Chas_P

I agree. Why should the FBI investigate? No crime victim, regardless of credibility, gets to dictate the terms of the investigation. The State of Maryland has no statute of limitations on sexual assault crimes. So if she's truly seeking justice for a 36 year-old crime, rather than just being a pawn for Feinstein et al, that avenue is always open; of course she would have to prove her case. Whatever the outcome, Dr. Blasey will come out OK. Kavanaugh will probably be confirmed and she will be a martyr who can command big speaking fees, maybe a book deal, and the solemn pride that must be hers to know that she has besmirched the reputation of a truly decent man.

Ken, I would never attempt to help you understand anything; you're much smarter than I am. But I will offer my opinion. I think it all goes back to the mid-60's and Timothy Leary with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on,_tune_in,_drop_out and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_authority. A lot of young people bought into that philosophy with the "love-ins" in San Francisco and the "if it feels good, do it" mentality. So my question is the same as yours. "Where were the adults at this house party? Where were Blasey's and Kavanaugh's parents?" Perhaps they were turned on, tuned in, and at a party of their on at the country club. You and I are of a different generation. I would not even dream of letting my 15 year-old daughter (if I had one) attend a house party that I knew would be unchaperoned with alcohol flowing; same goes for my 17 year-old son (and I had two of those). I'm sure you feel the same. Perhaps Judge Kavanaugh was falling-down drunk and trying to get Dr. Blasey's clothes off; he unequivocally denies it. Perhaps Dr. Blasey was falling down drunk too; she stands by her story, yet she says she doesn't remember exactly where the party was, how she got there, or how she got home. And so far she has ignored the committee's invitation to appear next Monday to tell her story which she initially released anonymously. So we really don't know who, if either, is telling lies.

I respect your opinion. I also respect Dr. Blasey's right to tell her story....whatever that story may be. I read the article to which you linked....probably before you did....and I have many of the same questions the author had. Time will tell.

I understand. I had a similar experience. After a guy attacked me I was determined to beat his brains out by banging his head up against a school bus and likely would have had a teacher not broken it up. Perhaps Kavanaugh is guilty. I don't think I ever knew a teenage boy who didn't want to get his hand into a girl's britches. But the timing of the revelation....35 years later after he's been nominated to the SCOTUS and considering the Dems' behavior in the committee hearings...is what I find suspicious. And disgraceful.

I also thought anyone above the age of 13 understood the concept of "she said, he said." You really are amusing.

My initial response to your question was tongue in cheek as I'm sure you surmised. Here's what I would have said had I been more eloquent.

Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings have been so contentious that now even Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is complaining. Democrats who pulled wild, self-aggrandizing stunts during the Kavanaugh hearings last week should once again hang their heads in shame after Ginsburg remarks condemning the way things have changed since she was confirmed to the high court. “The way it was was right. The way it is is wrong,” Ginsburg said at a talk at George Washington University Law School Wednesday, according to Amy Wang of the Washington Post. “I wish I could wave a magic wand and have it go back to the way it was,” the 85-year-old Supreme Court Justice said, reflecting on her own confirmation process before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993. The Senate confirmed her nomination by former President Bill Clinton in an amazing 96-3 vote. It seems Republicans did not treat Ginsburg any where near as harshly as Democrats have treated Kavanaugh, with 40 Republican Senators voting for her to be confirmed. President Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee has faced unrelenting scrutiny leading up to a scheduled vote by the Judiciary Committee on Thursday – a vote Democrats will likely try to block. The hearings have been peppered with confrontational questioning of Kavanaugh by Democrats and shouts from protesters. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine has even been targeted by progressives with a crowdfunding campaign to replace her if she votes for Kavanaugh. As liberals panic about Ginsburg’s age and intentions of staying on the bench, she has indicated that her dislike of Trump will keep her going another five years on the high court. In a lighter moment during her talk at George Washington University Law School, Ginsburg was asked about her famous fitness routine and whether any of her Supreme Court colleagues could do more push-ups than her. She pointed to Justice Neil Gorsuch as a possibility since he rides his bike to work each day, Ginsburg noted, adding “I think our chief is also a possibility,” referring to Chief Justice John Roberts, according to CNN’s Ariane de Vogue. Ginsburg’s take on confirmation hearings that have become a “highly partisan show” raised plenty of eyebrows on Twitter.

More than five dozen women came forward Friday to defend Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh against an alleged high school incident, calling President Trump’s pick for the high court “a good person.” The 65 women, who claim to have known Kavanaugh for more than 35 years, penned a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee to vouch for his character. “We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983. For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect,” the letter read. “We strongly believe it is important to convey this information to the Committee at this time.” The women wrote that while Kavanaugh attended Georgetown Preparatory School, an all-boys high school in Bethesda, Maryland, they knew him through “social events, sports, church, and various other activities.” So one woman says he tried to take her bathing suit off and 65 other women who knew him at the time say they don't believe her. From my point of view the timing of this bombshell is very suspect. So how do you see it all ending?

