Wake Up, America! Wake Up! PLEASE!!
- Thread starter Drillher4me
- Start date
- Status
to many to chose from you pick your own they all fit
https://republicansaredomesticterrorists.tumblr.com/archive
https://republicansaredomesticterrorists.tumblr.com/archive
From A Sham Hearing To A Sham Investigation
Kurt Bardella,
NBC News reported on Saturday that “the White House is limiting the scope of the FBI’s investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.” Later that night, President Donald Trump tweeted that the NBC report was incorrect and he had not placed any limits on the investigation. As of this writing Monday morning, NBC was standing by its original story, reporting that the limits placed on the investigation by the White House and Senate Republicans had not changed.
So now we’ve gone from a sham hearing to a sham investigation where the White House is dictating to the FBI whom they can interview and whom they can’t. Is this really what Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) had in mind when he made the deal to support moving Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination out of the Judiciary Committee in exchange for reopening the FBI background check? Do Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) really feel comfortable trading their votes for a so-called investigation that ignores one of the accusers and precludes them from asking for records that would verify Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony? Shouldn’t the FBI, not the White House, be determining the scope of the investigation?
Would congressional Republicans accept this kind of watered-down investigation if allegations like these had surfaced about one of President Barack Obama’s nominees? Of course not.
It wasn’t that long ago when Republicans were chomping at the bit to investigate anything and everything. From 2009 to 2013, I was the spokesman or senior adviser for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and any time the duration of an investigation was called into question, we would always say that the political calendar should not dictate the pace of oversight. Looking back at some of the higher-profile investigations we conducted, the last thing anyone could say about our investigations was that they were done in haste.
In the spring of 2011, Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in tandem with then-Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), began an investigation into “Operation Fast and Furious.” On June 7, 2017, more than six years later, the committee released its final report on the investigation.
In the fall of 2012, Republicans began an investigation into the attack on the U.S. diplomat facility in Benghazi, Libya. The investigation lasted for more than four years, concluding in December of 2016.
In 2013, congressional Republicans launched an investigation into the IRS’s alleged targeting of conservative groups. The “scandal” would be an ongoing line of attack for Republicans until November of 2017 when the Trump administration declared that prosecuting the matter “would not be appropriate based on the available evidence.”
Flash-forward to Thursday and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. Yes, the same Chuck Grassley who partnered with us on the oversight committee, was making the case that the reason allegations of sexual assault made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh cannot be thoroughly investigated is because someone else knew about them two months ago.
When someone wants to rush an investigation or avoid it altogether, it demands the question, what are they afraid is going to be found?
In the few short weeks that have elapsed since Blasey’s allegations against Kavanaugh became public, multiple women have come forward with accusations of their own. If Senate Republicans had their way, these women would never have been heard in the first place. Now, they have begrudgingly agreed to a one-week delay to allow the FBI to reopen their background investigation into Kavanaugh, but have expressly limited that investigation to a specific witness list that does not include one of the new accusers, Julie Swetnick, or former classmates who have said Kavanaugh lied during his testimony about his drinking habits.
Simply put, it is highly unlikely that such a limited inquiry that is being controlled by the White House is going to produce anything new that sheds light on Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence. Imagine if your baby went to the authorities with an accusation of sexual assault and they told you they would conduct a one-week investigation, only talk to people cleared by the accuser’s boss and then close the investigation. That’s what’s happening right now.
During the eight years that Barack Obama was president of the United States, Republicans would not shut up about their vigorous pursuits of truth, transparency and accountability. Now, they are bending over backward to rush through the confirmation of a man who is the subject of multiple allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct. Clearly, when it comes to investigative vigilance, Republicans have no intention of holding themselves to the standards they set for the Obama administration. It turns out Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was right when he said, if “you’re looking for a fair process you came to the wrong town at the wrong time…”
If this were a fair process, concerned about getting at the truth, Trump and his Republican accomplices would waive the arbitrary and entirely political one-week deadline. But they won’t. And that tells you everything you need to know about how serious of an investigation this really is.
The only question now is whether “swing votes” like Flake, Collins and Murkowski will look the other way as this sham investigation proceeds.
