Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Qanon said:

1 - Anyone that goes against your narrative is not creditable, including most people here.

2 - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/8/6/367861/-
 

Is Senator Dianne Feinstein a Crook?

While Feinstein was on the military appropriations committee] the two companies, URS of San Francisco and the Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass., were controlled by Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum, and were awarded a combined total of over $1.5 billion in government business thanks in large measure to her subcommittee. That’s a lot of money even here in Washington.

Interestingly, she left the subcommittee in late 2005 at about the same time her husband sold his stake in both companies. Their combined net worth increased that year with the sale of the two companies by some 25 percent, to more than $40 million.

I have no idea what Feinstein is doing with this Kavanaugh mess, but this second story about corruption is utter nonsense and a perfect example of something I've referenced before with you and more broadly with right wing conspiracy theorists- the internet is so full of so many strands of information that if you look hard enough for anything you can find what you're looking for.

Appropriations committees generally don't award money to contractors directly.  They appropriate money to agencies (in this case, presumably, DOD) and then the agencies (a completely separate branch of government) choose the contractors.  And they do so under a set of very strict guidelines, under close scrutiny. As someone else put it once in response to some previous similar unsubstantiated claim of corruption: "this isn't Nam, this is government contracting. There are rules."  And when I went down the rabbit hole a bit on this one, sure enough the only allegation, found in some local Northern California blog linked from her husband's wikipedia page, is that she "lobbied Pentagon officials to support Defense projects she favored."  :rolleyes:

Also FWIW- the link you provided is to a Daily Kos user post ("community")- ie the source isn't even a blogger, it's just some random commenter- and the flawed link in the article is to a former right wing opinion writer for The Hill by the name of David Keene, not a reporter.

More generally, when someone tries to tell you someone has done something in Washington via legislation or regulation and doesn't give you a link, a cite or at least some easy way to find the documents they reference, they're almost always full of ####. Anyone remotely familiar with government or reporting on government knows that you have to do that.

 

Perhaps you are a real stickler for ethics in government, and you think the immediate family of high-ranking government officials should do no business whatsoever with the federal government or otherwise do anything that might appear to be a benefit from government service. That sounds good to me too. Why even risk the appearance of impropriety, right?  But if that's the case I've got some bad news for you about the current President.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

18 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Agreed.

Dems should absolutely NOT do all the things that led to Republicans successfully implementing every policy wet dream they've ever had and stacking the courts.

To be clear, I don't think Dems should actually do all those things.

But it's pretty rich to hear a Republican say it.  Given that the playbook hasn't changed since 1994 and no one on the right really cared about these issues during the 25 years Republicans were using them to win.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

 

To be clear, I don't think Dems should actually do all those things.

But it's pretty rich to hear a Republican say it.  Given that the playbook hasn't changed since 1994 and no one on the right really cared about these issues during the 25 years Republicans were using them to win.

I'm not a Republican and I've been nothing but critical of Trump's jackassery.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why we can't have nice things...it's becoming clearer and clearer that the Democrats don't know how to fight.  It seems that their only approach is sling as much #### against the wall and see what sticks.  I appreciate the effort, but these attempts are terrible...both Booker and Feinstein.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

And that was all bad, right?  Or does it become okay when your side is doing it?

I’m no more a Democrat than you are a Republican.

How it what Feinstein did analogous to Trump’s behavior during the campaign?  Did Feinstein show up at a rally and be like “many people are saying Kavanaugh raped and killed a girl when he was in high school” or all him “Rapin’ Brett” on Twitter?  What is Feinstein accusing Kavanaugh of doing?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

I’m no more a Democrat than you are a Republican so shove that “your side” stuff up your ###.

How it what Feinstein did analogous to Trump’s behavior during the campaign?  Did Feinstein show up at a rally and be like “many people are saying Kavanaugh raped and killed a girl when he was in high school” or all him “Rapin’ Brett” on Twitter?  What is Feinstein accusing Kavanaugh of doing?

I'm not the one who brought Trump into this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I don't understand this one.  Was somebody's high school era an issue and I missed it?

Not high school, but the fact that 40 years earlier one candidate worked for an indigent defense office and got an accused rapist a light sentence on a plea deal was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I have no idea what Feinstein is doing with this Kavanaugh mess, but this second story about corruption is utter nonsense and a perfect example of something I've referenced before with you and more broadly with right wing conspiracy theorists- the internet is so full of so many strands of information that if you look hard enough for anything you can find what you're looking for.

