Maccabe memos about Rosenstein

[RiverDog]

For the record, I wouldn't be against this, but let's be clear: if the majority party decides they're not going to confirm a nominee, holding 'kangaroo court' hearings on them only serves to subject them (potentially) to the same adolescent BS we're seeing here.

Garland was spared this by McConnell's decision. Dems should be thanking him after watching this two-week sht-show.

My point was that the nomination/confirmation process shouldn't be manipulated in order to favor one party or the other. Although it in no way, shape, or form justifies the Dem's witholding from the chairman information critical to their deliberations and their handling of confidential information, the Republican's manipulation of the schedule, both in this nomination and in the previous SCOTUS opening, was one of the root causes of that sht-show as the Dems were reacting to the R's hardball tactics.

[RiverDog]

This is one party having decided to throw any and all decency to the wind in pursuit of base, political goals. It's sick, and just knee-capped our already ailing system...

The past few days has caused me to question how I had planned to vote this November. I was going to vote Democratic as my way of hanging a BA to Donald Trump, but after witnessing these latest escapades and how utterly shameless these Democrats are, I'm back to supporting the R in at least our Senate race, perhaps the House as well. What took the cake is the fallout from this load of chit the Democrats were peddling that resulted in a tweet from USA Today Sports that virtually accused Kavanaugh of being a pedophile.

[burrrton]

My point was that the nomination/confirmation process shouldn't be manipulated in order to favor one party or the other. Although it in no way, shape, or form justifies the Dem's witholding from the chairman information critical to their deliberations and their handling of confidential information, the Republican's manipulation of the schedule, both in this nomination and in the previous SCOTUS opening, was one of the root causes of that sht-show as the Dems were reacting to the R's hardball tactics.

"Hardball tactics" is way overstating the situation- it was unprecedented-ish, but FAR more so was nuking the filibuster for judges, and if you're not going to confirm him, foregoing the kabuki theater of a hearing should be considered a blessing (especially in retrospect of what we've witnessed with Kavanaugh).

This could be considered a cause of the "sht-show" only if you think Dems can't process circumstances rationally, which, to be fair, might be warranted considering the transparent nonsense of the last couple weeks.

[burrrton]

The past few days has caused me to question how I had planned to vote this November. I was going to vote Democratic as my way of hanging a BA to Donald Trump, but after witnessing these latest escapades and how utterly shameless these Democrats are, I'm back to supporting the R in at least our Senate race, perhaps the House as well. What took the cake is the fallout from this load of chit the Democrats were peddling that resulted in a tweet from USA Today Sports that virtually accused Kavanaugh of being a pedophile.

Same. I told you I probably hadn't been pushed so far as to voting against my own interests, but I was *far* more open to Dems than I had been since mid-2000s, but this has pushed me to being on the border of 'never vote Dem again'.

Of course, Rs caving to this kind of political terrorism might push me back.

[RiverDog]

"Hardball tactics" is way overstating the situation- it was unprecedented-ish, but FAR more so was nuking the filibuster for judges, and if you're not going to confirm him, foregoing the kabuki theater of a hearing should be considered a blessing (especially in retrospect of what we've witnessed with Kavanaugh).

This could be considered a cause of the "sht-show" only if you think Dems can't process circumstances rationally, which, to be fair, might be warranted considering the transparent nonsense of the last couple weeks.

Although they don't carry any weight on the full Senate floor, I do think that there is a role for the judiciary committee. It's one of the few chances us common folk get to see and hear from a SCOTUS judge. Otherwise, they're just another face in a robe. Although I wish he hadn't been so political in his denials, I was quite impressed with Kavanaugh's self defense. I know if I were accused of something I didn't do, I'd be highly agitated. The only difference would be that I no doubt would be unable to refrain from using a number of expletive deleted's.

[burrrton]

Yeah, they were (are?) taking seriously allegations that he ran a Druggy Rape Gang Ring, sometimes in strangers' houses, as a teenager. Not sure they get to take offense to him reacting how he did.

I'd have been flipping over tables.

[idhawkman]

Garland was spared this by McConnell's decision. Dems should be thanking him after watching this two-week sht-show (but they can't, because they're the @ssholes causing it).

