Senator Feinstein just said that the newly released emails directly contradict Kavanaugh’s assertion that he wasn’t involved in the nomination of Bill Pryor in the early '00s.
This is out of line - you should let it go. Those comments were very obviously not directed at you personally.
It turns out Mr. Booker is just a drama queen. All that stuff about how he was courageously engaging in civil disobedience was an unfortunate piece of grandstanding.
What does it say about a politician who you can’t even trust when he says he is cheating?
Regards,
Shodan
nm
Certainly possible. That they went to all that effort to hide shit that didn’t need to be hidden. Stuff that didn’t worry them. Could be. Maybe.
As far as the rules go, my reading of the situation says that the Procedure is supposed to be that the Archives people go over this stuff with an eye to editing out any threat to national security. Which, you will recall, was the flimsy excuse they offered. The Pubbies made an end run around that because they didn’t want to wait for the procedure to be done, in a bit of a hurry…
Twilight of the Gormless is quickly approaching…
So, they made up a procedure whereby the friendliest lawyer imaginable gets to decide what the Dems can see, and the Pubbies pretend that’s the same thing. (IIRC, Grassly tried to say exactly that, that the Archive people gave it their official ok-dokey, but no, they didn’t.)
So, yeah, they don’t really know either, so its *possible *that the Pubbies are trying to hide something that isn’t there.
Why do you consider that to be a problem?
Point of clarification on the released documents:
A while back, there was a discussion about how Trump has powers that are “above the law” in that he could release classified information to our enemies, and it was insisted that senators could in fact release classified information on the senate floor.
If that is the case, then what exactly are they doing wrong? If that is not the case, then does that mean that I was misinformed?
I tried to find the thread and post, but this message board is not well suited for searches.
Because lying and cheating are bad. Even by Democrats.
YMMV.
Regards,
Shodan
Senator Wyden says the emails reveal he lied in 2006 testimony.
If he and Feinstein are accurate, then so far the emails have revealed at least two instances of dishonesty.
Sorry, but after Merrick Garland, I figure anything short of actual criminal conduct is fair. Whatever else you can say, Kavanaugh’s getting a hearing; Garland didn’t. He’s getting better than even-steven here.
I know what lying is, though I’d disagree that anyone besides Kavanaugh has been doing it. Not sure what you regard as ‘cheating’ and why. Not that I feel such an accusation is germane, just wondering.
I read them. Tried to. Eyes kept glazing over. It may be that they demonstrate he has lied in his confirmation hearing, which if so would be a big deal. In a vacuum, to this non-lawyer, there was nothing too earthshaking there. And certainly nothing that could be construed as affecting “national security” by any stretch of the imagination.
I don’t quite interpret it the same way. “call me” doesn’t mean involvement, and the question from Wyden seems to be about different components of the eavesdropping program. I could be wrong on that, only read the Feinstein Twitter feed and the article you linked.
- It’s a lifetime appointment. There’s a lot of later.
- A couple of blue waves would be good.
- I’m game right now for changing the rules about impeachment. We obviously need to do it more. It’s an emergency IMO.
If dems get in power it will be incumbent on them to begin prosecuting “lying and cheating” by impeachable parties.
Because the requirement to convict someone in an impeachment hearing is too high, your plan is to … “chang[e] the rules about impeachment”? Do you understand what the requirement to do that is?
Maybe you are not there yet, but it seems to me that all of donalds acts as president are tainted and need to be stopped or reversed. This is the only way to have a bipartisan position on this. So you say K is a mainstream DC R so we must confirm him even though the president is credibly accused of being a russian asset. The people who voted against trump have a diffferent set of needs around this quite obviously. Nothing bipartisan can occur at all until we resolve 1) russian influence issues, and 2) dt financial crimes issues.
I don’t think you’re using the standard definition of “bipartisan”.
Do you understand how hard it is to put a russian asset in the white house?
Extraordinary times.
OK. Any more to this?
Great. Are you for impeachment for lying and cheating? Maybe we can iron something out right now. That’s where I am headed.
Just give me two “yes” or “no” answers please:
#1) Do you understand that it would require a constitutional amendment to change the rules about impeachment?
#2) Do you understand that a constitutional amendment must be approved by 2/3 of the House & Senate and ratified by 38 states?
If you already had 2/3 of the Senate that agreed with you, it is not necessary to change the rules about impeachment, those same senators can just proceed with the impeachment.
The fundamental problem you have is that you don’t have the votes, and you’re extremely unlikely to get the votes you need to do what you’re fantasizing about.