DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus The Crucifixion of Kavanaugh

Let it go bro. November is looming.

I never get tired of Liberal tears.

Stephen Colbert 'Late Show' writer: 'I'm just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh's life'

.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/stephen...kavanaughs-life

Aside from the Democrats exploiting the issue of sexual assault for political gain, the most troubling thing about this whole situation is the lengths people have gone to in order to rationalize how this whole thing went down.

It wasn't a court of law so due process wasn't in play.
It wasn't a criminal investigation so standards of evidence and proof weren't relevant.

Due process isn't just a formal legal process. It's a concept and expectation that goes beyond the courtroom and extends in to everyday life. The people who complain about racism and inequality should be the one's who understand this the best but...?

If the Democrats had treated this as a serious issue, we may very well have had a different result, possibly in their favor.

1) If DiFi brings up the letter in the beginning they could have had the FBI talk to as many people as their heart's content.

2) If the Democrats wouldn't have tried to take shortcuts and abandon the ideas of due process and evidence, they would have worked to make the claims more credible (I'm sorry, simply repeating "Dr. Ford is credible" doesn't magically make her credible).

By the time Kavanaugh finished testifying the Democrats got desperate and again, because they thought they could shortcut the issue, they made a deal without thinking t through.

Remember, theywere the ones who demanded the additional FBI follow up limited in time (to one week) and scope (to the 3 current allegations). Guess what Dawgs... limited in scope to the current allegations means they are interviewing people about having witnessed any sexual assault/misconduct. That's it. Not how much of a booze hound he was in college. Not about what the various things in his year book meant.

Those things may speak to his character 36 years ago, but neither has anything directly to do with the 3 allegations the Democrats agreed to limit the FBI's inquiries to.

Dr. Ford had plenty of time to provide a list of relevant "Witnesses". Normal people when naming people as witnesses first give you the people who most can corroborate their version of events. She was 0-4 and it's ridiculous to think it likely more credible people were to follow.

The second woman's story.. who knows. Must not have been much there because the Dems and media didn't push her front and center,

And Sweatnik saved the FBI time by walking back her accusation on national TV.

There's nothing left to vet.


The next step for Democrats is violence. If Ginsburg kicks the bucket (the only way I see her stepping down) it won't matter how squeaky clean any nominee Trump puts up will be. Democrats and liberals in general are fully locked in to an ends justifies the means to politics, and each issue for them is more dire than the last.


Funny thing is, when Trump got elected and Republicans were celebrating, I tried to warn them that on some issues he'll make them happy, but I fully expected that there would be some issues (likely more social) that he would side with the Democrats and they would be pissed at him. For example I would have thought after Trump fulfilled his campaign promise of putting in a Conservative judge (Gorsuch) that if any of the liberal Jutsices stepped down he'd be willing to replace them with someone of similar temperament and maintain the court make up. I still believe he would have been willing to do so.

I just never expected the Democrats to be so extreme in their opposition to him that they keep pushing him to the Right LOL

Comedy bro. Stop acting like a snowflake.

Liberals, This is War

What’s at stake is much more than a single Supreme Court seat.

By Charles M. Blow - Opinion Columnist - Oct. 7, 2018

Yes, Brett Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court. Rue the day. Rend your garments.

Then, step back, view the entirety of the battle in which you are engaged, and understand that Kavanaugh is just one part of a much larger plan by conservatives to fundamentally change the American political structure so that it enshrines and protects white male power even after America’s changing demographics and mores move away from that power.

This, for them, is not simply a game about political passion and political principles. This is a game of power, pure and simple, and it’s about whether the people who have long held that power will be able to retain it.

For them, Trump is just a useful idiot, a temporary anomaly.

They are thinking generationally, not in terms of the next election cycle but in terms of the next epoch.

Liberals can get so high-minded that they lose sight of the ground war. Yes, next month it is important to prove to the rest of Americans, and indeed the world, that Trump and the Republicans who promote and protect him are at odds with American values and with the American majority.

On one level this would provide relief and release for a pent-up demand by most Americans to be heard and to calm some of the chaos. But, catharsis is an emotional response and an emotional remedy.