Kurt Bardella is the former spokesman and senior adviser for the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee and U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). Follow him on Twitter: @kurtbardella
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sham-hearing-sham-investigation-144044195.html
even now on the noon news the chump is complaining about how unfair this is towards kavenaughs wife
guess that leaves out all the sexual allegations......especially since they have talked to several people already and NOT Ford
Kurt Bardella,NBC News reported on Saturday that “the White House is limiting the scope of the FBI’s investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.” Later that night, President Donald Trump tweeted that the NBC report was incorrect and he had not placed any limits on the investigation. As of this writing Monday morning, NBC was standing by its original story, reporting that the limits placed on the investigation by the White House and Senate Republicans had not changed.
So now we’ve gone from a sham hearing to a sham investigation where the White House is dictating to the FBI whom they can interview and whom they can’t. Is this really what Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) had in mind when he made the deal to support moving Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination out of the Judiciary Committee in exchange for reopening the FBI background check? Do Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) really feel comfortable trading their votes for a so-called investigation that ignores one of the accusers and precludes them from asking for records that would verify Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony? Shouldn’t the FBI, not the White House, be determining the scope of the investigation?
Would congressional Republicans accept this kind of watered-down investigation if allegations like these had surfaced about one of President Barack Obama’s nominees? Of course not.
It wasn’t that long ago when Republicans were chomping at the bit to investigate anything and everything. From 2009 to 2013, I was the spokesman or senior adviser for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and any time the duration of an investigation was called into question, we would always say that the political calendar should not dictate the pace of oversight. Looking back at some of the higher-profile investigations we conducted, the last thing anyone could say about our investigations was that they were done in haste.
In the spring of 2011, Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in tandem with then-Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), began an investigation into “Operation Fast and Furious.” On June 7, 2017, more than six years later, the committee released its final report on the investigation.
In the fall of 2012, Republicans began an investigation into the attack on the U.S. diplomat facility in Benghazi, Libya. The investigation lasted for more than four years, concluding in December of 2016.
In 2013, congressional Republicans launched an investigation into the IRS’s alleged targeting of conservative groups. The “scandal” would be an ongoing line of attack for Republicans until November of 2017 when the Trump administration declared that prosecuting the matter “would not be appropriate based on the available evidence.”
Flash-forward to Thursday and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. Yes, the same Chuck Grassley who partnered with us on the oversight committee, was making the case that the reason allegations of sexual assault made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh cannot be thoroughly investigated is because someone else knew about them two months ago.
When someone wants to rush an investigation or avoid it altogether, it demands the question, what are they afraid is going to be found?
In the few short weeks that have elapsed since Blasey’s allegations against Kavanaugh became public, multiple women have come forward with accusations of their own. If Senate Republicans had their way, these women would never have been heard in the first place. Now, they have begrudgingly agreed to a one-week delay to allow the FBI to reopen their background investigation into Kavanaugh, but have expressly limited that investigation to a specific witness list that does not include one of the new accusers, Julie Swetnick, or former classmates who have said Kavanaugh lied during his testimony about his drinking habits.
Simply put, it is highly unlikely that such a limited inquiry that is being controlled by the White House is going to produce anything new that sheds light on Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence. Imagine if your baby went to the authorities with an accusation of sexual assault and they told you they would conduct a one-week investigation, only talk to people cleared by the accuser’s boss and then close the investigation. That’s what’s happening right now.
During the eight years that Barack Obama was president of the United States, Republicans would not shut up about their vigorous pursuits of truth, transparency and accountability. Now, they are bending over backward to rush through the confirmation of a man who is the subject of multiple allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct. Clearly, when it comes to investigative vigilance, Republicans have no intention of holding themselves to the standards they set for the Obama administration. It turns out Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was right when he said, if “you’re looking for a fair process you came to the wrong town at the wrong time…”
If this were a fair process, concerned about getting at the truth, Trump and his Republican accomplices would waive the arbitrary and entirely political one-week deadline. But they won’t. And that tells you everything you need to know about how serious of an investigation this really is.
The only question now is whether “swing votes” like Flake, Collins and Murkowski will look the other way as this sham investigation proceeds.
