You’re being inappropriately rude to me. First you make up shit about me, criticize me on the basis of the shit you made up about me, claim that was a “joke”, insult me for not getting the “joke”, and now you’re claiming I’m hearing voices in my head (presumably another “joke”). May I suggest you go have a nice relaxing sit down?
Here’s the dots (these are all facts according to recent mainstream media reports):
[ul]
[li]The FBI is required to get approval from the White House prior to interviewing anyone[/li][li]The person at the White House who is currently overseeing the FBI investigation is Don McGahn[/li][li]Don McGahn is a friend of “Bart” Kavenaugh[/li][/ul]
Now how’s how I connect them:
[ul]
[li]There’s no obvious reason to restrict the FBI investigation. It’s already time-limited, and all the on-the-fence Senators already agreed to the time limitation[/li][li]So there must be another reason[/li][li]That reason must involve something that’s bad enough to potentially sink the Kavenaugh vote, otherwise none of this is necessary[/li][/ul]
That’s it. Go to town with your own explanation, dude.
I promise, I won’t insult you over your explanation, claim my insult was a “joke” , criticize you for being upset over my “joke”, criticize you again, claim that was also a “joke”, all while repeatedly getting basic facts wrong and claiming facts don’t matter.
I cannot speak for Evil Economist of course but I will say that yeah…Trump is the boss. He is in the loop to some extent and he gives the marching orders.
Now whether he just told McGahn to see to it that his guy gets in and do whatever is necessary or if he demands hourly updates and nitpicks every move McGahn makes we probably will never know (at least not till a McGahn tell-all book in a few years).
It stands to reason that communication with Kavanaugh would not be handled by Trump and it is a reasonable guess to suspect McGahn is the one doing that.
But none of them work in a vacuum. This is a team effort on some level. Doubtless there are others who pow-wow with the president and McGahn and Kavanaugh to strategize.
And in the end, out of all of that, someone is giving the FBI marching orders on who they can and cannot interview. It would make sense if that was McGahn but I dunno…maybe it is Marla Maples.
Earlier in this thread, when a report came out that Manchin might be voting for Kavanaugh, this was one of our fellow Dopers’ responses:
Now, I’m sure that Smapti is a perfectly calm and level-headed guy who wouldn’t hurt a fly, but not all lefties share that trait. If this is generating enough of an emotional reaction to get our normally-friendly Smapti to shout “fuck you” and “closet Nazi”, the concern I have is that someone who will be angered by a “yes” vote, someone a bit more unhinged than Smapti, might do something … radical. I hope not, but I worry.
Number of people who have been killed by unhinged lefties for political reasons in the last, say, 10 years: zero
Number of people who have been killed by unhinged righties for political reasons in the last, say, 10 years: 500?
I wouldn’t sweat it. You are in FAR more danger from right-wing extremists than left-wing extremists (what are the lefties gonna do to you…pitch a tent in your tree so you don’t chop it down?).
Can I interject into the “micromanaging” thing? Just for a frickin’ minute? Regardless whether and by how much you may think President Stupid is “making the big picture decisions,” that in no real world way means he’s “micromanaging” a damned thing. Learn your management terms.
A micromanager pays attention to intricate details of the roles and processes in her/his organization. Often, someone with this management style will exert control over aspects of subordinates’ tasks which are directly within the ambit of the particular subordinate, and this is often to the detriment of organizational efficiency or a distraction away from proper management oversight of those “big picture” aspects of being the damned boss. President Carter was a micromanager. Mayor Giuliani was a control freak who frequently micromanaged. President Trump is not a micromanager.
Trump’s style of management is seagull management. He will fly into a situation, once he’s made aware of it, look for superficial aspects which he either likes or dislikes but does not understand, and then shit his commands onto the heads of whichever subordinates are present and regardless of their responsibilities for or involvement in the particular superficial aspect which he has deigned to notice, and will then take his leave, confident that he has shat pure gold onto the situation and that his people -the best people- are now equipped to turn the situation around to his desires.
Trump just wants his SCOTUS Justice seated, and he has commanded the investigation be wrapped up without damage to that candidate. And that’s the extent of his ‘management’ of the situation.
I believe that politicians are politicians more than I believe what they say.
Manchin won’t be THE vote to confirm Kavanaugh but will be happy to make his constituents pleased by voting for him if it is clear he is going to be confirmed with or without his vote. If two out of the three of Flake, Murkowski, and Collins vote no then he does. If not he he votes to confirm too.
Flake’s playing the hand out and his play is less concerned about respect for women than his take on the respectability of the institutions. In that regard he needs to at least try to convince himself that Trump’s antic influence naught.
Collins and Murkowski though are playing out a political calculus and Trump’s antics do significantly rev up the cost of preventing a primary challenge from the base with a vote to confirm. And again, where they go Manchin will follow.
Not particularly. I simply wanted to demonstrate that lefties can be more of a danger to elected officials than merely pitching tents in trees. I think I’ve accomplished that.
Flake is a total flake (bet I am the first one to ever say that).
There are loads of reasons for the FBI to question Ford. Her prepared statement is nothing like a formal interview by an experienced FBI questioner who has a knack for finding the inconsistencies (and consistencies) in a person’s testimony.
It’s kinda what they do…law enforcement 101 and they are very good at it (lots of practice).
One example is not a trend. It is not indicative of anything. You did not accomplish what you think you accomplished.
If you want me to agree there are crazy lefties out there who might shoot someone someday I won’t argue. But they are dramatically fewer and further between than right-wing nutjobs willing to shoot someone. So much so you could only come up with one example in the past…I dunno…lots of years.
There is no equivalency here. Left-wing whackjobs that shoot people based on their political ideology are rare.
I only felt it was necessary to come up with one. I’m sure with a modest amount of exertion, I could come up with more, but that’s not necessary or relevant to the point I was making.
Interesting story about the Thomas nomination. In particular that the Bush White House rushed the confirmation because they knew there was additional information out there that would kill Thomas’s chances. A parallel?
Let me ask you a serious question. No gotcha, just want your honest answer. I ask because I think you will actually sit back and consider your answer and give me a thoughtful reply. Also, that maybe you’ll see something I don’t in this…I don’t pretend to be either the sharpest tool in the shed or a political junky who knows all of the ins and outs.
The question is basically to consider two scenarios and to ask, how would things be different. Scenario one…let’s say that everything is exactly as it is today, except there is no McGahn…the FBI guy is just a guy. Doesn’t know Kavanaugh from adam, isn’t his buddy or anything. Scenario two is, McGahn is the FBI guy, but there isn’t any Trump…instead, let’s say that Obama is president (and obviously Kav is alternative Kav who is a progressive nominee) and this situation happens, and, for some reason he decides to have the FBI investigate instead of just dumping the clown.
The question, as noted, is…what would be different? IMHO, in the first scenario there would be zero difference. The investigation would proceed exactly as it is with zero deviation. In the second, IMHO, everything would be different. Regardless of McGahn’s being a buddy of Kavanaugh, Obama would be the one pulling the strings and it would go the way he wanted it too (hell, he’s probably pull McGahn on just the whiff of conflict of interest, but play along here).
So…what’s your take? How would things be different or the same? In my mind, McGahn is irrelevant, since regardless of his feelings it’s Trump who is setting the tone. The fact that McGahn is Kav’s buddy is probably a bonus to Trump et al, but it would play out the same regardless. No?