United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Senate panel formally postpones Kavanaugh vote
Source:
The Hill
URL Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate ... mally-postpones-kavanaugh-vote
Published: Sep 18, 2018
Author: Jordain Carney
Post Date: 2018-09-18 21:19:28 by Hondo68
Keywords: JJ Swamp posponed indefinately, yet to say when Senate, panel will vote, no comment
Views: 9994
Comments: 133
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday formally postponed a vote on Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination, canceling a meeting set for later this week where a vote was initially expected to happen
Staffers for Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent out a notice that the Thursday business meeting had been canceled. The Senate is expected to leave town for the week on Tuesday.
The delay for a vote to advance Kavanaugh's nomination was widely expected following allegations from Christine Blasey Ford, a professor who alleges that Kavanaugh held her down and tried to remove her clothes at a party in the early 1980s when both were in high school.
Kavanaugh has denied the allegations.
Grassley announced this week that Kavanaugh would testify before the Judiciary Committee for a second time next Monday, days after the initial committee vote was scheduled
Grassley has yet to say when the Senate panel will now vote on Kavanaugh's nomination
The chairman declined to comment when leaving a closed-door meeting of Judiciary Committee Republicans on Monday night. Grassley also dodged questions about it on Tuesday morning during an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt
Kavanaugh's nomination first appeared on the Judiciary Committee's agenda roughly a week after the initial round of hearings took place.
President Trump on Tuesday ramped up his defense of Kavanaugh amid the allegations, saying he "is not a man who deserves this." Kavanaugh confirmation before midterms will result in GOP loss of the HOR, he's that bad.
The GOP wing of the party will totally lose the HOR if they confirm *JJ Swamp before the midterm elections.
*Jesuit Judge Swamp
Now Kavi can go back to picking up Hillary's spent shell casings, and other cover up ops to protect her.
Poster Comment:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-23) not displayed.
.
.
.
#24. To: hondo68 (#12)
Hold on here. Which Democrat has "gone to the mat" for this lying bitch? Name one Democrat who has said "I believe her". When this whole thing blows up, no Democrat wants to be on record as being a part of it. Where are the Hollywood types stating they believe her 100%? The MSM? The liberal talk shows? The late night comics? SNL? Her peers at the university? Her friends? If they believe her, I haven't seen or heard anything.
Anonymous, of course.
This murdering cunt right here Sen. Hirono: Men Need To "Shut Up," Kavanaugh Accuser Needs To Be Believed And I Believe Her
Just for the record, I don't believe she mentioned Kavanaugh's name during those sessions.
They care about how this will make them look. They could give a FF about some teenage groping incident 35 years ago. And so should we. But the MSM and the #metoo movement will never allow that.
She believes the accuser because, well, the accuser said so. Kavanaugh said it didn't happen ... but she doesn't believe him. Let's say the accuser comes forward and admits she was confused and it was some other guy. Will Sen. Hirono then vote to confirm Kavanaugh?
That's as likely to happen as Kavanaugh saying I didn't do that to her, I did that to Betty Boop.
I think it's dawning on her that she's in waaaay over her head. Someone miscalculated and told her the Republicans, misogynists all, would try to bury it and go forward with the vote despite the accusation. And that would be that. Then the Democrats would have the excuse they were looking for to vote "no". I don't think she ever envisioned herself testifying, under oath, on national television, in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But she's been in academia her entire life. She doesn't know the real world.
With her not remembering when this happened exactly and whose home it was, her credibility is at stake. I think she mentioned only two people present at the party by name, Kavanaugh and Judge. She may be telling the truth like I said before, but there is no way to prove it. How can Kavanaugh testify about something that he claims didn't happen? I'll guess he'll make a short statement to that effect and be done with it.
Correct. But according to her there was another girl and two other boys. Where are they? Don't they see the news? Why aren't they stepping forward to either confirm or deny her story? I'm still confused as to why she said Mark Judge was there. She had to know he'd deny it making it two against one.
