US Politics - AKA Sid and Labane's late night talk show


Or South Galway


He is completely wrong.

The idea that they are finally about to overtake the US as the global power is ridiculous.

They have quite a bit of things still to do.


What a bunch of lying lowlife scumbags the Democratic party has become, an embarrassment to what was once an honorable party with integrity.

On the eve of the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme court, a man with an impeccable career, Democrats have come out with two smears, one form an anonymous source and one based on doctoriong his Senate testimony to distort his record.

Kavanaugh was asked at his nomination hearing about the views of a Catholic organization Priests for Life on birth control, he clearly responded regarding “their” views. Asshole Democrats like Kamala Harris removed the word “they” from the clip and claimed he was representing his own views.

In the latest outrage, Sen Feinstein has come forward with an unnamed source who apparently claims some sexual misconduct between Kavanaugh and herself during high school, but wants to remain anonymous, declines to come forward and doesn’t want to pursue the matter further.

Sadly, the barrel has no bottom any longer in politics.


Kavanaugh is a lying scumbag and the Republicans have behaved disgracefully during his hearing.

Kamala Harris made a fool of him last week.

For all your pretence at being pro-choice it’s clear you’re only gagging to see Roe v Wade overturned.


I Wrote Some of the Stolen Memos That Brett Kavanaugh Lied to the Senate About

He should be impeached, not elevated.


SEPT 07, 201811:43 AM

Much of Washington has spent the week focusing on whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. After the revelations of his confirmation hearings, the better question is whether he should be impeached from the federal judiciary.

I do not raise that question lightly, but I am certain it must be raised.

Newly released emails show that while he was working to move through President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees in the early 2000s, Kavanaugh received confidential memos, letters, and talking points of Democratic staffers stolen by GOP Senate aide Manuel Miranda. That includes research and talking points Miranda stole from the Senate server after I had written them for the Senate Judiciary Committee as the chief counsel for nominations for the minority.

Receiving those memos and letters alone is not an impeachable offense.

No, Kavanaugh should be removed because he was repeatedly asked under oath as part of his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings for his position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit about whether he had received such information from Miranda, and each time he falsely denied it.

For example, in 2004, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked him directly if he received “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Kavanaugh responded, unequivocally, “No.”

In 2006, Sen. Ted Kennedy asked him if he had any regrets about how he treated documents he had received from Miranda that he later learned were stolen. Kavanaugh rejected the premise of the question, restating that he never even saw one of those documents.

Back then the senators did not have the emails that they have now, showing that Miranda sent Kavanaugh numerous documents containing what was plainly research by Democrats. Some of those emails went so far as to warn Kavanaugh not to distribute the Democratic talking points he was being given. If these were documents shared from the Democratic side of the aisle as part of normal business, as Kavanaugh claimed to have believed in his most recent testimony, why would they be labeled “not [for] distribution”? And why would we share our precise strategy to fight controversial Republican nominations with the Republicans we were fighting?

Another email chain included the subject line “spying.” It’s hard to imagine a more definitive clue than that. Another said “Senator Leahy’s staff has distributed a confidential letter to Dem Counsel” and then described for Kavanaugh that precise confidential information we had gathered about a nominee Kavanaugh was boosting. Again, it is illogical to think that we would have just given Miranda this “confidential” information for him to use against us. But this is precisely what Judge Kavanaugh suggested in his testimony on Wednesday. He is not that naïve.

In the hearing this week, Sen. Leahy also noted that the previously hidden emails showed that Miranda asked to meet Kavanaugh in person to give him “paper” files with “useful info to map out [Sens. Joe] Biden and [Dianne] Feinstein, and others.” The promised information included “Biden-speak.” Again, this would not have been a normal information exchange.

In response to Leahy’s questions this week, Kavanaugh made the outlandish claim that it was typical for him to be told what Democrats planned to ask at these combative hearings over controversial nominees, and that this was in fact the “coin of the realm.” As a Democrat who worked on those questions, I can say definitively that it was not typical at all. Kavanaugh knows this full well.

At the time, Kavanaugh was working with Miranda and outside groups to try to force these nominees through the Senate over Democratic objections, and it would have been suicide to give them our research, talking points, strategies, or confidential letters. The GOP senators, their staff, the White House, and outside groups were working intensively to undermine the work of Democratic senators to block the most extreme of President Bush’s judicial nominees.

The Leahy talking points given to Kavanaugh were from my in-depth research into why the Senate had compelling historical precedent for examining Miguel Estrada’s Department of Justice records, which the White House counsel’s office was refusing to surrender. Other confidential materials Miranda shared with Kavanaugh related to investigations Democrats were pursuing over how Judge Priscilla Owen had handled an abortion case involving parental consent and about the overlap between her funders and groups with business before the courts of Texas. We would never have provided that information—key to our strategy to try to block what we considered extremist judicial nominations—to Miranda or to the White House.

