Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Zubeneschamali

If Dr. Blasey Ford's story is true (and I think it probably is), then more women are likely to come forward. Blasey Ford's story does not sound like a once off "oops I got carried away" - he did stuff like that many times.

Jolly Red Giant

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If Dr. Blasey Ford's story is true (and I think it probably is), then more women are likely to come forward. Blasey Ford's story does not sound like a once off "oops I got carried away" - he did stuff like that many times.

Looks like they already have

jooksavage

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If Dr. Blasey Ford's story is true (and I think it probably is), then more women are likely to come forward. Blasey Ford's story does not sound like a once off "oops I got carried away" - he did stuff like that many times.

On the face of it, it looks bad: Kavanaugh doesn't want the accusation investigated and his friend Mark Judge, who could defend Kavanaugh, is refusing to come before the committee. The only one who wants the FBI to look into this is the accuser. If this is a case of "she-said-he-said", I'm inclined to go with the one who is willing to talk to investigators.

Penn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If Dr. Blasey Ford's story is true (and I think it probably is), then more women are likely to come forward. Blasey Ford's story does not sound like a once off "oops I got carried away" - he did stuff like that many times.

A second woman is apparently already about to come forward, and Stormy Daniels' lawyer has seemingly been contacted by a third.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408027-dem-senator-calls-on-kavanaugh-to-withdraw-after-second-allegation-emerges

Senate Democrats are currently looking into a new allegation of sexual misconduct regarding Brett Kavanaugh, this time dating back to his time as a freshman at Yale University in the 1980s, according to a New Yorker report published Sunday.

At least two Democratic offices are reportedly investigating the allegations from Deborah Ramirez, who says Kavanaugh exposed himself in front of her during a gathering at Yale.

Kavanaugh has already denied the claims.

Ramirez is accusing Kavanaugh of thrusting his penis in her face, causing her to touch it without her consent, according to the New Yorker.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/408024-avenatti-claims-client-has-credible-information-on-kavanaugh-ex

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer representing adult-film actress Stormy Daniels, announced Sunday that he is representing a client with “credible information” regarding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his former classmate, Mark Judge.

“I represent a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge,” Avenatti said on Twitter. “We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify.”

Avenatti confirmed shortly after the report that the client he was referring to is not Ramirez.

If the third woman has an allegation regarding Mark Judge too, it could explain why he didn't want to testify in Kavanaugh's defence, or why Republicans don't want to call on him to testify.

everlast75

Again, I believe everyone has the right to the presumption of innocence, but the idea that her claim is not credible is fanciful at this stage.

As with anyone, look at their behaviour when they are accused of something. It generally betrays them. Whipping out a calendar from 30 odd years which doesn't have the party on it? Getting a list from 60 odd women who said he was a nice guy within 24 hours of the story breaking? Is that the kind of evidence he finds compelling in Court? How many sexual offenders has he let off if that's enough for him. Bizarre stuff.

Couple that with the withholding of vast documents from the committee, the rush to get it through, the Reps attacking Ford.

Justice not only has to be done. Justice needs to be seen to be done.

Anything short of a full FBI investigation would be a(nother) damning indictment on these Republicans.

Zubeneschamali

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Looks like they already have

I mean a lot more women, not just two or three, a whole Trumpload.

Zubeneschamali

everlast75 wrote: »

Anything short of a full FBI investigation would be a(nother) damning indictment on these Republicans.

They don't care. Clarence Thomas has been damaged goods on the SC for 25 years - the Reps don't care as long as long as he votes their way.

jooksavage

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They don't care. Clarence Thomas has been damaged goods on the SC for 25 years - the Reps don't care as long as long as he votes their way.

