Blasey Ford Lawyer: We ‘Welcome’ FBI Investigation Into Kavanaugh...but

[XenaLee]

My wife went into watching the testimony believing Ford might be credible. I allowed for the fact that something bad might have happened to Ford at a party, but she's lacking in so much information, she's most likely got the party mixed up and Kavanaugh mixed up with some other guy.
My wife though ended up simply not believing her about anything she said. She thinks Ford is a total loony tune and is making the whole thing up.

I agree with your wife.

[Fishrrman]

catfish wrote:
"As much as he slammed Obama over his circumvention techniques (EO's)....   Wouldn't that be hypocritical?"

You are entirely missing the point.

A recess appointment to the High Court is 100% Constitutional and it's been used before in the twentieth century.

There is no "circumvention of technique" -- ZERO. It's a Constitutional prerogative that the president has.

I urge you to do a little googlin' on this subject.
Once you have done so, you're going to come back here and post, "I didn't know that!"

The democrat-communists have "gone nuclear" with their attack on Kavanaugh.
If Mr. Trump uses his (again, 100% Constitutional) power to recess-appoint Judge Kavanaugh, that's what I'd call "fighting back with style".

I want to see Mr. Trump fight back tooth and nail, with the same fury that Brent Kavanaugh revealed in his testimony Thursday. I'll bet I'm not the only rank-and-file Republican who's willing to go this route.

That testimony saved his nomination, but ONLY if Mr. Trump will follow through and use HIS full power against the democrat-communists to WIN this thing.

The Republicans sure as hell AIN'T WINNING right now.

Is this what you want? (and I ask that question to EVERYone reading this reply)

[Hoodat]

The problem with a recess appointment is that it is not permanent.  The nominee will still require confirmation by the Senate, which will be less likely after the President's bypass.

[Bigun]

The problem with a recess appointment is that it is not permanent.  The nominee will still require confirmation by the Senate, which will be less likely after the President's bypass.

And I don't think Kavanaugh would go for it.

[Silver Pines]

Not necessarily.   People can have repressed memories "pop up" that are 100% false.... even though they are 100% ""sure"" the memory is accurate.   Psychiatrists and people in that industry know that only too well.  Which is another reason why this whole thing is based on a blatant farce.

@XenaLee

Very true.

[Fishrrman]

Hoodat wrote:
"The nominee will still require confirmation by the Senate, which will be less likely after the President's bypass."

Without confirmation, the appointee serves out the term of Congress (up to 2 years).

But... consider...
No, we DO NOT want the Senate to hold a confirmation vote as it currently is.

But... after the elections, beginning January 2019, the Senate may have a larger Republican majority than it has now -- perhaps 2 more Republicans, perhaps 3, perhaps even 4.

These are going to be "brand-newbie Senators" who need to prove their loyalty to the party and prove to the voters back home that they were the right choice.

I'm willing to gamble that the newcomers will vote 100% for the Kavanaugh confirmation.
And also, Flake and Corker will be gone.

With these new votes, the weak twin sisters, Collins and Murkowski, will have their influence rendered moot.

Once again, I ask:
Can't anybody here play this game?
We won't win, if we're not willing to play, and use every rule of the game that there is to be used.

Perhaps Brent Kavanaugh doesn't want to play.
In that case, he keeps his seat on the Court of Appeals.
But after his fiery testimony on Thursday, I got this sense... just this sense... that he wants to take the big swing...

[XenaLee]

Hoodat wrote:
"The nominee will still require confirmation by the Senate, which will be less likely after the President's bypass."

Without confirmation, the appointee serves out the term of Congress (up to 2 years).

But... consider...
No, we DO NOT want the Senate to hold a confirmation vote as it currently is.

But... after the elections, beginning January 2019, the Senate may have a larger Republican majority than it has now -- perhaps 2 more Republicans, perhaps 3, perhaps even 4.

These are going to be "brand-newbie Senators" who need to prove their loyalty to the party and prove to the voters back home that they were the right choice.

I'm willing to gamble that the newcomers will vote 100% for the Kavanaugh confirmation.
And also, Flake and Corker will be gone.

With these new votes, the weak twin sisters, Collins and Murkowski, will have their influence rendered moot.

Once again, I ask:
Can't anybody here play this game?
We won't win, if we're not willing to play, and use every rule of the game that there is to be used.

Perhaps Brent Kavanaugh doesn't want to play.
In that case, he keeps his seat on the Court of Appeals.
But after his fiery testimony on Thursday, I got this sense... just this sense... that he wants to take the big swing...

My spidey sense voice (don't ask) is saying that Kav will be confirmed.  Doesn't say when, but that he will be.  So for now, at least, I'm taking a chill pill... sitting back.... and relaxing.   

[Hoodat]

Hoodat wrote:
"The nominee will still require confirmation by the Senate, which will be less likely after the President's bypass."

Without confirmation, the appointee serves out the term of Congress (up to 2 years).

But... consider...
No, we DO NOT want the Senate to hold a confirmation vote as it currently is.

But... after the elections, beginning January 2019, the Senate may have a larger Republican majority than it has now -- perhaps 2 more Republicans, perhaps 3, perhaps even 4.

In order to get rid of Tester, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin, and McCaskill, we need to have them on record voting against Kavanaugh.  With a recess appointment, we don't get that.  Even if Kavanaugh does not get confirmed, with the pickup of 2 or more GOP seats, Kavanaugh gets confirmed next year.

[Snarknado]

Heard on Fox form a former fibbie that they probably interview Ford and Kavanaugh again given their recent testimony under oath.

I hope that Collins, Murkowski and Flake have pledged to vote for Kavanaugh if the FBI did another (repetitive and unnecessary) investigation.

Fox keeps running the clip of Biden with his sarcastic sneering remarks about the inappropriateness of Republicans asking for am FBI investigation all those years ago. I hope it's used in ads.

Maybe on the plus side the inevitably inconclusive investigation will provide some cover for the 3 wafflers...

[austingirl]

Will they welcome questions about why Ford places a 13 year old, Leland, at a drinking party with 17 year old boys? Ford's best friend is two years younger, which is weird in high school.

[catfish1957]

Will they welcome questions about why Ford places a 13 year old, Leland, at a drinking party with 17 year old boys? Ford's best friend is two years younger, which is weird in high school.

Good point.  Would love to see if she can be implicated for child endangerment.

[XenaLee]

Will they welcome questions about why Ford places a 13 year old, Leland, at a drinking party with 17 year old boys? Ford's best friend is two years younger, which is weird in high school.

Funny that certain details, like that point re: Leland's age back then, are never brought up during these endless hearings.  It's about as odd as someone witnessing a gang-bang at a party and then going back to nine other similar parties.