Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

[Dick Allen]

8 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Not a chance in hell.

I don't think they could have offered Collins and Murkowski enough for their votes if it was determined he was a liar. It is really weird to me. So many people know he blatantly lied yesterday. That should be all over the news. 

Lying under oath has become acceptable for a Supreme Court nominee if it is only 99.99999% likely he was lying through his teeth.   

Edited September 28, 2018 by Dick Allen

[whitesoxfan99]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

Yep. And most importantly you cant keep asking the same question for half your time.

Asking for the FBI investigation took up what seemed to be 50% of the time, and Grasserly had already made it clear it wasnt going to happen, so Kavanaugh had cover.

Or ask it, get his answer where he won’t say he wants one.  State for the record he won’t ask for one and doesn’t want Judge to testify and move on.  Trying to get your “A Few Good Men” moment isn’t going to happen.

[Soxbadger]

Just now, whitesoxfan99 said:

Or ask it, get his answer where he won’t say he wants one.  State for the record he won’t ask for one and doesn’t want Judge to testify and move on.  Trying to get your “A Few Good Men” moment isn’t going to happen.

Especially when the Judge is allowed to stop the questioning and tell the witness it doesnt matter who ordered the code red because he is a great guy and he wont be found guilty as long as he doesnt answer.

[Jenksismyhero]

Even if they aren't attorneys they each have a staff of how many? There were limited questions on his calendar, on his claims of drinking, etc. It's not rocket science. And if they aren't equipped to  handle some cross examination, why are they on a committee that conducts hearings where they ask people questions? 

Harris especially, a former district attorney in San Fran, acting like the FBI are experts in interviews while she can't do it... GMAFB

[whitesoxfan99]

12 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

Even if they aren't attorneys they each have a staff of how many? There were limited questions on his calendar, on his claims of drinking, etc. It's not rocket science. And if they aren't equipped to  handle some cross examination, why are they on a committee that conducts hearings where they ask people questions? 

Harris especially, a former district attorney in San Fran, acting like the FBI are experts in interviews while she can't do it... GMAFB

Well to be fair, she isn't being allowed to interview Judge for some asinine reason (maybe because Republicans know he would be a disaster so they are hiding him) and only got 5 minutes to question Kavanaugh in a situation where he was being protected by Republicans.

[bmags]

43 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The f***? A play to get more investigation was idiotic, they needed stuff that could be investigated.

The stuff that happened 30 years ago is difficult to investigate without FBI help, they had opportunity to pin him down on behavior that occurred two weeks ago and he couldn't hang his "I was ON VARSITY" hat on, and they deferred because they had one play: uncover nothing except try to get an FBI investigation. 

Well it failed. And now he will not be under oath to answer questions about it. Bravo.

[Quin]

Also worth noting here is Kavanaugh lied about seniors being able to drink beer at the time. 

So lying about committing crimes under oath. Easily probable ones.

[bmags]

18 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

Even if they aren't attorneys they each have a staff of how many? There were limited questions on his calendar, on his claims of drinking, etc. It's not rocket science. And if they aren't equipped to  handle some cross examination, why are they on a committee that conducts hearings where they ask people questions? 

Harris especially, a former district attorney in San Fran, acting like the FBI are experts in interviews while she can't do it... GMAFB

I agree, quite frankly most 23 year old staff that are in it every day could come up with better lines of questioning.

[Soxbadger]

11 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

Even if they aren't attorneys they each have a staff of how many? There were limited questions on his calendar, on his claims of drinking, etc. It's not rocket science. And if they aren't equipped to  handle some cross examination, why are they on a committee that conducts hearings where they ask people questions? 

Harris especially, a former district attorney in San Fran, acting like the FBI are experts in interviews while she can't do it... GMAFB

Do you think Kavanaugh lied? Or at minimum purposefully answered in a way that was deceiving.

[Balta1701]

32 minutes ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

Or ask it, get his answer where he won’t say he wants one.  State for the record he won’t ask for one and doesn’t want Judge to testify and move on.  Trying to get your “A Few Good Men” moment isn’t going to happen.

This should be your example though - he was going to deflect and avoid answering at any of the amazing questions you guys think of that he should ask, and since the majority was willing to let him get away with lying and not answering questions, all of these brilliant ideas for things to ask him about his calendar were just going to be things he would easily lie about. 

[Soxbadger]

15 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

This should be your example though - he was going to deflect and avoid answering at any of the amazing questions you guys think of that he should ask, and since the majority was willing to let him get away with lying and not answering questions, all of these brilliant ideas for things to ask him about his calendar were just going to be things he would easily lie about. 

You do the best you can. 

[Jenksismyhero]

19 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Do you think Kavanaugh lied? Or at minimum purposefully answered in a way that was deceiving.