During his testimony, Kavanaugh conflated these adversarial proceedings with ones in which Democrats might have cooperated with the other side, like the Patriot Act and airline liability. But these weren’t hearings on some bill where senators would share their concerns across the aisle to try to get a bipartisan fix on problems in a piece of legislation. These were oppositional proceedings in committee and on the floor over controversial judicial nominees. Kavanaugh knew this just as intimately as I did—our sides fought over those nominations intensely.

It was also an area where Kavanaugh’s judicial nominations alliance had taken a scorched-earth approach, attacking Democrats ruthlessly. The White House’s closest allies went so far as to call Leahy and other Democrats on the committee “anti-Catholic,” even running attack ads.

Perhaps Kavanaugh was so blinded by his quest to get the most controversial Bush nominees confirmed in 2003 that he did not have any concerns about the bounty of secret memos and letters he was receiving—the full extent of which is not known because so many documents are still secret.

But, surely, reasonable questions about what he had been party to would have been considered after the story of the theft exploded in the news, Miranda was forced to resign, and the U.S. Senate sergeant-at-arms began a bipartisan investigation into the files stolen from the Senate?

As of November 2003, when the sergeant-at-arms seized the Judiciary Committee’s servers, Kavanaugh would have been on notice that any of the letters, talking points, or research described as being from Democrats that were provided to him by Miranda were suspect and probably stolen from the Senate’s server.

But he did nothing. He did not come forward to the Senate to provide information about the confidential documents Miranda had given him, which were clearly from the Democrats.

Kavanaugh also apparently did nothing when the Senate referred the case to the U.S. attorney’s office for criminal prosecution. (Miranda was never prosecuted.)

Eventually, though, Kavanaugh went even further to help cover up the details of the theft.

During the hearings on his nomination to the D.C. Circuit a few months after the Miranda news broke, Kavanaugh actively hid his own involvement, lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee by stating unequivocally that he not only knew nothing of the episode, but also never even received any stolen material.

Even if Kavanaugh could claim that he didn’t have any hint at the time he received the emails that these documents were of suspect provenance—which I personally find implausible—there is no reasonable way for him to assert honestly that he had no idea what they were after the revelation of the theft. Any reasonable person would have realized they had been stolen, and certainly someone as smart as Kavanaugh would have too.

But he lied.

Under oath.

And he did so repeatedly.

Significantly, he did so even though a few years earlier he had helped spearhead the impeachment of President Bill Clinton for perjury in a private civil case. Back then Kavanaugh took lying under oath so seriously that he was determined to do everything he could to help remove a president from office.

Now we know that he procured his own confirmation to the federal bench by committing the same offense. And he did so not in a private case but in the midst of public hearings for a position of trust, for a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary.

His actions were dishonorable and dishonest.

This week, as part of his efforts to be elevated to the highest court in the land, he has calmly continued to deceive, falsely claiming that it would have been perfectly normal for him to receive secret Democratic letters, talking points, and other materials. And if this absurd notion were somehow true, it would not even be consistent with what he testified to 12 and 14 years ago. Back then, he didn’t state it would have been normal for him to receive secret Democratic strategy materials.

Instead, he explicitly and repeatedly went out of his way to say he never had access to any such materials . These objectively false statements were offered under oath to convince the committee of something that was untrue. It was clearly intentional, with Kavanaugh going so far as to correct Sen. Kennedy when the senator described the document situation accurately.

That’s why—without even getting into other reasonable objections to his nomination—he should not be confirmed.

In fact, by his own standard, he should clearly be impeached.

Lisa Graves is the co-founder of Documented, which investigates corporate influence on democracy. She is the former chief counsel for nominations for the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice.


So no response to the scumbag tactics by Democrats.

Kavanaugh was universally lauded by everyone who worked with him up to being nominated by Trump. Predictably he is now being painted in a negative light by people like Kamala Harris who has exposed herself as a fruitcake with this latest smear. You do not get to that level of justice and have the baggage this attack dog piece suggests.

Kavanaugh has stated repeatedly that Roe vs Wade is settled law. There isn’t a senior justice in the US who thinks otherwise. What an idiot you truly are.


Address the points in the article, please.

Any politician who doesn’t vote against this devious, lying shit has no business in politics.

I’m already working under the entirely correct assumption that you see no problem with judges lying under oath.

You’re a brainwashed Trump sycophant who sits goggle-eyed watching Fox News every night, that’s a given.


