I was in high school in the late seventies, graduated in 81, and the term brewskies was popular, and if that school had the party atmosphere mine did then ski's more than likely it's referring to beers.
I’m sure Mr. Whelan will be along with a floor plan for Timmy’s house any minute now...
Was Kavanaugh in avid water skier? Is water skiing popular on the Potomac? I don’t know why he’d be getting any other skis in July.
If that’s a reference to a drinking party, then Kavanaugh’s already caught in another lie—nevermind Ford.
lol, you just did it, nice pivotIf jokers on here can do it to you then you would stand no chance in Ford’s situation. It would be a massacre.
That is such BS. There is only one version of the truth based on observable or verifiable fact. If you cannot verify something, you answer truthfully that you cannot recall.There are holes in every story because no one’s memory is perfect.
Winning. Not justice or truth. Winning.Oh give me a break. Witness preparation is not some racket to drive up fees. It’s done because they want to win. That’s why for big cases they get outside witness preparation experts at great expense.
Situations often emerge in the military where there is a failure of leadership (training fatality, DUI, brawl at the local bar), and enlisted soldiers are asked to help the senior officer or commander sort through a lot of data. Discrediting is absolutely in play, and there are no lawyers to coach how you should answer direct questions from a superior officer.Discipline on the ship is not fundamentally adversarial and your NCO (usually) stands nothing to gain by discrediting you. Therefore you’re both trying to get to the truth.
How do you know who is telling the truth? Were you there?The exact opposite is true here. The side without the truth is going to be laser focused on discrediting the side telling the truth and they are very effective at it.
Don’t need to because you’ve thrown down an irrelevant gauntletFind me a lawyer, any lawyer that would say preparation wasn’t necessary here. One.
lol, you just did it, nice pivot
That is such BS. There is only one version of the truth based on observable or verifiable fact. If you cannot verify something, you answer truthfully that you cannot recall.
Winning. Not justice or truth. Winning.
Situations often emerge in the military where there is a failure of leadership (training fatality, DUI, brawl at the local bar), and enlisted soldiers are asked to help the senior officer or commander sort through a lot of data. Discrediting is absolutely in play, and there are no lawyers to coach how you should answer direct questions from a superior officer.
How do you know who is telling the truth? Were you there?
Don’t need to because you’ve thrown down an irrelevant gauntlet
I already told you I have gone in to something like this, on more than one occasion, and my only protection was the truth. Sure, it wasn’t for a SCOTUS seat, but it did impact the trajectory of people’s careers, so it was a situation of incredible stress and pressure.How did I do it? This makes no sense. What I said is almost certainly true, if you went into something like this with no preparation it would be a massacre.
Which is why we don’t embrace allegations on face value.Now THIS is BS. Empirical research clearly shows that people's memories are highly imperfect and even things they truthfully believe happened did not. I have no doubt that large quantities of things you believe you observed never happened, or at least didn't happen as you remember them. A skilled attorney will find one of those strings and pull on it until you unravel entirely.
My personal experience was that the truth is what protected me.Yep, and that's our system. Witness preparation is done because it's absolutely necessary. Plenty of people think just like you, that if they tell the truth they will do just fine. Many, many people have learned extremely costly lessons about how that's not true.
I guarantee you Kavanaugh was preparing his ass off relative to his time in the Bush White House, which is the conversation we should be having.It doesn't matter - no matter which side is telling the truth (likely both sides are telling the truth to a certain degree) they will be subject to aggressive attempts to discredit them. You can bet your ass Kavanaugh has been preparing like a madman for his testimony regardless of whether he's telling the truth or not. Let's say Kavanaugh is telling the truth, are you saying someone with his legal experience is foolish and should be following your advice?
Because its a bug not a feature. In the information age, justice is more a function of emotion than fact.Can you explain why the professional opinion of experts in the field with actual experience in the issue is not relevant here? Wouldn't that be among the most relevant things?
I already told you I have gone in to something like this, on more than one occasion, and my only protection was the truth. Sure, it wasn’t for a SCOTUS seat, but it did impact the trajectory of people’s careers, so it was a situation of incredible stress and pressure.
Which is why we don’t embrace allegations on face value.
My personal experience was that the truth is what protected me.
