*
Bedford Ramblings
Steve Mills

Well, what do you think of the Supreme Court nominee

Posted Tuesday, July 10, 2018, at 9:28 PM
Comments
View 66 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • PLEASE don’t hesitate to say that This is the most ridiculous post I’ve ever written. I may have some close contenders.

    I just ask what I have ALWAYS asked and that is to approach without name calling or cruel snips. It can be done, REALLY!!

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Jul 10, 2018, at 9:35 PM
  • Two days with no examples of his shortcomings.If there were any major red flags, we'd already be hearing about them.

    I'm betting as soon as someone at MSNBC digs up some dirt, it will be repeated here.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Jul 12, 2018, at 4:34 AM
  • I heard a passing comment on radio about questions concerning “meta-data” but I have no inkling of what that might be.

    Then during a social gathering that had a TV screen in the room, he “mouthed” a derogatory word as Hillary Clinton’s picture flashed on the screen three years ago.

    This person was not close enough to confirm what the word was nor that it really referred to Clinton. They also did not claim to be lip readers. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? That is worthy of even a 16th of a second mention?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Thu, Jul 12, 2018, at 6:14 AM
  • If only his name didn't sound so frat-boy. Oh, and if only he wasn't going to take away our healthcare. Oh,oh, and if only he wasn't going to kill millions of women in back alleys with rusty coat hangers. How far will this go? By the time the hearings start, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear the pathetic losers on the left claiming he was Hitler's secret child and he's gonna start WW3. What would surprise me would be them having a shred of proof he's a bad guy.

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Jul 12, 2018, at 9:36 AM
  • Well, he is piled in debt according to MSN https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-pi...

    Oops, it's all paid off except his mortgage

    -- Posted by stevemills on Thu, Jul 12, 2018, at 11:00 AM
  • Someone needs to tell the leftys Kavanaugh isn't going to ban abortions. He's just going to implement some common sense abortion control laws.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Jul 12, 2018, at 11:26 AM
  • *

    There's really only one reason Trump picked Kavanaugh. He's hoping it could save his fat cheeto a$$ from being indicted by Mueller.

    Kavanaugh has stated that he would be for expanding presidential powers to block criminal and civil actions against himself. He's also said he believes a sitting president shouldn't be indicted. He's basically above the law. So that was a slam-dunk for Trump. Self preservation. But, some of you please tell me why, specifically, you think Kavanaugh is a good pick. I haven't heard anyone list reasons he's a good choice.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Thu, Jul 12, 2018, at 1:11 PM
  • I guess He is a good pick ,since he has been spoken of as not being qualified without any reason, other than he has been picked by Trump.

    -- Posted by Wolf Clan on Thu, Jul 12, 2018, at 1:56 PM
  • Anything I say will be from internet searches, which is probably where most of our information will come from. I don't consider USA Today to be conservative media so I read their article https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/10/inside-donald-trumps-pic...

    I did not see anything about how Kavanaugh will make any decisions regarding Trump. Maybe someone could shed more light on that?

    I did notice that he's written some 300 opinions for the D.C. Circuit in 12 years, been a clerk for Justice Kennedy (retiring Justice) and heard that he was concerned about everyone getting a fair shake during the Clinton investigations with which he was involved.

    Most of the criticism seems to be hypothetical suppositions. Nothing concrete, unless someone can share it with us here.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Thu, Jul 12, 2018, at 2:51 PM
  • Kavanaugh is a good choice because he is a constitutionalist,and not an activist just like Darth Bader Ginsburg.

    How would a SCOTUS justice prevent a federal indictment?

    A charge has to be made, or a lawsuit filed, then it has to go through all the lower appeals courts, before going to SCOTUS.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Jul 12, 2018, at 7:12 PM
  • I was the nking that is how it would work quietmike but I am FAR from knowledgeable on the subject.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Thu, Jul 12, 2018, at 8:24 PM
  • The Supreme court Justices can not change the law nor write the law. That is the job of the legislators. You know congress, who isn't even smart enough to ask the right questions and demand an answer. They accept whatever is thrown at them. Of course, they only have 5 minutes to ask their questions and get an answer. The cock roaches stall by stating things that have nothing to do with the questions, But this isn't about congress.

