Brett Kavanaugh Is Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee: Live Updates

[haymarket]

You are attaching meaning to something that is false. That is the extent of it. Argue the facts and quit playing martyr every time someone disagrees with you.

I just corrected you on the facts after you made an error about Congress.

 

[Jack Hays]

Poor Chuck Schumer

• By David Von Drehle

Poor Chuck Schumer.
Those are not words I ever expected to write. The leader of the Senate Democrats is a smart cookie (perfect SAT score: just ask him!) from Brooklyn back when Brooklyn was Brooklyn, before the arrival of man buns and artisanal cheese. He’s the son of an exterminator, pronounced ’stermunatuh, for chrissake. Clearly, Schumer has plenty of brains and street savvy to take care of himself; the last thing he needs is pity from the sort of person who uses a semicolon.
But what a fix he’s in with President Trump’s nomination of federal judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The donors and activists of his party’s base are pushing him to maintain a united front against the conservative nominee. But if Schumer delivers, he might forfeit his chances of leading a Democratic majority in the foreseeable future. . . .

 

[Mithros]

Yes, he should be hung or worse for obviously allowing the Russians to talk and spread propaganda regarding the election, oh, wait that was Obama who allowed that to happen. Let me know when you figure out what laws are being broken by anyone spreading propaganda during an election cycle obviously promoting chaos that they knew would generate radical responses which indeed they are getting. Over a year and a half, no laws broken but you are making every effort to divert from the strong economic results being generated. The silent majority will pay you back this fall.

I'm sorry, my constitutional law is a bit rusty. I must have missed the part where low unemployment numbers are a valid defense against criminal behavior.


(Has anyone else noticed that the Trump supporters have adopted his word salad approach to discourse? There are like seven thoughts there, none of which are related or well formed.)

 

[danarhea]

Since you mentioned our Constitution, there is nothing in it which says a president cannot be indicted.

The opinion issued during Watergate is NOT policy nor does it bind Mueller to anything.

What Mueller will do is the same they did with Nixon. Trump will not be indicted, but will be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, and the issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted will once more be kicked down the road, to be settled on another day.... or not.

 

[Napoleon]

What Mueller will do is the same they did with Nixon. Trump will not be indicted, but will be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, and the issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted will once more be kicked down the road, to be settled on another day.... or not.

The Constitution identifies a process for removing a President following impeachment for “and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” So it’s obvious that the President can indeed be criminally indicted and the question isn’t even legitimate.

 

[Conservative]

I'm sorry, my constitutional law is a bit rusty. I must have missed the part where low unemployment numbers are a valid defense against criminal behavior.


(Has anyone else noticed that the Trump supporters have adopted his word salad approach to discourse? There are like seven thoughts there, none of which are related or well formed.)

Oh, I see, people are guilty until proven innocent in your world? Your constitutional law is indeed rusty as it isn't a cafeteria document where you pick and choose what you want to enforce. Still waiting for the laws trump broke and proof that Russia hacked voting machines to cast votes for Trump so that when Trump got elected and rebuilt our economy, created more jobs, and rebuilt the military it would benefit Russia? is that liberal logic?

Please explain to us all when you developed that entitlement mentality and inability to admit that you are wrong on any issue? Seems being well informed has a different meaning among liberals. How Dare Trump do the following:

I would like anyone to explain to me what policies of Trump are right wing, authoritarian and fascist instead of being common sense, middle of the road policies that most people would like. Here are some of the things that Trump has done relating to major policies:

He has reduced regulations as fast as he can, moving the power and freedom back to the people and the private sector and taking away power from the powerful government. That is the opposite of what an authoritarian, fascist would do.

He has reduced taxes on businesses and individuals as fast as he can, moving the power and freedom back to the people and the private sector and taking away power from the powerful government. That is the opposite of what an authoritarian, fascist would do.

He is giving the people and businesses more freedom to choose the kind of health care they receive and the kind of health insurance policies they choose to buy. He even allows people to choose not to buy insurance if they like. That is the opposite of what an authoritarian, fascist would do.

He is seeking to enforce laws that Congress wrote, especially on immigration. How is that right wing or authoritarian?

He is negotiating directly with North Korea to try to reduce their threat to the World. What is right wing, authoritarian, dictatorial or fascist about that?

He is trying to reduce the threat of Iran to the Middle East and the rest of the World, especially as they threaten “Death to America.” What is right wing, authoritarian, dictatorial or fascist about that?

He has kept the promise of three previous presidents and Congress to move the Israeli Embassy to Israel. What is right wing, authoritarian, dictatorial or fascist about that? Isn’t that what a President should do, keep our promises?

He is asking NATO to pay what they promised to pay. Isn’t that what our President should do?

He backed out of deals that the previous president did on his own in Paris and Iran They aren’t actually treaties if Congress didn’t approve them

 

[Mithros]

Oh, I see, people are guilty until proven innocent in your world? Your constitutional law is indeed rusty as it isn't a cafeteria document where you pick and choose what you want to enforce. Still waiting for the laws trump broke and proof that Russia hacked voting machines to cast votes for Trump so that when Trump got elected and rebuilt our economy, created more jobs, and rebuilt the military it would benefit Russia? is that liberal logic?