Appropriations committees generally don't award money to contractors directly.  They appropriate money to agencies (in this case, presumably, DOD) and then the agencies (a completely separate branch of government) choose the contractors.  And they do so under a set of very strict guidelines, under close scrutiny. As someone else put it once in response to some previous similar unsubstantiated claim of corruption: "this isn't Nam, this is government contracting. There are rules."  And when I went down the rabbit hole a bit on this one, sure enough the only allegation, found in some local Northern California blog linked from her husband's wikipedia page, is that she "lobbied Pentagon officials to support Defense projects she favored."  :rolleyes:

Also FWIW- the link you provided is to a Daily Kos user post ("community")- ie the source isn't even a blogger, it's just some random commenter- and the flawed link in the article is to a former right wing opinion writer for The Hill by the name of David Keene, not a reporter.

More generally, when someone tries to tell you someone has done something in Washington via legislation or regulation and doesn't give you a link, a cite or at least some easy way to find the documents they reference, they're almost always full of ####. Anyone remotely familiar with government or reporting on government knows that you have to do that.

 

Perhaps you are a real stickler for ethics in government, and you think the immediate family of high-ranking government officials should do no business whatsoever with the federal government or otherwise do anything that might appear to be a benefit from government service. That sounds good to me too. Why even risk the appearance of impropriety, right?  But if that's the case I've got some bad news for you about the current President.

 

 

 

Guy doesn't beleive the MSM...but uses random commenter on a site as a source?  Ooof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

Not high school, but the fact that 40 years earlier one candidate worked for an indigent defense office and got an accused rapist a light sentence on a plea deal was. 

I agree that that was a scummy line of argument, and I'm pretty confident that I've said so before.  It's not like I've ever been shy about criticizing Hillary Clinton about other stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I'm not the one who brought Trump into this.

Hmm.  If you had a more compelling point you wouldn’t be so evasive.  

What exactly is Feinstein accusing Kavanaugh of doing?  

(Understand I don’t think Kavanaugh’s confirmation rides on whatever becomes of Feinstein’s actions.  The part where it’s been shown Kavanaugh lied under oath during a previous confirmation hearing should be enough for rational actors to pass on him from a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.  But the majority party doesn’t care about that right now.  So here we are.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

I’m no more a Democrat than you are a Republican so shove that “your side” stuff up your ###.

How it what Feinstein did analogous to Trump’s behavior during the campaign?  Did Feinstein show up at a rally and be like “many people are saying Kavanaugh raped and killed a girl when he was in high school” or all him “Rapin’ Brett” on Twitter?  What is Feinstein accusing Kavanaugh of doing?

Amazing

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, The Commish said:

This is why we can't have nice things...it's becoming clearer and clearer that the Democrats don't know how to fight.  It seems that their only approach is sling as much #### against the wall and see what sticks.  I appreciate the effort, but these attempts are terrible...both Booker and Feinstein.

The actions of the Dems in confirmation hearings were disgraceful. How anyone could watch that circus & come away with anything other than disdain for the leaders of the Dem party is beyond me.  That whole sham was disgraceful.  This latest thing by Feinstein is just another layer on a cake that is already a giant hunk of mold.  Damn, that whole process was really disappointing.  IMO

I Remain,

Sparticus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are basically two possibilities here: 

1. Kavanaugh is a “beyond the pale” extreme candidate for the SC who should never be approved. 

2. Kavanaugh is your typical mainstream candidate, who is a conservative, and the Democrats are painting him as extreme and corrupt in order to appease their base. 

Because Trump appointed Kavanaugh, I wanted to believe #1 is true. But I really haven’t encountered any real evidence of it. This latest story is not compelling either. I’m firmly in the #2 camp as of now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

 

To be clear, I don't think Dems should actually do all those things.

But it's pretty rich to hear a Republican say it.  Given that the playbook hasn't changed since 1994 and no one on the right really cared about these issues during the 25 years Republicans were using them to win.

2013 down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

I’m no more a Democrat than you are a Republican so shove that “your side” stuff up your ###.