    The job of the supreme court is to interpret the law according to the constitutions article III court decisions. They can rule against the constitution when ruling for a person (Federal citizen who does not have unalienable rights. They are bound by the decisions of the lower courts so the supreme court must rule according to their class.

    Article I, section 8, clause 17 gives congress the right to make all needful rules and regulations governing it's citizens (14th Amendment citizens aka Federal citizens) and the U.S. Territories.

    So, the Supreme Court Justices MUST rule according to the class of citizen that comes before the Supreme Court.

    That means, it really doesn't make any difference who is appointed to the SPOTUS as long as they agree to follow the U.S. Constitution which Kavanaugh's records show he does.

    -- Posted by sui on Thu, Jul 12, 2018, at 9:07 PM
  • Steve,

    To my knowlege the Supreme Court has never made a Sua Sponte (on its own motion) declaration without a pending case.

    Maybe Rocket Valentine can show us when it has happened, or the mechanism for how it could happen?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Jul 13, 2018, at 6:42 AM
  • *

    Mikey, maybe you can show us where I said anything along those lines.

    I only posted a couple statements from Kavanaugh, and my opinion that those statements could be why Trump chose him.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Fri, Jul 13, 2018, at 10:15 AM
  • For someone who is struggling to stay away from politics and National news, I am drawn to this SCOTUS fight.(Supreme Court of the United States, for those of us like me who never paid attention to what it means until now)

    I have truly been trying to read the opposition's reasons for opposing his nomination because he seems like such a great choice. He sounds fair, willing to consider other viewpoints and make decisions that appear at odds with his normal rulings because he truly goes on a case by case basis.

    A law professor (he's a self-proclaimed liberal) is drawing nasty comments from his previous allies because he too sees Kavanaugh as a good choice. Here he is in person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLbU_IJ6Q_k

    So what are the reasons the opposition is vowing to fight?

    SO far the one scandalous this is that he happens to love baseball and bought tickets for his friends to important games and playoffs on his credit cards. Most of those tickets were paid for by his friends and his CC balance is paid off so .... ?????

    After that, the objections seem to be

    * "payback" for previous appointments that the Democrats lost

    * hysterics on how a President can nominate a judge while being investigated for other issues (investigation apparently means conviction in their minds)

    * most are accusations stating as fact what he would do in regards to certain important rulings, which of course he could not initiate and would only be a part of the court that decides when/if the subject comes up.

    And this is based on what? I have yet to see an actual example of decisions or writings that indicate how he would vote.

    Here is an article from what I would consider the opposition and I still do not see any facts about Kavanaugh. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-its-right-to-be-mad-about-kava... IF you read this, look for details on how Kavanaugh is not qualified or how he has given the mind readers fuel for how he would vote on different topics.

    Concern is always valid, but someone PLEASE show me to what these alarmists are referring? I REALLY DO want to see and consider.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Jul 13, 2018, at 10:44 AM
  • RV, do you happen to have references for his quotes?

    I do not think a president is above the law, but shouldn't he/she be out of office (removed or expired) before he/she (and the country) is drug through the courts? Not just accused, since I think our country still believes in innocent until proven guilty.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Jul 13, 2018, at 10:55 AM
  • Otherwise, we are just "hog tying" them and making it hard to do their job, WHICH is what I think the oppositions are trying to do.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Jul 13, 2018, at 10:56 AM
  • Mikey, maybe you can show us where I said anything along those lines.

    I only posted a couple statements from Kavanaugh, and my opinion that those statements could be why Trump chose him.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine

    ----

    There's really only one reason Trump picked Kavanaugh. He's hoping it could save his fat cheeto a$$ from being indicted by Mueller.