I think he lied about his drinking and partying and how much of a choir/church boy he was. I tended to believe him about the specific allegations involving Ford. It's funny because you all took his sign of anger as being entitled or whatever and I took it as a guy who was emotional and pissed off that he was falsely accused. 

He dodged questions about the FBI investigation and whether he would personally call for it. I don't really blame him. Why should he invite that? He's there answering questions. He answered written questions. He has given sworn statements, etc. etc. All the key witnesses have not corroborated her story. I agree with him that an FBI investigation won't move the needle anywhere here. So, can't really blame him that he isn't all gung-ho about an investigation that may delay his own confirmation. I don't see that as a sign of guilt like you guys do. 

Having said that, I still want/wanted the Repubs to agree to the FBI investigation just to remove it from the table. I think they should have called for the FBI investigation and they should have subpoenaed all of the people she claims to be at that party. I dont think anything meaningful actually comes of that, it's still a she said/he said scenario, but at least you can claim that you did all you could to investigate the claims.

No one has talked about it on here, but I also found it interesting that not a single Democrat, to my knowledge, asked Kavanaugh about the other accusations. Its almost as if every member of that committee didn't feel comfortable bringing those allegation up and agreed not to bring it up. Not sure if that was a strategic play or not. If you believe Grassely (and of course none of you do), he sent letters to the 2nd and 3rd victims' attorneys asking for more info but those attorneys aren't responding. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Jenksismyhero

[Balta1701]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

You do the best you can. 

and then when that didn't work we'd be asking why they didn't work harder to nail him on simply saying an investigation was appropriate because that would play well in the straight up press. After all even the entire American Bar Association just called for one.

[Soxbadger]

2 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

I think he lied about his drinking and partying and how much of a choir/church boy he was. I tended to believe him about the specific allegations involving Ford. It's funny because you all took his sign of anger as being entitled or whatever and I took it as a guy who was emotional and pissed off that he was falsely accused. 

He dodged questions about the FBI investigation and whether he would personally call for it. I don't really blame him. Why should he invite that? He's there answering questions. He answered written questions. He has given sworn statements, etc. etc. All the key witnesses have not corroborated her story. I agree with him that an FBI investigation won't move the needle anywhere here. So, can't really blame him that he isn't all gung-ho about an investigation that may delay his own confirmation. I don't see that as a sign of guilt like you guys do. 

Having said that, I still want/wanted the Repubs to agree to the FBI investigation just to remove it from the table. I think they should have called for the FBI investigation and they should have subpoenaed all of the people she claims to be at that party. I dont think anything meaningful actually comes of that, it's still a she said/he said scenario, but at least you can claim that you did all you could to investigate the claims.

No one has talked about it on here, but I also found it interesting that not a single Democrat, to my knowledge, asked Ford about the other accusations. Its almost as if every member of that committee didn't feel comfortable bringing those allegation up and agreed not to bring it up. Not sure if that was a strategic play or not. If you believe Grassely (and of course none of you do), he sent letters to the 2nd and 3rd victims' attorneys asking for more info but those attorneys aren't responding. 

Do you think lying under oath should preclude someone from being a Supreme Court Justice?

[Jenksismyhero]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

Do you think lying under oath should preclude someone from being a Supreme Court Justice?

Eh, i'm torn. 99.99% of the time, yes, lying is not acceptable and should preclude someone from being an SC justice. But in this context...he's basically just lying about whether he was a douchey drunk frat guy. I don't think it's all that significant in the grand scheme of things.

[Dick Allen]

9 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

I think he lied about his drinking and partying and how much of a choir/church boy he was. I tended to believe him about the specific allegations involving Ford. It's funny because you all took his sign of anger as being entitled or whatever and I took it as a guy who was emotional and pissed off that he was falsely accused. 

He dodged questions about the FBI investigation and whether he would personally call for it. I don't really blame him. Why should he invite that? He's there answering questions. He answered written questions. He has given sworn statements, etc. etc. All the key witnesses have not corroborated her story. I agree with him that an FBI investigation won't move the needle anywhere here. So, can't really blame him that he isn't all gung-ho about an investigation that may delay his own confirmation. I don't see that as a sign of guilt like you guys do. 

Having said that, I still want/wanted the Repubs to agree to the FBI investigation just to remove it from the table. I think they should have called for the FBI investigation and they should have subpoenaed all of the people she claims to be at that party. I dont think anything meaningful actually comes of that, it's still a she said/he said scenario, but at least you can claim that you did all you could to investigate the claims.