How it what Feinstein did analogous to Trump’s behavior during the campaign?  Did Feinstein show up at a rally and be like “many people are saying Kavanaugh raped and killed a girl when he was in high school” or all him “Rapin’ Brett” on Twitter?  What is Feinstein accusing Kavanaugh of doing?

lordy lordy, beautiful & respectful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

There are basically two possibilities here: 

1. Kavanaugh is a “beyond the pale” extreme candidate for the SC who should never be approved. 

2. Kavanaugh is your typical mainstream candidate, who is a conservative, and the Democrats are painting him as extreme and corrupt in order to appease their base. 

Because Trump appointed Kavanaugh, I wanted to believe #1 is true. But I really haven’t encountered any real evidence of it. This latest story is not compelling either. I’m firmly in the #2 camp as of now. 

I don't think there's all that much difference between your #1 and #2.  I view Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch as extremists that I wouldn't vote to confirm.  Republicans view them as "mainstream."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many so willingly diving headfirst into the mud pit with the justification being, "well they started it".  Did none of them take to heart the simple lesson all mothers try to share by saying "and if they jumped off a bridge would you do so too?"  Where are the Statespersons, the giants with the will to champion standards we can all applaud?  I've seen it argued incessantly that the country needs to vote democrat to correct the horrible reality of what Trump and the republicans have wrought.  I agree it is a horrible reality, but why would I, or rational beings since I may not be one decide to support those who have become what they rail against.  When the coin is tainted why would one want to experience the obverse side?

The Senate is to advise and consent.  Were I a Senator I would send my advice to the President that he place in nomination someone who has not perjured themselves before Congress and who has the moral authority to sit on the highest court in the land.  I would respectfully then withhold my consent of this nominee.  I would take the position that I am not required to disqualify nominees, but rather that the Administration needs to make the case for nominees.  I would leave it at that. I would not further engage in spectacle seeking political gain during such an important process.

A return to dignity is what I would call this, though I am uncertain when we had dignity, probably never. 

Looking forward to the "well they started it" crowd to chime in telling me that one has to fight fire with fire.  Well I am just tired of the whole world burning so I don't buy it, and yes I know that fighting fire with fire is suppose to extinguish blazes, I get the expression, but I find that this only works for experienced firefighters, not crazed arsonists seeking revenge for all slights ever in recorded history.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I don't think there's all that much difference between your #1 and #2.  I view Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch as extremists that I wouldn't vote to confirm.  Republicans view them as "mainstream."

There is, or at least should be, a distinction between “I disagree with your POV and oppose your nomination” and “You are unqualified and represent a threat to our democracy.” 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

There is, or at least should be, a distinction between “I disagree with your POV and oppose your nomination” and “You are unqualified and represent a threat to our democracy.” 

"Why isn't "you are qualified and competent and are a threat to our democracy" a legit reason? Because it should be.

Edited by Dedfin
My phone is bad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lost in the political ### for tat is that one side playing nice is against representative democracy. If McConnell / Rs refuse to confirm nominees in the last year of a Presidential term, they're left with 3 years of their administration to appoint. If followed by an R, and the Ds take the high road, then the R President gets 5 years. This is a disenfranchisement of the people who voted for the D President.

For just the sake of the will of the people, one side can't be the patsy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, irishidiot said:

The actions of the Dems in confirmation hearings were disgraceful. How anyone could watch that circus & come away with anything other than disdain for the leaders of the Dem party is beyond me.  That whole sham was disgraceful.  This latest thing by Feinstein is just another layer on a cake that is already a giant hunk of mold.  Damn, that whole process was really disappointing.  IMO

I Remain,

Sparticus

Their opportunity to fight was a couple years ago when all this crap started with Garland....not now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

Hmm.  If you had a more compelling point you wouldn’t be so evasive.  

What exactly is Feinstein accusing Kavanaugh of doing?  

(Understand I don’t think Kavanaugh’s confirmation rides on whatever becomes of Feinstein’s actions.  The part where it’s been shown Kavanaugh lied under oath during a previous confirmation hearing should be enough for rational actors to pass on him from a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.  But the majority party doesn’t care about that right now.  So here we are.)

And THIS is what they need to be focused on IMO.  It's not in the news the best I can tell.  It's all this other crap their doing instead.  Perhaps I have missed the coverage.  I've been focused a bit more on my family in NC/SC with the hurricanes and all.  The Dem party should be on the shows every day bringing up the lying under oath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, timschochet said:

There are basically two possibilities here: 

1. Kavanaugh is a “beyond the pale” extreme candidate for the SC who should never be approved. 

2. Kavanaugh is your typical mainstream candidate, who is a conservative, and the Democrats are painting him as extreme and corrupt in order to appease their base. 