    Kavanaugh has stated that he would be for expanding presidential powers to block criminal and civil actions against himself. He's also said he believes a sitting president shouldn't be indicted. He's basically above the law. So that was a slam-dunk for Trump. Self preservation. But, some of you please tell me why, specifically, you think Kavanaugh is a good pick. I haven't heard anyone list reasons he's a good choice.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine

    ---------------

    So how could Trump picking Kavanaugh help trump save his fat cheeto a$$ from being indicted?

    His pesonal views carry no more legal weight than yours or mine.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Jul 13, 2018, at 4:00 PM
  • The Federal Government NEVER had sovereignty over the people. It only had sovereignty over it's Territories and all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

    So congress created a special class of citizens that Congress COULD be Sovereign over. It wasn't until the 14th amendment was created for the purpose or creating Citizens that Congress could have Authority over and legislate for without constitutional restrictions. These were the Black Slaves. They also included the citizens of all the U.S. Territories in the special class of citizens.

    Now the Government has sovereignty over persons. We were never told that only these 14th amendment citizens are under its jurisdiction (unless we commit a crime on federal land).

    So you could say that the President is the highest position in the Government. The most powerful man in Government (not in the 50 states). Since there is no authority higher than the Sovereign, who could bring charges against the sitting President? The Sovereign people could (IF) they knew they were Sovereign because they are not Citizens of the U.S. Territories or federal citizens.

    The United States is a Corporation located in Washington, DC and isn't a part of These 50 united States. A foreign Corporation is telling you what you can and can not do in violation of your rights. Oh yeah, what rights? If you don't know what your rights are and how to claim them, you have no rights.

    -- Posted by sui on Fri, Jul 13, 2018, at 6:25 PM
  • It seems RV got his comment from MSNBC (shocker!), when Rachel Maddow was interviewing Cory Booker.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/09/cory_booker_trump_picked_the_...

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Jul 13, 2018, at 9:55 PM
  • *

    Steve,(and Mikey)

    Kavanaugh's statements come from an article he published in The Minnesota Law Review in 2009 and from another he wrote for The Georgetown Law Journal.

    In one he wrote, "a serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a President can be criminally indicted and tried while in office.

    And in the other he says, ”Whether the Constitution allows indictment of a sitting President is debatable.”

    I can provide links to both articles if you want, but both are easily found with a basic google search.

    As Mueller continues to hand out indictments the noose is tightening around the throats of Trump and his cronies.

    Trump and his lawyers will do everything they can to keep Trump from having to answer questions under oath to Mueller. So potential legal challenges, such as...can a sitting President be subpoenaed or indicted, may very well end up going before The Supreme Court in the very near future.

    If that happens, you can see that Kavanaugh's personal views would hold much more weight than yours or mine.

    He would be making the decision.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sat, Jul 14, 2018, at 6:34 AM
  • *

    Also Steve, the Watergate investigation went on for around two years before Nixon and his administration came tumbling down.

    When you blame "the oppositions" for "hog tying" Trump.

    Who is the opposition? Democrats?

    I hope you're not again inferring that the Mueller investigation is being carried out by the Democratic Party.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sat, Jul 14, 2018, at 6:47 AM
  • (Smile) that is why I chose my words carefully. I have a friend who bristled about my use of the word “Dems” recently. I thought of them and admit, changed the original word to “opposition”. It HAD been Democrats, but you are right, there are others interested in hog tying him.

    AND Using the Nixon analogy was good, since things could turn even though they say that he is not the target. I am not sure too many believe that, thus the resistance to testify under oath.

    BUT, I have experienced directly how a skilfull lawyer can twist questions to elicit testimony and while I am sure Mr. Trump is experienced, I would not want to be in a potential trap like that if it was not necessary.