I don't think the REpubs would have ever done this level of BS. Sotomayer and Kagen are examples of a loyal opposition vs. a sh@t show by @ssholes like you pointed out.

Also, (not directed at you Burrrton) there is a schedule for confirmations. McConnell used the same schedule that the Dems used for their nominees but the dems are in delay and resist mode. After 2 years there's still over 150 appointments bythe president that have not been confirmed. This is setting a precendent in the Senate that is going to be repeated by the republicans and it will backfire on the dems. Just like the Nuke option on judges backfired on them.

[idhawkman]

I agree with both Riverr and Burrton on the how I would react if they accused me of these things and came after my wife and daughters the way they have. I'm a Christian who is pretty firm in my beliefs but this would have turned me into the person I was in the military.

I think it "rich" that Feinstein says he doesn't have the temperment to be a SCOTUS judge. I guarantee he has more temperment than most men like me have.

[RiverDog]

I think it "rich" that Feinstein says he doesn't have the temperment to be a SCOTUS judge. I guarantee he has more temperment than most men like me have.

The one thing that I didn't like in Kavanaugh's denials was that I wish he hadn't been so political in accusing Dems of retribution for losing the election, evolking Mrs. Clinton, and so on. Judges should not have any espoused partisan associations. Those remarks more than anything else we heard during the hearing would cause even a conservative like me to reassess his temperment.

[idhawkman]

The one thing that I didn't like in Kavanaugh's denials was that I wish he hadn't been so political in accusing Dems of retribution for losing the election, evolking Mrs. Clinton, and so on. Judges should not have any espoused partisan associations. Those remarks more than anything else we heard during the hearing would cause even a conservative like me to reassess his temperment.

I can understand your position but if you look at what the dems have done since the election in their delay and resist campaigns you have to admit that they've been doing what he said they are. So in my view, sometimes a judge has to state the facts as they are whether they look political or not. He will have to take a side on his decisions just like the other 8 judges either for or against one side of an argument or not. If he states the facts, I don't see that as political but instead just stating the obvious.

[burrrton]

The one thing that I didn't like in Kavanaugh's denials was that I wish he hadn't been so political in accusing Dems of retribution for losing the election, evolking Mrs. Clinton, and so on. Judges should not have any espoused partisan associations. Those remarks more than anything else we heard during the hearing would cause even a conservative like me to reassess his temperment.

I wish he'd kept it more on the DL, too, but you know what Dems are saying privately? "Mission accomplished" (or at least part of the mission).

These laughable smears are designed to elicit responses like that, at least in part.

[RiverDog]

I wish he'd kept it more on the DL, too, but you know what Dems are saying privately? "Mission accomplished" (or at least part of the mission).

These laughable smears are designed to elicit responses like that, at least in part.

Oh, I have no doubt that you're right about the Dems. The problem for them is that they might have over reached. If they are seen by the middle of the road moderates as having gone too far, which IMO I think they certainly did, they could lose their opportunity to take over the House.

Same goes with the #Metoo movement. They risk becoming a fringe element unless they distance themselves from garbage like the USA Today tweet.

[Aseahawkfan]

Oh, I have no doubt that you're right about the Dems. The problem for them is that they might have over reached. If they are seen by the middle of the road moderates as having gone too far, which IMO I think they certainly did, they could lose their opportunity to take over the House.

Same goes with the #Metoo movement. They risk becoming a fringe element unless they distance themselves from garbage like the USA Today tweet.

I'm at Metoo# fatigue myself. When people are calling Kavanaugh a serial rapist and sex offender with this level of evidence, they aren't being rational. They're just jumping in, picking a side, and applying their bias against the man. Some celebrity named Ellen Barkin was comparing Kavanugh to a man that raped her for 5 hours. She was projecting all her built up hate on this guy. This has reached insane levels of projection and mob rule. The liberal news makes any women that support Kavanaugh or stand by his character into some kind of traitor. I'm waiting to see the midterms to see if it works. Because of this scumbag move the Democrats works, then we're going to see more of it by both sides. Never thought about moving to another country until now. If this PC, scumbag social pressuring is the nation the Democrats desire, I'm not sure I want to stay here.

