Kavenaugh Hearing Travesty. Dems Obstruct throughout

[davew]

Originally Posted by hcap

So what is th big deal if the FBI confirms this. The rethugs and Kavanaugh should request it done. So should everyone arguing against the full investigation by the FBI.

Nothing to worry about.

sure, if they can get it done by Monday - 3 days from now

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap

No one is "manipulating" anything except the rethugs. And the 300 day denial of Merrick Garland.

Figure. You have read nothing about the precedent set by the judiciary committee during the Thomas confirmations.
Or anything I wrote.

Fact free is your name

You are just pointing fingers and lying to save yourself the
embarrassment of being 100% wrong over and over.

Of COURSE Frankenstein was trying to manipulate the whole thing. That is why she sat on it for 6 weeks and now the dems are asking why the rush?

You gotta be pretty stupid to not see what is going on here.

The Garland thing was NOT the same thing as this. Not remotely similar. It was a political move, arguable by both sides, but the reasoning the GOP used was valid and not illegal.
You have every right to question it, but fact is, elections have consequences. And being the party in power gives you the right to change SOP.

If it ever happens again to a republican president, will you still be opposed to it? Never mind, I know your answer.

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

[woodtoo]

She's gonna pull a "no show Jones".

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

---

Last edited by Andy Asaro; 09-21-2018 at 11:45 AM.

[FantasticDan]

"What boy hasn't done this in high school"

Originally Posted by upthecreek

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/sta...75890395652096

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Tom

You are just pointing fingers and lying to save yourself the
embarrassment of being 100% wrong over and over.

Of COURSE Frankenstein (sic) was trying to manipulate the whole thing. That is why she sat on it for 6 weeks and now the dems are asking why the rush?

You gotta be pretty stupid to not see what is going on here.

The Garland thing was NOT the same thing as this. Not remotely similar. It was a political move, arguable by both sides, but the reasoning the GOP used was valid and not illegal.
You have every right to question it, but fact is, elections have consequences. And being the party in power gives you the right to change SOP.

That was my initial reaction when the accuser was anonymous, but she's come forward and requested the FBI re-open the background investigation into Kav. There's nothing unusual about the FBI re-opening such a background check for a judicial nominee. It has happened multiple times over the past few months, as I'm sure you know. If I were him, having proclaimed my innocence to the world, I would relish a chance to speak with FBI agents. Why not? They would simply gather facts. If they're out to get him, as you may assert, there's still no harm (record the answers)?

There's no question the accuser is left of center on (perhaps far left, not sure) the political spectrum, at least from the reporting about her political activities. But she's very well credentialed and appears to enjoy a successful career. Do you believe she's crazy? Why would she expose herself to ridicule and threats of physical harm? She isn't stupid and had to see what was coming, just a conservative woman would expect threats from the fringe left if she came forward against a liberal nominee. Such an expectation would certainly give any woman pause about coming forward, no?

She's taken a lie detector test administered by a former FBI agent (I believe it was a former FBI agent--I'd want to reconfirm this fact). While such a test isn't permissible in court, it certainly lends credibility to her story, no? I guess you could assert it's another former "Deep State" FBI agent out to get Trump, for which I have no response, as crazy conspiracy theories are impossible to refute.

Finally, I'm accused of this. I'm innocent. I don't even know her. How should I prepare for additional testimony? There is no preparation. I don't need to prepare to deny something that never happened. Yet, Kav has spent the past few days in the White House practicing. Why? How can one practice denying something that never happened? Odd.

Taking all this into consideration, any reasonable person would conclude that there's a decent chance she's telling the truth. I don't know, but I think hearing both of them testify on the matter will be instructive. What's the downside?

Yes, elections have consequences, but the Senate also has an obligation to thoroughly vet all nominees.

Personally, I think Judge Kav's potential views of the executive (e.g., a sitting president cannot be indicted) are classic judicial activism. The Constitution says no such thing (on the subject of indicting a sitting president). It's made up law, backed up by some ridiculous Justice Department memo.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Taking all this into consideration, any reasonable person would conclude that there's a decent chance she's telling the truth.

You're definition of "reasonable" is questionable at best....1% or less of her telling the truth.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

You're definition of "reasonable" is questionable at best....1% or less of her telling the truth.

When a woman comes forward I'm usually inclined to believe there is some truth in their allegations.

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Why would she expose herself to ridicule and threats of physical harm? She isn't stupid and had to see what was coming, just a conservative woman would expect threats from the fringe left if she came forward against a liberal nominee. Such an expectation would certainly give any woman pause about coming forward, no?

This all could have been done in private without exposing her name to the public, if she were afraid of that. Feinstein could have contacted the confirmation committee, explaining that there is a witness that has evidence against Kav.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

That was my initial reaction when the accuser was anonymous, but she's come forward and requested the FBI re-open the background investigation into Kav. There's nothing unusual about the FBI re-opening such a background check for a judicial nominee. It has happened multiple times over the past few months, as I'm sure you know. If I were him, having proclaimed my innocence to the world, I would relish a chance to speak with FBI agents. Why not? They would simply gather facts. If they're out to get him, as you may assert, there's still no harm (record the answers)?

There's no question the accuser is left of center on (perhaps far left, not sure) the political spectrum, at least from the reporting about her political activities. But she's very well credentialed and appears to enjoy a successful career. Do you believe she's crazy? Why would she expose herself to ridicule and threats of physical harm? She isn't stupid and had to see what was coming, just a conservative woman would expect threats from the fringe left if she came forward against a liberal nominee. Such an expectation would certainly give any woman pause about coming forward, no?