Because Trump appointed Kavanaugh, I wanted to believe #1 is true. But I really haven’t encountered any real evidence of it. This latest story is not compelling either. I’m firmly in the #2 camp as of now. 

He's no more extreme or conservative than Scalia, certainly, in my opinion.  Of course, Scalia seems pretty extreme and conservative to me.  Doesn't make him suddenly an unqualified candidate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

Hmm.  If you had a more compelling point you wouldn’t be so evasive.  

What exactly is Feinstein accusing Kavanaugh of doing?  

Raping somebody.  When you float a story along the lines of "I've received news about this candidate that is too sensitive to get into details about, but it involves sexual misconduct and needs to be investigated by the FBI," you are publicly accusing the guy of being a rapist or pedophile or something similarly serious without having the courage to say so forthrightly.  That's why innuendo is so scummy -- Feinstein gave people license to imagine the worst when she apparently knew perfectly well that this was nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Raping somebody.  When you float a story along the lines of "I've received news about this candidate that is too sensitive to get into details about, but it involves sexual misconduct and needs to be investigated by the FBI," you are publicly accusing the guy of being a rapist or pedophile or something similarly serious without having the courage to say so forthrightly.  That's why innuendo is so scummy -- Feinstein gave people license to imagine the worst when she apparently knew perfectly well that this was nothing.

Did she say it involves sexual misconduct?  I've been looking for statements from Feinstein and I didn't see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the only statement I've seen from Feinstein:

Quote

"I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," Feinstein said. "That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities."

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Matthias said:

Lost in the political ### for tat is that one side playing nice is against representative democracy. If McConnell / Rs refuse to confirm nominees in the last year of a Presidential term, they're left with 3 years of their administration to appoint. If followed by an R, and the Ds take the high road, then the R President gets 5 years. This is a disenfranchisement of the people who voted for the D President.

For just the sake of the will of the people, one side can't be the patsy.

Isn’t this basically the argument that got OJ Simpson acquitted of murder? The jury effectively said, “We don’t care if he’s guilty or innocent; the LAPD have mistreated blacks for so long that we’re going to send a message the other way.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

So many so willingly diving headfirst into the mud pit with the justification being, "well they started it".  Did none of them take to heart the simple lesson all mothers try to share by saying "and if they jumped off a bridge would you do so too?"  Where are the Statespersons, the giants with the will to champion standards we can all applaud?  I've seen it argued incessantly that the country needs to vote democrat to correct the horrible reality of what trump and the republicans have wrought.  I agree it is a horrible reality, but why would I, or rational beings decide to support those who have become what they rail against.  When the coin is tainted why would one want to experience the obverse side?

Heh - those giants have been shouted down by ignorance. Playing fair and nice and taking the high road doesn't work in the current political climate. If you think it works - you have been living in a bubble the past 20 years. All you high road people are like a pacifist that wouldn't fight the WWII because killing and wars are bad. There is what is necessary and there is what is "right" and they aren't always the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Isn’t this basically the argument that got OJ Simpson acquitted of murder? The jury effectively said, “We don’t care if he’s guilty or innocent; the LAPD have mistreated blacks for so long that we’re going to send a message the other way.” 

No.

Let's make it more stark and visible. Say by some machination the Republicans make Republican Presidential terms last 5 years. And Democratic Presidential terms last 3 years. When they have a year left, they're booted from office.

Now, if the Democrats respond to a like tactic to re-balance the duration of a Presidential term, are they engaging in a political spat? Or are they doing something more fundamentally balancing to our democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Did she say it involves sexual misconduct?  I've been looking for statements from Feinstein and I didn't see that.

 

35 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

This is the only statement I've seen from Feinstein:

Quote

"I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," Feinstein said. "That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities."

 

I mentioned the same things. Ivan's insistent that she smeared him, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Matthias said:

No.

Let's make it more stark and visible. Say by some machination the Republicans make Republican Presidential terms last 5 years. And Democratic Presidential terms last 3 years. When they have a year left, they're booted from office.

Now, if the Democrats respond to a like tactic to re-balance the duration of a Presidential term, are they engaging in a political spat? Or are they doing something more fundamentally balancing to our democracy.