[idhawkman]

Not sure if any of you saw the Swetnick interview last night but if you did, she walked back her allegations of Kavanaugh spiking and drugging the punch. She now says, he and Mark Judge were "Standing by" the punch containers and handing out red Solo cups to a lot of girls. Regarding the lines waiting to train rape girls she now says that a couple of boys were hanging out around the doorway of a room but not in line. She also said that Kavanaugh was not one of the guys that raped and violated her.

Now the Dems are bringing up a story in the Times that he "Threw ice" across a bar in the mid 80's when he was in college. REally? I'm sorry but this is ridiculous.

[RiverDog]

Yea, it might sound like there's not much of a difference between being "lined up" waiting their turn to "huddled around", but it's those small details that criminal interrogators and prosecuting attorneys used to figure out if the suspect or witness is being truthful with them. Liars don't have the truth as their foundation that they can reference and will often times make seemingly minor changes to their stories when asked multiple times to describe the same event. Liars can't keep their story straight.

The whole Swetnik story is so fantastic that it's very difficult to believe that dozens of people could keep such events silent for such a long period of time. IMO they had it right the first time when the FBI had not planned on talking to her as there was no evidence beyond hearsay.

[c_hawkbob]

The bigger problem than any of these allegations taken individually is Kavanaugh's possibly lying about surrounding event to help keep them quiet (it's always the cover up) ... If he knew about Ramirez's allegation before Sept. 23 when the New Yorker ran the story that he swore under oath was the first he'd heard of it, then he lied to Congress. That's a federal crime. And there is supposedly email evidence of his and/or his legal team's knowledge of it before the story ran.

I don't want a Supreme Court Justice that is willing to lie to Congress.

[burrrton]

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous.

It's gone beyond absurd now. I'd just laugh if it wasn't such a nauseating accusation.

I don't want a Supreme Court Justice that is willing to lie to Congress.

If he's confirmed, you won't have one. That nonsense has been debunked so thoroughly it's a social media punchline now.

[RiverDog]

The bigger problem than any of these allegations taken individually is Kavanaugh's possibly lying about surrounding event to help keep them quiet (it's always the cover up) ... If he knew about Ramirez's allegation before Sept. 23 when the New Yorker ran the story that he swore under oath was the first he'd heard of it, then he lied to Congress. That's a federal crime. And there is supposedly email evidence of his and/or his legal team's knowledge of it before the story ran.

I don't want a Supreme Court Justice that is willing to lie to Congress.

If proven, and combined with the partisanship he displayed during his denials, that could be a deal breaker for me, too. But we'll see.

[burrrton]

the partisanship he displayed during his denials

I didn't listen to it all, but there's only one side accusing him of being a Teenage Drug-em-and-Rape-em Gang leader- who else do you want him to speak out against when defending himself from such obvious BS?

[idhawkman]

He could always pull a Clapper or Brennan and say that he thought they were talking about a different subject when he answered that. Worked for them and kept them out of jail with no jeopardy to their current jobs as DNI and DCI respectively.

[RiverDog]

I didn't listen to it all, but there's only one side accusing him of being a Teenage Drug-em-and-Rape-em Gang leader- who else do you want him to speak out against when defending himself from such obvious BS?

Then you should go back and listen to some of his remarks:

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election.”

He also called out HRC, but I can't find the exact quote.

It is not necessary for him to call out specific people or parties. He could call Feinstein a disgusting sack of chit and so long as it was directed at her personally and not at the Democrats or liberals in general, I'd applaud him. But he should steer away from anything partisan. All he has to do is vigorously defend himself against the allegations. Naming the Dems and/or Clinton was not necessary. He showed his political colors, which IMO is not appropriate for a SCOTUS judge.

[burrrton]

Naming the Dems and/or Clinton was not necessary.

Of course it wasn't *necessary*, but it wasn't out of place, either- Dems have at various times explicitly stated this has a lot to do with Trump ("Can't confirm a nominee of a President under investigation!" and so on).

