Some useful background info, not a lot of people know this (translation: I just found this out)


The process by which the Kavanaugh vote is a simple majority needing a 51 instead of a 60 majority is as clever as it is disgusting. The way it works as I understand it, is that theres a debate on a motion which requires a super majority. I raise a point of order saying 'no it's a simple majority' the chairman overrides this because its wrong, I appeal the decision and it now goes to a vote, the vote being to overturn the chairs ruling and overturning the chairs ruling requires a simple majority.


And..... the Dems were the first ones to pull this scam.

New poll - Donald Trump less trustworthy than Vladimir Putin and China’s Mr Xi.

The Pew Research Centre poll of 25 countries found just 27 percent of respondents had confidence in President Trump to "do the right thing regarding world affairs”.

In contrast, 52 percent said they had confidence in German Chancellor Angela Merkel to "do the right thing" in global affairs followed by French President Emmanuel Macron on 46 percent and China’s Mr Xi at 34 percent.

Even Mr Putin, whose country stands accused of the Salisbury poisoning scandal, interfering with foreign elections and ongoing human rights abuses, was deemed more trustworthy than Mr Trump with 30 percent.

Source

Not a Job interview. An American soap Opera!

Because the feckless cowards in the Rep party are scared to say 'enough' in case they get tweeted at.


So I just watched this piece of tiresome uninformed shit (oh look, I made an acronym) attacking a sex abuse victim while the trained seals behind him clap and cheer and hold up their 'women for spanky' signs. Stick a fork in america, it's done.
#americawhathaveyoubecome

Source

Likely will provide ammunition for those people who want to claim the FBI investigation is inadequate?

Trump mocks Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford's testimony

"A lawyer for a third woman, Julie Swetnick - who alleges Judge Kavanaugh was involved in the drugging and sexual assault of girls at house parties in the 1980s - has questioned why she has not been contacted by the FBI"

Swetnick is unhinged and dangerous according to her ex.

Ex-boyfriend of Kavanaugh accuser speaks out
Cuomo pushes back on credibility of Swetnick

The fact that Swetnick is represented by Michael Avenatti, who also represents Stormy Daniels, makes me wonder if Daniels is equally unreliable.

Ex boy friends are always an accurate source of facts

This would be the one who accused her of domestic violence but failed to turn up in court?

Play the ball, not the woman. Naughty.

You didn't meant to write that, right?

Trumps got to him

The point I'm making is that if Michael Avenatti is representing someone like Swetnick, who I believe is not telling the truth for her story alone, even if you allow that her ex might be unreliable and have an axe to grind (I hadn't realised he didn't turn up for court), how reliable are the stories of his other clients like Daniels? It's a shame, as I think Trump is a fool (apologies if this "plays the man"!) and was very ready to believe the Daniels story.

The veracity of the Daniels story doesn't really seem to be up for debate. The only issue there is whether he used campaign funds to pay her off.

Well, I'm wondering about its veracity now. I see she also has a book out "Full Disclosure" (cf. Weinstein accuser Rose McGowan's autobiography "Brave").

I agree, that is an issue.

I don't think even the Donald is denying that he had "relations" with her and paid her off.

Stop bringing facts into the discussion.

We know that the money to pay off Daniels came to Cohen from Trump.
How do we know?
Because Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani told us!

What a bizarre proposition: that all the participants in any litigation who are represented by the same lawyer must be untruthful and unreliable. Are you suggesting that Avenatti seeks out liars as clients? Or that he systematically (and apparently very successfully, without getting caught) trains them to lie (even when they have palpably provable cases)?

Or is it just women who are involved in cases concerning sexual misconduct who disturb you?

What a weird planet you must live on.

Sorry, do not agree.

Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani has some allegedly dodgy clients so clearly Trump must be equally so

And the plot thickens... This just in from the NYT (left center bias Marton - had to wait for them to print anything but they finally did)

To summarize: An ex boyfriend of Ford has submitted a sworn statement which contradicts several facets of Dr Ford's testimony during the Senate hearing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/u...kavanaugh.html

Well..she was extremely well coached if this sworn statement is accurate because I watched it live and found her credible. That said, wonder if Republicans had this ex boyfriend's account up their sleeve as I thought it was odd that the special prosecutor asked not once, but three times whether Ford had given tips to others regarding how to take a polygraph? It seemed odd at the time but maybe they knew this beforehand?

Grassley sent a letter demanding not only the detailed polygraph notes but also her therapist's notes (Note: why were these not sent before?) This should be interesting to say the least...

It's often referred to as the "nuclear option". I thought I'd explained it before but apparently not. And yes, the Dems used this perfectly legal procedural roundabout to get past the Republican filibusters of Obama's picks for federal judicial positions. They didn't use it for Supreme Court, but of course once you let Pandora out of the box there's no going back. The Rs simply said "well you did it for this so we'll do it for that".

Wikipedia gets into details and history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

In the same link, the person involved denied what the boy friend claimed.

Confusing isn't it