Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

[fskimospy]

Where in your quote did you say that? Where in your quote did you recognize that they COULDN'T ask the majority leader? Why don't you admit that they could have asked for one when they received the letter?

NOW who is moving the goalposts? You claimed they had the power to subpoena people. That is false. Now you're trying to say they could have subpoenaed people by asking someone else who had that power that they lacked - to do it for them. I am unaware of Grassley ever issuing subpoenas so that the minority members of the committee can conduct an independent investigation.

Look, you said something wrong and got busted. If you're interested in honest debate just own up to getting it wrong.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Senator Lee did a great job and now Senator Klobuchar is in the throes of a TDS meltdown.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If there's a 50/50 chance of someone being a murderer, rapist, molester, etc. (i.e. not necessarily meeting "beyond a reasonable doubt"), would you go ahead and confirm them anyway? It's not a criminal trial, so the high standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal trial is irrelevant. Moreover, this is considering it's at 50/50 (Flake himself said as much certainty as there is doubt) with just a sham investigation. If a real investigation happened, it would definitely be more clarifying. Why don't you ponder why both Kavanaugh & the GOP don't want one? It's obvious why.



So why do you assholes support stripping voting rights of felons, even after they have served their time (and for less shit potentially than what Kavanaugh is accused of)?

An investigation seems silly, no true bottom line can be found. One person saying it happened, she's sure it was him that can't say who payed for her polygraph vs. a person with a feckless record and a friend that was at the supposed incident and says he has no recollection of such an event happening. Their isn't something here to investigate, there isn't a smoking gun piece of evidence. This isn't a trial, either. To me this is an obvious smear campaign to delay things.

But, it is interesting to see the Dems today argue for holding an alleged crime as a teenager against someone for all their life even if they've been a productive contributing citizen for decades since...

 

[zinfamous]

No evidence? We have three uncorroborated rape accusations, each more ridiculous than the last, calculated to destroy the reputation of an otherwise entirely decent man, in order to effect political ends.

Look up the definition of defamation and tell me this doesn't fit it.

why are each more ridiculous than the last? Why is he an "otherwise entirely decent man"? ...what does "otherwise" mean to you, because you are accepting something about him here when you say that....oh except for being a serial rapist, he's decent!

Bill Cosby is an otherwise decent man, look at all the good he did! How many accusations did it take for you to finally accept the long, long-documented truth about Bill? What's the number of rapes before they become legitimate rapes? Or do you still believe Bill? I wouldn't be surprised if you do.

 

[Zstream]

And you know that they didn't ask how exactly?

Because the majority leader just stated that yesterday, and minority leader stated she didn't share it!

 

[VRAMdemon]

I see now why the Republicans are so desperate to jam this conspiracy nutter judge through

If I understand correctly, Gamble vs. US will decide whether the one crime could be prosecuted by both the federal and state laws. This does seem relevant, since the President can pardon federal criminals but not state.

If you check out SCOTUS blog, you will see that on next month's docket is: Gamble v. U.S., No. 17-646. Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the "separate sovereigns" exception to the double jeopardy clause (where you can be charged twice, via State and Federal charges, for the same crimes). The plan was to appoint Kavanaugh early this week so that he would be seated in time for this ruling.

 

[Zstream]

NOW who is moving the goalposts? You claimed they had the power to subpoena people. That is false. Now you're trying to say they could have subpoenaed people by asking someone else who had that power that they lacked - to do it for them. I am unaware of Grassley ever issuing subpoenas so that the minority members of the committee can conduct an independent investigation.

Look, you said something wrong and got busted. If you're interested in honest debate just own up to getting it wrong.

I didn't get busted over anything. You're the truly ignorant person here. You have little knowledge of the process, and little knowledge of history. You CLEARLY stated they didn't have subpoena power, the Senate DOES!!! FFS get that through your damn head.

 

[Jhhnn]

I watched a lot of the questioning, I think he's fine. If Ginsberg can do it, I'm sure he can. Of course, this is the same crowd that said Trump wouldn't win, Trump isn't fit for office and have to pretend like things are bad today under his leadership to justify their emotional position. Dems are evangelical these days, not logical people.

Don't deflect. I referenced his opening statement of 9/27/18, yesterday.

