.

When the law doesn't effectively prohibit a given type of wrongdoing, I think members of the aggrieved political party should work on solving the problem by fixing the law -- not by taking their turn at flouting the principle that, just five minutes ago, they purported to cherish.

If one party rigs the system in its favor by gerrymandering, the appropriate response by the other party is to prohibit gerrymandering -- not to gerrymander even more egregiously in its own favor.

If one party suppresses the vote among demographics unfavorable to it, the appropriate response by the other party is to make it harder to suppress votes -- not to start muffling the other sides's voters as soon as it gets the chance.

If one party uses unethical means to tilt the court in its own favor, I don't know the exactly appropriate response -- that's a hard one -- but I'm pretty confident that it's not to engage in court-packing. That way lies spiraling offense against sane and orderly government. The first thing Democrats should do when they have enough power is to prohibit any President from embiggening the Supreme Court beyond its current number. Fix the maximum number of seats at nine. They should also feel free to require an up-or-down vote on nominations after they are made. Both might require constitutional amendments, but that doesn't seem impossible.

I'm fully on board with granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, but that's based on the merits of doing so, not based on partisan gamesmanship. I'd be in favor of it just the same if they were likely to vote Republican. Puerto Rico would be the 29th largest of the 51 states (by population) if it were included. Washington DC is significantly smaller than Puerto Rico, but it is still bigger than Vermont or Wyoming. If Wyoming gets two Senators and a (voting) Representative, Washington DC should as well.

I disagree with a lot of your opinions here but I do appreciate the fact that you usually provide solid arguments for your line of thinking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, sn0mm1s said:

If the Dems ever get 2/3 of the Senate then, IMO, it is a sane electorate giving them a super majority to correct the wrongs of the past. Which includes removing Gorsuch and/or Kavanaugh (removal of Kavanaugh is assuming Trump conspired with Russia - otherwise Kavanaugh is a legitimate selection and should remain). Personally, I would allow them to stay, however I would recommend adding 2 more justices to the SC and attempt to get statehood approved for DC and Puerto Rico.

Removing Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? Assuming Trump conspired with Russia?

C'mon man.

It is fine to hate Trump because of his personality or his policies, but at some point you people have to let go of this Russia fetish. It puts you in the Q category of conspiracy theorists.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it’s s under investigation and convictions are mounting so I think we should see how it plays out at least. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, sn0mm1s said:

If the Dems ever get 2/3 of the Senate then, IMO, it is a sane electorate giving them a super majority to correct the wrongs of the past. Which includes removing Gorsuch and/or Kavanaugh (removal of Kavanaugh is assuming Trump conspired with Russia - otherwise Kavanaugh is a legitimate selection and should remain). Personally, I would allow them to stay, however I would recommend adding 2 more justices to the SC and attempt to get statehood approved for DC and Puerto Rico.

We can hope!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NFL2DF said:

Removing Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? Assuming Trump conspired with Russia?

C'mon man.

It is fine to hate Trump because of his personality or his policies, but at some point you people have to let go of this Russia fetish. It puts you in the Q category of conspiracy theorists.  

There is literally more evidence for Russia collusion/conspiracy than anything you have ever posted on this board. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2018 at 11:45 AM, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Sure it is.  Gorsuch was put on the Bench by either a) an illegitimate blocking of Obama's appointment, or b) through the legitimate exercise of pure political power.

If it's a) Dems are ethically/morally justified in removing him.  If it's b) then removing him is justified at whatever point they have the pure political power to do it.

Uh, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NFL2DF said:

Removing Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? Assuming Trump conspired with Russia?

C'mon man.

It is fine to hate Trump because of his personality or his policies, but at some point you people have to let go of this Russia fetish. It puts you in the Q category of conspiracy theorists.  

Oh yeah Comrade, smear that caviar all over my body...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 11:26 AM, JohnnyU said:

That simply isn't going to happen.  First, there isn't crap on Trump as in the way of proof and there probably won't be.  Second, even if he was removed from office his SCOTUS appontees wouldn't be removed as well.  That I do know.

Oh, there's crap on Trump.  Plenty of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2018 at 9:07 AM, Qanon said:

As far as I am concerned none of Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer should be on the court. Means absolutely nothing because they are.

Did you hear that  Ruth Bader Ginsburg responded to Cory Booker. She said "I knew Spartacus and you Mr. Booker are no Spartacus". 

Why shouldn’t they be on the court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Zow said:

Why shouldn’t they be on the court?

Because Barack Obama’s a Kenyan who’s a traitor to the U.S.  But not because he’s black. Keep up. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Because Barack Obama’s a Kenyan who’s a traitor to the U.S.  But not because he’s black. Keep up. 

If he is indeed a Kenyan can he, by definition, be a traitor to the U.S.?  I would argue "No"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

If he is indeed a Kenyan can he, by definition, be a traitor to the U.S.?  I would argue "No"!

Benedict Arnold was British. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2018 at 2:38 AM, ConnSKINS26 said:

What the #### are you talking about. You believe this stuff? Why are you allowed to post here. If a poster in the Shark Pool spammed a "don't draft Gurley, he tore both his ACL's this summer" lie in every thread for months they'd surely be banned. 

I get that people like knocking the stuffing out of you in your Q thread but you contribute nothing to the conversation here but weird vague conspiracy bull####. 

But Gurley really did. He's running on robotic implants. I heard it on the internet and believe it 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senate Democrats Have Referred A Secret Letter About Brett Kavanaugh To The FBI

Quote

BuzzFeed News contacted the woman believed to be the subject of the letter at her home last week. She declined to comment. BuzzFeed News has not been able to confirm the contents of the letter.

The lawyer believed to be representing the woman was seen leaving Capitol Hill Wednesday evening shortly after the Intercept story dropped and just as Judiciary Committee Democrats were huddling in the Senate lobby. The lawyer, Debra Katz has not confirmed that she is representing the woman. She also declined to comment Wednesday, saying “there’s nothing to say.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I am going to guess this is not about a pubic hair on a coke...

I love it when people use their avatar to demonstrate their radical fringe views. 

How do you feel about the Democratic Socialists of America (your avatar) threatening to shoot up an event full of Trump supporters at the Trump Hotel in DC?

Do you support violence against political opponents?

Do you support domestic terrorists?

 

Edited by NFL2DF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NFL2DF said:

Do you support domestic terrorists?

Seriously?

Look at my screen name.  Of course I support terrorists.  Its like nobody can even read anymore.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.