Please explain to us all when you developed that entitlement mentality and inability to admit that you are wrong on any issue? Seems being well informed has a different meaning among liberals. How Dare Trump do the following:

 

[haymarket]

What Mueller will do is the same they did with Nixon. Trump will not be indicted, but will be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, and the issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted will once more be kicked down the road, to be settled on another day.... or not.

You certainly could be correct. I hope you are wrong and the go the full Monty with this. If a president knows he can be indicted, that may put a bit of the fear of God in future ones and maybe guys like Trump will be a little less assholeish.

 

[Conservative]

Typical non response, how about addressing the following:

I would like anyone to explain to me what policies of Trump are right wing, authoritarian and fascist instead of being common sense, middle of the road policies that most people would like. Here are some of the things that Trump has done relating to major policies:

He has reduced regulations as fast as he can, moving the power and freedom back to the people and the private sector and taking away power from the powerful government. That is the opposite of what an authoritarian, fascist would do.

He has reduced taxes on businesses and individuals as fast as he can, moving the power and freedom back to the people and the private sector and taking away power from the powerful government. That is the opposite of what an authoritarian, fascist would do.

He is giving the people and businesses more freedom to choose the kind of health care they receive and the kind of health insurance policies they choose to buy. He even allows people to choose not to buy insurance if they like. That is the opposite of what an authoritarian, fascist would do.

He is seeking to enforce laws that Congress wrote, especially on immigration. How is that right wing or authoritarian?

He is negotiating directly with North Korea to try to reduce their threat to the World. What is right wing, authoritarian, dictatorial or fascist about that?

He is trying to reduce the threat of Iran to the Middle East and the rest of the World, especially as they threaten “Death to America.” What is right wing, authoritarian, dictatorial or fascist about that?

He has kept the promise of three previous presidents and Congress to move the Israeli Embassy to Israel. What is right wing, authoritarian, dictatorial or fascist about that? Isn’t that what a President should do, keep our promises?

He is asking NATO to pay what they promised to pay. Isn’t that what our President should do?

He backed out of deals that the previous president did on his own in Paris and Iran They aren’t actually treaties if Congress didn’t approve them

 

[Anthony60]

Since you mentioned our Constitution, there is nothing in it which says a president cannot be indicted.

The opinion issued during Watergate is NOT policy nor does it bind Mueller to anything.

It only gives Congress the power to impeach a POTUS. That's it. It doesn't need to say what you can't do. That is the remedy for a need to take action against a President. Otherwise, any prosecutor anywhere, anytime in the country could get an indictment and effectively stop the President from doing his job.

 

[haymarket]

It only gives Congress the power to impeach a POTUS. That's it. It doesn't need to say what you can't do. That is the remedy for a need to take action against a President. Otherwise, any prosecutor anywhere, anytime in the country could get an indictment and effectively stop the President from doing his job.

Impeachment is an option if the goal is to remove his from office and no other goal. Other options are also available as the president is still a citizen subject to the same laws of the land as every other citizen is if you wish to pursue those avenues.

Congress has the remedy of impeachment as a co-equal branch of government.

The courts have the remedy of indictment and trial as a co-equal branch of government.

 

[danarhea]

It only gives Congress the power to impeach a POTUS. That's it. It doesn't need to say what you can't do. That is the remedy for a need to take action against a President. Otherwise, any prosecutor anywhere, anytime in the country could get an indictment and effectively stop the President from doing his job.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. "

Article II Section 4 of the Constitution says that, if the president is convicted of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors, he can be removed from office. Yes, the president can be indicted and convicted, and upon conviction can be impeached. He can be removed without the courts by impeachment, and removed also for convictions. What is needed for convictions? Indictments and trials, of course. This wording is pretty plain and simple.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. "

What don't you understand about this? For, and Conviction of. Pretty simple.

 

[Anthony60]

Impeachment is an option if the goal is to remove his from office and no other goal. Other options are also available as the president is still a citizen subject to the same laws of the land as every other citizen is if you wish to pursue those avenues.

Yes, after he is out of office.

Congress has the remedy of impeachment as a co-equal branch of government.

Yep.

The courts have the remedy of indictment and trial as a co-equal branch of government.

Nope.

 

[dcsports]

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. "

Article II Section 4 of the Constitution says that, if the president is convicted of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors, he can be removed from office. Yes, the president can be indicted and convicted, and upon conviction can be impeached. He can be removed without the courts by impeachment, and removed also for convictions. What is needed for convictions? Indictments and trials, of course. This wording is pretty plain and simple.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. "

What don't you understand about this? For, and Conviction of. Pretty simple.

The conviction in that portion of the constitution is referring to the impeachment and removal process, not criminal convictions.

 

[Anthony60]

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. "

Article II Section 4 of the Constitution says that, if the president is convicted of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors, he can be removed from office. Yes, the president can be indicted and convicted, and upon conviction can be impeached. He can be removed without the courts by impeachment, and removed also for convictions. What is needed for convictions? Indictments and trials, of course. This wording is pretty plain and simple.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. "

What don't you understand about this? For, and Conviction of. Pretty simple.

