Day 4 Of The Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing: What Embarrassing, F*ed-Up Stuff Will Dems Pull Today?

[easyt65]

They have carried out a Schumer orchestrated 'Interruption campaign carried out Protestors that included the Leader of the Women's march - 44+ arrested and dragged out of the room...

They have repeated the ridiculous claim they can't possibly be expected to cast a vote without having read all the documents in an attempt to delay the hearing....
-- These are the same Libs who did not even read 1 page of the ACA yet raced into the chamber to pass the bill into law....

And of course yesterday Corey Booker, like some self-promoting drama queen, declared he was putting his own position in the Senate in jeopardy by boldly releasing confidential Senate documents...that had already been released. Oh...and he also exposed documents that showed Kavanaugh is AGAINST racial profiling and is actually a great candidate / will be a great USSC Justice. (Thank, Corey!)


So, what will the pathetic, desperate Dems try to do today?

Bwuhahahaha...........



Sen. Thom Tillis: At Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Democrats engage in desperate stunts

"Those on the left have tried their best to make a partisan spectacle out of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week on his nomination to the Supreme Court."


Media outlets celebrate Cory Booker's 'Spartacus' moment hours after it was proven to be inaccurate

"Cory Booker was painted as a liberal hero in the media after his dramatic pledge Thursday to release confidential emails sent by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and the adulation from the mainstream media continued even hours after it was revealed that the documents were neither particularly damning nor confidential."

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I wanna know when the vote will be.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Booker is a clown.

 

[Valerie]

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has made declarations under oath during his current and past confirmation hearings that are contradicted by documents from his time as a counsel to the president and staff secretary in the George W. Bush White House. Newly released documents have undermined Kavanaugh’s declarations to the Senate Judiciary Committee, contradictions that are drawing close scrutiny from many Democrats. Kavanaugh has denied making any misleading or false statements.


His role in accessing stolen documents: In 2002, a GOP aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Manuel Miranda, stole thousands of documents belonging to the committee’s Democratic staff. At the time, Kavanaugh was a White House lawyer working on judicial nominations, which included working alongside Miranda. In 2003, President Bush nominated Kavanaugh to his current position on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and his confirmation hearing was held in 2004—though he was not confirmed until two years later. During his 2004 hearing, Kavanaugh denied ever receiving any of the documents Miranda stole. Asked if he “ever come across memos from internal files of any Democratic members given to you or provided to you in any way?” he replied, “No.” In 2006, also under oath, he again denied ever receiving stolen documents.


But newly released documents show that Miranda had indeed sent Kavanaugh information from the stolen internal documents. The nominee continues to deny he knew the information was stolen. But he can no longer deny he received it.



BREAKING: Kavanaugh testified he never received any docs that even “appeared to … have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff.” Well, he got 8 pages of material taken VERBATIM from my files, obviously written by Dem staff, LABELED “not [for] distribution”. pic.twitter.com/eFlIBZ0Z1W


— Sen. Patrick Leahy (@SenatorLeahy) September 6, 2018




Five times Brett Kavanaugh appears to have lied to Congress while under oath

 

[easyt65]

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has made declarations under oath during his current and past confirmation hearings that are contradicted by documents from his time as a counsel to the president and staff secretary in the George W. Bush White House. Newly released documents have undermined Kavanaugh’s declarations to the Senate Judiciary Committee, contradictions that are drawing close scrutiny from many Democrats. Kavanaugh has denied making any misleading or false statements.


His role in accessing stolen documents: In 2002, a GOP aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Manuel Miranda, stole thousands of documents belonging to the committee’s Democratic staff. At the time, Kavanaugh was a White House lawyer working on judicial nominations, which included working alongside Miranda. In 2003, President Bush nominated Kavanaugh to his current position on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and his confirmation hearing was held in 2004—though he was not confirmed until two years later. During his 2004 hearing, Kavanaugh denied ever receiving any of the documents Miranda stole. Asked if he “ever come across memos from internal files of any Democratic members given to you or provided to you in any way?” he replied, “No.” In 2006, also under oath, he again denied ever receiving stolen documents.


But newly released documents show that Miranda had indeed sent Kavanaugh information from the stolen internal documents. The nominee continues to deny he knew the information was stolen. But he can no longer deny he received it.



