JoeWeber

Mark Judge, who ostensibly witnessed the alleged attempted rape of Christine Blasey Ford, has no recollection of the alleged incident and has declined an invitation to testify before the Senate Committee. “I have no memory of this alleged incident. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter,” Judge told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a statement sent by his lawyer. “... I have no more information to offer the committee and I do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford’s letter.” Ya, think?

Don't forget: 3. Clinton did it first. Perhaps I'll seem less pure than before but I am not at all focused on right or wrong or whether he did it or not and I particularly don't care if he should have apologized. Out of pure vindictiveness, I just want it to sink the bastard. Feingold's argument that Kavanaugh has already perjured himself and got away with it should also be squeezed in to the conversation Monday. Whatever it takes. McConnell and Grassley did whatever it took, without regard for right or wrong, to deny Obama an appointment. Those are the rules now. The Dem's need to do whatever real or crappy thing they can think of to keep Kavanaugh off the court. And then not let up.

Polygraphs measure anxiety. Nothing else. In that aspect the theory is correct. But that leaves it up to a person to interpret just what the anxiety means. The very long report you link to was done for people who may be considered to have a dog in the fight. Even so it provides little reassurance they are good for anything except giving the population a false sense of security. I will restate that the APA, the actual relevant professional body in America does not support the use of polygraphs. Because as far as they can determine, they don't work. And there is no good reason to think they work. With a reported accuracy just a little better than random chance, and even then only in the most carefully controlled tests with the best examiners, the use of polygraph tests will and does result in real harm being done to innocent people and little protection to the rest of us. What if the subject is not anxious because they believe they are telling the truth? Maybe it's too broad brush to call it a lie detector.

Let's set up a GoFundMe to help out with counseling expenses.

I've been like-kind exchanging aircraft and aircraft engines for years. That was initially called a Starker exchange, I think, and was a real estate thing until someone blurred the lines a little. That scheme is no longer available with the new tax law. Instead there is 100% depreciation of any "new to you" business equipment in year one. Under the old scheme when it was someday and you finally sold something for realsie's you paid ordinary income rates on the entire sales price. On a million dollar airplane that would be around +$400K. Ouch, but it was very fun and profitable along the way. The problem was that you needed to be a real business with real profits to protect and also needed to wait 5-7 years to fully depreciate. Now you can sell it for a million and buy another for a million and bada bing you are fully protected from the tax consequences. Next up? I reckon it will be blurring the like-kind lines again, bit by bit, until it makes perfect sense that an airplane is like a yacht or a Lamborghini or maybe even shares in Boeing. They are in the airplane business, too.

You mean... there is someone else who is the ultimate??? Yes. Ron.

You are not officiating a ping pong game. I think yoink was clear that it was not a personal attack but it was instead an observation of marc's views. He didn't call him a thing-a-ma-bob or similar. No matter, we just run around the playground.

Well, in fairness and if grammar matters, he was describing himself as a fanatical, xenophobic racist. I'm sure the second amendment folks won't parse the missing comma. yoink is as sharp or sharper than anyone who posts on SC. If he is frustrated to where he posts as he did it's worth noting not sanctioning.

yoink didn't deserve it. Marc is the penultimate frustration on SC. You engage him too much and by doing so empower and encourage him. Then, when an engagement falls outside of the rules you wrote as you see it, you come in with your Judge Dredd powers and pull the trigger. I've been warned and banned before. I'm on offer again, I reckon.

You've reduced yourself to the status of the Bulgarian Judge at the Special Olympics. Ignore him.