Kurt Bardella is the former spokesman and senior adviser for the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee and U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). Follow him on Twitter: @kurtbardella
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sham-hearing-sham-investigation-144044195.html
even now on the noon news the chump is complaining about how unfair this is towards kavenaughs wife
guess that leaves out all the sexual allegations......especially since they have talked to several people already and NOT Ford
Last edited:
well now...isn't this a surprise......FBI only allowed to talk to 4 people?...hell of an investigation!
Accelerated FBI investigation could lead to Kavanaugh confirmation vote this week
The FBI appears to be preparing to bring the limited investigation of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to a rapid conclusion, limiting the delay negotiated Friday by Sen. Jeff Flake and setting the stage for a confirmation vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination this week.
Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, said that a floor vote on Kavanaugh would not take place on Monday even if the FBI investigation concludes Monday morning because the Senate’s rules for invoking cloture require several days’ delay. “If the [FBI’s] report comes in today,” Stewart said, “Leader [McConnell] could file cloture, setting up a Wednesday cloture vote, and Thursday confirmation.”
The deal brokered by Flake called for a cloture vote no later than this Friday. But word that the FBI could finish the review by Monday morning — and the Sunday night dissemination of a memo by the Arizona prosecutor who questioned Ford during last week’s hearing — stoked fears among Democrats that a rushed confirmation vote could follow close behind.
The New York Times reported Sunday evening that the FBI’s “‘limited’ supplemental background check of Judge Kavanaugh could be finished by Monday morning.”
Also on Sunday evening, a five-page memo to “all Republican Senators” written by Rachel Mitchell, who was brought in by Republican senators on the judiciary committee to question Ford, appeared in the Washington Post. Mitchell’s memo applies withering skepticism to Ford’s testimony and says, “I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee.”
The previous day, the Times reported that the FBI had only been authorized to speak to four witnesses: Mark Judge, the friend of Kavanaugh’s who Ford had said was in the room during the alleged assault; Leyland Keyser, a friend of Ford’s who she says was a guest at the party where the alleged assault occurred but was not told about it; P.J. Smyth, another guest at the party, and Deborah Ramirez, who has also made an allegation that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party at Yale University. Reportedly excluded from the list were Kavanaugh and Ford; Ford’s husband; Julie Swetnick, a separate accuser; a number of Kavanaugh’s Yale classmates who have come forward to challenge his testimony about his drinking, and any witnesses who could corroborate Ramirez’s or Swetnick’s accounts.
The New Yorker magazine Sunday evening recounted the obstacles that potential witnesses who are not on the list of four witnesses have encountered in their efforts to make contact with the FBI or Senate investigators. For instance, Mark Judge’s ex-girlfriend has hired a lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, and is reportedly seeking to provide information rebutting the account that Judge has provided through the press and written statements to the Judiciary Committee out of “a sense of civic duty to tell what she knows.”
Kaplan told the New Yorker that she has had no response from Senate investigators other than to say her emails had been “received,” and an FBI official suggested that she call a toll-free tip line. An anonymous Yale classmate, whom the New Yorker reports is attempting to corroborate Ramirez’s accusation, after multiple attempts to reach the FBI in Washington, D.C. and at a local field office, was similarly referred to a toll-free number and ended up submitting his information through an online portal.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/accelera...vanaugh-confirmation-vote-week-154210893.html
the Nazi's are at it again with censorship....and the need to know....but then this always was a cut a dried deal!
Accelerated FBI investigation could lead to Kavanaugh confirmation vote this week
The FBI appears to be preparing to bring the limited investigation of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to a rapid conclusion, limiting the delay negotiated Friday by Sen. Jeff Flake and setting the stage for a confirmation vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination this week.
Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, said that a floor vote on Kavanaugh would not take place on Monday even if the FBI investigation concludes Monday morning because the Senate’s rules for invoking cloture require several days’ delay. “If the [FBI’s] report comes in today,” Stewart said, “Leader [McConnell] could file cloture, setting up a Wednesday cloture vote, and Thursday confirmation.”
