Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Finn, the difference is even before XX was nominated Schumer and co. said they were going to fight. Using fear mongering as usual to rile up the base based and Pelosi using it to gin up money... on ??? Fear mongering to get people to give them money is really what it all about.
At this point at least he doesn't seem to be an activist and the left had a melt down once again over nothing.
Fear mongering was coming from the alt-right who could not stop repeating how violence would erupt when the pick is announced. That was never going to happen, no matter who was nominated.
Are you disappointed violent riots did not happen, or why do you keep talking about imaginary melt-downs?
Kavanaugh was picked by Trump soley because he believes presidents should be immune to supoenas, lawsuits and indictments.
Yep.
What is most frightening is the language that Kavanaugh used:
A sitting president shouldn't be able to be criminally indicted, "no matter whatevidenceof wrongdoing is uncovered." Kavanaugh truly believes that a sitting POTUS should be above the law.
Donald Trump and his closest advisers are well aware that Mueller is coming. May be be next month, might be April 2019, but eventually, Bob Mueller is coming. And he's going to bring a TON of evidence with him.
What better way for Trump to get out of that situation than to have a SCOTUS judge like Kavanaugh that will argue the sitting POTUS 1) Should have the power to fire a Special Counsel and 2) be immune to indictments?
Finn, the difference is even before XX was nominated Schumer and co. said they were going to fight. Using fear mongering as usual to rile up the base based and Pelosi using it to gin up money... on ??? Fear mongering to get people to give them money is really what it all about.
At this point at least he doesn't seem to be an activist and the left had a melt down once again over nothing.
"The left" is not having a meltdown. It's only in your imagination that they are. There are some people on the left, like Schumer, who have said they're going to oppose him, but I'd hardly call that a "meltdown." That some of the more liberal democrats oppose him - so what? Did "the right" have a "meltdown" when Obama nominated Elena Kagan, or did some on the right merely oppose her? What you are seeing from some on the left in response to Kavanaugh's nomination is no different than what you saw from the right in response to Kagan's nomination.
Fear mongering was coming from the alt-right who could not stop repeating how violence would erupt when the pick is announced. That was never going to happen, no matter who was nominated.
Are you disappointed violent riots did not happen, or why do you keep talking about imaginary melt-downs?
As an independent, I am cool with this pick.
Actually I didn't hear that but I heard Pelosi sent emails asking for money and Schumer saying he was going to fight no matter who it was, and asking Democrats politicians to put party before their jobs to vote against XX.
What is most frightening is the language that Kavanaugh used:
A sitting president shouldn't be able to be criminally indicted, "no matter whatevidenceof wrongdoing is uncovered." Kavanaugh truly believes that a sitting POTUS should be above the law.
Donald Trump and his closest advisers are well aware that Mueller is coming. May be be next month, might be April 2019, but eventually, Bob Mueller is coming. And he's going to bring a TON of evidence with him.
What better way for Trump to get out of that situation than to have a SCOTUS judge like Kavanaugh that will argue the sitting POTUS 1) Should have the power to fire a Special Counsel and 2) be immune to indictments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
UPDATE: NBC reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell has corrected her earlier tweets, which she admits were misleading. It turns out that the suggestion that Kennedy negotiated the selection of Kavanaugh with Trump was not true.
I’ve deleted this tweet because it incorrectly implies a transactional nature in Kennedy’s replacement. I am told by a source who was not directly part of the talks that Kennedy provided Pres. Trump/ WH a list of acceptable replacements. (1/2) pic.twitter.com/ptxJmrbH9S
— Leigh Ann Caldwell (@LACaldwellDC) July 10, 2018
In other words, more "Fake news," this time from NBC. But don't expect the leftist media to correct this "Fake News" with the same publicity with which they originally promoted it.
Is that your response when you disagree with somebody but can't refute anything they said?
I don't have to, it was clearly ran with by people such as you and then the "tweet" was provided where she did not tell the truth and took back her initial tweet...
What is most frightening is the language that Kavanaugh used:
A sitting president shouldn't be able to be criminally indicted, "no matter whatevidenceof wrongdoing is uncovered." Kavanaugh truly believes that a sitting POTUS should be above the law.
Donald Trump and his closest advisers are well aware that Mueller is coming. May be be next month, might be April 2019, but eventually, Bob Mueller is coming. And he's going to bring a TON of evidence with him.
What better way for Trump to get out of that situation than to have a SCOTUS judge like Kavanaugh that will argue the sitting POTUS 1) Should have the power to fire a Special Counsel and 2) be immune to indictments?
I don't really think this opinion is too far out of mainstream legal thinking. Trumps fear should be impeachment, he could be prosecuted after he leaves office I suppose.
You should probably read what Kavanagh said instead of repeating like a parrot whatever liberal talking head de jour you got your lines from.
In fact not only did he not say that a President is above the law, he said the exact opposite:
One might raise at least two important critiques of these
ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of
government. I strongly agree with that principle.
A second possible concern is that the country needs a check
against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the
Constitution already provides that check. If the President does
something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.
No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accom-
plish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.
Moreover an impeached and removed President is still subject to
criminal prosecution afterwards.
The only things I'm against him on is the pro-choice rulings and the comments about impeachment despite the Starr investigation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