 

[ecogen]

Because the majority leader just stated that yesterday, and minority leader stated she didn't share it!

So? Does that mean that they didn't ask for a subpoena for witnesses like Mark Judge who Ford said was the 2nd man in the room?

Oh wait, they did and the majority shut it down

http://www.talkmedianews.com/suprem...ry-committee-declines-to-subpoena-mark-judge/

There goes that talking point. Hold this L.

 

[Jaskalas]

But, it is interesting to see the Dems today argue for holding an alleged crime as a teenager against someone for all their life even if they've been a productive contributing citizen for decades since...

So if it is true... and the Judge is blatantly lying to us all, you'd be okay with that?
If there is no coming clean, no repentance, then there will be no forgiveness.

 

[zinfamous]

Here we go again, can't even keep a straight face. Your friend said that the Senate cannot get a subpoena! I said they could, and told him. He came back and said the minority couldn't. Well no F'ing shit sherlock. I also stated that the minority leader could have sent it to the majority, at the time of receiving the letter. You MOVED the goalposts.

No.

He.

Didn't.

You demanded that the minority committee members, the democrats, subpoena witnesses. He responded that as the minority members, they do not have that power. You said, nuh-uh-lie! He showed you the rules. You changed the argument. Why did you not demand that the republicans lead the charge? Is it because they have publicly, repeatedly, refused to do so? Why do you demand an investigation, all the while supporting the notion that there is no need for one? Why do you do this?

LoL and look at this now--you've changed your claim from the minority committee members to THE SENATE. go fuck yourself you disingenuous puppet. It's like you think your posting history isn't easily readable by everyone.

 

[Perknose]

Is it fair to deny Kavanaugh over this un-proven allegation? Even disregarding that the allegation is not proven, let's say for argument's sake that he did this to Ford as a drunken teenager 35 years ago. If he has had a feckless record since and done nothing of the sort throughout his adult life, how long should we punish him and keep him from a job he's well qualified for?

If he does indeed have a feckless record for the last 35 years, then that feckless pos is absolutely unqualified.

 

[ewdotson]

I didn't get busted over anything. You're the truly ignorant person here. You have little knowledge of the process, and little knowledge of history. You CLEARLY stated they didn't have subpoena power, the Senate DOES!!! FFS get that through your damn head.

He CLEARLY stated that by "they", he was referring to the minority members of the judiciary committee. I mean, it should have been obvious from the start, but if you were truly interested in honest discussion, you'd acknowledge that you'd misinterpreted what he'd originally said rather than continuing to insist he said something he didn't.

 

[Jhhnn]

So? Does that mean that they didn't ask for a subpoena for witnesses like Mark Judge who Ford said was the 2nd man in the room?

Oh wait, they did and the majority shut it down

http://www.talkmedianews.com/suprem...ry-committee-declines-to-subpoena-mark-judge/

There goes that talking point. Hold this L.

Zstream can't help but double & triple down on his erroneous assertion. It's circular & all he has.

 

[K1052]

Donnelley is a no vote. He's in a tight race for his Indiana seat.

 

[Maxima1]

An investigation seems silly, no true bottom line can be found. One person saying it happened, she's sure it was him that can't say who payed for her polygraph vs. a person with a feckless record and a friend that was at the supposed incident and says he has no recollection of such an event happening. Their isn't something here to investigate, there isn't a smoking gun piece of evidence. This isn't a trial, either. To me this is an obvious smear campaign to delay things.

But, it is interesting to see the Dems today argue for holding an alleged crime as a teenager against someone for all their life even if they've been a productive contributing citizen for decades since...

He doesn't have a "feckless record". There is a lot to suggest that he isn't impartial, and a lot of that surely stems from his obvious character traits during high school/college.

There is a lot to investigate. The principle witness Judge, many other potential witnesses, and allegations separate from Ford. It's outrageous that this guy gets to get away with so many perjuries. It's such bullshit.

 

[zinfamous]

Is it fair to deny Kavanaugh over this un-proven allegation? Even disregarding that the allegation is not proven, let's say for argument's sake that he did this to Ford as a drunken teenager 35 years ago. If he has had a feckless record since and done nothing of the sort throughout his adult life, how long should we punish him and keep him from a job he's well qualified for?