Liberals have to look beyond emotions, beyond reactionary electoral enthusiasm, beyond needing to fall in love with candidates in order to vote for them, beyond the coming election and toward the coming showdown.

For instance, the constant pining about justices who will interpret the “original intent” of the Constitution feels far bigger than single issues like gun control.

In July, Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the “constitutional originalist Federalist Society,” as RealClearPolitics phrased it, told Fox News:

“Any Supreme Court confirmation is transformative. This is a court that is often equally divided. At the end of the day, I think what’s really important to remember is that there’s been a movement on the court toward being more originalist and textualist. In other words, the idea that law means something, it has determinate meaning. And that’s the trend that I think this president wants to continue.”

But, when I think of originalism, I think this: Many of the founders owned slaves; in the Constitution they viewed black people as less than fully human; they didn’t want women or poor white men to vote. The founders, a bunch of rich, powerful white men, didn’t want true democracy in this country, and in fact were dreadfully afraid of it.

Now, a bunch of rich, powerful white men want to return us to this sensibility, wrapped in a populist “follow the Constitution” rallying cry and disguised as the ultimate form of patriotism.

We have to learn to see everything around us, all that is happening on the political front, through that lens. This is what the extreme measures on illegal immigration and even the efforts to dramatically slash legal immigration are all about.

This is also what the demonizing of the visa lottery program is all about. As the Pew Research Center pointed out in August: “In fiscal 2017, which ended Sept. 30, the largest number of visas went to citizens of African countries” while applicants from European countries and from Asia received fewer visas than before.

The effort to demonize the lottery program is an effort to preserve America’s white majority, against the statistical eventuality, for as long as possible.

And that is also what voter disenfranchisement and Citizens United are about. That is why conservatives cheer the moves by young liberals to densely populated cities. The move weakens conservative votes in the places they move to and strengthens it in places they move from.

As The Washington Post pointed out in 2016, “In the Electoral College, each individual Wyoming vote weighs 3.6 times more than an individual Californian’s vote.” The Post continued, “That’s the most extreme example, but if you average the 10 most populous states and compare the power of their residents’ votes to those of the 10 least populous states, you get a ratio of 1 to 2.5.”

Editors’ Picks

What I Learned from Watching My iPad’s Slow Death

When the Death of a Family Farm Leads to Suicide

A Teacher Made a Hitler Joke in the Classroom. It Tore the School Apart.
But probably the biggest, gutsiest move is the call for a constitutional convention.

There are two ways that amendments to the Constitution can be proposed: One is by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and the other is by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the states. The second method has never been used, but is now gathering steam among Republicans.

As Charles Pierce wrote in January in Esquire, the people pushing for a convention “have commitments from 28 state legislatures. They need 34 to trigger the Constitution’s provision for a ‘convention of the states.’”

Pierce continued: “If the convention is called, the disunion that has become a faith in some conservative quarters will run amok. Economic oligarchy will be established in law, and any political check on the powers of business likely will be eviscerated.”

Folks, Kavanaugh is only one soldier, albeit an important one, in a larger battle. Stop thinking you’re in a skirmish, when you’re at war.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/opini...ction%2Fopinion

I agree with the gist of this even though it's a little over the top. ALL white men aren't the issue; old powerful white men that will do anything to hold onto power ARE. Those that support the politics behind that may be mostly white BUT they are being sold a bill of goods based in fear.

Would you please stop exploiting sexual assault victims?

That is just priceless! Did you concoct that outlandish lie all on your own?

Stop crying already! #unhinged

Was Ben on the loose again?

Maybe it was one of Trump's 19 accusers who created that Meme?