BREAKING: Kavanaugh testified he never received any docs that even “appeared to … have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff.” Well, he got 8 pages of material taken VERBATIM from my files, obviously written by Dem staff, LABELED “not [for] distribution”. pic.twitter.com/eFlIBZ0Z1W


— Sen. Patrick Leahy (@SenatorLeahy) September 6, 2018




Five times Brett Kavanaugh appears to have lied to Congress while under oath

He did not lie. He did not know the files were supposedly stolen. Prove he did.

 

[Valerie]

Five times Brett Kavanaugh appears to have lied to Congress while under oath


Warrantless wiretapping: At a 2006 confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that he knew nothing of the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, launched under President George W. Bush, until the New York Times revealed it publicly in 2005. Kavanaugh insisted he’d heard “nothing at all” about the program before that, even though he was a senior administration aide.


But a September 17, 2001 email provided to the New York Times this week shows that Kavanaugh was involved in at least initial discussions about the widespread surveillance of phones that characterized the NSA program. In the email to John Yoo, then a Justice Department lawyer, Kavanaugh asked about the Fourth Amendment implications of “random/constant surveillance of phone and e-mail conversations of non-citizens who are in the United States when the purpose of the surveillance is to prevent terrorist/criminal violence?” Kavanaugh said Wednesday that his 2006 testimony was “100 percent accurate.” But the email, which describes the gist of the wiretapping program, which Bush approved in 2002, calls Kavanaugh’s claims of ignorance into question.

 

[g5000]

They have carried out a Schumer orchestrated 'Interruption campaign carried out Protestors that included the Leader of the Women's march - 44+ arrested and dragged out of the room...

They have repeated the ridiculous claim they can't possibly be expected to cast a vote without having read all the documents in an attempt to delay the hearing....
-- These are the same Libs who did not even read 1 page of the ACA yet raced into the chamber to pass the bill into law....

And of course yesterday Corey Booker, like some self-promoting drama queen, declared he was putting his own position in the Senate in jeopardy by boldly releasing confidential Senate documents...that had already been released. Oh...and he also exposed documents that showed Kavanaugh is AGAINST racial profiling and is actually a great candidate / will be a great USSC Justice. (Thank, Corey!)


So, what will the pathetic, desperate Dems try to do today?

Bwuhahahaha...........



Sen. Thom Tillis: At Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Democrats engage in desperate stunts

"Those on the left have tried their best to make a partisan spectacle out of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week on his nomination to the Supreme Court."


Media outlets celebrate Cory Booker's 'Spartacus' moment hours after it was proven to be inaccurate

"Cory Booker was painted as a liberal hero in the media after his dramatic pledge Thursday to release confidential emails sent by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and the adulation from the mainstream media continued even hours after it was revealed that the documents were neither particularly damning nor confidential."

Yep, Kavanaugh is as qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice as Merrick Garland is.

So don't give me some fucking hypocritical BULLSHIT about hack Senators playing games, retard.

 

[Valerie]

Five times Brett Kavanaugh appears to have lied to Congress while under oath


Torture: During the same 2006 confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that he “was not involved” in legal questions related to the detention of so-called enemy combatants.

But Durbin said Thursday that records show that there are at least three recorded examples of Kavanaugh participating in discussions of Bush administration detainee policy. Kavanaugh stood by his prior answer.


Judge Kavanaugh says he is a textualist. But he is twisting the plain meaning of the word “detention” to serve his own interests. It’s simply not credible. pic.twitter.com/fMwkej4Hva


— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) September 5, 2018

 

[dcbl]

Kav will be a great justice, thank you Mr President!

 

[Valerie]

The nomination of Judge William Pryor: In Kavanaugh’s 2004 confirmation hearing, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) asked the nominee about his support for William Pryor’s nomination to the 11th Circuit, given that Pryor had called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.” Kavanaugh responded, “That was not one that I worked on personally.”

Newly released documents suggest otherwise. Emails from the Bush White House show that Kavanaugh was involved in selecting Pryor, interviewing him, and shepherding his nomination through the Senate.



In 2004, Judge #Kavanaugh distanced himself from the controversial Judge Pryor nomination. He testified—repeatedly—that he “was not involved in handling his nomination.” Thanks to documents released at 3AM this morning, we now know that’s not true. pic.twitter.com/xLRXR8rcb4


— Sen. Patrick Leahy (@SenatorLeahy) September 6, 2018

 

[Valerie]

The nomination of Charles Pickering: During his 2006 confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh downplayed his role in the nomination of Charles Pickering, a controversial judicial appointee. (For instance, Pickering once reduced the sentence of a man who burned a cross in front of an interracial couple’s house.)

