Random Politics & Religion #21

False

I want this job! someone, anyone please hook me up!!!

I'm totaly qualified!!!

NOW THAT Democrats have scored a victory by defeating President Donald Trump’s plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, they smell blood in the water. But in pledging to block Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, they may be overplaying their hand and inviting bigger problems down the road.

The resistance to Gorsuch is based not on the nominee’s background, qualifications, or courtroom experience. Those are impeccable. He breezed through his confirmation hearings without any gaffes or slipups. No, the Democratic opposition is fanned by the suspicion that Gorsuch will somehow put the law ahead of his personal feelings.

This bizarre attitude was summed up by Democratic Senator Kamala Harris of California, who said: “Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued narrow legalisms over real lives.” In other words, a good judge should base his rulings on outcomes and not on the law itself.

Here in Massachusetts, Senator Elizabeth Warren accused Gorsuch of favoring the interests of big corporations over workers and consumers, as if what matters is the identity of the plaintiffs and defendants and not the legal reasoning behind Gorsuch’s opinions.

Warren’s opposition is particularly rich considering her own history, actually advocating for the corporations she claims to oppose.

During the time she spent as a
private attorney, Warren was hired by LTV Steel, in the 1990s, to assist the company, then emerging from bankruptcy, in arguing that it did not have to pay into its retirees’ health care fund. She also represented Travelers Insurance in 2009 in a bid to help one of the nation’s largest insurers gain immunity from asbestos-related lawsuits. Travelers won most of what it wanted. Needless to say, the results have been disastrous for asbestos victims.

Why is it that Warren gets a pass on her hypocrisy as she attacks the reputation of her opponents? If Warren engages in the same behaviors that she pretends to find in others, she should at least be reminded of her dishonesty.

And what is the evidence that Gorsuch is pro-corporate? Compared to Warren, Gorsuch is a slacker. The most oft-cited case is his dissent while on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision in which a company was ordered to rehire a trucker fired for abandoning his load. Gorsuch said the company’s response may have been unkind, but it was not illegal.

At the confirmation hearings, Gorsuch addressed the law’s demands, and how what we might desire in terms of an outcome is not always possible. “Sometimes,” he said, “the answers we reach aren’t the ones we personally prefer. Sometimes the answers follow us home at night and keep us up. But the answers we reach are always the ones we believes the law requires. And for all its imperfections, I believe that the rule of law in this nation truly is a wonder.”

One of Barack Obama’s legacies as president is the “empathy rule” in judicial selection. Before nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the nation’s highest bench, in 2009, Obama said an important consideration was “that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

Democrats have now turned that criterion into a weak excuse for filibustering Gorsuch’s nomination.

This is a dead end for Democrats. Refusing Gorsuch a straight up-or-down vote will force majority leader Mitch McConnell to do away with Senate rules that require 60 votes to break a filibuster. That means Trump can choose as his next Supreme Court nominee someone far more contentious and less empathetic than Gorsuch, and Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves.

Where did you get that picture of me ?

We have the confirmation by the FBI and the NSA saying it's not the case. What happened is incidental collection of information.

Sticking to the facts.

Are you so blind in your partisan mind that you can't see the evidence because you don't like it?

Again, you are just injecting your own conclusions.
I didnt even mention russia, FBI NSA and the DoJ said they didnt spy on Trump.

Do you understand what 'incidental' means?

President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, has discussed with congressional committees giving testimony in their investigations of potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, his lawyer said on Thursday.

The Wall Street Journal, citing officials with knowledge of the matter, reported on Thursday that Flynn had sought immunity from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the House and Senate intelligence panels in exchange for his testimony. The newspaper said he had so far found no takers.

The House of Representatives panel denied the Journal report. "Michael Flynn has not offered to testify to HPSCI in exchange for immunity," committee spokesman Jack Langer said in a statement.

The FBI declined to comment. The Senate committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Flynn was fired in February as national security adviser for failing to disclose talks with Russia's ambassador about U.S. sanctions on Moscow. The talks occurred before Trump took office in January.

Flynn's lawyer, Robert Kelner, confirmed in a statement that his client had held discussions with the House and Senate intelligence committees. His statement did not mention the FBI.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is willing to testify before federal and congressional investigators, but only if he is granted immunity, his lawyer said Thursday.

"Gen. Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit. ... No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch-hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution," Robert Kelner, Flynn's lawyer, said in a statement late Thursday.

No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch-hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Just take a little bit of nothingburger, put it as bait on your fishing pole, earn immunity to guarantee that the witch hunt can't touch you, and laugh at the tears of disappointment when what you say can't be used to hurt Trump. Sounds like a pretty good plan.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Just take a little bit of nothingburger, put it as bait on your fishing pole, earn immunity to guarantee that the witch hunt can't touch you, and laugh at the tears of disappointment when what you say can't be used to hurt Trump. Sounds like a pretty good plan.

And its not gonna work. Fortunately, the Senate is smarter than Flynn. His willingness to testify is irrelevant, just subpoena him.

Well if it sends him to prison that works, right?

Sure, right when they send Eric Holder to jail too.

Update - Flynn's lawyer has confirmed the story is true.

CNN!


So, good for him. But good luck with that. He can be subpoena'd, and if he wants to take the 5th then thats on him. Curious about what he has got to hide.

A couple months ago it was all about how you are guilty if you ask for immunity.