Summer Zervos

Year: 2007
Allegation: Zervos first met Trump in 2005 when she was a contestant on the fifth season of NBC’s The Apprentice. In an October 2016 press conference, Zervos told reporters that she met Trump for dinner in 2007 at the Beverly Hills Hotel in Los Angeles to discuss job opportunities. She said Trump greeted her with an open-mouth kiss when she arrived at his room. “He then grabbed my shoulder and began kissing me again very aggressively and placed his hand on my breast,” she told reporters. “I pulled back and walked to another part of the room. He then walked up, grabbed my hand, and pulled me into the bedroom. I walked out.” Zervos said Trump then embraced her, urged her to join him on the bed to watch television, and thrust himself upon her before she left.
Response: Trump denied Zervos’s account. “I vaguely remember Ms. Zervos as one of the many contestants on The Apprentice over the years,” he said in a statement. “To be clear, I never met her at a hotel or greeted her inappropriately a decade ago. That is not who I am as a person, and it is not how I’ve conducted my life. In fact, Ms. Zervos continued to contact me for help, emailing my office on April 14 of this year asking that I visit her restaurant in California.” At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania a few weeks later, Trump emphatically denied any wrongdoing and repeatedly accused Zervos and the other women of lying about their alleged encounters with him.
Status: Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit against Trump in New York in January, accusing him of using his immense public platform “to make false factual statements to denigrate and verbally attack Ms. Zervos and the other women” who came forward. A New York judge is currently weighing arguments from both parties on whether the case should proceed to trial. If Zervos prevails, Trump could be compelled to testify about the allegations before a jury.

Petition Calls for Clarence Thomas' Name to Be Removed From GA College Building

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/10/08/pe...nce-thomas-name

The call to action follows Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the high court after a heated battle and a series of uncorroborated sexual assault allegations.

Similarly, Thomas' nomination to the high court was thrown into doubt by sexual assault accusations from Anita Hill in 1991.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Donald Trump, an American businessman and current President of the United States, has been accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including non-consensual kissing or groping, by at least nineteen women since the 1980s. Those accusations have resulted in three widely reported instances of litigation: his then-wife Ivana made a rape claim during their 1989 divorce litigation but later recanted that claim; businesswoman Jill Harth sued Trump in 1997 alleging breach of contract while also suing for nonviolent sexual harassment but withdrew the latter suit as part of a settlement for relating to the former suit; and, in 2017, former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit after Trump called her a liar.

Wow, doesn't even come close to the thousands of accusations of Obama being a Muslim.

Accusations are not proof. Learn that.

I have ZERO doubt that Trump is a scum bag. Just as I have zero doubt that both Bushes were, and Obama was, as well as Bill Clinton and his sick ass bride was.

https://people.com/politics/stormy-daniels-body-shaming-donald-trump-book/

After describing a certain part of Donald Trump‘s body as resembling a Mario Kart character in her new tell-all Full Disclosure, Stormy Daniels says she now regrets “body shaming” the president.

In an interview on the Australian version of 60 Minutes, the adult-film star, 39, explained, “I was very angry in writing that, and now that the book is out and people are reading about it and it’s all over the internet, I actually feel pretty terrible about it … because in a way it’s body shaming.”

“I did not want to hurt him,” she said of Trump, 72. “My intention was for people to stop hurting me.”

President Trump continues to cry about Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R) in the state's special election last year and regularly questions why Moore lost. Lol

And you continue to cry about 2016...

It's not a lie. The fact that the Democrats haven't done a single thing that should have been done about Ford's allegations is proof of that.

Everyone here in the past would agree that rape is a heinous crime. If you asked what the punishment should be it would range from life in prison to having their nuts cut off with the death penalty sprinkled in. Regardless of the punishment, rape is something people need to go to jail for.

Where is the Democrat's call for the criminal investigation?

Bueller? Bueller?

Rape is a serious crime. Rapists should be locked up. Dr. Ford has a credible accusation according to you guys. If this issue was truly about Brett Kavanaugh (attempting) raping her, first and foremost should be trying to put that SOB in jail right? No one in their right mind wants rapists walking the streets. So why is there no attempt to put him away? I get 36yrs later it would be a near impossible thing to prove, but if she's as credible as you say she is, and if there as many credible witnesses as you say, then the chances of him getting convicted actually improve.

Where's the civil lawsuit OCD? That's what broke the Bill Cosby case. A civil suit requires even less evidence and proof than criminal proceedings.