True. However, Nancy Kassebaum said that she later regretted voting for Thomas. If the Dems take either house in Nov they're going to have investigation after investigation into Kavnaugh and if they do dig up anything that lends credence to Ford's allegations, Murkowski and Collins reelection prospects are going to suffer bad.

everlast75

While Fox currently defend fully Trump regarding all allegations of sexual misconduct, misogyny, racism, incompetence, collusion, campaign finance violation etc etc., for a bit of perspective - four year's ago, this is what they found reprehensible about the then POTUS

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1043875704138604544?s=19

everlast75

I am guessing there may be a chance Kav pulls out of the nomination process. It's going to get a hell of a lot uglier before it gets better.

He can cite the toll it is taking on his family or such other BS.

The Reps would still have time to cram through another judge before January...

Inquitus

everlast75 wrote: »

I am guessing there may be a chance Kav pulls out of the nomination process. It's going to get a hell of a lot uglier before it gets better.

He can cite the toll it is taking on his family or such other BS.

The Reps would still have time to cram through another judge before January...

A lame duck Scotus appointment, is there anything the Dems can do to block it assuming they took a majority in the Senate in Nov? as they won't take office until Jan-19.

everlast75

Inquitus wrote: »

A lame duck Scotus appointment, is there anything the Dems can do to block it assuming they took a majority in the Senate in Nov? as they won't take office until Jan-19.

Well... all that "should" be required is an advert asking the voters how anyone can trust the Reps to choose a SC nominee again, followed by quotes from the Reps rubbishing the allegations against Kavanaugh and their comments against Ford..

Penn

everlast75 wrote: »

The Reps would still have time to cram through another judge before January...

As much as Republicans were derided for pushing through Kavanaugh before the mid-term elections given how they previously sat on Merrick Garland's nomination before the Presidential Election, they'd have no leg to stand on trying to get another nomination through the door before January.

Not saying they wouldn't try, as they've clearly no shame when it comes to this sort of thing, but all pretense of doing things fairly and properly are gone by that stage.

Rhineshark

Penn wrote: »

As much as Republicans were derided for pushing through Kavanaugh before the mid-term elections given how they previously sat on Merrick Garland's nomination before the Presidential Election, they'd have no leg to stand on trying to get another nomination through the door before January.

Not saying they wouldn't try, as they've clearly no shame when it comes to this sort of thing, but all pretense of doing things fairly and properly are gone by that stage.

There was no pretence at doing it fairly or properly this time either. It was "we're in charge, we're doing it this way, shut up Dems, you're the minority lol"

The Kavanaugh hearings have been a joke. A bad joke.

amandstu

Rhineshark wrote: »

There was no pretence at doing it fairly or properly this time either. It was "we're in charge, we're doing it this way, shut up Dems, you're the minority lol"

The Kavanaugh hearings have been a joke. A bad joke.

Who was /is behind his nomination? Is it Trump or the Republican party?

I heard Trump would benefit from his supposed stance on impeachment (don't have details and so could well be wrong)

everlast75

There may be a fourth!

https://mont.thesentinel.com/2018/09/24/supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-faces-more-allegations/

If (and it is a big "if") he did do what Ford said he did, the likelihood is that he committed more than one act. People who have done this have a propensity to do it more than once, and to get more bold with each incident. The longer this goes on, the more likely others will become emboldened and speak out.

Again, he is entitled to the presumption, but it is looking more and more untenable as the hours go by.

everlast75

amandstu wrote: »

Who was /is behind his nomination? Is it Trump or the Republican party?

I heard Trump would benefit from his supposed stance on impeachment (don't have details and so could well be wrong)

Trump makes the decision.

McConnell advised against Kavanaugh but Trump pushed it on through.

And yes - some of Kavanaugh's rulings state that the president should not be indicted on civil or criminal matters. I mentioned before that it is curious indeed that those rulings happen to come to DJT's attention after the appointment of Mueller.

jooksavage

amandstu wrote: »

Who was /is behind his nomination? Is it Trump or the Republican party?

I heard Trump would benefit from his supposed stance on impeachment (don't have details and so could well be wrong)

Federalist Society proposed him to the Trump administration. They're an organization geared towards reforming US legal system to be more in line with their libertarian/conservative agenda. They sold Kavanaugh to Trump on the basis he doesn't believe a sitting president can be subpoenaed.