Well said.  The Republican Party stopped fighting a battle of ideas at least a decade ago and switched their tactics to fight using procedures.  Don’t like the outcomes of elections?  Let’s take over state legislatures so we can redraw the district maps and pass voter suppression legislation.  Courts don’t like our laws?  Let’s block a bunch of judicial nominations by the other party and fast track as many as possible when we’re in charge so the courts will change to like our laws instead of having to changing laws to please the courts.  And while we’re doing this, let’s loot the place so our wealthiest corporations and families who happen to be our donors get a higher concentration of the nation’s wealth and make it more difficult for working people to get by, much less elevate their economic and social class.  (There’s also the matter of looking the other way while the President commits impeachable actions almost daily, and might have receive illegal help from hostile foreign actors to take office, but that’s a more recent development.)

Hearing complaints of “don’t fight fire with fire” in the current climate IMO is akin to recent complaints that people aren’t civil and respectful enough when confronting abhorrent behaviors.  It’s not ideal, but the complaint is ignoring the gravity of the problem being addressed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say Obama gets elected in 2012.

Obama takes office January 20th 2013.

Republicans force a new Presidential election in 2015.

Donald Trump takes office on January 20th 2016.

The next election is in 2020.

A Democratic President takes office on January 20th 2021.

There's more there than just, "Yes, well, the Democrats should take the high road."

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Just heard on the radio the allegation is rape. If that’s true it changes everything. 

But again it’s just one local news station

The New Yorker just broke the story.

Quote

The woman, who has asked not to be identified, first approached Democratic lawmakers in July, shortly after Trump nominated Kavanaugh. The allegation dates back to the early nineteen-eighties, when Kavanaugh was a high-school student at Georgetown Preparatory School, in Bethesda, Maryland, and the woman attended a nearby high school. In the letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party, Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her. She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand. She was able to free herself. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

A source familiar with the committee’s activities said that Feinstein’s staff initially conveyed to other Democratic members’ offices that the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion, and that Feinstein had “taken care of it.” On Wednesday, after media inquiries to the Democratic members multiplied, and concern among congressional colleagues increased, Feinstein agreed to brief the other Democrats on the committee, with no staff present.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-sexual-misconduct-allegation-against-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-stirs-tension-among-democrats-in-congress

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, sn0mm1s said:

Heh - those giants have been shouted down by ignorance. Playing fair and nice and taking the high road doesn't work in the current political climate. If you think it works - you have been living in a bubble the past 20 years. All you high road people are like a pacifist that wouldn't fight the WWII because killing and wars are bad. There is what is necessary and there is what is "right" and they aren't always the same.

Many good people have expressed this to me before, and I am guessing they will do so again.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:
Quote

A source familiar with the committee’s activities said that Feinstein’s staff initially conveyed to other Democratic members’ offices that the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion, and that Feinstein had “taken care of it.” On Wednesday, after media inquiries to the Democratic members multiplied, and concern among congressional colleagues increased, Feinstein agreed to brief the other Democrats on the committee, with no staff present.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-sexual-misconduct-allegation-against-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-stirs-tension-among-democrats-in-congress

OK, that's how it got out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Republicans have lit themselves on fire. You’ll see the results in November.

Democrats should follow the same strategy when they come into power only if they want this year’s blue wave to be followed by a subsequent red wave.

“The other side is immolating itself. To get even, we must do the same!”

Nope.

These procedural things which carry great heft on how things are shaped? Too obscure and fleeting for the populous to pay attention to or remember. There isn't going to be a blue wave because of Gorsuch Garland. It didn't even cause a blue wave the year that it happened. There isn't going to be a blue wave because of re-drawn districts. That's been going on for 200 years. There isn't going to be a blue wave because of voter disenfranchisement. The Voter ID bit has been going on for over a decade. And felon voter disenfranchisement for much longer.

There's going to be a blue wave because of a completely inappropriate President and a positive refusal to do any oversight.

This was one of the few posts you didn't really think through imo.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Raping somebody.  When you float a story along the lines of "I've received news about this candidate that is too sensitive to get into details about, but it involves sexual misconduct and needs to be investigated by the FBI," you are publicly accusing the guy of being a rapist or pedophile or something similarly serious without having the courage to say so forthrightly.  That's why innuendo is so scummy -- Feinstein gave people license to imagine the worst when she apparently knew perfectly well that this was nothing.

Care to revise your statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Clayton Gray changed the title to ***Official Supreme Court nomination thread: Welcome New Justice

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.
×
  • Create New...