I wouldn't put it among Great Moments in SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings History, but it was only out of line to those who expect a good man to sit back and take this baldly political character assassination. You don't get to call him a gang rapist based on almost literally nothing then whine about animus.

[RiverDog]

Of course it wasn't *necessary*, but it wasn't out of place, either- Dems have at various times explicitly stated this has a lot to do with Trump ("Can't confirm a nominee of a President under investigation!" and so on).

I wouldn't put it among Great Moments in SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings History, but it was only out of line to those who expect a good man to sit back and take this baldly political character assassination. You don't get to call him a gang rapist based on almost literally nothing then whine about animus.

I fully endorse Kavanaugh's impassionate defense, finger pointing, etc, and would not expect him to take it sitting down. To the contrary, I might have gone even further, pounding my fist on the table, used a few 4 letter words, perhaps some name calling. Any of that I could understand. But IMO he went too far in showing his partisanship. Dem or R, I do not want justices that have political biases, and Kavanaugh gave me that impression.

That's not necessarily a deal breaker for me, but if it comes out that he suppressed information in an effort to conceal allegations, then it would be an additional factor that would tip the scales against him....in my eyes, that is.

[idhawkman]

I didn't listen to it all, but there's only one side accusing him of being a Teenage Drug-em-and-Rape-em Gang leader- who else do you want him to speak out against when defending himself from such obvious BS?

Then you should go back and listen to some of his remarks:

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election.”

He also called out HRC, but I can't find the exact quote.

It is not necessary for him to call out specific people or parties. He could call Feinstein a disgusting sack of chit and so long as it was directed at her personally and not at the Democrats or liberals in general, I'd applaud him. But he should steer away from anything partisan. All he has to do is vigorously defend himself against the allegations. Naming the Dems and/or Clinton was not necessary. He showed his political colors, which IMO is not appropriate for a SCOTUS judge.

I watched all the hearings and he was justified going after the Dems on the 2 week hit. Completely justified if you watched any of their theatrics from the first gavel opening the hearings up until and even now after the gavel has closed the hearings.

Now regarding HRC, I'm not really sure about why he said that. That one I'll give you but the dems - they deserved every single bit of their hypocracy and scorn from Kavanaugh.

Cory Booker groping a girl in high school and then sitting in judgement over this guy. That connecticut senator that claimed he was in Viet Nam (FALSELY) telling Kavanaugh unjust in one thing unjust in all things. Drinking problems from some of the Senators asking him if he had a drinking problem. They picked the Senators on the dems side to ask those questions specifically because that senator was guilty of the same thing. They did it to get a rise out of Kavanaugh.

[idhawkman]

That's not necessarily a deal breaker for me, but if it comes out that he suppressed information in an effort to conceal allegations, then it would be an additional factor that would tip the scales against him....in my eyes, that is.

I'm curious and not sniping you. What would you think if you learned that this Ford lady lied to congress? Swetnick is already in deep doo-doo and will be prosecuted for submitting a false statement under penalty of perjury to congress.

Now there is a story out there that Ford's boyfriend from 1989 to 1998 (9 years) witnessed Ford preparing a friend and coaching her how to pass a Polygraph when her friend was trying to get a job at the FBI. There's another story out there that Ford is responsible for CIA recruitment at her school and belongs to 4 CIA front companies in California. If this turns out to be true, she most likely has taken numerous Polygraphs. Her whole story "COULD" turn into a big mess for her and anyone who put her up to this.

[RiverDog]

I'm curious and not sniping you. What would you think if you learned that this Ford lady lied to congress? Swetnick is already in deep doo-doo and will be prosecuted for submitting a false statement under penalty of perjury to congress.

I've never said that I believed Ford, at least not completely. I got the impression that something must have happened, but am doubtful of her "100%" certainty that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator. As far as what would I think if she lied, it wouldn't change my opinion one iota.

As I said earlier, the two biggest problems I have with Kavanaugh is his supposed suppression of evidence and his partisanship. But the FBI report could change that.

Now there is a story out there that Ford's boyfriend from 1989 to 1998 (9 years) witnessed Ford preparing a friend and coaching her how to pass a Polygraph when her friend was trying to get a job at the FBI.