Maybe he'll testify he was out of the country that year. If she provided more more more specifics as to the date and location he could defend himself. But that vagueness along with the passage of 35 years, makes it difficult. Very unfair to any defendant.
Those are good questions although the other three may have been unaware at the time that there was alleged hanky panky going on in the other room. Yes, where are they? Well, I'm off to lunch now.
Criminal Democrat-Communists and stupid Republicrats: This bitch wrote a similar letter during Judge Gorsich's hearing. It has been covered up, but some honest Congressmen remember it well. So Why not trample over the evil Democraps and vote Kavanaugh in!
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
One last thought, the Pubbies played this one pretty well. Borrowed these comments from another site.
True. But they could testify a) there was a party, b) Kavanaugh and Judge were there, and c) they were both very drunk. Given the statements on record by Kavanaugh and Judge, that alone would be damning. Or they could say there was a party but the two drunk boys were Brett Kavastein and Mark Juggs.
They were given lemons and made lemonade. I would have shoved the lemons up Feinstein's ass, but that's me.
Really? Like exactly WHAT??
Kavanaugh confirmation before midterms will result in GOP loss of the HOR, he's that bad. Back it up or STFU.
Really? Like exactly WHAT?? Like the fact he led the Starr “investigation” into the death of Vince Foster, and concluded against all logic and all the evidence that he killed himself in Fort Marcy Park. You have to be quite a “judge” to support these kinds of impossible official narratives. By anyone’s standards, Kavanaugh proved his establishment mantle in that “investigation” alone. Kavanaugh, as White House counsel under Bush, also sought to limit compensation under the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. "If you're not cop...you're little people" Pity the Poor Stormtroopers: Baby Bou-Bou Ambushed Them
You have to be quite a “judge” to support these kinds of impossible official narratives. By anyone’s standards, Kavanaugh proved his establishment mantle in that “investigation” alone. Is that your party's (D) opinion and quibble? And btw -- why should I believe you and your alleged "source"? You guys do nothing but lies your azzes off 110% of the time. Kavanaugh, as White House counsel under Bush, also sought to limit compensation under the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. Are you seeking the hangman's noose or electric chair, Madam?
At best, you've proven Kavanaugh scores a 9 out of a perfect 10. Wanna start making arguments to dismiss YOUR judges over "qualifications"? START WITH YOUR PARTY'S (D) fake/partisan SCOTUS judges: Bader-Ginsburg, "The Wise Latina," and the other chubby man-hating ACLU/anti-Constitution judge. And don't forget Prog-globalist, Breyer.
"Damning" in what context?? Teen-age high school kids getting drunk? Big whoop. This is all bullsh**. 100% of Democrats facing an iota of proper, reasonable scrutiny would all be JAILED. NONE of this desperate fairy tale "GOTCHA!" and so-called "Litmus Test" by the highly criminal Democrat Party should be humored.
For starters, Kavanaugh is on record saying he wasn't at that party.
Get your facts straight Sparky - I'm not a Democrat. Partisan politics is Kabuki theater for the rubes.
"If you're not cop...you're little people" Pity the Poor Stormtroopers: Baby Bou-Bou Ambushed Them
Another name. "PJ". Turns out to be Patrick Smyth who says he wasn't at any such party. “I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth says in the letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to CNN. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”
But...you join them in their fatwa against Trump. And the Bible/gun clingers. This isn't a fake/Dubya "you're either for us or against us" BS choice; It's real. The Dems are at war. And "freedom" is NOT on their menu.
Yes...But here's my point: Even IF he was -- *would* it be "damning" to be drinking at a party as a teenager? This bizarre standard created out of thin air by Dems (which began with Moore) shouldn't be considered even slightly seriously.
Kavi & Crisco are from the same Jesuit mobster zone, the MD/NJ swamp. Authoritarian goons, aka tyrants. It's a miracle that Judge Napolitano turned out so well, he's old school patriotic American. Gonna busta cap on the tyrants! Father Rodreguez & the Boys, Team Kavanaugh. (some say that they're not REAL Jesuits)
I don't have a fatwa against Trump ass-clown. I disagree with him on completely different reasons than the Dems - but by all means, keep playing that false left-right paradigm card. You just don't get it Poindexter - one can be critical of Trump and not be a Democrat. I'm just not into the cult of personality like so many of you here seem to be. I've already stated that he's done some good things. I think he's an obnoxious clown, a megalomaniacal narcissist, but still - he's better than Hillary. Speaking of Hillary - when is Trump going to make good on his campaign promise and "LOCK HER UP"? Oh wait, that's right - he says "she's suffered enough". How's that "swamp draining" thingie coming along?
"If you're not cop...you're little people" Pity the Poor Stormtroopers: Baby Bou-Bou Ambushed Them
In your paranoid mind, maybe so. And "freedom" is NOT on their menu. Apparently, not on yours either. If you Trump-ettes had your way, you would silence anyone who isn't totally on board the Trump Train. I don't mind Trump so much, his childishness and whining aside - it's his genuflecting worshipers like you who are simply over the top with your idolizing the guy.
"If you're not cop...you're little people" Pity the Poor Stormtroopers: Baby Bou-Bou Ambushed Them
Great chart - at one time Luberator would have seen the Trump presidency for what it really is. Nowdays, he's too busy drinking the kool-aid. Drain the swamp? When is that going to start?
"If you're not cop...you're little people" Pity the Poor Stormtroopers: Baby Bou-Bou Ambushed Them
You're missing the point. He said he wasn't there. If the other three (now 2) say there was a party and he was there, the left will say he's a liar and we can't trust anything he says. He's toast. But why would he lie about not being there? Too many witnesses. If he was there he could have very easily said he was but he was sober and never left the downstairs.
Have you been smoking crack? Ron Paul and company are doing themselves a big disservice by acting like spoiled rotten children. You are just like the demoncrats in having a tantrum! I really think you guys are mad that Trump is actually accomplishing everything you wanted by different means and you are not part of it!
Love the chart and its footnote. It's great to be on Team God!
True. She is never going to appear and never had intent to appear. Let the confirmation proceed after she does not appear. Regardless of any potential mid-term fallout, this appointment could determine the makeup of the court for the next 20 years of so. Not making the appointment could make the senators up for reelection an endangered species with the GOP voters.
A major miscalculation was the possibility that it would stop the nomination to SCOTUS and that would be that. If the allegation is sufficient to disqualify Kavanaugh from SCOTUS, it is sufficient to impeach and remove him from the Circuit Court. Blasey Ford would still be in the middle of a shit storm.
For those keeping score, there has been a third male, Patrick J. (P.J.) Smyth who was alleged to be at the party, and he has denied the allegation. https://nypost.com/2018/09/19/kavanaughs-prep-school-pal-fords-wrong-i-was-never-at-party/ By Yaron Steinbuch September 19, 2018 | 8:40am | Updated Another former classmate of Brett Kavanaugh denied attending a party like the one described by the woman accusing the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her during a party in 1982 when they were teens, according to a report. Patrick J. Smyth — who graduated with Kavanaugh from Georgetown Prep in North Bethesda, Md., in 1983 — also denied seeing any “improper conduct” from the nominee, CNN reported, citing a letter written by Smyth’s lawyer and sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth says in the statement, “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh. “Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women,” he continued. “To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.” The letter was expected to be sent Wednesday to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Earlier this year, before Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh became public, Smyth signed a letter testifying that the judge “is singularly qualified to be an Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court,” along with a dozen more of the all-boys school’s alumni. Kavanaugh has vehemently denied attending the party and the allegation of sexually and physically assaulting Ford. On Tuesday evening, Ford’s attorney Lisa Banks told CNN that Ford will talk with the committee — but that she’s not prepared for a hearing as soon as Monday. “This just came out 48 hours ago,” she told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, referring to her client’s account in the Washington Post. Mark Judge, another friend and classmate of Kavanaugh’s, has been named as the other person who was in the room when the alleged incident took place. He also has denied the incident took place.
