Of course I do expect this sht to come flowing down from the likes of Alec Jones or Louis Gohmert, but reportedly this Whelan is a longtime operator with direct ties to Kavanaugh, the Federalist Soc, the WH and GOP.

Top notch CEO's would not allow such a circumstance to rise to the level that it would bring unwanted attention or jeopardize the corporation.  If the individual even reached to the point of a job interview, it would go no further in today's environs. And, HR would be called out.

"A face for radio"?  You know what, I don't even want to know what you mean by that.

You may be reading on right wing sites he was not Trumps first choice.  Of course you are.   Actually he was not only his first choice he had him added to the list he got from the right wing groups later so he could pick him.  That's because of his rather extreme views on executive power.  Kavanaugh was not the first choice of any one else.  Mitch tried hard to convince Trump he might not get through the process.  Many others were against him.

As far as the "delays" my own suspicion is they were playing Grassley and the committee.  They never expected to get most of that stuff.  It was a way to point out the unfairness, rather successfully I think, and make sure everyone in the country was paying attention.

Just like your POTUS.

Grassley has been more than willing to allow normal rules; in fact he offered to move the location to the West Coast.  There are good reasons the minority wants to delay things, but now the delays have reached the point that the attention span of a lot of folks has been exceeded.

That's laughable.  They're treating her worse than they treated Anita Hill, which was deplorable.  Grassley did NOT "offer to move the location to the West Coast".  He "offered" to have HIS investigators (Mike Davies, anyone?) interview her out there, because it would allow them to question her out of the public view. It's the same reason he wants an outsde counsel to question her at any hearings - the spectacle of all these old, white men conducting an inquisition of a sexual assault victim.  Not to mention that THEY have "faces for radio", right?

My best guess is that there is no hearing, or only one with Kavenaugh there, and he is confirmed on a straight party line vote with several red state Democrats losing their seats in the mid terms.

ragebot: "I still remember when Kissinger and the PRVN had problems agreeing on the shape of the table."

The debate over the shape of the table at the Paris peace talks occurred in the fall of 1968, well before Henry Kissinger arrived on the scene in any official capacity. The chief American negotiator at the time was W. Averell Harriman, U.S. Ambassador-at-large for the State Department.

Further, the initial objection to the original seating arrangement came not from the North Vietnamese but rather, from our own South Vietnamese allies led by their chief delegate, Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, who refused to consent to any permanent seating plan that would effectively place the National Liberation Front (NLF or Viet Cong) on an equal diplomatic footing with his own government in Saigon.

At that point, the North Vietnamese delegation responded to Ky's objection by informing Ambassador Harriman that if this was the case, then Hanoi would likewise balk at any arrangement which would effectively recognize the Saigon regime as the legitimate government of South Vietnam. The NLF chimed in its support of Hanoi's position.

Harriman ultimately resolved the impasse by proposing the placement of two square tables separated by a round table. That way, the NLF representatives could join the North Vietnamese negotiating team without having to be acknowledged by Saigon's delegates Similarly, Premier Ky and the South Vietnamese delegates could sit with their U.S. allies without having to be similarly recognized by Hanoi's negotiators.

All parties were amenable to the new seating arrangement, and the talks finally got underway. However, the actual consequences of this seemingly silly tempest was quite profound, because it effectively rendered all subsequent negotiations in Paris as exclusively bilateral between Washington and Hanoi, rather than multi-lateral between all four parties as was originally envisioned and intended by President Johnson.

Thus, Premier Ky's objections to the NLF's presence in Paris -- which a few historians have recently speculated may have been prompted by Anna Chennault's secret communications with South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu, as part of the Nixon campaign's efforts to sabotage the peace negotiations prior to the Nov. 1968 election -- served only to marginalize the Saigon government at the peace talks, by subordinating its diplomatic position to that of the United States.

So, what looked to many at the time to be trivial and nonsensical at initial glance instead turned out to be deadly serious, because those seating arrangements ultimately determined that Washington's position would eventually prevail over Saigon's at the peace talks. President Thieu and Premier Ky cut their throats with their posturing, which ensured that Washington would eventually cut its own deal with Hanoi, and the Saigon regime wouldn't last 28 months from the date of the Jan. 27, 1973 signing of the Paris Peace Accords.

I've taken the time to recount to you the actual history of the Paris negotiating table snafu because facts and details do matter, ragebot. Your repeated inability to get the facts right undermines your positions time and again. If you can be bothered to get the facts right in your on historical analogy, then what else in this matter might you similarly blow off as inconsequential?

In this instance, not only did you not reach first base with your argument here, you stumbled to a pratfall right out of the batter's box.

There are IMO better reasons for him to not withdraw.  The right will lose its mind.  Voting will be depressed on the right.  

But if there is a hearing I think there will not be the votes to confirm him.  They absolutely won't put him up for a vote if that's true.

It would be the worst thing they could do.  Make all the senators vote on him and not confirm him.

All the chatter is about Collins.  I think Murkowski might be a bigger question.  She is under major pressure from the native people in her state.  And several state officials including the governor has come out against Kavanaugh.

Michael Avenatti has been dropping tantalizing tweets as well.  No idea if it's the same person.  It doesn't really sound like it.

There are good reasons the minority wants to delay things, but now the delays have reached the point that the attention span of a lot of folks has been exceeded.

I represent a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify. The nomination must be withdrawn.
6:33 PM · Sep 23, 2018
13.1K
Retweets
31.2K
Likes
Michael Avenatti
Michael Avenatti
@MichaelAvenatti
·
38m
Replying to
@MichaelAvenatti
My client is not Deborah Ramirez