I saw the same story, but I also saw that the woman that was supposed to have been coaching her came out and categorically denied it.

There's another story out there that Ford is responsible for CIA recruitment at her school and belongs to 4 CIA front companies in California. If this turns out to be true, she most likely has taken numerous Polygraphs. Her whole story "COULD" turn into a big mess for her and anyone who put her up to this.

I hadn't heard that one. There's so much information and misinformation out there now that it's difficult to keep up with everything. We'll just have to wait for the FBI report to come back.

[idhawkman]

I saw the same story, but I also saw that the woman that was supposed to have been coaching her came out and categorically denied it.

I think you misunderstood this one. Its not that someone coached Ford, but that Ford coached her. If she (the friend of Ford) was seeking an FBI job and got coaching on how to take the polygraph, it would disqualify her friend. If she (her friend) actually was hired by the FBI, it would be a fireable offense.

[burrrton]

Dem or R, I do not want justices that have political biases, and Kavanaugh gave me that impression.

Luckily he's been an actual judge for a decade or two so we have something by which to accurately estimate his temperament. We don't have to rely on how a father reacted to being called a Teenage Druggy Pedophile Gang Rapist sitting there with his wife and two daughters, with 35 years of impeccable behavior behind him.

[RiverDog]

Luckily he's been an actual judge for a decade or two so we have something by which to accurately estimate his temperament. We don't have to rely on how a father reacted to being called a Teenage Druggy Pedophile Gang Rapist sitting there with his wife and two daughters, with 35 years of impeccable behavior behind him.

He has never been put on the hot seat like he was last week, so no, we cannot accurately judge his temperment by reviewing his judicial decisions from past years. SCOTUS confirmation hearings are very unique in that regard.

But we'll see. Predictably the Dems are already blasting the FBI report as being too limited in scope without having seen the contents. But on the flip side, that ass clown POTUS of ours isn't making things easier for Kavanaugh by mocking his accuser. All he's doing is pizzing off the 3 moderate R's he's going to need to push this nomination through.

[idhawkman]

He has never been put on the hot seat like he was last week, so no, we cannot accurately judge his temperment by reviewing his judicial decisions from past years. SCOTUS confirmation hearings are very unique in that regard.

But we'll see. Predictably the Dems are already blasting the FBI report as being too limited in scope without having seen the contents. But on the flip side, that ass clown POTUS of ours isn't making things easier for Kavanaugh by mocking his accuser. All he's doing is pizzing off the 3 moderate R's he's going to need to push this nomination through.

Actually Riv, he had to go through the same process of consent when he got his current job in the District court. I think looking at his temperment through 10 years on the 2nd highest court is a fair judge of how he will judge at the next level. He will not be accused of unsubstantiated crimes while he's on the Supreme court like he has had to endure in the confirmation process. So his "temperment" as a judge can be assessed through his current performance at his current position.

POTUS didn't mock her. If he mocked her he would have said it in her voice. He laid out the facts and as ridiculous as they sounded it is still the facts.

[burrrton]

He has never been put on the hot seat like he was last week

Nor will he be while sitting on the SCOTUS. The point is judging someone's 'judicial temperament' based on how he reacts to the bullsh*t that was being foisted on him is bogus.

But we'll see. Predictably the Dems are already blasting the FBI report as being too limited in scope without having seen the contents.

As predictable as the sun rising in the east.

But on the flip side, that ass clown POTUS of ours isn't making things easier for Kavanaugh by mocking his accuser. All he's doing is pizzing off the 3 moderate R's he's going to need to push this nomination through.

The only thing more monumentally stupid than Trump tweeting what he did would be a Senator allowing it to influence his or her vote.

[idhawkman]

Dems have way over played their hands on this one. The Senate races are turning massively in favor of the Repubs.

By the way, after Trump did what he did, the main stream media had to air it. It was the first time some of those outlets even told their listeners what the complete story of Ford's is.