I think you're an attorney, right? Well, believe it or not, I actually knew all that but didn't want to complicate my answer. Plus, politics dictates the committee vote be taken to report a recommendation, and Grassley's not going to call the vote until he's sure he'll get a positive result - however much arm-twisting that takes. I'd forgotten about Clarence Thomas' outcome, though.
Ken Starr was the Independent Counsel. Hickman Ewing was Starr's Deputy Independent Counsel. Young Brett Kavanaugh was an Associate Independent Counsel. "Kavanaugh's" report, in October 1997, concluded that the death of Foster resulted from suicide. The investigation was led by Ken Starr and it is the Starr Report. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754067900252;view=1up;seq=2 http://www.fbicover-up.com/ewExternalFiles/Purdue%20University%20vol.1.pdf To sum up, the OIC has investigated the cause and manner of Mr. Foster's death. To ensure that all relevant issues were fully considered, carefully analyzed, and properly assessed, the OIC retained a number of experienced experts and criminal investigators. The experts included Dr. Brian D. Blackbourne, Dr. Henry C. Lee, and Dr. Alan L. Berman. The investigators included an FBI agent detailed from the FBI-MPD Cold Case Homicide Squad in Washington, D.C.; an investigator who also had extensive homicide experience as a detective with the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., for over 20 years; and two other OIC investigators who had experience as FBI agents investigating the murders of federal officials and other homicides. The OIC legal staff in Washington, D.C., and Little Rock, Arkansas, participated in assessing the evidence, examining the analyses and conclusions of the OIC experts and investigators, and preparing this report. The autopsy report and the reports of the pathologists retained by the OIC and Mr. Fiske's Office demonstrate that the cause of death was a gunshot wound through the back of Mr. Foster's mouth and out the back of his head. The autopsy photographs depict the wound in the back of the head, and the photographs show the trajectory rod through the wound. The evidence, including the photographic evidence, reveals no other trauma or wounds on Mr. Foster's body. The available evidence points clearly to suicide as the manner of death. That conclusion is based on the evidence gathered and the analyses performed during previous investigations, and the additional evidence gathered and analyses performed during the OIC investigation, including the evaluations of Dr. Lee, Dr. Blackbourne, Dr. Berman, and the various OIC investigators.
Text at page 32-35, footnote 123 at page 32. Usually within a week of the end of hearings, the Judiciary Committee meets in open session to determine what recommendation to “report” to the full Senate. The committee may report favorably, negatively, or make no recommendation at all. A report with a negative recommendation or no recommendation permits a nomination to go forward, while alerting the Senate that a substantial number of committee members have reservations about the nominee. If a majority of its members oppose confirmation, the committee technically may decide not to report a nomination, to prevent the full Senate from considering the nominee. However, since its creation in 1816, the Judiciary Committee’s almost invariable practice has been to report even those Supreme Court nominations that were opposed by a committee majority,123 thus allowing the full Senate to make the final decision on whether the nominee should be confirmed.124 This committee tradition was reaffirmed in June 2001 by the committee’s then-chair, Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), and its then-ranking member, Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), in a June 29, 2001, letter to Senate colleagues. The committee’s “traditional practice,” their letter stated, ... has been to report Supreme Court nominees to the Senate once the Committee has completed its considerations. This has been true even in cases where Supreme Court nominees were opposed by a majority of the Judiciary Committee. We both recognize and have every intention of following the practices and precedents of the committee and the Senate when considering Supreme Court nominees.125 In recent decades, reporting to the Senate frequently has included a printed committee report, although the three most recent Supreme Court nominations were reported without printed reports.126 Prepared behind closed doors, after the committee has voted on the nominee, the printed report