Replies: 20
| visibility 407
|
All-In [47750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30413
Joined: 11/15/99
|
Sen. DiFi should be brought up on ethics charges for
Sep 28, 2018, 8:37 AM
|
|
leaking the document from Dr. Ford. Conyers did a good job yesterday of cornering her, especially when she said she had not asked her staff, then her staff said yes you did.
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22387]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31281
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Given that Dr. Ford testified, that seems to be a moot point
Sep 28, 2018, 8:42 AM
|
|
Does that change the facts as we know them? Or, is it simply an effort to disqualify Dr. Ford's testimony as part of a Democratic Conspiracy?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I think the point is that this could...
Sep 28, 2018, 9:06 AM
|
|
have been handled in private.
There could have been an investigation done without having the press involved and it becoming a national spectacle. The Judge's family and Dr. Ford's family and the Judge and Dr themselves could have been spared all of this in the public.
Instead, it's clear to anyone willing to be honest that the ranking member sat on this until right before a vote was scheduled in an effort to sink the nomination and/or extend the process until after the mid-terms in the hopes that dems would take the Senate AND the dems could play up the whole "we need the FBI to be involved" line, knowing the pubs wouldn't want to delay the process any more.
And here's what gets me....Feinstein didn't even call Dr. Ford or meet with her to test out her story when she got the letter in July. Isn't that what any reasonable person would do?
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22387]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31281
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I don't doubt that politics was played, but that doesn't
Sep 28, 2018, 9:20 AM
|
|
make Dr. Ford's testimony any less credible. I think any honest broker would say that there has been no effort by the Republicans to get to the bottom of all of these allegations and that they are playing politics by suggesting that this is a Democratic Conspiracy in an effort to impugn Dr. Ford's credibility while they try to ram this nomination through. Lindsey Graham pretty much said so yesterday when he ranted and railed to that effect and then accused Dr. Ford of lying by questioning who paid for the lie detector test she took, which he would not do while she was in the room.
Why is Mark Judge in hiding? Republicans are trying to ram this nomination through for some reason without a thorough vetting of the nominee.
It's not surprising that politicians are playing politics. But, the lack of candor and effort to fully vet this nominee seems the most egregious and disconcerting fact of the spectacle.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Well, simply not true....
Sep 28, 2018, 9:38 AM
|
|
the committee got statements from all of the people Dr. Ford said were at the party. The dems chose not to participate in the committee investigation. Didn't even ask the Judge questions on the multiple calls with him over the past 2 weeks. The dems and their investigators could have submitted questions for Mr. Judge (the guy not Judge Kavanough), as he agreed to answer written questions under threat of perjury.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22387]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31281
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Mark Judge has refused to testify or comment publicly.
Sep 28, 2018, 10:06 AM
|
|
Senator Doug Jones from Alabama and other Democrats have asked the Judiciary Committee to subpoena Mark Judge, but they refuse.
Republicans insisted that the victim testify publicly but refused to call Mr. Judge to testify.
Why does Mr. Judge refuse to testify and why do Republicans refuse to call the third person in the room to testify?
Is it because they would rather it remain a he said - she said situation without any other witnesses?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
wrong again....
Sep 28, 2018, 10:50 AM
|
|
Mr. Judge has issued a sworn statement that he does not recall the event Dr. Ford claims. He's recovering from a serious addiction problem and presumably doesn't want to be assassinated by the dems on national TV. Can you not picture how that questioning would go? It's an allegation from 36 yrs ago. Mr. Judge has agreed to answer written questions. Why didn't the dems submit any to him?
As for Dr. Ford, when the letter was leaked, wasn't SHE the one that came out first and said she would testify in front of the committee?
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22387]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31281
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Wrong. You should read his letter. You obviously have not.
Sep 28, 2018, 5:47 PM
|
|
He refuses to testify and the Republicans refuse to subpoena him.
He's a drunk. If he testified to what he said in the letter, the reaction of the public would be "of course you don't remember, you're a drunk."
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I don't comment on things I haven't read/investigated....
Sep 28, 2018, 6:33 PM
|
|
His letter said he would not testify in public. After his statement his lawyer indicated that he would respond to any senate questions in writing and would cooperate with any investigation.
That has been confirmed again this afternoon.
He's a recover addict with depression and anxiety issues. I think that's pretty widely acknowledged. I think it's reasonable for him not to want to testify in public and let the dems try to rip him apart for political gain.
I sense the goal moving quickly with the dems...they have an FBI investigation now...next outrage will be everyone needing to testify in front of the committee.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15748]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2/1/99
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19901]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16718
Joined: 11/28/00
|
Re: “At this point, what difference does it make?”***
Sep 28, 2018, 6:36 PM
|
|
I see what you did there...
....HILLARY?!?
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 10117
Joined: 11/1/11
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47795]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44515
Joined: 9/5/02
|
I agree***
Sep 28, 2018, 9:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83115]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80156
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Lulz. Charges for what? Good luck proving
Sep 28, 2018, 10:53 AM
|
|
she leaked it.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Lulz. Charges for what? Good luck proving
Sep 28, 2018, 3:22 PM
|
|
At this point, perjury.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7555]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 8001
Joined: 6/8/05
|
Re: Sen. DiFi should be brought up on ethics charges for
Sep 28, 2018, 12:52 PM
|
|
the wrong people are being investigated ........all these lying dems are the ones who should be under investigation for corruption, treason, & fraud just to name a few.......it seems these crooks are getting away with everything except murder and this needs to stop and stop now........enough is enough..........they do not care about the truth and what is the right thing to do.......it is all about their political agenda and that is all they are concerned about.........they have broken all of our laws multiple times and it is time for THEM to be held accountable and prosecuted under the full extent of the law...........and yes there is a God and they WILL be held accountable because NO one lives forever.......................Go Tigers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93667]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
It could have likely been Ford or her lawyers.
Sep 28, 2018, 12:53 PM
|
|
DiFi is a moron but there's no pinning her down on this.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Sen. DiFi should be brought up on ethics charges for
Sep 28, 2018, 1:02 PM
|
|
The Reps couldn't attack Ford's credibility so they attacked the Dems.
Not exactly a new phenomenon.
Where was your political outrage when the Reps denied a sitting President his constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice?
It's different when it's your team, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Sen. DiFi should be brought up on ethics charges for
Sep 28, 2018, 3:23 PM
|
|
Where was your political outrage when the Reps denied a sitting President his constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice?
This old lie, again?
They are under no obligation to hold a confirmation hearing. You are confusing tradition with Constitutional law. The Constitution says the confirmation must go through the Senate. It does not say the Senate HAS to hold a hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Sen. DiFi should be brought up on ethics charges for
Sep 28, 2018, 4:20 PM
|
|
Where was your political outrage when the Reps denied a sitting President his constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice? This old lie, again? They are under no obligation to hold a confirmation hearing. You are confusing tradition with Constitutional law. The Constitution says the confirmation must go through the Senate. It does not say the Senate HAS to hold a hearing.
That is an excuse, not a reason. For the Senate to refuse to follow through with their constitutional mandate in order to specifically hold a seat open until another President is elected is, in my view, abandoning their constitutional mandate for purely partisan reasons.
It is precisely what Lindsey Graham accused the Democrats of yesterday. "Holding the seat open until you can take back the senate and confirm someone else. This is the most despicable display since I've been in politics". - Graham
Pot meet Kettle.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 10117
Joined: 11/1/11
|
I prefer "ChiFi". Much better ring to it.***
Sep 28, 2018, 1:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 20
| visibility 407
|
|
|