There was an appropriate way to handle her claims. The Democrats decided not to go that route because it was more valuable as a political grenade.

That is exploitation.

The fact that you and others tried to rationalize that exploitation by saying things like due process and burden of proof don't apply because this is only a "job interview" makes you complicit in the exploitation.

It really hurts me to say that because I do respect the lot of you guys even though we don't agree on much. I was this close to dropping DT all together because of it.

You guys were so ready to toss out concepts of due process because you thought it was going to net you guys the political win of stymieing Trump, you guys became willfully ignorant to the fact that due processis how you get justice for victims! Due process isn't just bout the defendant. It requires the State to devote the appropriate resources and due diligence in investigating and prosecuting the crime on behalf of the victim.


Dr. Ford has/had ZERO value to the Democrats beyond what she could bring them politically. The fact that you guys don't recognize that fact makes you complicit.

To his credit though, Swish at least had the intellectual honesty to question what the Dems were doing and how they were going about it. It's a shame that no one else will offer up even a fraction of the criticism or care.

But keep on keeping on OCD. The Democrats exploiting people for political gain is nothing new. It's how they make their bread and butter. I think it just caught some of us a little off guard because of how brazen they were doing it on such an important topic.

Devil your illogical response and attempted explanation for saying such a ridiculously atrocious trumpian thing to me has more twists and turns than a fractal. Complete nonsense.

This is how I know you're full of it and have you on the ropes..

Trump could never say anything half as intelligent or articulate a fraction of what I wrote

That's certainly a high bar you've set for yourself. smh

I thought many of the things you said were accurate, but don't you think Republicans would have been cool with a civil suit instead of the political theatre known as a senate committee? I agree though, the Democrats suck at Politics. They still treat this like it's the Clinton era and want to do all this weird backdoor stuff that's only purpose is to inflate their own ego. At least the Republicans just wanting to sell everything to their donors makes much more sense. Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, they're all bad.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean?

It seemed to me all along that the Democrat strategy was to delay the nomination until November, where they'd (optimistically) add a couple Senate seats, and then they'd stall for two years until they could retake the Presidency in 2020.

Of course it is. I don't believe in the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Wouldn't the Republicans complain more about a civil suit being a witch trial more than a senate committee investigation? A senate committee, that they control and a DoJ that they control. Putting it in the hands of a civil suit, would make Ben Shapiro pop a blood vein. Sitting on it was very stupid and the Democrats should've handled it much better.

I think this was pretty obvious to most people. And I can't say as I blame them for wanting to go that route in retaliation for Garland. The problem I had with people equivocating these two situations is that they weren't the same. Yes it was dirty pool by the Republicans to deny Garland, but it WAS within the rules. They didn't base their tactics on dubious claims of terrible crimes.

The problem Democrats have is that while they keep looking to the future, they don't think through what it is they are doing. They were warned when Harry Reid moved to make court confirmations a simple majority. They did it anyway and look what happened. They also keep assuming they are going to achieve the result they want, and there for feel more grounded in their ends justifies the means approach.

I think a civil suit would actually have put the Republicans in more of a bind to be honest. That would have been a situation that they would have zero control or influence over, and a process that I think they would not be likely to hold the nomination process up over. In that instance they could claim witch hunt, but who would they be indicting as the Inquisition? They couldn't blame the Dems. The Judicial System? Kind of ironic considering they are trying to get a Judge confirmed (AND an Admin that boasts about the number of Judges they've gotten confirmed as a whole).

I think a civil suit would have left the Republicans less options and less opportunities to get him pushed through.

The other thing with a civil suit is that in order for it to go forward, the plaintiff has to provide at least enough that a judge says there's a possibility there could be something there. Successfully embroiling Kavanaugh in a civil suit I think would actually have given more to bolster their proclamation that the allegations were credible than what they did, even if the lawsuit didn't end up being successful.

I really do think they could have successfully blocked the nomination if they didn't try to take so many shortcuts.

First off, I don't think Kavanaugh was accused of Rape.

Other than that, I have no idea what your talking about.