Now to the tune of 171 fellony emails that have been found on her server. Yes! More we're found just last week. Or her obstruction of justice by deleting email evidence. Earth to Marc. Remember this? rushmc wrote: What is Trump doing that would constitute a proper reason to impeach him? In your opinion. Fool that I am, I replied: Marc, I'll answer you but in return you need to agree to answer our questions. In good faith, I'll trust your agreement in advance. On September 3 he tweeted: “Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff…” The President was clearly attempting to use the Justice Department for political gains and advising Justice officials to ignore allegations of corruption against Republicans to that end. The President has a constitutional obligation to carry out the laws of the nation. His tweet is evidence he does not accept that responsibility. His own attorney acknowledged in court that Trump violated campaign finance laws by directing him to pay hush money to his mistresses and to have other damning allegations purchased by a third party and squashed. Those are conspiracies to commit criminal acts. That is also an impeachable offense. There are more but for now let's stop here. Please note that impeachment is not removal. It is stage 1. Credible allegations are investigated by the House and, if warranted, referred to the Senate for trial. As with Clinton, who was a douche in my mind, Trump may walk away and continue his Presidency. But I think all honest Patriotic Americans, especially those who support Trump and believe him innocent, should welcome such proceedings and get it over one way or another. Your turn. Joe and as a clarification of the above in response to Iago: Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, explained a certain definition of an impeachable high crime: A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. Trump violated the public trust by violating his oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." and did so by attempting to politicize the US Department of Justice who were pursuing serious charges against members of his own party and he did so to further his own self interests. That makes it an impeachable offense. It's a little tricky to understand, sure, but that doesn't change things. As to whether conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws to swing an election in your favor is an impeachable offense, Cohen testified that he made the payments “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office.” That would be the Donald Trump who did not disclose the payments in his 2017 financial disclosure forms. Cohen committed, and plead guilty to, a felony and his co-conspirator was Trump. That makes it an impeachable offense. Marc, Normally I just ignore you because you bring nothing to a conversation. You can cut and paste, you can parrot nonsense from fringe right wing media and you can ask others questions. But what you can not do is answer questions in a serious, thoughtful and reasoned manner. You asked me a question and I thought to give you a last chance. True to form you deflect, refuse to answer and then quickly pivoted to Clintons email server with, no doubt, Benghazi close behind. Those who say it is useful to have you here as a reminder of how people like you think are misguided. That's like saying it's nice to get stuck behind slow drivers because it reminds them of Grandma. I wouldn't talk to you at a gathering and I'll damn sure never talk to you again here.

Alex Jones must be a buddy of yours. I have seen them in the news but know very little about him. by the way, what do you think of the grand jury that's been empaneled against FBI Personnel who have been involved in the Russian collusion bullshit? Marc, In another thread you asked that I respond seriously to your question. I did. Subsequently, in response to Iago, I offered further clarification. Now you are off over here asking someone else what they think. Seriously, dude, if you want people to take you seriously you need to act seriously. I outlined in detail why I think Trump committed impeachable offenses. Please read those two posts and make a serious, thoughtful reply. Joe

Marc, I'll answer you but in return you need to agree to answer our questions. In good faith, I'll trust your agreement in advance. On September 3 he tweeted: “Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff…” The President was clearly attempting to use the Justice Department for political gains and advising Justice officials to ignore allegations of corruption against Republicans to that end. The President has a constitutional obligation to carry out the laws of the nation. His tweet is evidence he does not accept that responsibility. His own attorney acknowledged in court that Trump violated campaign finance laws by directing him to pay hush money to his mistresses and to have other damning allegations purchased by a third party and squashed. Those are conspiracies to commit criminal acts. That is also an impeachable offense. There are more but for now let's stop here. Please note that impeachment is not removal. It is stage 1. Credible allegations are investigated by the House and, if warranted, referred to the Senate for trial. As with Clinton, who was a douche in my mind, Trump may walk away and continue his Presidency. But I think all honest Patriotic Americans, especially those who support Trump and believe him innocent, should welcome such proceedings and get it over one way or another. Your turn. Joe Removing a sitting president over (A) a tweet and/or (B) paying extortion money to a has-been porn actress to keep her cock be shut. Didn't work, by the way. I'm a little curious why Stormy hasn't been in court on criminal charges for the same incident. Uh-huh, really. You'll have to do better than that. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, explained a certain definition of an impeachable high crime: A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. Trump violated the public trust by violating his oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." and did so by attempting to politicize the US Department of Justice who were pursuing serious charges against members of his own party and he did so to further his own self interests. That makes it an impeachable offense. It's a little tricky to understand, sure, but that doesn't change things. As to whether conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws to swing an election in your favor is an impeachable offense, Cohen testified that he made the payments “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office.” That would be the Donald Trump who did not disclose the payments in his 2017 financial disclosure forms. Cohen committed, and plead guilty to, a felony and his co-conspirator was Trump. That makes it an impeachable offense.

