Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #21

    Jun 19, 2020, 07:51 AM
    Still spinning Biden's utterance as a doctrine Tom? It didn't happen. I know you're just poking the bear Tom, but I better post the facts just in case somebody believes McConnell's EXCUSE to justify not allowing Obama to fill a SCOTUS seat.

    https://www.politifact.com/article/2...t-nominations/

    Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.
    There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
    There was no nominee to consider.
    The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
    Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.
    When Slick Mitch was asked if would fill a seat close to the election for the dufus, he said of course he would. I believe him.

    Here's an interesting tidbit.

    https://www.mywabashvalley.com/washi...munity-debate/
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #22

    Jun 19, 2020, 08:23 AM
    to urge delay if a vacancy did appear.
    So what was Biden urging a delay for? Bush vs. Clinton was six months away. Do you think he was wanting to delay for better airfares, or because of the baseball season or gas prices? Come on. You're being silly. It is obvious why he was wanting to delay.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #23

    Jun 19, 2020, 09:37 AM
    Biden's point seems to be if a vacancy came up whether Bush lost, or not he could still fill the vacancy after the election since a new prez isn't sworn in until January, giving the senate 2 and a half months to confirm him, without the distraction of the campaign, or party convention.

    That's how Joe explained it. Just read the link. He was quoted. Who's being silly, and who pulled a fast one?
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #24

    Jun 19, 2020, 01:05 PM
    Biden's point seems to be if a vacancy came up whether Bush lost, or not he could still fill the vacancy after the election since a new prez isn't sworn in until January, giving the senate 2 and a half months to confirm him, without the distraction of the campaign, or party convention.
    Sounds pretty clear to me. ""Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself."

    It is very clear that Biden was saying the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee until after the election. If Bush won, then fine. If he lost, do you really think they would have considered the nominee???
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #25

    Jun 19, 2020, 01:47 PM
    That was his word, but we can never know since it didn't happen, but we do know what Slick Mitch and repubs did to Obamas' nominee don't we. Despicable and even more so to blame it on Bidens' own words.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #26

    Jun 19, 2020, 04:54 PM
    That was his word, but we can never know since it didn't happen
    Maybe so, but we do know that calling it the "Biden Doctrine" is accurate and McConnell was right in referring to it.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #27

    Jun 19, 2020, 06:20 PM
    Give the devil his due for the dirty trick and spin. He got over, and you liked it so okay, don't beetch when you get got. You know how that goes...what goes around...!
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #28

    Jun 20, 2020, 09:20 AM
    Judge ruled Bolton could go ahead with publishing . No real surprise there . Judge gave the lamest of reasons ......
    "In taking it upon himself to publish his book without securing final approval from national intelligence authorities, Bolton may indeed have caused the country irreparable harm. But in the Internet age, even a handful of copies in circulation could irrevocably destroy confidentiality."
    translation ;in the internet age it is ok to break the law if you do it fast enough. To the Judges credit , the judge also blasted Bolton’s attorney for not waiting for the government to complete a pre-publication review for classified information before publishing, saying Bolton “didn’t get written authority.”

    Bolton does not escape the law suit that is sure to follow . So this is what will happen . The book sales will soar as libs who hate Bolton's guts gobble up the book looking for any tidbit to nail Trump with ..... and Bolton will not make a dime for it and may still face criminal and assuredly civil penalties .
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #29

    Jun 20, 2020, 09:39 AM
    Yeah, let's have criminal charges against Bolton to find out why the WH is stalling. They've had it for at least 6 months already. Time to put up, or shut up.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #30

    Jun 21, 2020, 10:17 AM
    if Bolton broke the law by revealing national secrets he should be charged . He certainly breached and probably broke the terms of his NDA s which will be the basis of the civil suit . Yes he violated 2 of the agreements

    https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/sf312.pdf
    https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/sf4414.pdf

    He also violated preclearance disclosure rules . The judge punted and said it was too late to stop it because the disclosure already happened on the net through leaks . That frankly is absurd logic. If you rush to publish before the review is finished then oh well too late ? The judge should've stopped publication regardless of how much of it was already leaked.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #31

    Jun 21, 2020, 02:47 PM
    Well arrest him. What's the hold up? We don't have to speculate just do it! DO IT! DO IT!
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #32

    Jun 21, 2020, 03:03 PM
    oh but that due process ... what an inconvenience .
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #33

    Jun 21, 2020, 03:15 PM
    Or a convenience depending how you look at it. Bolton can be all kinds of bad guys and liars, from all kinds of sycophants until the cuffs come out.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #34

    Jun 21, 2020, 10:42 PM
    Just maybe Bolton has Trump dead to rights
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #35

    Jun 22, 2020, 04:05 AM
    Bolton has a long reputation and whether you like him or not he isn't that easily dismissed and I have heard he is scheduling interviews all over the place for the summer in what amounts to a book tour. Could it turn into a huge smear campaign for the dufus? If he talks to enough lefties it could result in a lot of embarrassing questions.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

What a dufus [ 52 Answers ]

And you guys elected him. Another "green" company has failed Obama's social engineering scheme (how many does that make now). Ener1, which received $118.5 million of our taxpayer dollars to build batteries for electric vehicles, filed for bankruptcy today. Not only that, but they received the Obama...

What a dufus! [ 60 Answers ]

Bush truly has a successor now, Obama is officially the new Dufus-in-chief. Last week he had another bowing incident. So far this week, he's told us that "every economist" insists he's saved or created 2 million jobs. At yesterday's prayer breakfast our Harvard educated dufus saluted two...

The dufus - again [ 5 Answers ]

Hello: Seventeen Gitmo detainees will be released on Friday INSIDE the US. The Federal judge said, "I think the moment has arrived for the courts to shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for the detention." The Constitution?? What's that, Bush asks. "If they're released, it...

The dufus and Obama [ 10 Answers ]

Hello: Future President Obama, during the debates, said he would attack Al Qaeda INSIDE Pakistan... He was derided by the right for that policy. They kept saying that Pakistan is our ally and they're a sovereign nation... But, guess what?? Yup, the dufus in chief sent our forces into...

The Dufus [ 26 Answers ]

Hello: I don't know. You righty's thought the dufus in chief would be a wonderful president too, didn't you? I don't think there's too many of you who still think that. Well, maybe Galviston does. He's losing in Afghanistan. He lost Pakistan. He's losing in Iraq. He lost Georgia and the...


View more questions Search