presents in a single volume the views of committee members supporting a nominee’s confirmation as well as “all supplemental, minority, or additional views ... submitted by the time of the filing of the report....”127 No Senate committee, however, is normally obliged to transmit a printed report to the Senate. Instead, the chair of the Judiciary Committee may simply file a one-page document reporting a nomination to the Senate and recommending whether the nomination should be confirmed. A printed report, it can be argued, is valuable in providing for Senators not on the Judiciary Committee a review, in one volume, of all of the reasons that the committee’s members cite for voting in favor or against a nominee.128 A written report, however, might not always be considered a necessary reference for the Senate as a whole. For instance, in some cases, Senators not on the Judiciary Committee might believe they have received adequate information about a nominee from other sources, such as from news media reports or gavel-to-gavel video coverage of the nominee’s confirmation hearings.129 Further, preparation of a written report will mean additional days for a nomination to stay with the committee before it can be reported to the Senate.130 In some situations, this might be viewed as creating unnecessary delay in the confirmation process, particularly if there is a desire to fill a Court vacancy as quickly as possible.131 The Senate usually, but not always, has agreed with Judiciary Committee recommendations that a Supreme Court nominee be confirmed.132 Historically, negative committee reports, or reports without recommendation, have been precursors to nominations encountering substantial opposition in the full Senate, although a few of these nominations have eventually been confirmed by narrow margins.133 - - - - - - - - - - 123 Since its creation in 1816, the Judiciary Committee has reported to the Senate 106 Supreme Court nominations. Of the 106, seven were reported unfavorably—those of John Crittenden (1829), Ebenezer R. Hoard (1869), Stanley Matthews (1881), Lucius Q.C. Lamar (1888), William B. Hornblower (1894), John J. Parker (1930), and Robert H. Bork (1987). Two were reported without recommendation—those of Wheeler H. Peckham (1894) and Clarence Thomas (1991). See CRS Report RL33225, Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 - 2009: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President (under heading “Nominations Reported Out of Committee to Full Senate”). - - - - - - - - - -
The equivalent of a "sweeper" who brushes out the illegal aliens footprints with a branch, so that the Border Patrol won't know that they invaded the USA. Covering up the Clinton's tracks gets you an A+ rating in the D&R party.
Comments (65 - 133) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAnother reason Trump hasn’t gone to the mat for Kavanaugh
#25. To: nolu chan (#14)
According to three sources... a former West Wing official... According to sources... Two sources told me the White House has heard rumors
#26. To: misterwhite (#24)
Which Democrat has "gone to the mat" for this lying bitch? Name one Democrat who has said "I believe her".
#27. To: nolu chan (#16)
I saw that she received the couples counseling in 2012
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
"Instead, they're actually stalling and CARING about some guy's high school sexual hijinks 34 years ago"
#29. To: A K A Stone (#26)
Sen. Hirono: Men Need To "Shut Up," Kavanaugh Accuser Needs To Be Believed And I Believe Her
#30. To: misterwhite (#29)
Let's say the accuser comes forward and admits she was confused and it was some other guy
#31. To: Fred Mertz (#30)
That's as likely to happen as Kavanaugh saying I didn't do that to her, I did that to Betty Boop.
#32. To: misterwhite (#31)
#33. To: Fred Mertz (#32)
I think she mentioned only two people present at the party by name, Kavanaugh and Judge.
#34. To: Fred Mertz (#32)
How can Kavanaugh testify about something that he claims didn't happen?
#35. To: misterwhite (#33)
But according to her there was another girl and two other boys. Where are they? Don't they see the news? Why aren't they stepping forward to either confirm or deny her story?
#36. To: hondo68 (#0)
#37. To: misterwhite (#33)
Grassley and the GOP actually played this perfectly, and got the best result possible given Feinstein's dirty trick. They demonstrated good faith by delaying the committee vote and offering a chance to tell her story under oath, in public or in private. She has refused. In the minds of most voters, they acted with reasonable fairness.