Marc, I'll answer you but in return you need to agree to answer our questions. In good faith, I'll trust your agreement in advance. On September 3 he tweeted: “Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff…” The President was clearly attempting to use the Justice Department for political gains and advising Justice officials to ignore allegations of corruption against Republicans to that end. The President has a constitutional obligation to carry out the laws of the nation. His tweet is evidence he does not accept that responsibility. His own attorney acknowledged in court that Trump violated campaign finance laws by directing him to pay hush money to his mistresses and to have other damning allegations purchased by a third party and squashed. Those are conspiracies to commit criminal acts. That is also an impeachable offense. There are more but for now let's stop here. Please note that impeachment is not removal. It is stage 1. Credible allegations are investigated by the House and, if warranted, referred to the Senate for trial. As with Clinton, who was a douche in my mind, Trump may walk away and continue his Presidency. But I think all honest Patriotic Americans, especially those who support Trump and believe him innocent, should welcome such proceedings and get it over one way or another. Your turn. Joe

Removing him for a few day's is not what I'd call working. That and who can measure what harm his reinstatement might do to an subsequent impeachment effort or what benefit it might bring to his reelection effort.

This law professor who studies the Presidency thinks the 25th amendment wouldn't work to remove Trump. https://theconversation.com/what-the-25th-amendment-says-about-presidents-who-are-unable-to-serve-102825 He seems legit. http://www.law.msu.edu/faculty_staff/profile.php?prof=44 At the minimum it's not a clear cut pull the lever and be free of the asshat amendment. Beyond all of that, if there really is a White House resistance and if the anonymous "senior official" really is senior, and also credible, until another shoe drops it's just another so what moment. As awful as Trump is we don't need the precedent of a self appointed shadow government. The writer and any co-conspirators need to out themselves now. If they have what Mueller needs, then great. If not just clean out your desks and be gone.

I applaud Booker for taking this stand and the Senators who followed him. There is no doubt the committee and Rs in general are using classifications to hide information. I am also sure that Ds have done this in the past. Wrong is wrong and it should get called out. Kamala Harris made him look like a lying weasel. You are right. Nonetheless, that won't matter at all if she doesn't have the goods. And if the goods aren't named Kasowitz, Benson or Torres then the connective tissue will need to be mighty strong.

And a hero in the eyes of many others. Some dems will see him as resisting the will of Trump; some GOPers will call him a hero for protecting "true conservatism" or some such. ***and it seems a certainty their career in government is over. Come out of the shadows now, while the getting is good, and claim a book deal. If that's his goal, surely hanging on for another 6/12/18 months makes his story all the more valuable. "I put one over on Trump - even after he knew I was there!" And if he gets found before that? Again his story gets more interesting. Maybe reputation rehabilitation amongst family and friends is part of the play. No matter, they are coming for the writer with knives now and who can say how valuable the story will be later when other books are already written. Mark Felt?

Apparently there's a betting outfit in Costa Rica that has odds posted. For individuals (the leader is 'the field' - none of the named people), the favorite is Pence. Apparently the word 'lodestar' was used a couple times in the editorial. And apparently Pence is the only one in the administration who's on record having used that word. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the author and the NYT editors they worked with intentionally threw in a few characteristic words and turns of phrase from colleagues as misdirection for the inevitable molehunt. And I'm not really curious who wrote it. No-one will come forward until they either get fired or Trump's admin goes down in flames. I'm sure it is genuine though. Not just because I trust both the NYT's editorial ethics and sense of self preservation would prevent it from inventing something like this, but because the overall sense of the essay is one of immense arrogance and self-importance. A perfect fit for a role in the West Wing right now I'm not as certain. Whomever it is will always be a self serving douchebag in the eye's of many and it seems a certainty their career in government is over. Come out of the shadows now, while the getting is good, and claim a book deal.