    AND you are right that the potential exists for more aggressive action toward Mr. Trump but Mr. Kavanaugh is only one vote. BUT If we take personalities out of the question, I would agree that a sitting President needs to be removed from office FIRST before being prosecuted.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sat, Jul 14, 2018, at 7:49 AM
  • *

    Steve, if Trump truly had nothing to hide and wanted to clear up everything in the Russian investigation, why is he so scared to answer questions from Mueller.

    Hillary Clinton voluntarily answered questions under oath for 11 hours from congressional republicans.

    So, is Trump hiding something, or is he just too stupid to avoid a "potential trap"(lying under oath)?

    If this investigation is "hog tying" him politically, why not try to get it over with and just volunteer to answer any questions, like Clinton did?

    Mueller just handed out 12 more criminal indictments to Russian government officials. Yet Trump still only has praise for Putin.

    Why doesn't Trump take these latest indictments and investigation findings to Putin when they meet? Confront him.

    Trump sides with Putin and Russia over our own intelligence agencies.

    You're ok with this?

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sat, Jul 14, 2018, at 10:49 AM
  • RV i thought I had addressed the reasons I would not testify under oath unless absolutely necessary.

    As I recall Clinton did not rush right down to testify under oath and she also had a fair amount of the “I don’t remembers” and conditions.

    I am not sure what good was accomplished investigating the Russians BUT even indictments are not convictions. Are we continuing to ignore innocent until PROVEN guilty? And are you saying that WE the US do not get involved in other country’s politics?

    I do not pretend to know what Mr. Trump will do or not do when he talks to Putin. Considering that I do not have access to what is true and not true about Our intelligence angencies (which have not proven to be all that “intelligent” in the past) I am not making judgement. Maybe you KNOW more?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sat, Jul 14, 2018, at 11:27 AM
  • Hillary and the DNC STILL haven't turned over their servers even after they were subpoenaed.

    Obama didn't answer questions about fast and furious, instead claiming executive privilege, and dems said it was a racist witch hunt.

    The law is pretty clear. A sitting president should be impeached, then indicted.

    Clinton was impeached for perjury, but never charged criminally (mores the pity), so there is already precedent.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Jul 14, 2018, at 1:21 PM
  • *

    Mikey, The FBI cleared Hillary of any wrongdoing regarding her use of the private email server.

    Their final conclusion was that there was no evidence of intentional mishandling of classified information by Clinton or her aides, and thus no basis for charges to be filed.

    Case closed.

    And President Obama didn't refuse to answer questions.

    He used the executive privilege to stop the release of ATF documents of an ongoing investigation.

    And lastly, the reason President Clinton wasn't charged criminally is because he was acquitted of all charges.

    Your attempt at deflection only displayed your ignorance of facts.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sat, Jul 14, 2018, at 6:58 PM
  • RV

    The FBI said it was extreme carelessness instead of negligence even though the two terms are synonymous. This is the same FBI that is on record saying they would prevent Trump's election.

    If Hillary ran over a child in her car, and told investigators she didn't intend to do it, she was only extremely careless, only the same type of dullard sycophants would buy that excuse.

    Eric Holder was found in contempt of congress (the first attorney general in history to do so) over not turning over documents. Obama never answered questions from investigators about it, he only did press conferences.

    Clinton wasn't acquitted of anything. Acquittal is what a jury does after a trial when they don't believe the defendant is guilty of his charges.

    Talk about ignorance.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Jul 15, 2018, at 8:56 AM
  • Case closed? RV, Comey laid out a long list of shillary's misdeeds that any first year law student should be able to use and obtain a conviction. Just because Comey appointed himself judge and jury doesn't mean she isn't guilty. Kinda like when the IG lists example of bias after example ad nauseam then says with a straight face he can't prove bias caused a problem. I don't believe there are very many (if any) people that honestly believe that. If there are, I truly feel sorry for them. As for the rest that claim to, I hope they don't get close enough to me to use my fire extinguisher. But all that heat would surely cause significant butthurt.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sun, Jul 15, 2018, at 10:34 AM
  • *

    "Clinton wasn't acquitted of anything. Acquittal is what a jury does after a trial when they don't believe the defendant is guilty of his charges."