“This was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling,” Kavanaugh said.

But new emails show he may have been more involved than he let on.

 

[Valerie]

GOP leaders recently decided they wouldn’t request records that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh authored, generated or contributed during his time as White House staff secretary under President George W. Bush. And they’re not budging from this position.


Their change in course came after a July 24 meeting between Trump White House counsel Don McGahn and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the substance of which isn’t known.


Last Friday, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) criticized his GOP colleagues for the curious and troubling about-face and took them to task in a letter to McGahn. He asked if McGahn had spoken with Kavanaugh about the records, as well as Bush’s personal attorney, Bill Burck, who is advising the former president on the release of his administration’s documents.




Leahy asked if McGahn had “reason to believe any of the records relate” to several pertinent issues, including “a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”


Leahy’s letter calls into question the roles Kavanaugh and Burck played during the Bush administration and, more specifically, what involvement they had in the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage vigorously promoted by Bush-era Republicans ― a ban the Bush White House came to support in its first term.


Marriage equality and the broader fight for LGBTQ rights are continually put before the Supreme Court today, so it’s crucial for the public to know about Kavanaugh’s past ― and appropriate for senators to ask questions about it. After all, there’s no way Kavanaugh and Burck, two key figures in the Bush White House, weren’t at the center of discussions about this controversial amendment.

 

[BluesLegend]

Idiot Democrats stripped of power by the nuclear option throwing hissy fits all week, hilarious. A SCOTUS nomination stolen from Obama, Trump reshaping the SCOTUS for the next 30 years, Democrats are fit to be tied. Good times!

 

[Valerie]

< not a Democrat



patriotic Americans care about thorough and thoughtful consideration of SCOTUS nominees.

all rethuglicans EVER care about is using emo manipulation over dead zygotes and brown boogeymen just to get enough votes to protect robber barons.

 

[g5000]

The GOP blocked Garland's nomination for a year, abusing the filibuster to do so.

Then they exercised the nuclear option to block the filibuster option once they took the Senate.

And this fucking c*nt starts a topic about the games the DEMOCRATS are playing!!!

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

 

[The Original Tree]

They have carried out a Schumer orchestrated 'Interruption campaign carried out Protestors that included the Leader of the Women's march - 44+ arrested and dragged out of the room...

They have repeated the ridiculous claim they can't possibly be expected to cast a vote without having read all the documents in an attempt to delay the hearing....
-- These are the same Libs who did not even read 1 page of the ACA yet raced into the chamber to pass the bill into law....

And of course yesterday Corey Booker, like some self-promoting drama queen, declared he was putting his own position in the Senate in jeopardy by boldly releasing confidential Senate documents...that had already been released. Oh...and he also exposed documents that showed Kavanaugh is AGAINST racial profiling and is actually a great candidate / will be a great USSC Justice. (Thank, Corey!)


So, what will the pathetic, desperate Dems try to do today?

Bwuhahahaha...........



Sen. Thom Tillis: At Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Democrats engage in desperate stunts

"Those on the left have tried their best to make a partisan spectacle out of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week on his nomination to the Supreme Court."


Media outlets celebrate Cory Booker's 'Spartacus' moment hours after it was proven to be inaccurate

"Cory Booker was painted as a liberal hero in the media after his dramatic pledge Thursday to release confidential emails sent by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and the adulation from the mainstream media continued even hours after it was revealed that the documents were neither particularly damning nor confidential."

So in other words, Corey Booger didn't even bother to read the very documents he, himself released?

PERFECT!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

< not a Democrat



patriotic Americans care about thorough and thoughtful consideration of SCOTUS nominees.

all rethuglicans EVER care about is using emo manipulation over dead zygotes and brown boogeymen just to get enough votes to protect robber barons.

Did you just use emojis like a 12-year old? Cannot take your post seriously. Sorry.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The GOP blocked Garland's nomination for a year, abusing the filibuster to do so.

Then they exercised the nuclear option to block the filibuster option once they took the Senate.

And this fucking c*nt starts a topic about the games the DEMOCRATS are playing!!!

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Are you really shocked that politicians are biased toward their party and themselves? Really?