Dems have been calling for a complete investigation and what they got was a white wash.

7, yes 7 FBI investigations of ONE man is a white wash?

Politics is about attacking. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is. Both sides do it. It just seems to be far more effective to levy horrible allegations against someone and then make them try to defend against them, often complicated by them trying to not violate any of the insane rules of political correctness.

We all saw what happened to Hillary and Trump during the runup to the election. Correction-- that is ongoing. The same things would have happened to Bernie Sanders (should we revisit his old writings from decades ago?), Ted Cruz, or anybody else who would have won the R/D nominations.

At the end of the day, Kavanaugh's nomination was a massive loss for the left, and they know it. These are people who will mob a political nobody on the street and try to strip him/her of their livelihood for having what they consider the wrong opinion on something. What do you think they are capable of when the deciding vote on the Supreme Court is at stake? Against that backdrop, I'm surprised the attack wasn't even worse.

Op-ed: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-c...augh-experience

Tucker Carlson: Lessons the activist left have learned from the Kavanaugh experience

Brett Kavanaugh 's swearing-in to the Supreme Court of the United States Monday night came with an unusual component: An apology from the president on behalf of a bitterly divided nation.

“I want to apologize to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure," the president said. "Those who step forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation. Not a campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception. What happened to the Kavanaugh family violates every notion of fairness, decency and due process.

"[In] our country, a man or a woman, must always be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty," President Trump continued. "And with that, I must state that you, sir, under historic scrutiny were proven innocent. Thank you.”

You wouldn't think our leaders would need to publicly defend the presumption of innocence, and that it would be controversial when they do, but that's where we are.

Politically, of course, this whole thing turned out to be an unexpected debacle for Democrats. The lessons of their defeat are pretty clear. Creepy porn lawyers make bad national spokesmen. Screaming mobs of child activists scare normal people, who are watching at home. Wild allegations of gang rape tend to be counterproductive.

In other words, it is, in fact, possible to go too far, and they did. It's not a complicated message. And yet, none of it seems obvious at this point to Democrats.

The activist left has learned an entirely different set of lessons from the Kavanaugh experience. They now seem to believe:

The Supreme Court is a sham.
The Constitution is meaningless.
The Electoral College must go.
Only a country divided into warring tribes can be ruled effectively.
If we can't control it, let's burn it down.
That is the message they've internalized.
Activists gathered at the Supreme Court reacted after the Kavanaugh vote on Saturday afternoon. What we saw was not a clip from a zombie movie. It's Washington D.C. 2018.

The children of affluence were raging, and the rage continued on cable news and social media. "We've got to eliminate the Electoral College," they chirped in unison. "White men are bad."

The message was obviously coordinated. Important media figures seemed to be saying exactly the same things at exactly the same time. They were repeating talking points from the Democratic Party whose interest they faithfully serve.

For generations, conservatives called this “the liberal media.” But that's not quite right. These are not liberals. They're not people who believe in free speech or transparency or due process or challenging corporate power or any other recognizable liberal value.

These are political party people. They are hacks and joiners and drones. They read the latest pronouncements from the Central Committee like they're scripture. They repeat whatever they are told.

They are robots.

"Shut up, Wyoming, nobody cares what you think." That's the new message from the Party that pretends to care about the powerless.

But then the left has never been big on self-awareness. Finance billionaire Tom Steyer, one of the Democratic Party's biggest donors, is on a new crusade against - and prepare now for a blast of hot irony - "rich, entitled white men."

“A group of very rich, very entitled white men wanted to tell the rest of the country we are going to have our way," he railed recently. "And if you don't like it, that is too darn bad.”

Yes. That's what Tom Steyer's against: People like himself, who behave like he does. Let us know when you stop snickering and then think about what Tom Steyer is saying here.

He's saying Brett Kavanaugh is not on the Supreme Court because the majority of the U.S. Senate voted for him as the Constitution prescribes.

What's actually happening, says Tom Steyer, is that Kavanaugh was installed by a specific racial group in order to hurt and disempower every other racial group in America.