Did you witness is his extreme bias yesterday? His dabbling in nonsense fringe conspiracy theories? Did you witness the unhinged demeanor of a man that is incapable of guarding his emotions and making impartial, fair decisions? Of course you saw that, and so there are many, many reasons that this man is observably unqualified to be any kind of justice.

We can also remember is repeated, confirmed lies to the committee over the course of the last 2 weeks.

 

[trenchfoot]

There is something hilarious to be found in all of this controversy. It's how the elephants are trying to hide behind a blade of grass and think that no one can see them taking a crap all over the rule of law, ethical behavior and common decency.

It's not working..........at all.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Donnelley is a no vote. He's in a tight race for his Indiana seat.

Good, i'd rather have a NO vote from him and his Senate seat after the elections.

 

[ecogen]

Zstream can't help but double & tripled down on his erroneous assertion. It's circular & all he has.

It seems to be a common trait with idiots.

Also notice how his near instant replies so far have stopped. Maybe he'll go the OutHouse route and declare that "it was just a prank, bro".

 

[Atreus21]

Why are they ridiculous?

Okay, so going through each one.

Ford's is ridiculous because:

1. It's from 36 years ago, long past any possibility of finding physical evidence or reliable memory.
2. Entirely lacking in corroborating witnesses. Of the few witnesses available, they have said under penalty that they have no memory of such an incident.
3. Her testimony about who attended has been inconsistent. Her memory in general about the incident has large holes on key facts.

Deborah Ramirez:

1. Also from 36-ish years ago.
2. She was drunk by her own admission, and admitted she couldn't be sure it was even Kavanaugh.
3. Neither the New Yorker nor the NYT could find a single corroborating witness, nor could they find anyone who could place Kavanaugh at such a party.

Avenatti (It's sad that I even have to do this):

1. Outrageous on its face: that Kavanaugh was, at age 15, leading a gang-rape ring that spanned 10 parties without a single witness or even a victim named.

As for why they are 'uncorroborated' that's because Republicans refuse to investigate them. You're trying to use Republicans' own efforts to cover this up to defend their other actions.

What do you suppose the hearing yesterday was? Furthermore this is disingenuous and you know it. Democrats had no interest in investigating this; otherwise it would've come up during the confirmation hearings, or any of the 40+ days in advance of the last possible second when Feinstein know of the accusation.

And why is Kavanaugh a decent man? Usually decent people don't repeatedly lie under oath.

Because his friends, family, classmates, ex-girlfriends, colleagues, and co-workers over his entire career say so. His personal life to this point suggested a perfectly decent man, and until democrats defamed him we had absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. In fact we still have no reason.

This does not fit it. Defamation requires knowingly making false statements about someone to damage their reputation. Since you have no idea if these statements are false or not, they aren't defamation.

Knowingly using outlandish unsubstantiated allegations to ruin a man definitely fits this.

It's very interesting how your insistence on corroborating evidence for Kavanaugh instantly evaporates when it comes to his accusers. Why the double standard?

Why what double standard? I don't know what you mean.

 

[jackstar7]

An investigation seems silly, no true bottom line can be found. One person saying it happened, she's sure it was him that can't say who payed for her polygraph vs. a person with a feckless record and a friend that was at the supposed incident and says he has no recollection of such an event happening. Their isn't something here to investigate, there isn't a smoking gun piece of evidence. This isn't a trial, either. To me this is an obvious smear campaign to delay things.

But, it is interesting to see the Dems today argue for holding an alleged crime as a teenager against someone for all their life even if they've been a productive contributing citizen for decades since...

So you support an investigation into the many lies Kav has told yesterday and in the previous hearings?

Not that long ago right?

 

[jackstar7]

Okay, so going through each one.

He could have saved a lot of time by saying it's because they are women. That's his belief. The allegations are "ridiculous" because they are coming from women.

I assume he feels much the same about the abuse allegations against priests, because they are typically SO LONG AGO.

 

[K1052]

Undeclared red state D votes look like Heitkamp and Manchin. I'd suspect the former to be a no. Not sure about the latter.

 

[SlowSpyder]

So you support an investigation into the many lies Kav has told yesterday and in the previous hearings?

Not that long ago right?

Can you identify these "lies" for me?