Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

ax1 said:
After all that I have no idea if this judge did this crime or not....Im leaning he is innocent, that doesnt exempt him from being a big government anti-constitutional thug which should disqualify him from the seat anyways....... and that doesnt exempt mass murdering lunatics of women and children who questioned him today who have no ethical authority to be questioning him in the first place...ok going off topic lol

So Im leaning he is innocent, what you guys thought? I dont think anyone can come up with anything conclusively though.
Click to expand...

It's theater like everything else they do, but the Republicans ****ed up their own plan. They brought in an "impartial" female prosecutor to question Ford because they are afraid of how it will look for them harshly questioning her, but then had the prosecutor sit there in silence while they directly questioned Kavanaugh. They're more worried about their own re-election rather than getting to the truth. Also, this isn't about innocence or guilt because it isn't a trial...it's a job interview.
 
That dude looks and acts guilty AF.
I know this because my wife brought it up first because she's a survivor and recalls everything that happened to her 35 years ago too.
 
justhere4comm said:
That dude looks and acts guilty AF.
I know this because my wife brought it up first because she's a survivor and recalls everything that happened to her 35 years ago too.
Click to expand...

His former Yale school drinking buddies are saying he is lying like a mofo. RapeBoy was a blackout drunk many times and he still will become a Supreme lol.
 
I thought she was a weak witness with mostly unclear memories activated decades later and the questions of her did not go deep enough to establish it was Kavanaugh. How often had she seen Kavanaugh to be able to remember him? I know the names of most of my HS homeroom classmates from 1982 and do not recall those I would meet from other schools. Even girls I was intimate with. I did not drink then as well so memory was not tainted by alcohol or drugs. She went to another school so how did she know it was him if the memory was repressed for 30 years? How often had she seen him? How many events prior to the alleged incident do they have in common. All in daytime or at night? Any afterwards? She mentioned one time with Judge at a convenience store and that is.

I say the above because it is probable I have bumped and grinded with some girl back then and met her years later and we do not know or recollect each other, other than to say "yeah I used to go there a lot at night back in the 1980s".

Anyone who has gone to Spring Break knows what I mean. And that is with or without drugs or booze.

It was not mentioned if the memory of the incident was fresh with her for how long afterwards or if was those therapy sessions in 2012 which activated them. I heard only that she had problems in college initially. Well she was 15 when this happened so still had more HS to go through and then college.

Fortunately he has a detailed calendar and well there is no match with her events.

There is nothing there to warrant further investigation unless she wants to file a claim with local PD and they see it worth investigating. A vague allegation from 30+ years ago is not sufficient to delay things. In a country of 340+million with the current political divisiveness one would expect to see spurious claims come forward.

She was live bait put out by the folks who should be looking out for her interests. A person who is so emotionally damaged should be under a Drs. care and I am surprised that the type of therapy suggested by Mitchell was not started in 2012 when she indicated the memories were coming back. She certainly appeared to have a very fragile emotional setup to me. The absentmindedness in which she responded to other questions.

There are a number of other points and they will make me look like the male bastard that I am so will leave them out for now.

And for all of you young people reading, remember it was 1982, no Internet, no cell phones, nothing to have instant, permanent and portable facial records available. You met someone, My name is XXX. and that was it until next time we met. Which you may or may not remember their name or face. Yearbooks had no manner to circulate publicly unless you visited someone who had one. I had SW HS down the street from my school. I met people from SW at lunch hour, street races, hangouts, etc. I do not recall any except those I spend many repeated times with over some event. If I had their yearbook handy for 1982 I may be able to pick out a few others. This lady remembers two guys who were introduced by others. Who she knew only briefly.

There is one other issue. Guys who sexually come on to girls at parties-the easy kill, do not stop at one. It is like eating potato chips. BK was well heeled and partied. There would be a considerable record of these with other women. I knew guys like that and like him. The stud hunter vs the nerd wannabe wingman.
 
jameschoi said:
His former Yale school drinking buddies are saying he is lying like a mofo. RapeBoy was a blackout drunk many times and he still will become a Supreme lol.
Click to expand...