[RiverDog]

Actually Riv, he had to go through the same process of consent when he got his current job in the District court. I think looking at his temperment through 10 years on the 2nd highest court is a fair judge of how he will judge at the next level. He will not be accused of unsubstantiated crimes while he's on the Supreme court like he has had to endure in the confirmation process. So his "temperment" as a judge can be assessed through his current performance at his current position.

It might be the same process, but there's a thousand times more scrutiny. SCOTUS appointments are far more publicized and attract much more attention. That's why I used the term "hot seat." He's never had to sit on it before.

POTUS didn't mock her. If he mocked her he would have said it in her voice. He laid out the facts and as ridiculous as they sounded it is still the facts.

In your opinion, he wasn't mocking her. In my opinion, he was. He could have really gone over the top by impersonating her voice, but nevertheless, he was still making light of her. It was highly inappropriate and pissed off the 3 R Senators that Kavanaugh's going to need to get approved. He's not helping things.

[idhawkman]

It might be the same process, but there's a thousand times more scrutiny. SCOTUS appointments are far more publicized and attract much more attention. That's why I used the term "hot seat." He's never had to sit on it before.

Agree to disagree. The difference is that at the district court he couldn't decide Roe v. Wade. The dems are scared.

Which on another note I find stragely odd that the same party who wants unfettered abortion so that the woman has no consequence for being promiscuous is arguing that a man being "ACCUSED" of being promiscuous is grounds to completly destroy him.

In your opinion, he wasn't mocking her. In my opinion, he was. He could have really gone over the top by impersonating her voice, but nevertheless, he was still making light of her. It was highly inappropriate and pissed off the 3 R Senators that Kavanaugh's going to need to get approved. He's not helping things.

Definintion of mocking per Meriam Webster. I don't see how Trump stating the facts is any of the below.

Definition of mock (Entry 1 of 4)
transitive verb

1 : to treat with contempt or ridicule : DERIDE
he has been mocked as a mama's boy
—C. P. Pierce
2 : to disappoint the hopes of
for any government to mock men's hopes with mere words and promises and gestures
—D. D. Eisenhower
3 : DEFY, CHALLENGE
the unstable, strange new world of subatomic particles that mock all attempts at understanding
—Philip Howard
4a : to imitate (someone or something) closely : MIMIC
a mockingbird was mocking a cardinal
—Nelson Hayes
b : to mimic in sport or derision
followed the old man along the street mocking his gait

[burrrton]

He could have really gone over the top by impersonating her voice, but nevertheless, he was still making light of her.

Why *shouldn't* she be made light of? Even at face value, what happened to her was hardly life-threatening, so how else are we supposed to characterize someone who:

* Didn't bring it up for 30 years, even to her best friend immediately after the party
* Didn't mention his name until he was nominated
* Says she doesn't know the time
* Says she doesn't know the location
* Says she doesn't know the date
* Says she doesn't know how she got there
* Says she doesn't know how she got home
* Names 4 witnesses, *every one* of whom says they don't know what she's talking about
* Is a pig-hat wearing left-wing activist

I'm sorry, but she's the most credible of his "accusers" by a mile, and she's laughable.

I'm sick of giving these idiots deference. If you don't know what the fck you're talking about, you don't accuse someone of the sht she has.

[Aseahawkfan]

Why *shouldn't* she be made light of? Even at face value, what happened to her was hardly life-threatening, so how else are we supposed to characterize someone who:

* Didn't bring it up for 30 years, even to her best friend immediately after the party
* Didn't mention his name until he was nominated
* Says she doesn't know the time
* Says she doesn't know the location
* Says she doesn't know the date
* Says she doesn't know how she got there
* Says she doesn't know how she got home
* Names 4 witnesses, *every one* of whom says they don't know what she's talking about
* Is a pig-hat wearing left-wing activist

I'm sorry, but she's the most credible of his "accusers" by a mile, and she's laughable.

I'm sick of giving these idiots deference. If you don't know what the fck you're talking about, you don't accuse someone of the sht she has.

It doesn't matter if someone is crazy in a malicious fashion, you don't disregard claims of sexual assault against a woman in an insensitive manner that puts your party under the gun politically or makes a bunch of female citizens feel you don't care about them as president. Not only is it a bad idea politically, it's rude and insensitive. Just not what a president should be doing, especially in this day and age with women with a powerful vote. All he had to do to crush the Democrats was play their little game of sympathy for the accuser, let the FBI do their job, and he turns the tables on the Democrats. He couldn't even do that.