She's taken a lie detector test administered by a former FBI agent (I believe it was a former FBI agent--I'd want to reconfirm this fact). While such a test isn't permissible in court, it certainly lends credibility to her story, no? I guess you could assert it's another former "Deep State" FBI agent out to get Trump, for which I have no response, as crazy conspiracy theories are impossible to refute.

Finally, I'm accused of this. I'm innocent. I don't even know her. How should I prepare for additional testimony? There is no preparation. I don't need to prepare to deny something that never happened. Yet, Kav has spent the past few days in the White House practicing. Why? How can one practice denying something that never happened? Odd.

Taking all this into consideration, any reasonable person would conclude that there's a decent chance she's telling the truth. I don't know, but I think hearing both of them testify on the matter will be instructive. What's the downside?

Yes, elections have consequences, but the Senate also has an obligation to thoroughly vet all nominees.

Personally, I think Judge Kav's potential views of the executive (e.g., a sitting president cannot be indicted) are classic judicial activism. The Constitution says no such thing (on the subject of indicting a sitting president). It's made up law, backed up by some ridiculous Justice Department memo.

the part that i find very odd is the best friend of Kavanaugh. he says he didn't do it, yet he refuses to stick his right hand up and testify for his very best friend. i am sure many here would do anything for their best friends if it could save them somehow.

before this witness i was just brushing off this gal as being a koo-koo clock. now i highly doubt it.

i have a gut feeling that this guy is going down and he might blow his current bench job as well.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

That was my initial reaction when the accuser was anonymous, but she's come forward and requested the FBI re-open the background investigation into Kav. There's nothing unusual about the FBI re-opening such a background check for a judicial nominee. It has happened multiple times over the past few months, as I'm sure you know. If I were him, having proclaimed my innocence to the world, I would relish a chance to speak with FBI agents. Why not? They would simply gather facts. If they're out to get him, as you may assert, there's still no harm (record the answers)?

There's no question the accuser is left of center on (perhaps far left, not sure) the political spectrum, at least from the reporting about her political activities. But she's very well credentialed and appears to enjoy a successful career. Do you believe she's crazy? Why would she expose herself to ridicule and threats of physical harm? She isn't stupid and had to see what was coming, just a conservative woman would expect threats from the fringe left if she came forward against a liberal nominee. Such an expectation would certainly give any woman pause about coming forward, no?

She's taken a lie detector test administered by a former FBI agent (I believe it was a former FBI agent--I'd want to reconfirm this fact). While such a test isn't permissible in court, it certainly lends credibility to her story, no? I guess you could assert it's another former "Deep State" FBI agent out to get Trump, for which I have no response, as crazy conspiracy theories are impossible to refute.

Finally, I'm accused of this. I'm innocent. I don't even know her. How should I prepare for additional testimony? There is no preparation. I don't need to prepare to deny something that never happened. Yet, Kav has spent the past few days in the White House practicing. Why? How can one practice denying something that never happened? Odd.

Taking all this into consideration, any reasonable person would conclude that there's a decent chance she's telling the truth. I don't know, but I think hearing both of them testify on the matter will be instructive. What's the downside?

Yes, elections have consequences, but the Senate also has an obligation to thoroughly vet all nominees.

Personally, I think Judge Kav's potential views of the executive (e.g., a sitting president cannot be indicted) are classic judicial activism. The Constitution says no such thing (on the subject of indicting a sitting president). It's made up law, backed up by some ridiculous Justice Department memo.

From what I'm hearing, the accuser want more than an FBI background check. She wants the FBI to investigate her charges to an alleged, specific crime. However, this is not in the jurisdiction of the Feds. An attempt of rape on a private citizen is not a federal crime, to the best of my knowledge.

Further, since when does the accuser get to demand who should take jurisdiction of a case? Laws determine who has jurisdiction -- not supposed victims of a crime.

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

When a woman comes forward I'm usually inclined to believe there is some truth in their allegations.

I do too except when that woman has obvious ulterior motives and doesn't give a time, date or place.

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

the part that i find very odd is the best friend of Kavanaugh. he says he didn't do it, yet he refuses to stick his right hand up and testify for his very best friend. i am sure many here would do anything for their best friends if it could save them somehow.

before this witness i was just brushing off this gal as being a koo-koo clock. now i highly doubt it.

i have a gut feeling that this guy is going down and he might blow his current bench job as well.

He stated his opinion and they could subpoena him whenever they wanted, and will, if it comes to that. But why should this guy be forced to answer a zillion questions from the press?

You're just reaching.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

When a woman comes forward I'm usually inclined to believe there is some truth in their allegations.

That might be the case, but memories from 36 years ago?...How accurate can they be, in a drunken stupor?

Here's a personal experience of my memory accuracy:

Up until 5 years ago, I always thought of x-mas at my Grandparents with a certain magical quality, the beautiful tree with it's bubble lights, white flocked with tinsel, and a small train set running in a circle at the base of the tree. This memory has always put a smile on my face, up until 5 years ago, when a family reunion was held on the west coast.

My sister had in her possession an old reel from those years of x-masses past, and had that reel transferred to a DVD. She played it at our gathering, and with the x-mas scenes coming up, I was ready to feel that magical moment, when suddenly.....What happened to our Grandparent's X-mas tree? It was scrawny and green, not flocked white, then suddenly the scene shifted to my Great Aunt's X-mas gathering, and there was the TREE of my memories at HER home....I couldn't understand how my memory had transposed the two, but there was the evidence, plain to see....

From that moment on, I realized that my memory, which everyone says is incredibly sharp, had indeed made it's own version of a happy time, just transposed it from my great aunt, who I had mixed feelings about, to my grandparents, who I loved and respected very much.....You just never really know when that amount of time passes what truly transpired.