That is not an issue here what he did in college. Unless you are referring to the two claims of those years that have come up- 1. That was so poorly supported one newspaper refused to publish it. 2.The Avenatti supported witness who already has been denounced by former a relationship as a psychological basket case to include restraining order.
 
UCSMiami said:
That is not an issue here what he did in college. Unless you are referring to the two claims of those years that have come up- 1. That was so poorly supported one newspaper refused to publish it. 2.The Avenatti supported witness who already has been denounced by former a relationship as a psychological basket case to include restraining order.
Click to expand...

The point being he lied about his drinking. What else did he lie about.
 
jameschoi said:
The point being he lied about his drinking. What else did he lie about.
Click to expand...

I saw all of her side and most of his. The college drinking was not brought up yesterday in the part that I saw. I know there was a public hearing a few weeks ago. I missed that I was out of country for a few weeks.
 
UCSMiami said:
I saw all of her side and most of his. The college drinking was not brought up yesterday in the part that I saw. I know there was a public hearing a few weeks ago. I missed that I was out of country for a few weeks.
Click to expand...

Does this sink Kav now? His former Yale buddies say he lied multiple times. Will the FBI look into this?
 
UCSMiami said:
I saw all of her side and most of his. The college drinking was not brought up yesterday in the part that I saw. I know there was a public hearing a few weeks ago. I missed that I was out of country for a few weeks.
Click to expand...

Does this sink Kav now? His former Yale buddies say he lied multiple times. Will the FBI look into this?
 
jameschoi said:
Does this sink Kav now? His former Yale buddies say he lied multiple times. Will the FBI look into this?
Click to expand...

Again, have not seen that part. There was a very slight reference yesterday to the problems among his Yale roommates. That is all I saw. One party saying they did and another saying they did not is in no way conclusive evidence and the burden is always on the accuser.

Yesterday was about Ford and her testimony and his rebuttal to it. The Dems focused on wanting him to ask for an FBI investigation, a little bit about his calendar and then one reference to his post-HS days mentioned above. That is all I saw. I admit I had to leave his portion when Booker started to talk.
 
Jesuit publication rescinds its endorsement of Brett Kavanaugh


US news This afternoon
Editors of America Magazine, a weekly publication from US Jesuits, called for the withdrawal of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the US Supreme Court. The editorial takes a turn from a July one, in which editors recommended Kavanaugh.

Invalid Link Removed


American Bar Association calls for a delay on Kavanaugh's vote

"The basic principles that underscore the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI," the organization said in a letter.

Invalid Link Removed


President Trump approves FBI probe into SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh

"The White House confirmed that it had instructed the FBI to reopen its background investigation into sexual assault allegations against SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) said they support a proposed one-week delay in the Senate floor vote. Murkowski and Manchin are seen as crucial swing votes on Kavanaugh's nomination."


He's sunk.
Trump himself said she was a credible witness, mirroring Fox News precisely in his verbiage. It's almost as if... Everyone Trump gets in bed with has their career wrecked. I think it's a drinking game now or should be.

The FBI will reopen the background check investigation.
He will be offered a polygraph just like Dr. Ford took, and I wonder if he will? I doubt it.
About his calendar. It will be used extensively to help determine when it happened. Prevailing thought is July 1st.

This guy is guilty and with hope it will be revealed, and he will no longer be a judge.
As I heard one commentator state, "With his temperament, he shouldn't be driving a car." Agreed.
I watched his wife in court, and her eyes did not lie. He's a belligerent drunk, still.
 
jameschoi said:
The point being he lied about his drinking. What else did he lie about.
Click to expand...

He actually lied about a few things yesterday. If he would have just said "hey, I was a teenager and made a stupid mistake and got drunk and honestly don't recall it happening" that is one thing. But to sit there and lie now, as an adult. **** that.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
He actually lied about a few things yesterday. If he would have just said "hey, I was a teenager and made a stupid mistake and got drunk and honestly don't recall it happening" that is one thing. But to sit there and lie now, as an adult. **** that.
Click to expand...

Not only did he lie, but it's what he lied about and it made no sense.

I've read about teenage drinking and especially binge drinking. It halts their emotional development until they stop, and this explains his behaviors today quite well. He has a very low emotional intelligence or development. What is it with him and currently coaching teen girls basketball?

