Kavanaugh vs Dr. Ford Testimony. The lies...

No doubt you consider yourself serious...When your opinion of anyone else matters, I'm sure you'll be informed.

You can look in the mirror and pat yourself on the back all you want, but what you can't do is any provide proof whatsoever of a single Kavanaugh lie.

You can post a link from some leftie that makes an absurd claims that Kavanaugh and Ford attended identical parties, and pretend it's serious. But you can't post any proof of a Kavanaugh lie.

 

*** and ****

Now, let's see. How many asterisks should I use to respond to questions that has already been answered?

I think the best approach will be to completely ignore them.

Do you really really have nothing of value to contribute to the discussions? I mean, other than wasting our time?

Many reasons. One of them is that I don't do "confirming". I make a statement, and if you manage to rebut it with actual arguments, I will explicitly withdraw it If you don't, I don't. Easy enough... But if you change my statement or ignore parts, my response is ***. Which gives you the opportunity to read it again and respond accordingly. In this case I made an exception by changing the bold font in your question from the irrelevant (****) part to the relevant one that you ignored (***) Just to give you a hint. Don't expect that I will always do that in the future, though.

 

I gotta give credit where credit is due.

When the left loses an election, they never leave a straw ungrasped seeking power.

 

I am incapable to present any proof of anything to somebody who follows the standing order in their cult not to believe anything they hear or read. For the rest of us, the proof is there following the link I provided. And it stands solid so long as no Trump cultist has been able to rebut it. You are simply not the exception.

 

That's not the way an adult conversation works.

When you accuse someone of lying, you have to show proof of a lie. Since you did not, there is nothing to rebut.

It just kills Progs when they attempt to assasinate the character of an honest, honorable man with Fascist tactics and fail. All of that hate, spite and bile just wasted.

 

I sure hope you're right. And that they don't leave a straw ungrasped now that they obtained power.

 

We'll see if the wackjob groups force the leadership into bizarre stupid actions.

 

It sure isn't! I present my arguments. They may be right, they may be wrong.... The fact that you refuse to address them and you present none of your own can be interpreted in no other way than your refusal to look at reality. Especially given that the guy you support did issue the instruction I noted.

Your choice, though. You function by blind faith, I function by rational arguments. Not saying that my way of functioning is better, it just is what I use.

 

You presented an argument, but no proof of a lie to support your argument.

If you find proof of a lie, please post it.

 

You mean you think that they might give in to wackjob groups like the Trump caucus and leave obvious abuse of power by this administration go without oversight?

I sure hope not

 

Abuse of power?

Please give examples.

 

I presented my evidence of the lie. Again: it may be correct, it may be incorrect. But, even if it were wrong, we won't know that by your contributions. Because you make none. Your contribution is limited to stating again and again that the arguments. which anybody who is not part of a blind cult can see, aren't there.

Not much more can be said against that.... So I won't waste my time trying.

 

How the hell can Google be used to find out @Golem's opinion? Does he have a website or something?

A "HANDFUL" of senators? You mean the majority including one Democrat?

I agree.

 

Alright, so you said "kiind" and placed it inside quotes which I can't see the purpose behind. And it has two "i's" in it, was that intentional? If so, I have no idea what it means. Anyway, is it the case that you were saying that Ford described gatherings that were "kind" of like the description from Kavanaugh's calendar? If so, why did you say exactly the "kind?" Doesn't "exactly" cancel out "kind?

 

Because you what?

 

That is so pitiful. Again. You make claims with no proof. None. Zero

It is not an abuse of power for POTUS to fire an FBI Director. Its in his job description. Even if Comeys direct supervisor had not recommended firing him it was in his power.

You really didn't know that?

If you had bothered to research presidential powers in the constitution you would know this. Try reading an Elementary School Civics Book if the Constitution is too difficult to understand.

You really should stop digging.

 

"This RUSHER thing with Trump (third person) and Russia." @Golem claims that this barely coherent, toddler level verbal diarrhoea from Trump is proof that he fired Comey specifically to obstruct the Russia investigation! When actually, keeping an incompetent BUFFOON like Comey in the job would have done WONDERS for obstructing the investigation! Whereas replacing him with a man of competence would be a good thing for the investigation, resulting in a higher probability of Trump being found guilty, if he is in fact guilty of anything at all.

 

That's a true, but an unnecessary point.

The Constitution is apparently not part of a Trump-Hater's "research".

 

I'll give you one more quote:

https://thehill.com/policy/national...ident-can-fire-an-fbi-director-for-any-reason
“I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI director for any reason, or for no reason at all,” he (Comey) wrote, according to CNN. "I’m not going to spend time on the decision or the way it was executed." - Former FBI Director James Comey

Now, at this point, you can do one of 3 things.

1. Admit your mistake like an adult. Hopefully planning to research future topics prior to posting them.
2. Ignore your error and pretend it never happened.
3. Keep digging.

 

Nope!

 

That's nothihg compared to the pains that still await Trump and his loyalists. They can deny what they see with their own eyes now. I wonder if they would deny if he is hauled off to prison. We will know.

So, one more time: It is if he fires him because of "this Russiarrr thing..., with Trump and Russiarrr....". That's not only abuse of power. It's also obstruction of justice.

You can always tell when the Trump loyalist has run out of arguments because they resort to this desperate Hannity pre-canned argument, that is soooo easy to rebut.

 

My reference is the Constitution. You didn't rebut it, you just ignored it. Again.

Read Article 2 sometime. It doesn't say anything about Presidential powers being suspended.

Here's a pop quiz
1. What branch of government isi the FBI director in?
2. Who is the lead person of that branch?

Hint: There are only 3 branches.

Smart people admit their mistakes. Others just keep digging.

 

Only if you conveniently sorta... skip... section 4

And, of course, there is that "pesky" Article 6.

So.... cherry picking may be fun. But only until somebody exposes your nonsense.

Listen.. your argument is so ridiculous, I feel uncomfortable even explaining to you how absurd it is. I'm pretty sure you're an adult, and I feel as if I should be addressing you like a 5 year old.

So, bottom line: no. The President is not above the law.

But, even if he were, the fact is that he committed those crimes. So if a partisan Republican Supreme Court were to decide that the President is above the law, they will have to do it explicitly. So we are clear on the matter. Because there will eventually be a President who is not a Republican. And we better start looking very closely at what President Kamala Harris or President Frederica Wilson, will be legally allowed to do.

So you don't later come back whining when they do it.

 

You can't show any party of the Constitution that takes away Article 2 power of POTUS conduct his duties as Executive, because they don't exist.

Let me try to explain it in a manner you can understand.

If an FBI Director can't be fired by POTUS, then he effectively becomes the King of his own 4th Brach of government, because nobody else can fire him. Congress and SCOTUS have no constitutional power to remove an FBI director.

In fact, only 3 people can ever fire an FBI Director.
1. Deputy AG, who in this case actually recommend his firing.
2. AG, who recused himself and relinquished his authority on this manner to the Deputy AG (see #1)
3. POTUS, who kicked Comeys dumbass out of his chair.

NOBODY else can fire the FBI Director. NOBODY.

But please, try and post something you think says that POTUS is powerless to do so.

I get that the mist partisan Democrats think Trumphaters have an entitlement to power. But the Constitution disagrees.