Jenksismyhero

Flake's looking at a potential presidential run or some other non-congressional race. I think he played this so that he could say he was conflicted, but that after an FBI investigation found nothing he felt confident in his decision to vote yes.

I think they voted to advance it to the floor, but they also agreed to proceed with the FBI investigation within a week?

Hmm, Flake now asking for an FBI investigation

Yeah but lying about an affair is lying about a specific thing, a specific act. Lying about whether you've ever drunk to excess or not... i mean...technically he could have and not remembered so his answer saying he never has (to his knowledge) isn't a lie. If anything his lack of ... intelligence? wherewithal? whatever the word... of knowing that that sort of grand statement is problematic is more of a reason to preclude him than his lies about what a good kid he was.

Eh, i'm torn. 99.99% of the time, yes, lying is not acceptable and should preclude someone from being an SC justice. But in this context...he's basically just lying about whether he was a douchey drunk frat guy. I don't think it's all that significant in the grand scheme of things.

I think he lied about his drinking and partying and how much of a choir/church boy he was. I tended to believe him about the specific allegations involving Ford. It's funny because you all took his sign of anger as being entitled or whatever and I took it as a guy who was emotional and pissed off that he was falsely accused. He dodged questions about the FBI investigation and whether he would personally call for it. I don't really blame him. Why should he invite that? He's there answering questions. He answered written questions. He has given sworn statements, etc. etc. All the key witnesses have not corroborated her story. I agree with him that an FBI investigation won't move the needle anywhere here. So, can't really blame him that he isn't all gung-ho about an investigation that may delay his own confirmation. I don't see that as a sign of guilt like you guys do. Having said that, I still want/wanted the Repubs to agree to the FBI investigation just to remove it from the table. I think they should have called for the FBI investigation and they should have subpoenaed all of the people she claims to be at that party. I dont think anything meaningful actually comes of that, it's still a she said/he said scenario, but at least you can claim that you did all you could to investigate the claims. No one has talked about it on here, but I also found it interesting that not a single Democrat, to my knowledge, asked Kavanaugh about the other accusations. Its almost as if every member of that committee didn't feel comfortable bringing those allegation up and agreed not to bring it up. Not sure if that was a strategic play or not. If you believe Grassely (and of course none of you do), he sent letters to the 2nd and 3rd victims' attorneys asking for more info but those attorneys aren't responding.

Even if they aren't attorneys they each have a staff of how many? There were limited questions on his calendar, on his claims of drinking, etc. It's not rocket science. And if they aren't equipped to handle some cross examination, why are they on a committee that conducts hearings where they ask people questions? Harris especially, a former district attorney in San Fran, acting like the FBI are experts in interviews while she can't do it... GMAFB

Dems lost a chance to actually ask the guy pointed questions and/or to poke holes in his story. He spent ten minutes discussing his love for beer and drinking and yet denied ever getting excessively drunk and none of the Dems hammered him on that. He made so many stupid, exaggerated claims, but instead of asking questions, Dems grandstanded and tried to score political points for their future political careers.

Lol, Dems walk out and start giving speeches to the press. Just so happens that 20 women suddenly appear behind the person giving the speech to give that great camera view. Not planned or anything... The grandstanding on both sides of this is just so fucking nauseating. This whole circus has been Exhibit A on the argument for term limits.

She's the foot lady, right?

Let me help you. I think this is what you meant: 1) Victims are victims, plain and simple. No one deserves to be assaulted, no one asked to be assaulted. There are victims and there are criminals under the law. There is no "contributory fault" in criminal law. You don't assign blame to the victim...they are just the victim. 2) In speaking about crimes and of circumstances around those crimes, you can say that some people didn't act in the best way possible and that they may have increased their risk of harm unnecessarily in a given situation. You are criticizing their actions without saying they are deserving of the crime or that they are at fault for the crime. If you walk down an alley in a shitty neighborhood in the middle of the night screaming "I have 10 grand in cash in my pocket" and you get robbed, no one would say that you are not a victim of a crime or that you deserved to be a victim or that your actions justified the crime. What you are saying is, you increased the risk of harm with your actions and when advising others on what to do/what not to do, that may be an example of what not to do. If I had a daughter in college and she went to parties where she knew the drinks were being spiked and knew that girls were passing out and possibly being raped, guess what, I would advise her NOT to do that. Not because she would DESERVE to be assaulted/raped for going, not because she would JUSTIFY the assault/rape by going, but because it increases her risk of being the victim and it's just not a smart thing to do. These are things you can comment on after the fact as not smart actions without pointing to the victim and saying you got what you deserved.