Telling, or coincidence but it is in line with that latency of emotional development. At times I wasn't watching a man, but an under developed 'adult'.

Queue the question about drinking until blacking out. He turned the question on the person asking him. What? That describes this perfectly. That man has issues.
 
UCSMiami said:
We shall see. Sit tight for a week. I wager he becomes approved and does get seated at the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I'm going to wager he isn't, but it's possible also there will be a voter backlash the likes not seen in a long time.
An uprising of women. The writing is on the wall that Trump already built. Let's call that a euphemistic pun.
 
justhere4comm said:
That dude looks and acts guilty AF.
I know this because my wife brought it up first because she's a survivor and recalls everything that happened to her 35 years ago too.
Click to expand...
Man there's a clip from Colbert showing even all the Fox news correspondents agreed Ford was credible and it's a pretty bad day for the Republicans...

I mean if you have any level of discernment and watch those two... I am going to go so far as to say if one watches that and still came out pro Brett.. that one has made up their mind and likely have some deep seated pro-white / pro Trump / pro-man "at all costs" issues? Regardless of the crime?

What's the hurry? It's a lifetime appointment for a job and I think false accusations from women on such are very unlikely here - as she is enduring a lot of death threats from alt-right nutz, just for coming forward. Shame.
 
We can bet.
I got Clomid/ Nolva ( you pick) that says kav gets confirmed AND Republicans keep the senate. Anybody?
 
PoSiTiVeFLoW said:
Man there's a clip from Colbert showing even all the Fox news correspondents agreed Ford was credible and it's a pretty bad day for the Republicans...

I mean if you have any level of discernment and watch those two... I am going to go so far as to say if one watches that and still came out pro Brett.. that one has made up their mind and likely have some deep seated pro-white / pro Trump / pro-man "at all costs" issues? Regardless of the crime?

What's the hurry? It's a lifetime appointment for a job and I think false accusations from women on such are very unlikely here - as she is enduring a lot of death threats from alt-right nutz, just for coming forward. Shame.
Click to expand...

Define credible. The lady was very off in terms of how emotionally stable she appeared. Honestly, do you really believe her? The literature on Recovered Memories is not conclusive for or against. As for BK lying, I do not know which specific incident is referred to.

As for the remainder of what you wrote after the first sentence, Investigate what? She does not recall exact date, location, only some of those present-who have stated in affidavits they do not recollect. There is no physical evidence. The memory was dormant for years until activated in 2012. It was 36 or so years ago not 36 months. Nearly two generations.


We learned that Ford cannot remember:

- Time/date/location of party
- Who drove her to party
- Who was at party
- Who pushed her into room
- Who drove her from party
- Does not recall who introduced her to BK.

But "100% sure" it was Kavanaugh 36 yrs ago


BK actually has far more exculpatory evidence in his favor.

Please do not tell me you are one of these guilty until proven innocent types regarding accused males of a certain political affiliation. Sounds like it from your boldened above. If so then we are done discussing this as that means there is too much disconnect for us to debate logically.

It is done.
 
UCSMiami said:
Define credible. The lady was very off in terms of how emotionally stable she appeared. Honestly, do you really believe her? The literature on Recovered Memories is not conclusive for or against. As for BK lying, I do not know which specific incident is referred to.

As for the remainder of what you wrote after the first sentence, Investigate what? She does not recall exact date, location, only some of those present-who have stated in affidavits they do not recollect. There is no physical evidence. The memory was dormant for years until activated in 2012. It was 36 or so years ago not 36 months. Nearly two generations.


We learned that Ford cannot remember:

- Time/date/location of party
- Who drove her to party
- Who was at party
- Who pushed her into room
- Who drove her from party
- Does not recall who introduced her to BK.

But "100% sure" it was Kavanaugh 36 yrs ago


BK actually has far more exculpatory evidence in his favor.

Please do not tell me you are one of these guilty until proven innocent types regarding accused males of a certain political affiliation. Sounds like it from your boldened above. If so then we are done discussing this as that means there is too much disconnect for us to debate logically.

It is done.
Click to expand...

How the **** are you going to accuse somebody of disconnect and bias when you have repeatedly said that you didn't even watch his entire testimony? Her memory wasn't dormant so stop saying that. You're either misinformed or straight up lying. Talk to a survivor or talk to a researcher in the neuroscience of memory and it's not odd at all to recall the attack, but not necessarily every little detail of what else happened that night. Victims replay that part over and over again, strengthening that memory.
 
PoSiTiVeFLoW said:
Man there's a clip from Colbert showing even all the Fox news correspondents agreed Ford was credible and it's a pretty bad day for the Republicans...

I mean if you have any level of discernment and watch those two... I am going to go so far as to say if one watches that and still came out pro Brett.. that one has made up their mind and likely have some deep seated pro-white / pro Trump / pro-man "at all costs" issues? Regardless of the crime?

What's the hurry? It's a lifetime appointment for a job and I think false accusations from women on such are very unlikely here - as she is enduring a lot of death threats from alt-right nutz, just for coming forward. Shame.
Click to expand...

The same people who were screaming for Seth Rich investigations are all of the sudden anti-investigation and trials.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
How the **** are you going to accuse somebody of disconnect and bias when you have repeatedly said that you didn't even watch his entire testimony? Her memory wasn't dormant so stop saying that. You're either misinformed or straight up lying. Talk to a survivor or talk to a researcher in the neuroscience of memory and it's not odd at all to recall the attack, but not necessarily every little detail of what else happened that night. Victims replay that part over and over again, strengthening that memory.
Click to expand...


Keep it calm or this discussion is done. Going for profanity in your open line is an example of loss of grip.

Her testimony is the main issue. She is the accuser. Her memory was dormant per her own words. A recovered memory. Again recovered memories are not conclusive in terms of accuracy. In no way did she indicate the event haunted her life for decades with total recall being part of that haunting. In fact, she mentioned it was the dual doors in the remodeling and therapy resulting from that decision that awoke this memory. In 2012.

If you want to talk about BK then that is another subject. I am focusing on her because it is her allegations that are the issue.

She is a weak women emotionally. What happened to her is summarized as this:

1. 15 Year old goes to a party with older boys
2. She drinks beer
3. She sees 2 older boys drunk
4. She goes upstairs with them
5. They fool around on the bed. There's no clothes taken off, no kissing, nothing, nada.It gets rough, she gets scared.
6. She takes off
7. Someone drives a drunk 15 year old home

That is her life traumatizing incident. Her mental profile should be examined to see if there are other factors which have caused her trauma.

If BK has lied as alleged her the Dems would have seized on that in addition to the women's claims. They have not therefore they are unsubstantiated claims which other parties have spread.
 
UCSMiami said:
Keep it calm or this discussion is done. Going for profanity in your open line is an example of loss of grip.

Her testimony is the main issue. She is the accuser. Her memory was dormant per her own words. A recovered memory. Again recovered memories are not conclusive in terms of accuracy. In no way did she indicate the event haunted her life for decades with total recall being part of that haunting. In fact, she mentioned it was the dual doors in the remodeling and therapy resulting from that decision that awoke this memory. In 2012.

If you want to talk about BK then that is another subject. I am focusing on her because it is her allegations that are the issue.

She is a weak women emotionally. What happened to her is summarized as this:

1. 15 Year old goes to a party with older boys
2. She drinks beer
3. She sees 2 older boys drunk
4. She goes upstairs with them
5. They fool around on the bed. There's no clothes taken off, no kissing, nothing, nada.It gets rough, she gets scared.
6. She takes off
7. Someone drives a drunk 15 year old home

That is her life traumatizing incident. Her mental profile should be examined to see if there are other factors which have caused her trauma.

If BK has lied as alleged her the Dems would have seized on that in addition to the women's claims. They have not therefore they are unsubstantiated claims which other parties have spread.
Click to expand...

You're more than free to **** off if you don't like how I talk, but you're not dictating the discussion and I'm calling you out on lying not. Read the transcript and show me where it says the memory was dormant as you seem to keep saying. She clearly says that she carried the memory around with her, but didn't give specifics to anybody until the remodeling and the therapy. Your defense that date rape is alright because that's just the way it was is pathetic and you've obviously made your mind up before you didn't actually listen to the entire thing. Maybe it isn't her memory that you should be concerned about or more likely you're just making **** up to protect some bro dude because that is what bro dudes do.

"Over the years, I told very few friends that I had this traumatic experience. I told my husband before we were married that I had experienced a sexual assault. I had never told the details to anyone until May 2012, during a couples counseling session. The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed an extensive remodel of our home, and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand. In explaining why I wanted to have a second front door, I described the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court and spoke a bit about his background. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh."
 
hahahah. Ok. Man. You lost your cool on the Internet. You want an award? hahahah

Women in publicized cases have lied, fabricated, embellished in the past. There is no burden of proof on the accused, it is the accuser.

Well, whatever we shall see. No use communicating to you.

Ok. thanks man. I think you are the emotionally fragile one to lose your cool in an Internet discussion. That is weak, I just called you out on it. Anybody can see that.
 
UCSMiami said:
hahahah. Ok. Man. You lost your cool on the Internet. You want an award? hahahah

Women in publicized cases have lied, fabricated, embellished in the past. There is no burden of proof on the accused, it is the accuser.

Well, whatever we shall see. No use communicating to you.

Ok. thanks man. I think you are the emotionally fragile one to lose your cool in an Internet discussion. That is weak, I just called you out on it. Anybody can see that.
Click to expand...

You've been trying to put parameters on the conversation the entire time you've been spitting out lies. Now you're copping out instead of addressing the issue. You repeatedly said that you didn't listen to the whole thing and keep filling in the blanks with lies that are obvious to anybody that actually did listen or read the transcript. If you think I'm going to speak politely to you as to not offend you while you're tossing out lies and talking about how rape is alright because spring break woo, then you're tiny brain is as small as your tiny Florida white trash dick.
 
I thought the fact that she said she kept attending these"gang rape" parties was strange. I think she said she went to 8 of them?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Ford said that? I know one of the other accusers said that.
Click to expand...
Oh . well maybe that was what I heard. Im not really following too much because I think it kinda late to come forward.
But when I heard that somebody kept attending these gang rape parties, to me I think that's called participating .
I feel sorry for ford and kav. I think they are being used like pawns.
I am willing to bet Kav get on the court AND Republicans keep the senate. I think this hurts dems more than it hurts Republicans.
Also I think it hurts victims.
 
Cgkone said:
Oh . well maybe that was what I heard. Im not really following too much because I think it kinda late to come forward.
But when I heard that somebody kept attending these gang rape parties, to me I think that's called participating .
I feel sorry for ford and kav. I think they are being used like pawns.
I am willing to bet Kav get on the court AND Republicans keep the senate. I think this hurts dems more than it hurts Republicans.
Also I think it hurts victims.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a third accuser who is represented by the same lawyer who is representing Stormy Daniels. She's the one who said that about the parties. Kavanaugh is definitely a pawn, but he's also helped move the pieces in the past. He's way too involved in Clinton conspiracy, even shouting it out during his testimony plus his time with and after working for Ken Starr. He's openly biased and way too emotional which isn't ideal in a Supreme Court justice. Everybody on the court is biased in one direction, but the Republicans can do better than this guy. Who gets a job after crying and talking about how much they love beer during a job interview?!
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Yeah, there's a third accuser who is represented by the same lawyer who is representing Stormy Daniels. She's the one who said that about the parties. Kavanaugh is definitely a pawn, but he's also helped move the pieces in the past. He's way too involved in Clinton conspiracy, even shouting it out during his testimony plus his time with and after working for Ken Starr. He's openly biased and way too emotional which isn't ideal in a Supreme Court justice. Everybody on the court is biased in one direction, but the Republicans can do better than this guy. Who gets a job after crying and talking about how much they love beer during a job interview?!
Click to expand...
True but recently other supreme court justices have spewed bias.
He will get the nod because Republican s have the power.
It was a very very important election trump won
 
Cgkone said:
True but recently other supreme court justices have spewed bias.
He will get the nod because Republican s have the power.
It was a very very important election trump won
Click to expand...

Agreed, but there's a difference between tending to vote pro-life or for gun regulation and saying that you believe an entire political party is out to get you as revenge for the Clintons, especially when he's had a hard on for the Clintons for several decades now.
 
the man swore under oath that he was a virgin in high school and college...

pretty bold statement from a man accused of being a sexual predator in high school...
 
Newth said:
All politics is BS, they tell us what they want so we can all live our simple little lives.
Click to expand...

"If you want to know what God thinks about money and power, just look who he gives it to."
A line from a decent movie, I added 'and power'.
 
I'm going to go ahead and say that I don't think Kavanaugh makes it through. Whether it's him withdrawing or being withdrawn early in the week or the committee not letting him through, I don't think he's going to make it.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I'm going to go ahead and say that I don't think Kavanaugh makes it through. Whether it's him withdrawing or being withdrawn early in the week or the committee not letting him through, I don't think he's going to make it.
Click to expand...
So, I haven't been following this all that closely, just to clarify.

However, it was my understanding that the Judiciary Committee already voted to send him to the full Senate for confirmation.

Wasn't that the whole thing with Sen. Flake? He voted "Yes" to send him out of committee, but with his confirmation vote being contingent on the 1-week FBI probe?


Personally, I think he gets through on a party-line vote. I'm not sure Republicans have much choice with it being this close to November. If the Democrats are able to defeat his nomination (which is how this will be viewed), it will energize their base before Nov. and deflate the Republican electorate. His successful confirmation will have the opposite effect. For that reason, with the Senate as close as it is, the Senate Republicans really can't afford to not confirm him.

There would have to be some major revelation in the FBI's probe for that to not happen, I think. Which, at this point, seems unlikely considering it is only a supplementary background check.
 
Invalid Link Removed

I'm going to drop this out of place image (or is it?) here.
If he doesn't get confirmed by however method (drop out, withdrawn, voted down) it is a win for what is right, and not left or right political parties.

He doesn't belong on the Supreme Court because of his viewpoints on so many things and his obvious political bias.

Nothing will happen any different. The democrats will be out in huge numbers to vote, which will make every race closer than ever if not outright wins for the Democrats.

If he wins, the House and Senate will flip for sure.
Inhales deeply. Exhales. Ahh breathing.
 
If he wins, the House and Senate will flip for sure.
Click to expand...

The House is going to flip no matter what, but I wouldn't count on the Senate no matter what happens with Kavanaugh.

His partisan outburst alone is enough reason for me to not want him on the SC, but I think most of your post is wishful thinking.
 
justhere4comm said:
Invalid Link Removed

I'm going to drop this out of place image (or is it?) here.
If he doesn't get confirmed by however method (drop out, withdrawn, voted down) it is a win for what is right, and not left or right political parties.

He doesn't belong on the Supreme Court because of his viewpoints on so many things and his obvious political bias.

Nothing will happen any different. The democrats will be out in huge numbers to vote, which will make every race closer than ever if not outright wins for the Democrats.

If he wins, the House and Senate will flip for sure.
Inhales deeply. Exhales. Ahh breathing.
Click to expand...

That interview was awesome. I liked the bit where he asked is it legal.
 
jimbuick said:
So, I haven't been following this all that closely, just to clarify.

However, it was my understanding that the Judiciary Committee already voted to send him to the full Senate for confirmation.

Wasn't that the whole thing with Sen. Flake? He voted "Yes" to send him out of committee, but with his confirmation vote being contingent on the 1-week FBI probe?


Personally, I think he gets through on a party-line vote. I'm not sure Republicans have much choice with it being this close to November. If the Democrats are able to defeat his nomination (which is how this will be viewed), it will energize their base before Nov. and deflate the Republican electorate. His successful confirmation will have the opposite effect. For that reason, with the Senate as close as it is, the Senate Republicans really can't afford to not confirm him.

There would have to be some major revelation in the FBI's probe for that to not happen, I think. Which, at this point, seems unlikely considering it is only a supplementary background check.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry I miswrote that. It should say Senate. He's basically conditionally through the committee, but he doesn't currently have the 51 votes needed to get through the Senate and shouldn't get them if he's shown to have lied under oath to the committee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top