Address the two smear campaigns in my original post first gobshite.

The issues raised in the article were dealt with in the Senate hearings. The emails in question were published by Democrats and there was nothing contained that suggested Kavanaugh lied.

But continue believing any and all nutcase left wing conspiracy theories.

I don’t watch Fox News, unlike yourself. I get my news from unbiased sources, again unlike yourself.


Oh, and consider this a monumental clamping.

WASHINGTON — As a White House lawyer in the Bush administration, Judge Brett Kavanaugh challenged the accuracy of deeming the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision to be “settled law of the land,” according to a secret email obtained by The New York Times.

The email, written in March 2003, is one of thousands of documents that a lawyer for President George W. Bush turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Supreme Court nominee but deemed “committee confidential,” meaning it could not be made public or discussed by Democrats in questioning him in hearings this week. It was among several an unknown person provided to The New York Times late Wednesday.

Judge Kavanaugh was considering a draft opinion piece that supporters of one of Mr. Bush’s conservative appeals court nominees hoped they could persuade anti-abortion women to submit under their names. It stated that “it is widely accepted by legal scholars across the board that Roe v. Wade and its progeny are the settled law of the land.”

Judge Kavanaugh proposed deleting that line, writing: “I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.”

He was presumably referring to then-Justices William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, conservatives who had dissented in a 1992 case that reaffirmed Roe, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The court now has four conservative justices who may be willing to overturn Roe — Justices Thomas and John G. Roberts Jr., Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — and if he is confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could provide the decisive fifth vote.

Still, his email stops short of saying whether he personally believed that the abortion rights precedent should be considered a settled legal issue.

Can you tell me why Kavanaugh was so evasive when questioned as to whether he’d vote to overturn Roe v Wade?

Anybody who considers it settled law shouldhave no problem in answering clearly.

He could not. Why do you think that is, now? Were you born yesterday?


You come across as if you have a gun in your hand while writing that.

I’d well believe you had.


And that was the reality in 2003. However it is no longer 2003, it’s now 2018. Kavanaugh was 100% correct in his statement then and there is nothing he said that suggests he would have voted to overturn then just as there is nothing today that suggests he would vote to overturn.

No justice being nominated for the supreme court is going to answer how they would vote in any future case before the Supreme Court as that would be idiotic. However it is clear that Kavanaugh regards Roe v Wade as settled law. Only nutcases on the left believe otherwise.


You should really get over your stereotypical view of Americans, it exposes you as an uneducated clown who has never travelled beyond the odd football terrace.


If something is settled law there’s no reason to be evasive.

One is only evasive because they have an ulterior motive, as he plainly has.

Because he doesn’t believe it’s settled law.

You’re in over your head here, you always are.

That’s because like the orange buffoon you wank yourself off to, you are, to quote the words of the White House Chief of Staff, an idiot who lives in Crazytown, with an incurable addiction to displaying your idiocy in public.




The reason to be evasive is no decent Justice would prejudge any future case that may come before them.

Fundamentally Roe v Wade will not be overturned, as in the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy balanced against the rights of the fetus to exist. What may change is where viability is established, the existing ruling is 24-28 weeks which was medical opinion at the time.

There is a sizable and reasonable opinion today that 24-28 weeks is far too long along, given today’s knowledge of fetal development and medical procedures in treating premature births. I’m pretty sure you stated during recent debates on proposed Irish law that closer to 20 weeks was reasonable.

Either way, the fundamental right to abortion in the Us will not change, but restrictions based on viability may change. Keeping in mind that the cohort you associate with demand unrestricted access to abortion up to childbirth.

It’s a complicated subject and clearly beyond your intellectual capacity.


I’m not sure why you’ve bothered to write any of that seeing as I clearly and correctly pointed out that you were wrong as regards whether Kavanaugh believes Roe v Wade is settled law.

He doesn’t.

Better luck next time.

Tucker Carlson is starting in just over half an hour, so I’m sure you’re all keyed up waiting to copy some of his lines to repeat here. Good luck with that.


White cop enters black man’s apartment for no reason, (she laughably claimed she thought it was her own apartment), Fox thinks this is the major take-away from the story.

Fox is doing a bang up job of proving it has a racism problem.


The fundamental right to abortion established in Roe v Wade is settled law. There is zero chance of that right being overturned in the US. What may change is the concept of viability which any normal person finds reasonable.

Once again, the cohort that you support and identify with demand unrestricted access to abortion up to childbirth. Of course that’s what you believe as well but don’t have the balls to admit it.


You should really stop your obsessive viewing of Fox News, it’s clearly impacting your (already reduced) ability to reason.


What led you to think I was watching Fox News, pal?

Your technological illiteracy?