#38. To: Fred Mertz (#35)
Those are good questions although the other three may have been unaware at the time that there was alleged hanky panky going on in the other room.
#39. To: Fred Mertz (#37)
One last thought, the Pubbies played this one pretty well.
#40. To: hondo68 (#5)
There are many good reasons not to confirm Kavanaugh...
#41. To: hondo68 (#0)
(Edited)
Poster Comment (Hondo):
#42. To: Liberator, hondo68 (#40)
There are many good reasons not to confirm Kavanaugh...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much
#43. To: Deckard (#42)
Like the fact he led the Starr “investigation” into the death of Vince Foster, and concluded against all logic and all the evidence that he killed himself in Fort Marcy Park.
#44. To: Deckard (#42)
#45. To: misterwhite, Fred Mertz (#38)
They could testify a) there was a party, b) Kavanaugh and Judge were there, and c) they were both very drunk. Given the statements on record by Kavanaugh and Judge, that alone would be damning.
#46. To: Liberator (#45)
"Damning" in what context??
#47. To: Liberator (#44)
START WITH YOUR PARTY'S (D) fake/partisan SCOTUS judges
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much
#48. To: Fred Mertz (#35)
#49. To: Deckard (#47)
(Edited)
Get your facts straight Sparky - I'm not a Democrat.
#50. To: misterwhite (#46)
For starters, Kavanaugh is on record saying he wasn't at that party.
#51. To: Deckard, Liberator, Jesuit Mafia, Vicomte13, Christie, anti-Patriot Act, Fred Mertz (#42)
#52. To: Liberator (#49)
But...you join them in their fatwa against Trump.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much
#53. To: Liberator (#49)
This isn't a fake/Dubya "you're either for us or against us" BS choice; It's real.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much
#54. To: hondo68 (#51)
Kavi & Crisco are from the same Jesuit mobster zone, the MD/NJ swamp. Authoritarian goons, aka tyrants.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much
#55. To: Liberator (#50)
Yes...But here's my point: Even IF he was -- *would* it be "damning" to be drinking
#56. To: hondo68 (#0)
Kavanaugh confirmation before midterms will result in GOP loss of the HOR, he's that bad. The GOP wing of the party will totally lose the HOR if they confirm *JJ Swamp before the midterm elections. *Jesuit Judge Swamp Now Kavi can go back to picking up Hillary's spent shell casings, and other cover up ops to protect her.
#57. To: hondo68 (#51)
#58. To: misterwhite (#20)
No. What she wants is to drag this out for another 2-3 months then refuse to testify under oath.
#59. To: misterwhite, Fred Mertz (#31)
Someone miscalculated and told her the Republicans, misogynists all, would try to bury it and go forward with the vote despite the accusation. And that would be that. Then the Democrats would have the excuse they were looking for to vote "no".
#60. To: misterwhite, Fred Mertz (#38)
True. But they could testify a) there was a party, b) Kavanaugh and Judge were there, and c) they were both very drunk. Given the statements on record by Kavanaugh and Judge, that alone would be damning.
Kavanaugh’s prep school pal: Ford’s wrong, I was never at party
#61. To: nolu chan (#10)
(Edited)
A committee vote to recommend or not recommend the nomination is not an actual necessity.
#62. To: Deckard, Liberator, hondo68 (#42)
Like the fact he led the Starr “investigation” into the death of Vince Foster, and concluded against all logic and all the evidence that he killed himself in Fort Marcy Park.
X. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
#63. To: Hank Rearden (#61)
politics dictates the committee vote be taken to report a recommendation, and Grassley's not going to call the vote until he's sure he'll get a positive result - however much arm-twisting that takes.
Reporting the Nomination
#64. To: nolu chan, sweeper coyote (#62)
Young Brett Kavanaugh was an Associate Independent Counsel.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]