You understand that the conviction they are referring to is the impeachment trial, right? Or are you saying that any prosecutor in all the land has the power to indict the President, effectively stopping him from doing his job, and halt his Presidency? Time after time, prosecutor after prosecutor, effectively making it a waste of time to even have a President, since both sides will then do it.

 

[haymarket]

Yes, after he is out of office.

Yep.

Nope.

There is nothing in law to back up your opinion.

 

[Anthony60]

There is nothing in law to back up your opinion.

Except for the Constitution. What do you have backing up your claim?

 

[haymarket]

Except for the Constitution. What do you have backing up your claim?

The Constitution does not give the president any special exemption. So it is the Constitution that backs me up.

No man is above the law and that includes the president.

 

[Anthony60]

The Constitution does not give the president any special exemption. So it is the Constitution that backs me up.

No man is above the law and that includes the president.

You don’t seem to understand how it works. The Constitution clearly states the procedure to remove a President. It doesn’t need to state what you can’t do.


Sent from my iPhone XXX using None of your damn business.

 

[danarhea]

The conviction in that portion of the constitution is referring to the impeachment and removal process, not criminal convictions.

On impeachment FOR, AND conviction..... Duh!!!!

 

[haymarket]

You don’t seem to understand how it works. The Constitution clearly states the procedure to remove a President. It doesn’t need to state what you can’t do.


Sent from my iPhone XXX using None of your damn business.

The constitution does state one mechanism for removing a president.

The constitution also creates a judiciary with its own powers and no man is above the law coming under those powers if they commit a crime should the judiciary decide to go after them just like any other citizen under the law.

 

[upsideguy]

That's great, but none of the indictments thus far are related to the election. Most of the indictments/convictions are related to lying to the FBI, conspiracy/money la charges and some relation to Russia. Part of this has turned into an investigation looking for election interference, but hoping that we'll find something equally damaging tied to Trump.

Similar to convicting a murderer with tax evasion.

Actually, ALL of the indictments made in February 2018 related to the election. I even posted the actual indictment. Apparently you had some erroneous impression and failed to read what I posted. Here is the actual indictment. Why not take a moment to read it so that your next post doesn't appear that you can't be bothered to learn.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/rosenstein-mueller-indictment-russia/553601/

"Tying it all together?" I also didn't realize investigations involved formulating a conclusion and looking for evidence that supports that conclusion...

2. The Trump campaign - Russian relationships are numerous.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ies-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868

The specifics of those relationships and interdependencies are not known to us as few of us have one of the world's finest investigative organizations at our disposal. It is a bit difficult for the lay person to tie it all together in a meaningful way to see if their was collusion, conspiracy, election fraud or other malfeasance. That is why the justice department hired Bob Mueller. Let us remind you of his mission:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

...and, of course, he hired a crack team with a particular expertise on financial fraud (interesting)

Lawyers Robert Mueller hired for the Trump-Russia investigation - Business Insider

...while people have dealt with the Mueller team say they are competent and laser focused...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/01/politics/michael-caputo-senate-interview/index.html

he was hired to get to the bottom of this, and he will.

Why wouldn't or shouldn't it be close, because no one expected it to be? That is faulty reasoning.

3. Wow, you really missed the point on this one. I was not making a comment that the election was closer than expected, I was making the point that the election was so close that any little thing could have made the difference, including the Russian interference.

 

[Hedgology]

Actually, ALL of the indictments made in February 2018 related to the election. I even posted the actual indictment. Apparently you had some erroneous impression and failed to read what I posted. Here is the actual indictment. Why not take a moment to read it so that your next post doesn't appear that you can't be bothered to learn.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/rosenstein-mueller-indictment-russia/553601/

How about you cite/quote the portion I'm supposed to be looking at. Telling people to "go read it" doesn't help me understand why your argument makes sense if I don't know what supports your claim.

2. The Trump campaign - Russian relationships are numerous.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ies-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868

The specifics of those relationships and interdependencies are not known to us as few of us have one of the world's finest investigative organizations at our disposal. It is a bit difficult for the lay person to tie it all together in a meaningful way to see if their was collusion, conspiracy, election fraud or other malfeasance. That is why the justice department hired Bob Mueller. Let us remind you of his mission:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

...and, of course, he hired a crack team with a particular expertise on financial fraud (interesting)

Lawyers Robert Mueller hired for the Trump-Russia investigation - Business Insider

...while people have dealt with the Mueller team say they are competent and laser focused...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/01/politics/michael-caputo-senate-interview/index.html

he was hired to get to the bottom of this, and he will.

If it's not known to anyone, how do you know what he is supposed to be looking for?

3. Wow, you really missed the point on this one. I was not making a comment that the election was closer than expected, I was making the point that the election was so close that any little thing could have made the difference, including the Russian interference.

But you automatically jump to Russian interference, because reasons?

 

[humbolt]

I see what you're doing...
You can stop with the partisan fear mongering now.

Sources tell me that Trump has ordered a mold inspection for Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

 

[Anthony60]

The constitution does state one mechanism for removing a president.

Bingo! The one and only way. Clearly stated, no others mentioned.