Agreed. There's no other reason why they won't allow an FBI investigation (took 3 days apparently in the Anita Hill case) or to subpoena Mark Judge for his testimony. Placate the Dems and do it. There is plenty of time to confirm him. I think they're terrified about what will be found and/or how Judge will testify at the hearing. End of the day, I believe Ford, I believe the Dems absolutely used her to their advantage and I think the smartest move by the Repubs would have been to immediately remove Kavanaugh and put someone else up for confirmation. Someone knows better than me - can a lame duck session still confirm the appointment? So they have until January? If so, they can still do that. Get rid of this headache now. There are plenty of conservative judges to choose from.

I didn't take him to mean attractive sexually, but as in "you're a good witness, you come off well." Still, not a smart use of the word given the proceedings. edit: i should add I heard it in a car, so maybe I missed out on something else he said that made it sexual.

Wait, he's a prima donna for wanting to get paid all that he can get paid? And maybe not have his career cut short a few years by playing 40 min a game for Thibs? Jimmy has gone a little Hollywood, but so what, dude came from nothing and look where he is.

Jimmy looking to join his buddy Wade in Miami. Not a bad spot for him to land I guess. He'll never win a championship, but he'll make lots of money in nice weather.

One problem with those lists is that I bet if you go back and look at those teams, the offensive weapons they had to work with were terrible. Trubisky has better-than-average weapons around him. His O-line is good, he's got a good possession WR, an emerging speedster WR and he's got two really good RB's. Being green and lacking experience also doesn't explain his pretty horrific accuracy beyond 10 yards. I can't seem to find an stats on that, but the AZ game he missed about 5 open guys deep.

I agree it's still way too early, but what do you expect Nagy to say/do? Tell the world how much his QB sucks and complain that he's stuck with him?

This just happened with the Broncos 2 years ago. And perhaps i'm old (36) but i'm getting to the point where I just want my shitty teams (Sox, Bears, Bulls, Illinois sports) to be GOOD. I don't need them to be GREAT, but just GOOD. If the Bears can be a consistent contender for a playoff spot and maybe get to a superbowl every decade, I will take it. At least I have hope that something can go their way and they can win. I'm sick of watching shitty teams not even sniff the post season.

Did you guys fight it? I know they just allocated $350 million for a new program that is geared towards people that were denied loan forgiveness because they didn't make their payments under the right plan. You may want to check that out: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/public-service/temporary-expanded-public-service-loan-forgiveness I know for certain my wife's loans qualify and all of our payments qualify. It's just terrible record keeping on their part. Theoretically I can come up with proof of every single payment over the last 10 years via bank records, so if I have to that's what I'll do. It's a good chunk of change I was looking forward to not paying.

Has anyone applied for the public service loan forgiveness program? If so, have you had any issues? My wife is trying to do it now. Our 10 year payoff window is next September. We certified her employment and got her loans put into the fedloan servicing program last year, but the initial statement claims that she had only made 27 qualifying payments out of the 120 required, which is not correct at all. Since then we've made probably another 12 payments and her monthly statement still says she has only made 27 qualifying payments. Calling their customer service line does nothing. All they can do is request an audit and they claim it takes 6 months to complete (how fucking hard is it to look up payment history?) We're re-certifying her employment status again, so hopefully they get it figured out. The government, as usual, is the absolute worst.

ha, way off So the Clippers he could potentially join Kawhi and the NY teams he can join up with Kyrie. And get paid.

LA is the obvious destination. Clippers? Sixers? Rockets? Can't imagine the Bulls are an option

Urban Meyer with another awful press conference. This time arguing that he's the hero trying to help a troubled guy. His mistake is caring too much. What an embarrassment.

But if her intent was to warn people about Kavanaugh, why send the letter under a different name, and why tell Feinstein to keep it private? Get the story out there, with a name and with the details. She's a smart woman. She knew anonymous accusations wouldn't be enough. Feinstein and/or her office let all this slip out. It was strategic. They're using this woman for political purposes.

So 2.5 months ago she wanted to remain private, but now she's willing to testify. I wonder why. I wonder what changed. I wonder what was about to happen. I'm all for an investigation if it seems warranted. Postpone the vote too if necessary. But questioning someone's motives (and those behind her) based on timing is not ignoring/attacking the victim.