Then again it won't matter if the Dems don't take the House. They will look like a pathetic joke at that point completely lost.

That's why the upcoming elections are so interesting. Do Americans fall for this type of trash the Dems are tossing out or will they continue to support Trump's "you can all go F yourself" politics. Gonna be interesting.

[RiverDog]

It doesn't matter if someone is crazy in a malicious fashion, you don't disregard claims of sexual assault against a woman in an insensitive manner that puts your party under the gun politically or makes a bunch of female citizens feel you don't care about them as president. Not only is it a bad idea politically, it's rude and insensitive. Just not what a president should be doing, especially in this day and age with women with a powerful vote. All he had to do to crush the Democrats was play their little game of sympathy for the accuser, let the FBI do their job, and he turns the tables on the Democrats. He couldn't even do that.

Precisely, and there's no better example of why I don't like that ass clown Donald Trump as our President than this cheap comedy routine.

And it's not only the FBI that he should let do their jobs, the decision is in the hands of the Senate, or more specifically, the Senate Republicans. Let them carry the ball. Trump needs to know when to STFU.

Then again it won't matter if the Dems don't take the House. They will look like a pathetic joke at that point completely lost.

That's why the upcoming elections are so interesting. Do Americans fall for this type of trash the Dems are tossing out or will they continue to support Trump's "you can all go F yourself" politics. Gonna be interesting.

Agreed. I really think that the Dems are overplaying their hand in these SCOTUS hearings and that it could come back to bite them in the arse.

[idhawkman]

First of all, Trump has railed against the Politically Correct (PC) movement from the beginning. He got wide support for calling it out.

Second, if he didn't mention it in that rally, many people would never have known that her claims were totally uncooberrated. So I think he did a service for the other fake news media by bringing it up and making them explain why he said it.

[RiverDog]

First of all, Trump has railed against the Politically Correct (PC) movement from the beginning. He got wide support for calling it out.

He got widespread support from his core (yea, I know, that's a shocker!). There were moderates in his own party, for example, Flake, Murkowski, and Collins, that felt they were inappropriate.

Second, if he didn't mention it in that rally, many people would never have known that her claims were totally uncooberrated. So I think he did a service for the other fake news media by bringing it up and making them explain why he said it.

Not true. Nearly everyone from the left and many other moderates and conservatives (like me) that are anti Trump don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth no matter what the subject is unless there is other evidence to support his claims. If you are pro Trump, you more than likely already knew that the allegations were unsubstantiated.

All Trump did with his mockery was to stir up is base and to pour fuel on the fire burning on the left, increasing the political divide.

[idhawkman]

He got widespread support from his core (yea, I know, that's a shocker!). There were moderates in his own party, for example, Flake, Murkowski, and Collins, that felt they were inappropriate.

Yeah, no surprise that there were never-trumpers in the Republican party. You "MAY" be one of those along with some others who are on this board. Nevertheless, there are a larger number of former independents and democrats that have #walkaway from their previous views. Thus the increase in Hispanic and black votes for him along with educated White women who were all "suppose to vote" for Hillary.

Not true. Nearly everyone from the left and many other moderates and conservatives (like me) that are anti Trump don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth no matter what the subject is unless there is other evidence to support his claims. If you are pro Trump, you more than likely already knew that the allegations were unsubstantiated.

All Trump did with his mockery was to stir up is base and to pour fuel on the fire burning on the left, increasing the political divide.

You may not believe it to be true but after he made that statement, Heitkamp is over 10 points behind the republican challenger in her polls and Manchin, Menendez and McCaskill have all lost significant ground in their midterm polls, too. Remember if the poll shows it is within the margin of error the republican usually wins based on the silent voters seen in the 2016 election.

On another note, Collins has just laid out a very good statement on the Senate floor for voting for Kavanaugh. It would seem the votes are there for Kavanaugh but there is still time for something else to come up before tomorrow's vote.