The deal brokered by Flake called for a cloture vote no later than this Friday. But word that the FBI could finish the review by Monday morning — and the Sunday night dissemination of a memo by the Arizona prosecutor who questioned Ford during last week’s hearing — stoked fears among Democrats that a rushed confirmation vote could follow close behind.
The New York Times reported Sunday evening that the FBI’s “‘limited’ supplemental background check of Judge Kavanaugh could be finished by Monday morning.”
Also on Sunday evening, a five-page memo to “all Republican Senators” written by Rachel Mitchell, who was brought in by Republican senators on the judiciary committee to question Ford, appeared in the Washington Post. Mitchell’s memo applies withering skepticism to Ford’s testimony and says, “I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee.”
The previous day, the Times reported that the FBI had only been authorized to speak to four witnesses: Mark Judge, the friend of Kavanaugh’s who Ford had said was in the room during the alleged assault; Leyland Keyser, a friend of Ford’s who she says was a guest at the party where the alleged assault occurred but was not told about it; P.J. Smyth, another guest at the party, and Deborah Ramirez, who has also made an allegation that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party at Yale University. Reportedly excluded from the list were Kavanaugh and Ford; Ford’s husband; Julie Swetnick, a separate accuser; a number of Kavanaugh’s Yale classmates who have come forward to challenge his testimony about his drinking, and any witnesses who could corroborate Ramirez’s or Swetnick’s accounts.
The New Yorker magazine Sunday evening recounted the obstacles that potential witnesses who are not on the list of four witnesses have encountered in their efforts to make contact with the FBI or Senate investigators. For instance, Mark Judge’s ex-girlfriend has hired a lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, and is reportedly seeking to provide information rebutting the account that Judge has provided through the press and written statements to the Judiciary Committee out of “a sense of civic duty to tell what she knows.”
Kaplan told the New Yorker that she has had no response from Senate investigators other than to say her emails had been “received,” and an FBI official suggested that she call a toll-free tip line. An anonymous Yale classmate, whom the New Yorker reports is attempting to corroborate Ramirez’s accusation, after multiple attempts to reach the FBI in Washington, D.C. and at a local field office, was similarly referred to a toll-free number and ended up submitting his information through an online portal.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/accelera...vanaugh-confirmation-vote-week-154210893.html
the Nazi's are at it again with censorship....and the need to know....but then this always was a cut a dried deal!
Last edited:
IN TRUMPS WORLD OF POLITICS ALL LIES ARE ALTERNATIVE FACTS!
NAFTA IS NO EXCEPTION!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAFTA gets a new name, but little else has changed
Gordon Ritchie is a former Canadian ambassador for trade negotiations and deputy chief negotiator of the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement
After more than a year of Trumpian pyrotechnics, the deal is finally done.
U.S. President Donald Trump can boast to his more gullible followers that he has, indeed, met his promise to tear up NAFTA, a.k.a. “the worst trade deal in history.” He claims Canadians have used the agreement to treat Americans unfairly, with high tariffs and huge surpluses. In another extraordinary, rambling, stream-of-consciousness press conference on Monday, the President trumpeted the success of his negotiating strategy. Just in time for the midterm congressional elections.
On closer inspection, the tentative agreement reached late Sunday night is remarkably similar to the deal Canada was prepared to accept nearly one year ago. But in obedience to the Trump negotiating playbook, we first had to endure the escalation of increasingly unhinged rhetoric and the imposition of mutually destructive tariffs before the Great Negotiator agreed to declare victory.
Despite all the sound and fury, this signifies very little.
The main change is the brand name: the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement or USMCA.
That enables the President to declare the end of North America free-trade agreement.
What else has changed beyond the brand?
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has been ****** to end his quixotic crusade to eliminate Chapter 19’s discipline of unfair American trade remedies (although it has been renumbered). The investor-state dispute provisions (Chapter 11), which have been highly detrimental to Canada, have been removed.
There will be no “national security” tariffs on automobiles. There will be no change in government procurement, which will continue to be governed by World Trade Organization rules. The U.S. has abandoned its last-minute attempt to remove the protections for Canada’s cultural industries.