Penn

everlast75 wrote: »

There may be a fourth!

https://mont.thesentinel.com/2018/09/24/supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-faces-more-allegations/

If (and it is a big "if") he did do what Ford said he did, the likelihood is that he committed more than one act. People who have done this have a propensity to do it more than once, and to get more bold with each incident. The longer this goes on, the more likely others will become emboldened and speak out.

Again, he is entitled to the presumption, but it is looking more and more untenable as the hours go by.

https://twitter.com/danagould/status/1044230576184520705

Inquitus

A footballing vote of confidence before the firing happens? or is he going to try and ram this through no matter how bad things get?

Speaking at the United Nations in New York on Monday, Mr Trump said Brett Kavanaugh is "outstanding", adding: "I am with him all the way."

everlast75

Axios is reporting that Rosenstein is resigning!?

Itssoeasy

everlast75 wrote: »

Axios is reporting that Rosenstein is resigning!?

Yeah looks like it. Well it said he verbally resigned. I'm assuming he has to resign in writing also.

jooksavage

Ok just to be clear... if Rosenstein resigns, does that mean his replacement can kill the Mueller investigation?

Quin_Dub

jooksavage wrote: »

Ok just to be clear... if Rosenstein resigns, does that mean his replacement can kill the Mueller investigation?

I don't think so - If Rosenstein is gone , then it reverts to Sessions , who can't touch it as he's recused.

So I think nothing can be done until Sessions is gone , which is reportedly going to be after the election.

everlast75

Conflicting report from NBC. We will have to wait a bit for the dust to settle to get the facts

Penn

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't think so - If Rosenstein is gone , then it reverts to Sessions , who can't touch it as he's recused.

So I think nothing can be done until Sessions is gone , which is reportedly going to be after the election.

But couldn't Trump & Sessions pick a replacement who then could kill it?

everlast75

Reports are he is on the way to WH and may be fired. With Kavanaugh scandal its a "good time" in terms of drowning out the noise

jooksavage

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't think so - If Rosenstein is gone , then it reverts to Sessions , who can't touch it as he's recused.

So I think nothing can be done until Sessions is gone , which is reportedly going to be after the election.

Yeah I seem to recall a Vox article where they said Sessions AND Rosenstein would have to be fired but that was back when it looked like Sessions would be gone before Rosenstein so I wasn't sure.



Stakes keep getting higher for Nov election. If Trump kills the Mueller investigation against the wishes of controlled house, presumably he'll be in deep sh**but if the blue wave doesn't materialise, it's all over.

Quin_Dub

Penn wrote: »

But couldn't Trump & Sessions pick a replacement who then could kill it?

I don't think so.. I think that because Sessions is recused he can't chose a replacement that can kill it..

Sessions has to be gone 1st..

The original theory was that Trump would ditch Sessions and his replacement would in turn dump Rosenstein allowing the Mueller investigation to be killed.

But now it seems like Rosenstein is gone 1st , so I'm not 100% on what can/can't happen now.

Penn

jooksavage wrote: »

Yeah I seem to recall a Vox article where they said Sessions AND Rosenstein would have to be fired but that was back when it looked like Sessions would be gone before Rosenstein so I wasn't sure.



Stakes keep getting higher for Nov election. If Trump kills the Mueller investigation against the wishes of controlled house, presumably he'll be in deep sh**but if the blue wave doesn't materialise, it's all over.

I'd be surprised if Mueller doesn't have something in contingency for all this, such as being ready to pass off all info to other departments who could likely still proceed with pursuing charges if there's enough evidence crimes have been committed. There'd only be so much Trump/Sessions/whoever could do to stop that without causing obstruction. Ultimately whether the investigation itself is closed up or has their hands tied, people have already plead guilty and arranged plea deals while offering up information. Those threads would still have to be brought to their conclusions.