No one has talked about it on here, but I also found it interesting that not a single Democrat, to my knowledge, asked Kavanaugh about the other accusations. Its almost as if every member of that committee didn't feel comfortable bringing those allegation up and agreed not to bring it up. Not sure if that was a strategic play or not. If you believe Grassely (and of course none of you do), he sent letters to the 2nd and 3rd victims' attorneys asking for more info but those attorneys aren't responding. 

I just find it odd that lying to the FBI is a crime, and ALL of his accusers want an FBI investigation, yet he and the republicans do not. 

You acknowledge you think he lied yesterday. He was under oath. Shouldn't that alone DQ him?  Bill Clinton got impeached for lying about an affair under oath. 

[Jenksismyhero]

Just now, Dick Allen said:

I just find it odd that lying to the FBI is a crime, and ALL of his accusers want an FBI investigation, yet he and the republicans do not. 

You acknowledge you think he lied yesterday. He was under oath. Shouldn't that alone DQ him?  Bill Clinton got impeached for lying about an affair under oath. 

Yeah but lying about an affair is lying about a specific thing, a specific act. Lying about whether you've ever drunk to excess or not... i mean...technically he could have and not remembered so his answer saying he never has (to his knowledge) isn't a lie. 

If anything his lack of ... intelligence? wherewithal? whatever the word... of knowing that that sort of grand statement is problematic is more of a reason to preclude him than his lies about what a good kid he was.

[Balta1701]

13 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

If you believe Grassely (and of course none of you do), he sent letters to the 2nd and 3rd victims' attorneys asking for more info but those attorneys aren't responding. 

The lawyers for the 2nd accuser released their email exchange with Grassley's staff today where she says she'd be willing to testify even without the FBI investigation if they could just speak on the phone and the Republican staff would not do such a call.

[BigSqwert]

This country is straight up broken.  Depressing.

[bmags]

18 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

and then when that didn't work we'd be asking why they didn't work harder to nail him on simply saying an investigation was appropriate because that would play well in the straight up press. After all even the entire American Bar Association just called for one.

Maybe, perhaps we'd be satisfied they tried every avenue of questioning and stuck as much baggage to his judgement as possible. 

Since we can state how alternative realities would have played out with certainty, I have one, the ABA would have called for an FBI investigation with only one dem senator trying that line of questioning, not 80% of them.

[maggsmaggs]

9 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

Eh, i'm torn. 99.99% of the time, yes, lying is not acceptable and should preclude someone from being an SC justice. But in this context...he's basically just lying about whether he was a douchey drunk frat guy. I don't think it's all that significant in the grand scheme of things.

The problem is the drinking goes to the heart of the allegation. Dr. Ford testified that Kavanaugh was basically drunk as he was attempting to sexually assault her.

Edited September 28, 2018 by maggsmaggs

[pettie4sox]

2 minutes ago, BigSqwert said:

This country is straight up broken.  Depressing.

Divided for sure.  Elections have consequences.  People need to get out and vote if they don't like the current trajectory.

[Dick Allen]

4 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

Yeah but lying about an affair is lying about a specific thing, a specific act. Lying about whether you've ever drunk to excess or not... i mean...technically he could have and not remembered so his answer saying he never has (to his knowledge) isn't a lie. 

If anything his lack of ... intelligence? wherewithal? whatever the word... of knowing that that sort of grand statement is problematic is more of a reason to preclude him than his lies about what a good kid he was.

Lying is lying. He lied about a lot more. If he gave the real answer to boof, devils triangle FFFFFFourth of July, it would be on record. The fact is if lying is OK if it's about being a teenage drunk, then I guess sexual assault during that same time period of your life is OK too.  

The fact is, he wasn't the choirboy he claims. He drank a lot. He boasted a lot. The woman in question passed a lie detector and was more than convincing. In fact, several attorneys said she was about as good of a witness as you can put in that spot. They hid Judge. They don't want these others lying under oath. 

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, pettie4sox said:

Divided for sure.  Elections have consequences.  People need to get out and vote if they don't like the current trajectory.

We're also the only major democracy that regularly has the party that wins a majority of votes out of power. 

[wrathofhahn]

What I don't understand is if the lady isn't sure of the time, place, who drove her home, who else was there. How can she say for 100 percent certainty it was kavanaugh? Why didn't that dumbass prosecutor followup with that question?

Why didn't they follow up and ask if someone paid for her polygraph is anyone paying for her lawyers? Anyone paying for testimony? Could not be true but the question should have been asked.

Also the question should have been asked why she has never went to the police even after her decided to pursue her allegation why was her first  contact congress (democrat) and the media? Not a LEO?

I have no idea if her claims actually were credible. She wasn't challenged on the shifting numbers, times, or place it occurred., She wasn't challenged at all. Brett was I guess that is what it means to be a man in America.

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by wrathofhahn