Meanwhile, Canada has agreed to expand duty-free access to our domestic market for U.S. milk producers – reportedly slightly more than was already offered in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations with the previous administration. This affects a fraction of 1 per cent of our total exports. The highly contentious class 6 and 7 milk products have also been normalized. I suspect this will, as usual, be accompanied by further subsidies for Canadian dairy farmers but will have little or no impact on Canadian consumer prices.
Although this will be largely ignored, there has also been a great deal of work done by the professional negotiators to modernize a large number of technical areas of NAFTA. This has proceeded under the radar and quite possibly unbeknownst to Mr. Trump. The devil will lie in the details that, when they come available, will be of great interest to a small number of specialists.
What about the steel and aluminium tariffs Mr. Trump imposed on Canada under the admittedly phony pretext of “national security”? These are real and have done damage on both sides of the border. The CEO of Ford has announced that it cost the auto maker more than US$1-billion last year alone. The head of the U.S. Steelworkers’ union has come out against these measures. They remain in place because Canada has already responded to them with dollar-for-dollar retaliation. There is now an opportunity for both sides to lay down their arms. Time will tell.
Parallels have been drawn with the highly dramatic conclusion of the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement, which I helped negotiate about 30 years ago. I do not agree.
First, we were building from scratch the biggest trade agreement between any two countries in history, breaking new ground at every step, not rebranding and modifying an existing agreement.
Second, we were dealing with leaders (Ronald Reagan and James Baker) with vision and integrity. Our task was thus in some ways harder, and in others much easier, than that facing our current leadership. They appear to have preserved, against difficult odds, the extraordinarily successful economic arrangement that has governed Canada-U.S. trade for three decades and will continue for the foreseeable future.
NAFTA IS NO EXCEPTION!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAFTA gets a new name, but little else has changed
Gordon Ritchie is a former Canadian ambassador for trade negotiations and deputy chief negotiator of the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement
After more than a year of Trumpian pyrotechnics, the deal is finally done.
U.S. President Donald Trump can boast to his more gullible followers that he has, indeed, met his promise to tear up NAFTA, a.k.a. “the worst trade deal in history.” He claims Canadians have used the agreement to treat Americans unfairly, with high tariffs and huge surpluses. In another extraordinary, rambling, stream-of-consciousness press conference on Monday, the President trumpeted the success of his negotiating strategy. Just in time for the midterm congressional elections.
On closer inspection, the tentative agreement reached late Sunday night is remarkably similar to the deal Canada was prepared to accept nearly one year ago. But in obedience to the Trump negotiating playbook, we first had to endure the escalation of increasingly unhinged rhetoric and the imposition of mutually destructive tariffs before the Great Negotiator agreed to declare victory.
Despite all the sound and fury, this signifies very little.
The main change is the brand name: the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement or USMCA.
That enables the President to declare the end of North America free-trade agreement.
What else has changed beyond the brand?
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has been ****** to end his quixotic crusade to eliminate Chapter 19’s discipline of unfair American trade remedies (although it has been renumbered). The investor-state dispute provisions (Chapter 11), which have been highly detrimental to Canada, have been removed.
There will be no “national security” tariffs on automobiles. There will be no change in government procurement, which will continue to be governed by World Trade Organization rules. The U.S. has abandoned its last-minute attempt to remove the protections for Canada’s cultural industries.
Meanwhile, Canada has agreed to expand duty-free access to our domestic market for U.S. milk producers – reportedly slightly more than was already offered in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations with the previous administration. This affects a fraction of 1 per cent of our total exports. The highly contentious class 6 and 7 milk products have also been normalized. I suspect this will, as usual, be accompanied by further subsidies for Canadian dairy farmers but will have little or no impact on Canadian consumer prices.
Although this will be largely ignored, there has also been a great deal of work done by the professional negotiators to modernize a large number of technical areas of NAFTA. This has proceeded under the radar and quite possibly unbeknownst to Mr. Trump. The devil will lie in the details that, when they come available, will be of great interest to a small number of specialists.