Well he did get Hurricane Florence reduced from a Cat 4 to a Cat 1, much akin to, "this is the day the seas will stop rising" when Obama was elected. :lol:

As I have said before, I don't like Trump's tweets. I would much prefer him to say, "We did the best we could considering the circumstances." I, like you and many others, grieved for the people of Puerto Rico. I sent money for hurricane relief. I would prefer that nobody die and that homes be rebuilt and power restored within 48 hours. But that's not how it works. Please see my previous post: 4(major) 130-156 mph 113-136 kt 209-251 km/h Catastrophic damage will occur: Well-built framed homes can sustain severe damage with loss of most of the roof structure and/or some exterior walls. Most trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.

Diana, I don't pay much attention to what he tweets. I do pay a lot of attention to what he gets done.

Not really. I was just pointing out that there were three Cat 4 hurricanes to hit US soil in less than 30 days, the FEMA response to them, and that by the time the third one hit FEMA personnel was stretched thin and basic provisions were dangerously low. You say that the FEMA response was "underwhelming". Considering the circumstances, please tell us what you would have done differently.

No. And I don't think mankind can control the forces of nature. Apparently you do. Good luck with that.

Hurricane Harvey hit Texas on August 25, 2017. Texas has a population of ~24 million. FEMA deployed 30,000 personnel, 5.1 million meals, 4.5 million liters of water, and 20,000 tarps. 20 days later on September 10, Hurricane Irma hit Florida. Florida has a population of ~21 million. FEMA deployed 22,000 personnel, 10.9 million meals, and 98,000 tarps. 10 days later on September 20, Hurricane Irma hit Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has a population of ~3 million. Personnel was already stretched thin, key emergency supplies were already scarce, and basic provisions like food, water, and tarps were dangerously low. FEMA deployed 10,000 personnel, 1.6 million meals, 2.8 million liters of water, and 5,000 tarps. The National Hurricane Center describes a Cat 4 hurricane thusly: 4(major) 130-156 mph 113-136 kt 209-251 km/h Catastrophic damage will occur: Well-built framed homes can sustain severe damage with loss of most of the roof structure and/or some exterior walls. Most trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months. So rather than sitting at your keyboard snarking about President Trump's "failure", if you have a masterplan to avert death and suffering from a natural disaster such as a Cat 4 hurricane please rush it to FEMA right away. Time is short.

Q. E. D.

Exactly. All the Dems had said they would vote nay before the hearings even opened. All the Repubs had said they would vote aye. The Repubs outnumber the Dems, so we all know how the movie ends before the show even starts. Why bother?

I watched a lot of it. I watched all the grandstanding by Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Richard Blumenthal, et al and I watched a lot of Judge Kavanagh's thoughtful answers to the senators' questions. But the most memorable moment for me was . It's about 15 minutes long, so if you don't have 15 minutes to spare don't bother.

I have previously stated in this forum that there are many things I don't like about Trump. His tweets are one of them. Your question was did I have "cause for concern" for one specific tweet and it drew a response of "no". I should have predicated it with, "No more so than any of his other tweets. I don't like any of them". As I understand it...and I'm sure you will correct me if wrong...the investigation to which you refer is ongoing and will continue regardless of what Trump tweets about Jeff Sessions. Therefore I'm not all bent out of shape about the tweet. If those being investigated are eventually indicted, prosecuted, found guilty, and punished I'm all for it.

No.

I guess this just proves, once again, that we don't all see things the same way.

I didn't say anything. I just posted, verbatim, what Alan Dershowitz said. So place your bet either with or against him. :rolleyes:

Here’s how the Federal Election Campaign Act works: For the rules, contribution limits, and reporting requirements of law to apply to an expenditure, it has to be made “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election. But such a broad definition could cover anything on which a candidate spends money. As former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, that could include “buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage.” So the campaign finance law specifies that such personal expenses are not considered campaign-related expenses even though they might “influence” the election outcome. As Dershowitz says, the law is convoluted. There has been only one instance of the Justice Department prosecuting someone for a campaign finance violation....John Edwards in 2012 for paying his mistress $1M from campaign funds. Justice lost the case. Edwards was acquitted on one count and a mistrial was declared on five other counts.

Alan Dershowitz on MSNBC: "The president doesn't break the law if, as a candidate, he contributes to his own campaign. So if he gave $1 million to two women as hush money, there would be no crime. If he directed his lawyer to do it, and he would compensate the lawyer, he's committed no crime. The only crime is if a third-party, namely, Cohen, on his own, contributed to a campaign, that would be a campaign contribution. So it is a catch-22 for the prosecution. iI they claim that the president authorized him to do it or directed him to do it, it is not a crime for anybody. If Cohen did it on his own, then it is a crime for Cohen but not the president. This is going to be a very difficult case for the prosecution to make, precisely because the laws on election are so convoluted."

Yes. If proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Time will tell. FWIW I also find the endless delusional assaults and calls for impeachment from the Dems and MSM to be equally despicable.