The problem is that Trump has pretty clearly committed more than just a couple of crimes. Campaign finance, emoluments clause, obstruction, perhaps even treason. He clearly has no conscience. He has no concept of 'consequences for actions.' If his advisers are keeping him from doing 'bad things', then they are doing their job. Guiding and advising him, even when he refuses to listen. Both Mattis & Kelly seem to see their position as working for the country, not for Trump. I understand your position, but when the POTUS is an emotional and intellectual child, then someone has to be the grownup. He should be removed. Period. If this was Obama, impeachment hearings would already be in progress. But since the R base supports Trump, the congress-critters won't lift a finger to stop him. Apparently there's a betting outfit in Costa Rica that has odds posted. For individuals (the leader is 'the field' - none of the named people), the favorite is Pence. Apparently the word 'lodestar' was used a couple times in the editorial. And apparently Pence is the only one in the administration who's on record having used that word. NY Post story Pence, we're told, wants to be President. Authoring an anonymous op-ed would be a hell of a risk for him. That doesn't smell right. Like them or not there are some smart cookies in the White House. It seems reasonable that a fair bit of thought into covering tracks would have gone into it. For sure they knew it would be taken apart. Ghosted by George Conway?

seems the sort of thing a military person would write. So.... have you heard women can join the military now too? And when I say now, I mean for significantly longer than you've been alive. Posts: 17778, go figure. They were separate ideas. I was simply pondering who might be the writer. Aren't you curious?

I take it extremely seriously which is why I was horrified when the people elected a selfish, narcissistic child to the position. I still am. However, that doesn't change the legality of the situation and those laws are something we all have to abide by, whether we like it or not. To do otherwise is to invite anarchy. I don't believe the contract of working at the white house has an 'obey all orders given by the president unless you disagree with them, in that case feel free to stymie it however you can' clause... We, the people, have a responsibility to elect officials who we believe will do the best job they can. If we later decide we don't like the job our elected official is doing there are legal channels to remove them - as you pointed out, the 25th is one of them in the case of the President. If we don't take that responsibility seriously and elect a disaster then I believe we should live with the consequences. What is illegal and reprehensible is to take matters into your own hands unless the law is clearly being broken. It's fine to feel like your position is untenable as a staffer because you disagree with the policies being taken. The solution is to quit, not sabotage the system. I didn't elect these people who are now unilaterally and secretly defining policy by deciding what our president gets to see and what he doesn't. You didn't either. I not sure you take what they're doing seriously enough. I reiterate, I think Trump is an awful, awful president, but the reality is that any damage he's causing is temporary. International relations can be fixed. Edicts can be unwritten. I choose to believe that any real insanity (let's nuke the middle east!) would be met by the 25th. But the country needs a wake up call that voting is a serious business and that to elect a clown is to have your country turned into a circus... As someone who posts here you're already more involved in politics than 90% of Americans - it's going to take a serious event to wake those people up to their responsibility, otherwise we'll just run into the same problem a few presidents down the road. Roger that. Betsey DeVos, Sonny Perdue, Steve Mnuchin, Wilber Ross, Rick Perry, Ryan Zinke and Ben Carson are all just chomping at the bit to make this shit right.

Who knows if it's even legit but the op-ed seems written by a male. This: seems the sort of thing a military person would write. I disagree with yoink that everyone should fall in line or quit. Many should, no doubt. But Trump is dangerous, cornered, enamored of Putin and Kim, and he has the nuclear codes. I never thought I'd welcome a coup in this country but we would be safer without Trump and we don't need Pence. If you're a General with years of devoted service to this country what would you do?

What are those drastic changes that the US needs? To pull our federal government back toward a republic, away from the established socialistic oligarchy. To which time frame in our nations history are you referring?

With a bit of business acumen, you'd understand why that's not likely to be a successful strategy. OK...I'll bite. Well, at many small rural Post Offices they would need to hire only very skinny employees so 4 could fit behind a counter built for 2 and that might cause discrimination problems. Also, most folks who are open to part time gig's are thinking of more than just one hour between 12 noon and 1PM and/or one between 5PM and 6PM with a 4 hour break in between. Seriously, unless you are sending your hard earned farmworker money home and need a postal money order to do it, get your mail General Delivery, believe wrongly delivered mail must by law be returned in person, or still collect stamps just what on earth justifies standing in line at the post office on your lunch hour?