timschochet 33,260 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 The argument I’m hearing from progressives (mostly on the radio) is that he’s a partisan hack, more interested in pursuing whatever agenda is favorable to conservatism than he is in interpreting the law and Constitution with an attempt at impartiality. If this were true I would be more concerned. But as I listen to him I’m not convinced that it’s true. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bruce Dickinson 17,896 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 27 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said: Better than where we're at now with only one side doing it? Sorry but you don't get to shove the board game off the table, storm out of the kitchen, burn the house to the ground, and then pull out the instructions and insist that we abide by all the rules. You burned it down, you get to wallow here in the resulting chaos with the rest of us. Show us where the game rules say you can't burn the house to the ground. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rodg12 2,427 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Sure, people email the creators of programs all the time discussing the exact parameters of that program that was created without knowing that the program exists. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jonessed 3,213 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Just now, Henry Ford said: He sent an email to John Yoo on September 17, 2001 asking if Yoo had put together any results yet on the question. On October 23, 2001, John Yoo authored the memorandum that was the basis for authorization of the program. And? At that point the program was a hypothetical. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stealthycat 1,637 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 9 minutes ago, Nick Vermeil said: Good grief. Ignore. typical can't back what you said, then run .... nice Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jonessed 3,213 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Just now, rodg12 said: Sure, people email the creators of programs all the time discussing the exact parameters of that program that was created without knowing that the program exists. I suspect John Woo reached out to him first. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Henry Ford 60,520 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Just now, jonessed said: And? At that point the program was a hypothetical. At the point he answered the question it was not. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bruce Dickinson 17,896 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 1 minute ago, timschochet said: The argument I’m hearing from progressives (mostly on the radio) is that he’s a partisan hack, more interested in pursuing whatever agenda is favorable to conservatism than he is in interpreting the law and Constitution with an attempt at impartiality. If this were true I would be more concerned. But as I listen to him I’m not convinced that it’s true. This is why a thorough and complete document review is essential. Need to see if the story he's selling at the hearing is the same one that actually happened. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Henry Ford 60,520 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Just now, jonessed said: I suspect John Woo reached out to him first. You suspect that John Woo reached out to him and told him Woo would be drafting a memo to his department to explain the 4A issues? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jonessed 3,213 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Just now, Henry Ford said: At the point he answered the question it was not. If he knew they were discussing an existing program and not a hypothetical he would be lying. We don’t know that yet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jonessed 3,213 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 1 minute ago, Henry Ford said: You suspect that John Woo reached out to him and told him Woo would be drafting a memo to his department to explain the 4A issues? I expect Woo reaches out to him to get his opinion on the legal implications of doing something like this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rodg12 2,427 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 13 minutes ago, rodg12 said: He flat out lied in his 2004 confirmation hearing. https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1037737330189185024 https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1037737330189185024 Hey @jonessed, let's see you explain away how this isn't a lie. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Henry Ford 60,520 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Google search September 17: how to hide the body of a woman in the woods email September 17: Jim, I have that "hiding a woman's body in the woods research" for you Mr. Kavanaugh, now that we all know Jim killed his wife and hid her body in the woods on October 23, did you have any discussion or do any research regarding hiding Jim's wife's body in the woods? Kavanaugh: No. I consider that a lie. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Henry Ford 60,520 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 1 minute ago, jonessed said: If he knew they were discussing an existing program and not a hypothetical he would be lying. We don’t know that yet. In 2006? He knew. Much of the discussion in the hearing was that he was aware of the program just like the public (it had all just come out). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Qanon 122 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 20 minutes ago, Sweet J said: You mean like stealing a Supreme Court seat? My response it the same as Booker's: Bring it. You consider it stolen, whereas we just consider it a Supreme Court Seat. You can even put an asterisk by his name, as long as he will be ruling for the next 40 years is what counts. Now if we can get one or two more after Kavanaugh, that will be even better. RBG sometimes reminds me of the movie Weekend at Bernies Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jonessed 3,213 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 1 minute ago, rodg12 said: Hey @jonessed, let's see you explain away how this isn't a lie. Did he attend? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Henry Ford 60,520 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 1 minute ago, jonessed said: I expect Woo reaches out to him to get his opinion on the legal implications of doing something like this. Other way around. Woo authored the memo and explained the legality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rodg12 2,427 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Just now, jonessed said: Did he attend? You need to read further in the thread... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmbJoP_W4AEd5Y6.jpg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ditkaless Wonders 16,250 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 16 minutes ago, Henry Ford said: I don't always agree with his views but I think he is a thoughtful, well-written, and well-researched judge who does a good job. I also believe that he intentionally stated falsehoods to Congress during a confirmation hearing and should be removed from the bench. If not intentional it was at least reckless. A jurist of his experience ought to get questions clarified before answering. Either way he intended to thwart the inquiry, and that I do not abide. One does not micturate on congress, or at least one should not, not if one aspires to the highest judicial office in the land. I find him qualified of mind, but not of character. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rodg12 2,427 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 I mean, here it is plain as day. How in the world is this not a lie... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmbH8czX0AI6U3g.jpg when he said this in an email... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmbJoP_W4AEd5Y6.jpg 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Qanon 122 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 29 minutes ago, Stealthycat said: all of that and far more is true and now this Booker fiasco ........... what an embarrassment for the left first it looked like Booker was Spartacus LOL and the left were all like "hell yeah, lets break laws and breach codes for the good of the people !!" and now, its like ... uh ... there was no breach, now, it just looks like you lied and tried to create chaos and unrest for nothing but to cause disruption what a ####### week huh? A week to remember, for sure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
unckeyherb 1,423 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 31 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said: Ok, and the released email is Kavanaugh referring to a different program than the Terrorist Surveillance Program, no? Which is why in his hearing, Kavanaugh specifically says that there were multiple programs and tries to clarify with Leahy whether he's specifically referring to TPS. Or am I missing something? Your reading on it is the same as mine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jonessed 3,213 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Just now, Henry Ford said: Other way around. Woo authored the memo and explained the legality. I imagine Woo consulted others before writing it. Whether those others knew that the program existed or would be implemented I don’t know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Qanon 122 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 28 minutes ago, Stealthycat said: wow ya'll really are brainwashed by CNN aren't you ? I mean I've heard the stories, but seeing it .... its still fascinating to see They thrive on anything MSM. It is their Kool-Aid. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mile High 5,115 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 3 minutes ago, Qanon said: A week to remember, for sure. The way 2018 has gone so far. This week will be forgotten by next week. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sinn Fein 33,971 Posted September 6, 2018 Author Share Posted September 6, 2018 9 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said: If not intentional it was at least reckless. A jurist of his experience ought to get questions clarified before answering. Either way he intended to thwart the inquiry, and that I do not abide. One does not micturate on congress, or at least one should not, not if one aspires to the highest judicial office in the land. I find him qualified of mind, but not of character. Narrator: "Character was not a pre-requisite for an appointment by this president." 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Qanon 122 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 29 minutes ago, Sweet J said: Did I stutter? How does one stutter, if anything you are playing fast and loose with the truth. You now what is funny, "they" expected HRC to win, so there was no reason to complain too much. Ooops they got Trumped on that line of reasoning. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ditkaless Wonders 16,250 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 3 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said: Narrator: "Character was not a pre-requisite for an appointment by this president." Poignantly sad because poignantly true. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Qanon 122 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 32 minutes ago, Henry Ford said: I don't always agree with his views but I think he is a thoughtful, well-written, and well-researched judge who does a good job. I also believe that he intentionally stated falsehoods to Congress during a confirmation hearing and should be removed from the bench. We will take your ramblings under consideration. Ummmm we have decided you lose. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet J 3,275 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 14 minutes ago, rodg12 said: I mean, here it is plain as day. How in the world is this not a lie... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmbH8czX0AI6U3g.jpg when he said this in an email... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmbJoP_W4AEd5Y6.jpg Liar liar pants on fire. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ditkaless Wonders 16,250 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Qanon said: We will take your ramblings under consideration. Ummmm we have decided you lose. At some point bait becomes so rancid it is only good for maggots, not fish or gators. That point was some time ago. I learned this from Troy Landry, the King of the Swamps. "Choot 'em!" Edited September 6, 2018 by Ditkaless Wonders 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Qanon 122 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 1 hour ago, Henry Ford said: It isn't. I said anyone who lies to Congress during a confirmation hearing should be impeached. But I'm good with all of those. Does lying on a message board count? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Henry Ford 60,520 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 2 minutes ago, Qanon said: Does lying on a message board count? Is the message board "Congress"? Because if it isn't, I'm not sure why you would ask the question. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Leroy Hoard 13,381 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 10 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said: At some point bait becomes so rancid it is only good for maggots, not fish or gators. That point was some time ago. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Henry Ford 60,520 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 11 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said: At some point bait becomes so rancid it is only good for maggots, not fish or gators. That point was some time ago. I learned this from Troy Landry, the King of the Swamps. "Choot 'em!" I had a client once who was distantly related to Troy Landry. Between them, I believe that Troy got the brains, the looks, and the personality of the family. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maurile Tremblay 22,241 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 47 minutes ago, rodg12 said: Hey @jonessed, let's see you explain away how this isn't a lie. The one on the left says he wasn't involved in the nomination. The one on the right was about the confirmation hearing, not the nomination. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rove! 2,095 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 1 hour ago, Henry Ford said: It isn't. I said anyone who lies to Congress during a confirmation hearing should be impeached. But I'm good with all of those. So your position is that lying to Congress should not be prosecuted? i happen to disagree and I think DOJ leniency to the political class (certain members) is a major threat to the credibility of the rule of law in this country. ismissing open hypocrisy as “whataboutism” is a sign that the era of political discourse is over and it’s all about who has power. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
badmojo1006 6,164 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Don McGahn checking out his ear wax 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Henry Ford 60,520 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, Rove! said: So your position is that lying to Congress should not be prosecuted? i happen to disagree and I think DOJ leniency to the political class (certain members) is a major threat to the credibility of the rule of law in this country. ismissing open hypocrisy as “whataboutism” is a sign that the era of political discourse is over and it’s all about who has power. No, my position is that you shouldn't put words in my mouth about a different issue when I'm discussing a specific issue. Edited September 6, 2018 by Henry Ford 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Qanon 122 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, Henry Ford said: Is the message board "Congress"? Because if it isn't, I'm not sure why you would ask the question. So you are good with lying as long as it not before Congress. You Dudley DeBosier? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rodg12 2,427 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Just now, Maurile Tremblay said: The one on the left says he wasn't involving in the nomination. The one on the right was about the confirmation hearing, not the nomination. I was referring to the thread as a whole. Specifically these two pieces together that I referenced in a later post... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmbH8czX0AI6U3g.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmbJoP_W4AEd5Y6.jpg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maurile Tremblay 22,241 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 38 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said: If not intentional it was at least reckless. A jurist of his experience ought to get questions clarified before answering. Either way he intended to thwart the inquiry, and that I do not abide. One does not micturate on congress, or at least one should not, not if one aspires to the highest judicial office in the land. I find him qualified of mind, but not of character. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Henry Ford 60,520 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, Qanon said: So you are good with lying as long as it not before Congress. You Dudley DeBosier? That's an interesting take. You should formulate a sentential logic proof using my statements from which you derived that conclusion. It would really shame me. Edited September 6, 2018 by Henry Ford Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Commish 13,383 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 2 hours ago, Dedfin said: Yeah, I don't think any of the liberals/progressives and traditional conservatives on this board will find any middle ground with regarding this guy. Kavanaugh is a traditional conservative's sliver lining. The traditional conservatives and libertarians here may dislike Trump and many of his policies, but they love Gorsuch and they love Kavanaugh. This is why they put up with so much crap from Trump. There is no way they are going to allow themselves to see negatives here. I see plenty of negatives FWIW and I'm not really in love with either of Trump's picks. Of course I am not a rabid conservative either, but definitely more conservative than liberal. This #### the party's become is nothing close to what it's been before. The core beliefs of yesteryear simply don't apply in today's world. Technology, global economies and other governments being part of the equation (now more than ever before) require us to step back and reevaluate. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maurile Tremblay 22,241 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 2 minutes ago, rodg12 said: I was referring to the thread as a whole. Specifically these two pieces together that I referenced in a later post... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmbH8czX0AI6U3g.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmbJoP_W4AEd5Y6.jpg I read the stuff in those links. Without rereading them several more times, I don't see a contradiction. Which particular statements are you referring to? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Cranks 4,619 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 If an intellectual debate was like Mike Tyson's Punchout, Qanon would be Glass Joe. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rodg12 2,427 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Just now, Maurile Tremblay said: I read the stuff in those links. Without rereading them several more times, I don't see a contradiction. Which particular statements are you referring to? In the second link from my post you quoted, he specifically discusses recommending Pryor for nomination in the email. In the first link, he denies handling his nomination. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Henry Ford 60,520 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 1 minute ago, Captain Cranks said: If an intellectual debate was like Mike Tyson's Punchout, Qanon would be Glass Joe. Glass Joe was 1-99 with 1 knockout. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Cranks 4,619 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Just now, Henry Ford said: Glass Joe was 1-99 with 1 knockout. I'm sure Q has debated Jonmx or someone before then. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Commish 13,383 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 1 hour ago, Stealthycat said: this hearing is a mockery for the system that's in place - if ya'll can't agree to that, that the chaos and mass confusion is so far overboard ..... then you're justifying any means necessary to get the end result you want (no Kavanugh) and if you realize that, than you would have to expect the GOP to do the same and when both sides are full on war, breaking laws and violating everything we stand on as a country .... then where will we be at ? how much of this hearing have you watched? genuine question. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.