What about the steel and aluminium tariffs Mr. Trump imposed on Canada under the admittedly phony pretext of “national security”? These are real and have done damage on both sides of the border. The CEO of Ford has announced that it cost the auto maker more than US$1-billion last year alone. The head of the U.S. Steelworkers’ union has come out against these measures. They remain in place because Canada has already responded to them with dollar-for-dollar retaliation. There is now an opportunity for both sides to lay down their arms. Time will tell.
Parallels have been drawn with the highly dramatic conclusion of the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement, which I helped negotiate about 30 years ago. I do not agree.
First, we were building from scratch the biggest trade agreement between any two countries in history, breaking new ground at every step, not rebranding and modifying an existing agreement.
Second, we were dealing with leaders (Ronald Reagan and James Baker) with vision and integrity. Our task was thus in some ways harder, and in others much easier, than that facing our current leadership. They appear to have preserved, against difficult odds, the extraordinarily successful economic arrangement that has governed Canada-U.S. trade for three decades and will continue for the foreseeable future.
damn he spent 2 hours talking that up and what a great deal.....It is the best deal since he started imposing tariff's
and even belittled a female reporter.....just a typical day in trump world!
What part of confidential FBI investigation is so difficult for you to comprehend? Well I I guess I shouldn't expect more. After all you're the one who called me a moron in a post where you misspelled oxymoron and clearly didn't even understand the meaning of the term.....PRICELESS entertainment!
well you are a moron!...confidential...still has her name out there...after all she sent the letter to fienstien in confidentiality...and look where it went
and you might trust a republican......but most don't!....but hell you believed trump when he said Moore said he was innocent also
and if you want to go back and do a bunch of spell checking...look above at your statement sometimes we all think faster than our fingers can keep up with...…..
" Well I I guess I shouldn't expect more."...how many times do you need the I ?
you people on the right have twisted views when it comes to supporting your party...…..look at 2bi saying it shouldn't matter about something that long ago.....and yet look where Cosby is!
and while we are at it look at Obama's pick for supreme court....almost a year and you guys couldn't push it because of the upcoming election...over 200 days!...…...and now lets look at Kavenaugh...how far off to the elections?...sure seem to be in a hurry....not sure of your parties stance
does that clear things up in your confused little mind there good buddy?
Last edited:
by hook or by crook...isn't that the republican way.....guess that now includes Blackmail!
Donald Trump Hints He’s Got Dirt On Dem Senator On Committee Considering Brett Kavanaugh’s Future
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/donald-trump-hints-got-dirt-181326485.html
Donald Trump Hints He’s Got Dirt On Dem Senator On Committee Considering Brett Kavanaugh’s Future
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/donald-trump-hints-got-dirt-181326485.html
Another Cavanaugh classmate steps forward to say that Cavanaugh was NOT TRUTHFUL in his deposition to the committee. Trump says its not important since it happened so many years ago ... HELLO ... we're talking about lying under oath now .... of course that doesn't disqualify any candidate for any Trump position, especially those thugs who lie, cheat, and steal, or have illicit sex. To Trump, and obviously to Republicans, these are their kind of people. Yeah, Trump "DRAIN THAT SWAMP" ... of all the people with some amount of integrity, and replace them with those who have NO integrity at all. I'm sure Trump wouldn't understand that word, anyways, tooooooo many syllables.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-classmates_us_5bb157bce4b027da00d46d72 .....
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-classmates_us_5bb157bce4b027da00d46d72 .....
Last edited:
I heard today that trump is not thrilled with kavenaugh….but will he change his mind!
trump claims to have never drank in his life...doesn't care for it...….and all this drinking with Kav...well...who knows.....kav has his get out of jail card though
It the USA, it seems that the standard of behaviour you expect of your judges is higher than that you ask of your leaders. Weird.
Also, how are you in a situation whereby an official, I.e. a judge, seems to hold a great deal of power in your country and isn't elected by the people? I mean, doesn't government set the law and the judges apply it? How is it right that half your country's population is terrified of an unelected official. Crazy.
Also, how are you in a situation whereby an official, I.e. a judge, seems to hold a great deal of power in your country and isn't elected by the people? I mean, doesn't government set the law and the judges apply it? How is it right that half your country's population is terrified of an unelected official. Crazy.
- Status
