Fantastic.

Threatening to fund opposition candidates if a Senator votes to confirm a SCOTUS nominee we don't like = "Questionable"

Threatening to withhold donations if pols fail to pass tax cuts = "Do you even politics BRO?"

Yeah it's hard to see how that's any different than a donor simply choosing to give money to someone that they like or even give money so someone they don't like loses

They word it that way because the FAKE NEWS is the ENEMY of the People!

Vulgar messages!?! To the fainting couch I must go!

I’m not reading mentions la la la la I can’t hear you! I mean announcing your leaving twitter is dumb. Just delete the app pussy man.

Kavanaugh has lowest net approval for confirmation since Harriet Miers. Even lower than Bork.

In a sane world, that should count for something.

Too bad we don't live in one.

I think even in this world it would count if the GOP wasn't ****ting their pants about the possibility of losing the senate in 2 months. They won't be able to get another candidate rammed through fast enough if they change now.

Ah, yes, if a megadonor donates to you and tells you who to nominate/confirm, that's a-okay. It's free speech! When a bunch of people get together and promise to fund your opponent if you confirm that guy, it's a travesty and the downfall of democracy!

Dianne Feinstein has a Kavanaugh document that she's not giving to her fellow committee Democrats

This is ripe for imaginations to run wild with speculation, but the one thing I imagine we can concretely agree on is: Feinstein sucks

So that's something!

what the ****

Ah yes the rapist judge K. Central casting for trump.

Shots fired?

Lulz gg

I'm pretty convinced that Heitkamp and all the other red state Democrats would vote no if two Republicans opposed. Without that, why rustle feathers two months before an election?

Kavanaugh getting caught up in #MeToo somehow would be absolutely phenomenal, either his nomination actually gets torpedoed over it (unlikely, would require GOPers to feel shame) or Republicans ram it through while ignoring broad outrage (fearing this is the only chance they have) and really make the midterms rough for themselves

As much as I want to rip her, who cares. The dude is getting confirmed 100% of the time and control of the senate is obviously super important (putting aside the fact that the number of people who vote on this issue is exactly 0).

LOL

idk, I've heard this discussed on podcasts and stuff and this CNN exit poll question illustrates it nicely:



21% of poll respondents said Scalia's seat was the most important factor in their vote, and that group broke for Trump by 15.

SCOTUS appointments definitely seem like something that animates the Rs, and I wonder if successfully torpedoing Kavanaugh might actually drive conservatives to show up in November if they actually feared losing a SCOTUS seat w/o Senate control. Clearly "hey, would you rather have Merrick Garland or Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court?" wasn't very effective at turning out voters for Dems in 2016.

dth, what are these documents you're posting images of?

Written questions for Kavanaugh from Senators.

Wtf is this one?

Kavanaugh's answers will be something like:

I don't recall.

I don't recall.

I don't recall.

In order to maintain judicial independence I'm not going to answer that.

Privacy, not going to answer that, doesn't seem appropriate, etc, etc.

Go **** yourselves and confirm me already.

... and they will.

Is there any real expectation that he will provide answers?

Or real answers, as opposed to what cuserounder said...

Kavanaugh offers details on Nationals tickets purchases that led to debt

Asked by Durbin whether he agreed with Trump’s statement that the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is “an illegal investigation,” Kavanaugh declined to respond directly.

“One of the central principles of judicial independence is that sitting judges and judicial nominees should refrain from commenting on current events and political controversies,” Kavanaugh said.

Kavanaugh repeated his statement from the hearing that it would be improper to say whether a president should comply with a grand jury subpoena. He also repeated that it would be improper to say whether he believed a sitting president can be indicted, while noting that the Department of Justice has for the last 45 years taken the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

i'm not going to comment on that except to make a short comment about how trump is probably gonna get away with this