This is tribal warfare posing as democracy and your tribe is losing. That's what Tom Steyer is telling you. Now, as a factual matter, this is insane.

It's the kind of lunacy that would have gotten you booted off a cable channel five years ago. It's also a lie and it's dangerous. Responsible people do not talk like this. And yet, suddenly it is everywhere on the left, and not just among the professional wackos pounding on the front door of the Supreme Court.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson’s monologue on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Oct. 8, 2018.

You’re seriously posting a Tucker Carlson op-ed?

The guy who just ran a “white genocide” segment less than a week ago?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice...us-confirmation

Justice Kavanaugh makes low-key Supreme Court debut, after raucous confirmation

Justice Brett Kavanaugh received a warm welcome from his new colleagues Tuesday as he made a low-key public debut at the Supreme Court, in a collegial scene that stood in sharp contrast to the chaos of his confirmation process.

The 114th justice's first day on the job consisted of hearing oral arguments in a pair of criminal cases. In the first, he asked five questions of lawyers from both sides of the issue, but did not inject any personal opinions or hint at how he might vote.


During the prior evening's ceremonial swear-in, Kavanaugh promised "always to be a team player on a team of nine," all of whom attended the East Room ceremony.

While President Trump railed against Democrats and apologized to Kavanaugh "on behalf of our nation" during that ceremony, the new justice seemed to be trying to bring the temperature down after his narrow confirmation. He battled multiple allegations of sexual misconduct ahead of that weekend vote, but claimed Monday evening he harbors "no bitterness" -- despite his fiery testimony about the allegations two weeks ago.

Kavanaugh's new "team" smiled as they joined Kavanaugh Tuesday morning. He looked over to his family, sitting a few feet away in the guest gallery. Also in attendance was his predecessor, the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kavanaugh had clerked for the justice in 1993-94 and was sworn in by him in separate oath ceremonies.

"It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, to welcome Justice Kavanaugh to the Court," said Chief Justice John Roberts, in a brief bench statement at the start of the session. "We wish you a long and happy career in our common calling."

A grinning Kavanaugh chatted amicably with his new benchmate Justice Elena Kagan. At the opposite end of the bench was Justice Neil Gorsuch, a fellow Trump appointee and former high school classmate.

There were no protests in the court, unlike his contentious Senate hearing last month. Several-dozen protesters outside the court were outnumbered by the more than a hundred people waiting in line to attend the public session inside.

The arguments commenced in separate cases dealing with whether certain federal felons can receive longer prison sentences if they committed prior "violent offenses." Defining the limits of "physical force" used in unarmed robberies took up much of the justices' time.

Kavanaugh first spoke up about 20 minutes into the hour-long argument, after six of the justices had already asked questions.

Kavanaugh's first question was technical in nature. "Why don't we follow" the court's 2010 precedent on defining physical force, as it applied to the current petition, he wanted to know. "Why wouldn’t that encompass the Florida statute (where the offenses took place)?"

An earnest Kavanaugh paid close attention to the points made by attorneys, occasionally donning his glasses to look over the written briefs before him. He glanced a couple of times over to the guest gallery.

Arguments will resume Wednesday in separate cases, one involving the detention of undocumented immigrants.

Kavanaugh was confirmed 50-48 on Saturday, and shortly afterward took his official constitutional and judicial oaths, allowing him to begin work immediately.

After Tuesday's arguments, Kavanaugh was expected to join in a private lunch with his new colleagues, a tradition that goes back decades.

He has already hired four law clerks -- all female, a first in the court’s history. And he is moving into his new chambers, once occupied by Justice Samuel Alito. Alito will now get the space where Kennedy worked.

Part of the duties of the junior justice include taking notes at the weekly closed-door conferences, where current appeals are voted on and pending cases are added to the docket.

And he will serve on the court's internal Cafeteria Committee, where such agenda items as dessert selections and diner complaints will be discussed.

The case argued Tuesday is Stokeling v. U.S. (17-5554). A ruling will be issued within a few months and could be authored by Kavanaugh himself. The justices will make that decision in the coming days.