moldyoldy

All of you complaining about Straight Up. need to reread this one paragraph, it should tell you all you need to know about trump and whiney kava.

I'm not sure what specific question you were referring to, but I don't recall any questions where a senator was asking for a straight "yes" or "no" that couldn't be answered with a straight "yes" or "no". For instance, Kamala Harris asked a very simple question... "Have you discussed Mueller or his investigation with anyone at Kasowitz, Benson & Torres — the law firm founded by Marc Kasowitz, president Trump's personal lawyer?" Given the fact that Kavanaugh was nominated by a president who's election is under investigation, this question is nothing less than the sworn duty of a senator on the confirmation hearing. If there is any suspicion that the president nominated a judge to help excuse him from wrong doing, it should by all means be questioned. Wouldn't you agree? And it WAS indeed a very simple "yes" or "no" question, which Kavanaugh refused to answer

He will shield trump from prosecution in every way possible.

debeda

Anyone who listened to kamala Harris ask that series of questions would know that the named law firm has 250 employees AND that evening judge kavenaugh looked up their employee roster and answered Harris' question with a no the next day. He had no way of knowing everyone who worked there and she refused to provide a name even after he told her repeatedly that he couldn't know cuz it was a large firm. She looked like an idiot and so do you for bringing that up.

moldyoldy

That is BS, he would only be talking to the men running the law firm.

debeda

As I said, Judge Kavanaugh looked up the roster that evening and answered Harris' question with a "no" the next day in hearings. How can that be b.s.?

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

I would rather that Nickolai hold it in until he explodes into a million tiny maggots.

moldyoldy

The next day?

Smedley_buzkill

Why yes. He was so afraid of your disapproval he went and answered the question, after sweating in fear all night long. Given the Liberal propensity to turn a tempest in a teacup into a hurricane, he probably wanted to make sure he didn't provide any nails for his attempted crucifixion over insignificant details. Harris, like all the Democrats, and like you, start from the premise that Kavenaugh must be guilty since Trump nominated him. There was and is nothing even remotely impartial and even more remotely honest about this effing witch hunt.

son of witless

Have you ever had a beer ?

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

He doesn't have to provide that anyways.

debeda

straightUp Loc: California

It's good to see someone respond to my post with a respectable question. I did post that "I see Trump's presidency as one of the most belligerent attacks on our civil rights since the 30's".

So when I say "civil rights", I am not referring to specific individual rights as much as I am to our civil rights as a whole. To explain this, I need to point out that ALL of our civil rights depend on the preservation of our public interest as a republic and THAT is what Trump is attacking.

So, I'll give you two examples... The first is Trump's public reaction to the NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem to protest racial profiling and police brutality. The 1st Amendment grants them the right to do this and yet Trump's message was that they should be fired. Instead of supporting free speech Trump did all he could to silence it.

Now before you launch into an argument about what I just stated, let me take this up to a level that precious few people seem to consider... and bear in mind that I think outside the box so please refrain from assuming that am parroting something you've already heard. People don't know what to do with independent thinking and that's why they often just tag it with a "radical progressivism" sticker. That being said, let's get back to the NFL players and specifically to the argument that the NFL players are paid to play football not protest. The point I'm making here is that the NFL is a private business and as such it is NOT part of the public interest, so in effect the 1st Amendment has no power over the situation. That's because the Constitution only applies to the government. If you read the 1st Amendment, you will notice that it starts off saying "Congress shall make no law..." It's a law that applies to Congress, not the NFL. So technically, Trump wasn't attacking anyone's constitutional right. What he was demonstrating through his suggestion was the power of private ownership over free speech, which is ONLY protected in the public domain.

Now we can move on to the second example... Trump's championing of arbitration agreements. You might already know this but I'll explain anyway... An arbitration agreement is a contract in which someone agrees not to take their grievances to a court of law but to settle with a private owner through an arbitration process that effectively removes the person from public interest... specifically the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution. I started an entire OPP topic on this back in June... Trump's Attacks on the Working Class 3 - Forced Arbitration.

This is how American freedom will end if we don't start to wise up. It's the classic "look at this hand, not that one" trick. You're looking for evidence in the hand Trump WANTS you to look at ("Which of your civil rights have been changed?") while the OTHER hand is doing the attacking... (civil rights laws don't NEED to change when arbitration agreements make them irrelevant).

One last thing... I mention private ownership in a negative sense here because I am referring specifically to forms of private ownership that oppress people. As a homeowner, I have no problem with private ownership of things, but I draw the line at people... I don't think any person should be "owned". Slavery and absolute monarchies are two examples of oppression through private ownership. Our founders fought hard to liberate America from that kind of private ownership (colonies) and secure a replacement system based on public interest (republic) on which we banked all our civil rights. Today there is a reversion and Trump is leading the charge.

debeda

I disagree with your thought process and challenge your logic on the above. You of course have the right to your opinion.

straightUp Loc: California

You people try so hard to make excuses for him. Harris explicitly asked if he had discussed Mueller or his investigation with anyone at Kasowitz, Benson & Torres..." Think about this for a second... We're not talking about water cooler conversations here... The Mueller investigation is probably the highest profile investigation into the presidency since Watergate and Kavanaugh is a judge on the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals. Do you actually think ANY discussion about Mueller and his investigation that Kavanaugh may have had with ANYONE at a law firm contracted by the president would be so insignificant that it would slip his mind?" Oh excuse me, I can't remember if I discussed the investigation with anyone from that company... there are so many of them... Let me go home and look at the roster." (Yeah, right). Harris didn't ask for names, she simply asked if he had that discussion with ANYONE at Kasowitz, Benson & Torres. The only way any such conversation could possibly slip his mind is if he's senile or a complete moron. I don't think he's either of those things which leaves us with no where else to go but the assumption that he was stalling for time to confer with advisors to see if he could get away with lying.

Harris got exactly what she needed from that question.

straightUp Loc: California

Saying you challenge someone's logic and actually doing it are not the same thing debeda.

emarine

Same exact reason Kavanaugh avoided answering simple direct yes or no questions in the Senate hearing... the man is a political lackey not a Supreme Court Justice...