I guarantee you Kavanaugh was preparing his ass off relative to his time in the Bush White House, which is the conversation we should be having.
Because its a bug not a feature. In the information age, justice is more a function of emotion than fact.
O.J.'s other glove and a map leading to the real killers.I checked it out. July 01, 1982 was indeed a Thursday. If it's fake, it's a quality fake.
Also, the real mystery: what is the combination to? What did Mr. Kavanaugh have locked away?
Sen. Booker is going to be there, so YES.Get him under oath. Then
Are Democrats also allowed to bring in a sex crime prosecutor to question Kavanaugh?
Only if you consider an illegal and doctored taping to be a confession. I don't.It’s where he said on tape that he routinely sexually assaulted women. Nothing about a confession needs to be in court.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape
Let me know if you need any more reminders. If not, can you confirm that you find a taped confession of serial sex crimes to be more credible and serious than what you claim to be worried about with this guy?
Yes they can.Are they allowed to have a sexual assault prosecutor question Kavanaugh himself, or is that just for the little people?
Only if you consider an illegal and doctored taping to be a confession. I don't.
I'm married with female children and grandchildren, of course i care about women. No reason to smear because my political orientation is different for the Socialist Democrats. I find the accusation made by Ford not to be enough to convict Judge Kavanaugh of wrongdoing and the accusation by Ramirez not to be credible. I'm waiting on the Thursday hearing to see if it will change my mind, but without new evidence i would doubt it.PLEASE! Taj doesn't care about women, he just wants his pound of liberal flesh and tears.
Only if you consider an illegal and doctored taping to be a confession. I don't.
I heard this morning that each side will get 5 minutes for Kavanaugh and 5 minutes for Ford. That's it. Did I hear that right?
I have notes and schedules and other items from my University days dating back to the late 70's. Maybe it's a Republican or a graduate thing.Who the hell would keep calendars from the early 80s?
So Kavanaugh released his calendar for 1982 and somebody noticed something...
Gosh, only a quarter of a century past the time she alleges the assault happened.Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford offers Senate four people who corroborate her assault claims
Ford told these four people about her assault as early as 2013. Kind of tough to claim conspiracy or lying when he wasn't on the radar for SCOTUS back then.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...who-corroborate-her-assault-claims/ar-AAAE4zQ
Sorry, but according to the "Kavanaugh Rule" you have to prove it isn't doctored. This isn't a criminal trial after all.Whether it was illegal or not (dubious) is irrelevant. He's on tape saying it.
If you think it's doctored, provide evidence.
I love your descent into conspiracy theory nuttiness because you know you've been caught being a hypocrite yet again.
Thank you for the post. Too many people think of the police/authorities as their friend. Often it's the exact opposite.That works remarkably well if they don't have an agenda, prejudice, or looking for a fall guy,
in the real world the truth can be twisted to make you look guilty,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
I have notes and schedules and other items from my University days dating back to the late 70's. Maybe it's a Republican or a graduate thing.
Sorry, but according to the "Kavanaugh Rule" you have to prove it isn't doctored. This isn't a criminal trial after all.
Ford is not the one applying for the job, Kavanaugh is. Democrats should also bring a sex assault prosecutor to question him.A sexual assault prosecutor would be more sympathetic to the accuser than the accused, but I would expect also has the skills to determine when the accuser’s account doesn’t hold up.
This isn’t a criminal proceeding. It is a job interview, and this is the venue chosen by the hiring manager to address claims against the candidate.
Nothing is stopping Dr. Ford from filing charges in Maryland, the state has literally invited her to.
It's a single box in the attic, no big deal.Nope. Hoarders do. Throw that useless shit out.
https://www.curbed.com/2015/4/20/99...arders-self-storage-spots-outnumber-mcdonalds
It's a single box in the attic, no big deal.
Did you see the story on Polis?
https://www.9news.com/video/news/19...ims-jared-polis-pushed-an-employee/73-8263153
Still looking forward to voting for him?
No, the "Kavanaugh Rule" means you have to prove a negative.No, I don't. If we're going by the 'Kavanaugh Rule' then you have to provide someone who can credibly claim the tape was doctored. Provide this.
Look, we both know you're trapped and you're only going to make yourself look worse. Why not stop digging now?