    "Talk about ignorance."

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Jul 15, 2018, at 8:56 AMReport comment

    Well, ok Mikey. If you insist, we'll talk about your ignorance.

    On January 7th, 1999, the Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court was sworn in to preside over the TRIAL of President Clinton on the charges of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. U.S. Senators were sworn in as the JURY.

    On February 12th, Clinton was acquitted of both charges.

    And nice job back-pedaling on your B.S. claim that President Obama used executive privilege to refuse questions. It's always fun to watch you desperately attempt to pull your foot out of your mouth.

    Fairshare, I do apologize for claiming "case closed" on the Hillary email case solely on the grounds that the FBI and U.S. Dept. of Justice concluded it closed. I didn't realize you still had your own personal case file open on the matter. That changes everything!

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sun, Jul 15, 2018, at 6:19 PM
  • Good to see everybody getting along again I was afraid that I’d lost you

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Jul 15, 2018, at 7:33 PM
  • RV,

    That acquittal was for his impeachment in the senate.

    Those were not criminal charges.

    You said "And lastly, the reason President Clinton wasn't charged criminally is because he was acquitted of all charges."

    Impeachment is a procedural affair, far different from a criminal prosecution.

    Always fun to watch your stupidity and hypocrisy.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 3:51 AM
  • No back-pedaling on obama either. He invoked executive privilege to avoid answering questions about fast and furious.

    Again, you said "So, is Trump hiding something, or is he just too stupid to avoid a "potential trap"(lying under oath)?

    If this investigation is "hog tying" him politically, why not try to get it over with and just volunteer to answer any questions, like Clinton did?"

    Just because you have the reading comprehension skills of a retarded 4th grader and you're blinded by your own party loyalty, doesn't mean anyone is back-pedaling.

    The only hard evidence we have of a US president colluding with Russians is when obama told medvedev he'll have more flexibility after the elections.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 4:23 AM
  • *

    Careful there Mikey! You're back-pedaling so hard now you're about to come out of your shoes.

    Let me quote you again...

    "Clinton wasn't acquitted of anything. Acquittal is what a jury does after a trial when they don't believe the defendant is guilty of his charges."

    There was a TRIAL for President Clinton, with a Judge and JURY.

    He was charged with Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. If found guilty, he would have been impeached.

    He was acquitted.

    And No. President Obama did not use executive privilege to refuse questions from anyone. That's just flat out false. You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Making things up and name calling is childish, but seems to always be your last-ditch effort when you're caught in a lie and losing an argument. You should probably just stop now before you embarrass yourself any further.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 5:11 AM
  • Come on Mike. Please don't be offensive to retarded fourth graders with your comparisons.

    RV, if you are misremembering history as badly as you seem to be, you might want to ask your doctor about the benefits of Aricept. Slick Willy was impeached. That is a fact you can't change with your opinion.

    And no, I don't have my own personal case file open on that skank. The fact is she could still be charged. Probably won't, but could. Once Rosenberg (or is that Rosenstein? I get my Jewish traitors mixed up) is out of the way old Jeff will be soon to follow. Then we may have a Justice department not so deeply mired in the swamp. She ain't out of the woods yet. If she shared your confidence in her innocence, why did she expend so much effort destroying evidence?

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 6:03 AM
  • (Big smile) Can you imagine the feading frenzy and hysteria if Trump makes a comment like Obama did about having more flexibility after elections?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 7:06 AM
  • If he does, the FBI spies will be all over him.

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 7:25 AM
  • RV,

    Because you're too slow to follow the conversation, you claim victory when you don't realize you're lost.

    You claimed there was no criminal trial because he was acquitted. The acquittal was for his senate impeachment for removal from office, not criminal charges, which are completely separate, and a different standard.

    Obama NEVER answered investigators questions about fast and furious, he did invoke executive privilege to stymie the investigation.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 8:13 AM
  • *

    Mikey, you're like flatulence in a whirlwind buddy.

    First you say, "Clinton wasn't acquitted of anything".

    You're reasoning for that was there had to be a trial and a jury for him to be acquitted.

    Then you're like...ok, there was a trial, and a jury, but it was an impeachment trial...not a criminal trial...and, and, ok, he was acquitted of the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, but those acquittals are different than other acquittals...somehow.

    And with President Obama you first said he invoked executive privilege to refuse answering questions to investigators. Now you say his executive privilege was to "stymie the investigation".

    Well, I'm sure you can provide a link to show us when and where President Obama refused to meet with investigators to answer questions....right? Hello? Bueller...Bueller...

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 10:11 AM
  • *

    Fairshare, since you know your history so well and are also reaping the benefits of Aricept, maybe you can share with all of us, the answer to this question...If President Clinton was impeached, how was he able to remain in office and continue to serve out his full term?

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 10:26 AM
  • Sheesh, RV. A 2 second Google search would let you know on 12/19/1999 the House did in fact impeach slick willy. I didn't bother to further search, but we all know the Senate, AFTER HE WAS IMPEACHED, let him skate.

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 10:34 AM
  • *

    Fairshare, when you do get around to "further search", first Google the definition of "impeach".

    You'll see it's really just another word for "accuse".

    Which is what The House did. They accused Clinton of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. Which then led to the trial where Clinton was acquitted of the charges.

    So he finished his term as President.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 10:48 AM
  • Yes, he did finish his term. As did the first president that got impeached. You can play like he didn't get impeached if you want, but impeached he was.

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 11:23 AM
  • Fair, when you use multi-syllable with RV it helps to also have crayon drawings.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 1:15 PM
  • *

    That's right. Just like Clinton, Andrew Johnson was acquitted.

    In both cases, the impeachment proceedings were found to be politically motivated and not legitimate.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 1:16 PM
  • *

    Still waiting for that link, Mikey.

    (Crickets chirping)

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 1:18 PM
  • If we can rule out politically motivated then we are left with fame seekers like that lawyer and the stripper. If we can rule them out then we can get back to the business of the country

    -- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 2:08 PM
  • Sorry, Mike. My bad.

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 2:38 PM
  • And with President Obama you first said he invoked executive privilege to refuse answering questions to investigators. Now you say his executive privilege was to "stymie the investigation".

    ----Posted by RocketValentine

    —-----------

    Too dumb to keep up with the conversation, and too lazy to scroll back up and see what was posted.

    Here's my first post on the subject.

    Obama didn't answer questions about fast and furious, instead claiming executive privilege, and dems said it was a racist witch hunt.

    Since the point, as always, went over your head, again, I have to dumb it down for you.

    You claim if there is nothing for Trump to hide, there's no reason he shouldn't fully cooperate with the prosecutors and clear the air. But you didn't have the same opinion when obama did just what trump is doing. But odumbo offered freebies and excuses to deadbeat losers, so he deserves everlasting protection.

    You know watching you post is like watching a monkey stare at a football with love on his mind.

    You know it's going to be ridiculous and awful, but it's just so odd, you can't look away.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 5:29 PM
  • I'll never again picture RV in my mind the way I used to.

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 6:07 PM
  • *

    So, still no link to back up your claim that President Obama invoked executive privilege to refuse questions from investigators? Not surprising.

    And you think Obama is doing the same thing Trump is doing?

    Today your President stood along side a Russian dictator, a former KGB agent, and sided with him over the top U.S. intelligence agencies. He even thru his own Director of National Intelligence under the bus. A guy Trump himself appointed. He said he believes Putin over his own National Security Director!

    I keep asking myself, what will take for you Trump followers to finally say...ok, this is enough.

    Where do you draw the line? Is there a line?

    It's really amazing.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 6:41 PM
  • Again, you need to find a responsible adult (read non-democrat) to explain it to you as it still went over your head. Sorry, but I don't know any fish in the Marianas Trench to get it to your level.

    I didn't say he used executive privilege to avoid answering questions. I said obama never answered questions about fast and furious AND he invoked executive privilege.

    Meaning he obfuscated at every turn instead of cooperating with investigators as you say Trump should.

    I have no doubt you actually understand what is being said, you just can't bring yourself to criticize your chocolate jesus.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 7:09 PM
  • *

    It's getting almost painful watching you hopelessly back-pedal out of your own steaming pile of B.S.

    The sad part is, all anyone has to do is scroll up to your original post and see that you're full of it.

    You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

    You did not say, "Obama never answered questions about fast and furious AND he invoked executive privilege."

    Like it was two separate things.

    You said...and again here's your exact quote..."Obama didn't answer questions about fast and furious, INSTEAD claiming executive privilege"

    Not "AND", Mikey. You said "INSTEAD".

    Inferring that the executive privilege was used to refuse questions.

    Nice try buddy.

    Now go watch Faux News try to dig your Cheeto-in-Chief out of the massive hole he dug today when he sided with Putin and the Russians over our own country's government intelligence agencies. Should be interesting.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 7:36 PM
  • Line? Like a line in the sand?

    Maybe Trump is just biding his time til he gets thru his next election so he can have more flexibility with Putin. Hmmmm.

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 7:39 PM
  • Every once in a while a democrat shows exactly why it would be preferential for a stranger to make decisions for them, rather than make their own life choices.

    RV demonstrates that regularly.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 7:55 PM
  • Folks, I am glad that you are talking again but a few recent comments are making me on yhe line of not crossing it.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 8:46 PM
  • *

    Steve, I'm really disappointed in your bias by deleting my post. I've seen President Obama and Hillary Clinton called every name in the book. And you don't say a word.

    And then I make one joke about Puntin and Trump, and suddenly a line was crossed.

    I'm done here.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 9:47 PM
  • I guess someone needs to make a Tinker Toy 3D model for RV to get it.

    Obama never answered questions about fast and furious, instead claiming executive privilege.

    Once again, because you're the dunce of the century, not only did he not answer questions, he further obfuscated by preventing documents from being released.

    BTW-Bye Felicia.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Jul 17, 2018, at 6:12 AM
  • The comment removed was, in my opinion, a derogatory analogy that could not remain part of this blog.

    It had no comment contributing to the discussion so no opinion regarding the topic being discussed was removed.

    Things were getting heated and I wish I had thrown in a reminder earlier but....

    The name calling and taunting was distracting but I did not want to use the one control I have and that would be to kill the WHOLE discussion. There were valid comments from both sides (including mine of course) :-).

    To my knowledge no one was removed so I hope all will return. It was a temporary slip

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Jul 17, 2018, at 7:03 AM
  • *

    My joke about Putin and Trump was tame in comparison to the derogatory comments and continuous name calling I've seen directed at President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Democrats in general on here.

    Deleting my post shows a dish it out, but can't take it mentality.

    What's the use of having a good debate if dissenting views or being the brunt of a joke gets the post deleted.

    I might as well just let you guys continue to jerk each other off and be happy. You can all agree with one another, and you'll always be right.

    Enjoy yourselves.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Jul 17, 2018, at 10:27 AM
  • Well, I truly hate to see you leave but you are exhibiting why the other was removed. I believe you will have to acknowledge that I do not get into the name calling, and I don't recall you really getting abusive.

    By the way, on your way out, take note that I am not able to remove a single response, only the complete blog and I am leaving this posted so others can see you opinion, which I value, but..... if you want to go......

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Jul 17, 2018, at 11:23 AM
  • RV, I for one, am glad to see you are still around and posting. One or two sitz baths and that hiney hurt will feel much better. And perhaps you will have opportunity to indulge in a snickers bar. But since you seem to be hanging around I would like to ask a favor. For me and for you. Would you consider changing your avatar? I know you mean it as a dig at Trump. And at first glance, it does have a modicum of childish humor. But people that contemplate it a little deeper could come away with a negative opinion of you. The long nose (phallic symbol) on a head might easily give the thoughtful ones an unflattering mental picture of you (since the avatar is a visual you picked to accompany your name) that is hard to get rid of.

    -- Posted by fair share on Tue, Jul 17, 2018, at 12:42 PM
  • Obama invoked executive privilege to lock all the documents on the Fast and Fury. Without any documents there is no questions to answer or crimes to charge. Everything was sealed! That is how the traitor dealt with his crimes against America.

    All the United States Intelligent Agencies were investigating Russia interfering with the election. Remember Obama saying no one could mess up the election if they tried.

    They (The Intell Agencies) investigated for over a year without any proof of any collusion at all, then handed it over to Mueller and his demons to investigate. No Collusion, so they went after everyone in Trump's admin or related to him. It was only days before the summit with Putin that the DOJ confirmed there was no collusion between Russia and any U.S. Citizen, (Without looking into Hillary Rotten Clinton's emails and FBI records that showed her involvement in furnishing Russia with Classified emails that were on her server, (which was against federal law to have on her personal server).

    It was proven that Putin did not collude with Trump, so there was no reason why Trump shouldn't say he agreed with Putin who said he didn't collude with Trump. Look how long it took the Intell to understand there was no colluding and they are trined to investigate and had the tools at there disposal to do their job. It took Mueller to tell it like it is. Why couldn't the United States Intelligent Agencies tell us that? Did they NOt Know? or did they want Mueller to say it? You can honestly tell me YOU have faith in our Intelligent Agencies? Not any more trust worthy than the corrupt FBI.

    It wasn't Trump who embarrassed the USA, it was the Intelligent Agencies, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, (FBI) and the Department of Justice. That is who has disgraced our country not the Trump, the President of these United States.

    All you idiots need to remember one thing.

    Russia has always spied on America and America has always spied on Russia. That is what SPYs Do. There are indictments on the 12 Spys, but nothing said about an indictment against Putin. Does that mean Putin wasn't the criminal in this case? Where is his indictment? I guess there is no indicting a sitting president in Russia either.

    So what we have here is a very smart President who went on with the summit with our biggest enemy as a friend to keep Putin under his thumb without any hatred that would make it impossible to negotiate with Putin.

    What do you think would have happened if the fake news media would have taken Trumps place? Good thing we have Trump.

    No signs of any war on the horizon yet.

    -- Posted by sui on Wed, Jul 18, 2018, at 11:50 PM
  • Being distrustful of the US Intelligence community has a long history in the presidency. JFK was so distrustful of them that he had to take an open air ride to clear his head.

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Jul 19, 2018, at 12:17 AM
  • Good point Fair.

    Just a short while ago, leftys told us cops were racist thugs just looking for a chance to gun down young black men.

    Now they say it's unpatriotic to question the FBI.

    A couple years ago, leftys said the CIA lied to get us into the Iraq war. Now they say the word of our intelligence agencies is beyond question.

    Odumbo himself is on video saying the election isn't rigged, but leftys have been mewling about a rigged election for nearly two years.

    The Trump presidency has put liberal hypocrisy on full display and Americans are seeing them for the spoiled children they are.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Jul 19, 2018, at 6:03 AM
  • Yeah, QM, they don't even know what they believe. Might not even deep down believe anything. Just wake up, turn on CNN or BSNBC to find out what to be mad about today. And they don't have confidence in what they spout. If they really believed in global warming, why not let it take care of ice without introducing legislation they won't support to have the gubment abolish it?

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Jul 19, 2018, at 9:33 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: