65 Comments

  • Stephen Strange

    Why are all the democratic female senators such rude jerks in a situation like this? They also aren't interested in trying to decide if Judge Kavanaugh will uphold the constitution or not. They are just interested in pushing their pet issue out there. Oh, and not giving him time to even answer as well.

    55:00 is Senator Hirono really trying to say that non-citizens have constitutional rights???

  • Me

    Why is it that Democrats can't let a person finish a sentence but a Republican will? It turns out that Republicans are more respectful than Democrats, obviously…..

  • Me

    Judge Kavanaugh is a very sweet man has a wonderful family & is being treated like garbage. The Democrats cannot stand when good people are in office because they are the party of corruption.

  • Jose vasquez

    When Corey Booker was pounding on the desk all I could think of was Ted Cruz' s comments yesterday "if you have the facts, pound the facts, if you have the law, pound the law, if you have neither, pound the desk"

  • Hudson Keelin

    After hearing what those doctors said and saw I think the prostesters should be procecuted to the upmost.
    Find so heaveyly that the money that they excepted to prostest will cost them way more than they gained and maybe in the future this paying people to prostest will stop out of fear of getting caught.

  • Orlando Felix

    Hey Booker I don't know a single black person in my neighborhood over the age of 15 that doesn't have n ID, a social a birth certificate n 2 proofs of address is all that's needed, if your not smart enough to figure that out then you probably don't need to b voting…

  • Orlando Felix

    You need an ID to purchase a fire arm why wouldn't you need an ID to vote for a person that controls men with badges who can legally force you to pay taxes at the end of those same firearms…

  • jannmutube

    –> According to Kavanaugh, the more dangerous a president might make the country's situation, the more power and autonomy he or she would have. We already have a President who fabricated a "witch hunt" lie and has the blood of the press on his hands from inciting violence. Considerations of national security with a President that endangers national security are absurd. And, it's ridiculous that Bill Burck, the attorney for Don McGann, Steve Bannon, and Reince Preibus (in the Russia investigation) has been appointed the "guardian" of Kavanaugh's unreleased documents.

    — > The Constitution clearly defines the separation of powers and a remedy of impeachment. To exempt a president from due process because of his unique duties in Article II would violate the Constitution. This was upheld in United States v Nixon which ruled that "Justice Marshall's statement that a president is not an ordinary person can in no sense mean a president is above the law but only refers to his duties under Article II.

    If a president is not in ANY sense above the law, he or she can be subpoenaed, indicted, even tried and judgement found in criminal court. The use of the word SHALL in Article I Section 4 of the Constitution seems to indicate Congress would have no choice but to vote to remove a president convicted of a high crime by the Judiciary.

    A self pardon or pardon of those involved in a case against the President would also violate the Constitution because it would negate the Constitution's provision to remove a president and, potentially, ALL other Civil Officers from power.
    …. Article II Section 1 says a president can be removed from power.
    … Article 1 Section 4 says "the President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, SHALL be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, OR other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

    — > The subject of Article I, Sec. 3, cl. 7 of the Constitution concerns Judgment and penalties that SHALL and SHALL NOT be imposed by the Legislative and Judicial branches. Some have inserted the adverb "After" in their summary of this clause … but it's NOT in the original text.

    This clause clearly defines two trials, two judgments but only one punishment by statutory law. There's no time qualification for criminal prosecution…
    … nor can their be if impeachment for things like treason and bribery includes statutory conviction. The Legislature cannot impose criminal punishment and the use of the word SHALL shows Congress cannot deny criminal punishment.

    Congress can file Articles of Impeachment for serious offenses that are not defined in statutory law to remove a president but can't file a criminal case. There's nothing to say the Legislature can negate criminal prosecution from the Judiciary or that Articles of Impeachment must be filed first.

    — > A pardon requires an admission of guilt and the acceptance of it. If there is no crime, no pardon is necessary. If a pardon is not accepted, it can't be filed with the court. Nixon's case is that he admitted guilt in an impeachment case but was "pardoned" which is unconstitutional.

    Nixon should not have been pardoned because it required him to sign an admission of guilt. All high crimes are impeachable cases and should be unpardonable from the time a formal investigation is announced. Congress and the courts can determine the extent of punishment after judgement but dismissal of criminal charges should not be an option.

  • Oliver Phippen

    The dims are so desperate that CORY BOOKER has put his lively hood on the block threatening to expose documents to the public that the committee has deemed confidential ?? Looks like Cory Booker is willing to cease his employment for ever ??? Like KAP ?? The dims are cracking ?? Big time ??

  • Priestess Pachina

    GET OUT U DONT VOTE IDIOTS AND HOW MUCH MONEY DID U MAKE FOR YOUR DISRESPECTFUL COMMENTS. BLAH BLAH UR OPINIONS ARE NOT WARRANTED NOR CONSIDERED SINCE YOU HAVE NO CLUE ON OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC . GO BACK TO YOUR BUBBLE THINKBOX OF SOME PARENTS BASEMENT GO SUCK YOUR THUMBS AND WHINE THERE PLEASE . SINCE YOUR NOT AN ADULT NOR ACTING LIKE ONE YOUR OPINION CAN BE FLUSHED. THIS IS MY VIEW FROM THOSE DISRUPTIVE CHILDREN

  • Priestess Pachina

    What’s the matter whitehouse pissed huh lol since your Nazi party is loosing control and your Nazi party can’t do underhanded stuff anymore. Awwww do I felel bad for your Nazi party ahhhh NOPE !!!!

  • Priestess Pachina

    Hey whitehouse which SOROS Nazi organization funded you ???? Since your talking about dark money , your DEMORATS party has much to be exposed on that dark money your suggesting in this hearing , so let’s openyour list to the public. Stop using we the people want to see , your narrative is false, you want to know since your DEMORATS party have much connection with the Nazi SOROS in my opinion

  • Mysty333

    No – the government did not decide – Kavanaugh decided to delay the abortion! This man talks in circles instead of specifically addressing questions!

  • Rindola981

    The Dems circus continues. From what I can tell, it seems to be the same 2 or 3 people interrupting over and over and over again. I pray for the Dems to wake up and #WalkAway.

  • Priestess Pachina

    Oops there is the trigger for the child’s mouth so whitehouse did you offer lunch at McDonald’s for the disrespectful child just now hummm ???

  • Priestess Pachina

    So since that crowd is all staged to disrupt when signaled , my opinion remove them all so we can have a respectable hearing without those children’s ignorance

  • Priestess Pachina

    How about the 75 liberal judges that the traitor obumbum put in , if u want to talk about leaning, let’s talk whitehouse about your party rigging lower courts

  • David Halseth

    Seems like a waste of time to me. Most every Senator has already made up their minds…so just grandstanding but interesting to verify why Congress rating is a 6 to 11% depending on the poll. Silly people we send up there. Watching some programs on Generation Z…looks like a wonderful group of kids that are not stupid and really educated on these things. Hope I live long enough to see some real people sent to Congress that really care about We the People!!!

  • Hudson Keelin

    Dems must be Dem witted, the truth is right in your face and you can't even see it.
    What America and the people have been though sense the death of JFK and Trump is pushing the exact same thing JFK was pushing yet the Dems can't still see the truth.
    Think about this, JFK Jr was a close friend of Trump's. They had a very good relationship with each other. Would you have voted for JFK Jr.

  • Marosi Alvarez

    Sen Booker's tone is demeaning and patronising. As a Mexican American I don't need someone like him to speak for me, but I do need a SCJ like judge Kavanaugh to uphold constitutional precedents and rulings and prevent our nation's judicial branch from becoming a political pawn in the hands of liberal anarchists

  • veracsthane

    45:30 its because the bullies are cry bullies and if you beat them like they deserve they get you charged with assult unless you had a phone or some other evidence of the harassment and even then things could still no go favorably so the bullied are forced to bite there tongues until they cant. in my case it was known with no doubt that if i lost my shit people would be beat to the hospital or death. they told me when they decided they pushed to far because my face was twisting so much that they new they went to far. we ended up friends unironically.

  • Jay Graphix

    Feinstein has no clue what she is talking about … This is what you get when you have people making laws that haven't a clue about what they are making laws about. This lady banned "assault rifles" and I bet she has never shot one, and couldn't describe one. Pretty sad. She needs to retire.

  • Hudson Keelin

    No your not correct, it's not their 1st amendment that they are pushing it is just a cover up for their failures.
    I believe that they are just rude and aregant and they mad because the truth about what they are doing is probably against the law.
    Must push back to get rid of president Trump because he is going to hang many of them and they know it.

  • Lexy PoliticallyRYT

    Corey Booker doesn’t want to make things better or he would be trying to. The questions he is asking are making it seem like this one judge could make all these things happen. Ridiculous. He is just trying to grandstand. He already knows how he will vote. Sickening spectacle.

  • Donna Vorce

    Weird how the woman behind Kavanaugh is the same woman who replaced Plaid Shirt Guy at the Montana "rally" . . . quite a coincidence isn't it?

  • Scott Settles

    @1:23:00 Hiring a all-female clerk staff isn’t “equality”. It’s preferential and arguably paternalistic pathological altruism. While I’m sure their academic background and experience was top notch, I find it hard to believe there were no male applicants. This means male applicants, regardless of qualification, were rejected using discrimination based upon sex.

    Arguing to be for “equality”, implying to mean equality of opportunity while actually practicing attempts to impose equality of outcome, is not the correct way to be inclusive to any group. In fact, it reinforces the zero-sum fallacy by taking unjustly from one group to favor another. Finding ways to be inclusive is important, but don’t b.s. us and think we don’t see it clear as day.

  • dirtyvarmint

    Question: Say a person got an abortion and it caused them long term guilt and regret, emotional distress and depression. Say the person thought it was offensive to God and they felt their eternal salvation was forfeit because of their choice.

    Since the government made it legal, and readily available, that conditioned the person to think that it was morally okay. The person didn't consider the moral implications due to it being legal. Say the person felt pressured and rushed by the clinic, the spouse, the family members to get the abortion. So they made a hasty decision based on convenience. Say the plaintiff saw it as an 'abortion on demand' and the clinic joked about how "it's no big deal, we have girls who come in on their lunch break to have the procedure done."

    Would the person be able to make a case on that? Who would they sue? If the court agreed that the government contributed to the emotional distress and hardship and the possible loss of eternal salvation for the individual, by promoting abortion and allowing it to be performed 'on demand'…, would they be able to overturn Roe v Wade? Make it illegal?

  • Scott Settles

    Sen. Hirono appears here as a condescending, spiteful person. Not only were her questions ill-formed and apparently designed to use several rhetorical tactics instead of being designed to seek answers, she felt it necessary to disregard any attempt by the nominee to provide an answer which would contest the pretentious pomposity on display by such an unprofessional, activist witch. Indeed, I’d have been hard pressed to give negative marks had he simply told her to shut the f*ck up… she deserved that and far more.

  • Mr Rytte

    Don't trust the transcript!

    I was looking for Sen, Grahams "Law of Armed Conflict" questioning. As I was following the audio with the transcript of hearing I noticed some dropped words like "uh" or repeats of the same word. OK, no biggy. I would even understand words that sounded similar being transcribed wrong, I see that a lot on closed captioning. Then I hear 2001, but read 1991. What? that's not even close.

    At 2:43:39, Senator Lindsey Graham asks Where were you on September 11, 2001.

    This is the transcript.
    557:13 >> WHERE WERE YOU SEPTEMBER 11,
    557:14 1991?

    That's weird. Then a last name gets changed. At 2:45:07, Judge Bret Kavanaugh says the name Sarah Taylor, not Sarah Wright.

    The transcript,
    557:41 I WAS WITH SARAH WRIGHT FROM THE
    557:42 WHITE HOUSE AND I WAS WATCHING,

    What does Sarah Wright have to do with 1991? Probably nothing, but I can now understand how deaf people may have a completely different take on things because transcripts "LIE".

    I did find what I was looking for, and more than I expected.

    2:45:45 Law of Armed Conflict.
    557:54 THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT?

  • Joseph DuPont

    What about Clinton rape victims?

    By THE WASHINGTON TIMES – – Tuesday, September 18, 2018

    ANALYSIS/OPINION:
    Christine Blasey Ford’s recent rape claims against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh are very serious. So much so that I think Mrs. Ford and Monica Lewinsky should console the alleged rape victims of former President Bill Clinton.
    Apparently Mrs. Ford’s brother is somehow connected with Fusion GPS’ false Trump-Russia-collusion dossier. Not to mention that Mrs. Ford could have brought up her accusations when Judge Kavanugh was in the news in 1993, looking into the strange death of Vince Foster.
    It is amazing that the media will never ask the Clintons how it feels to have “false” allegations of rape facing you.

  • MultiMicelle

    at 11;58 when protesters are disrupting the hearing, feinstein, leans towards grassley and says, chuck, I dont think they should be taken out, they been here all day, then Grassley says, your advice is to leave them, then she says, my advice is to… then gets cut off, and keep in mind, she is sitting on the then, anonymous kavanough accuser's letter. it is so obvious, especially now looking back at this hearing/lynching, and now these false accusers? this is all very well coordinated , and planned hit job on this SCOTUS

  • stonehillady

    What made the grade for me was when the lady ask her what were the things you remember the most about that incident was, "I remember, the rooms, I remember the stair way, I remember their laughing at me BUT she never remembered their faces……that tells it all for me. ! It could have happened yes, but not by the guys she thinks did it.

  • Terry Amerson

    I agree Brookhaven all has shown himself to be a decent man with a decent family so anyone that just wants to make judgements against him so quickly not knowing anything really about him you know you can do what you want to it's a free country but I certainly certainly believe that you will pay for it in the long run

  • Darlene DeVegan

    Ford didn't know how she got to the party or how she got home from the party or where the party was or what year it was.
    In the four people she said was at the party all denied it she's a loser liar

  • StationRussification

    He is a nice man is all the posts here hahahahahahaha, dude tuned out to be the biggest douche of all time. If U want to make an impression on America just answer yes no or I do not know (let your lobbiests be your voice box otherwise NOT in a hearing) other than that U R suspect and if U do it with a hostile attitude U look quilty, that's right out of any police or lawyer's play book on interogation. To bad sexual assault is an issue here having said that Kavanaughs attitue is THE reason to deny him infact he needs to step down and retire.
    NOTE: I have faced a Judge in a DEPT. as a defender & I was totally innocent and I knew showing my anger to any thing was not in my best interest thing is I did not have the responsibility of considering the USA's best interests & Kanavaugh could not contain himself enough to recognize that. BTW I won that case.

  • Shell Shell

    We the people still believe that a person is innocence until proven guilty! Another thing, lets vote out all the bad apples and replace them with good ones! I know Hawaii, California, and New Jersey don't have good apples so those states need to have them replaced. I'm sure there are more so do your homework!

  • wildfireintexas

    I wish Kagan and Sotomayor had been grilled just as much a Judge Kavanaugh. They have no business being on the Supreme Court. They are ridiculous embarrassments.

  • swagmeister

    Mazie Hirono literally does not even know how to pronounce "amicus brief." What the fuck is this dumb hag doing on the Senate?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *