Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

[Starbuck1975]

Why aren't Democrats going after perjury charges from the hearing? It's obvious he lied under oath.

They missed the opportunity to take him down over his time in the Bush White House and he is not going to lose the votes he needs over beerghazi. If the FBI investigation doesn’t expose anything we don’t already know, he probably has the votes he needs.

 

[soundforbjt]

So far,according to a report I just heard on the news, the FBI hasn't even contacted Ford yet.

 

[Maxima1]

I bet once the week is over, the media will play along with the nonsense that an FBI investigation occurred. Hopefully I'm wrong, but they don't even want to call out the lies like Donnie's recent official statement on Twitter.

 

[soundforbjt]

I bet once the week is over, the media will play along with the nonsense that an FBI investigation occurred. Hopefully I'm wrong, but they don't even want to call out the lies like Donnie's recent official statement on Twitter.

Haven't seen that one, don't use twitter, link ?

 

[Maxima1]

Haven't seen that one, don't use twitter, link ?

I'm referring to this one. It has been reported recently the FBI hasn't received new instruction. And where's Flake, Collins, Murkowski?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1046230634103025664

NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!

 

[Jhhnn]

They missed the opportunity to take him down over his time in the Bush White House and he is not going to lose the votes he needs over beerghazi. If the FBI investigation doesn’t expose anything we don’t already know, he probably has the votes he needs.

That's because the GOP has withheld the pertinent documentation from that time period.

 

[soundforbjt]

I'm referring to this one. It has been reported recently the FBI hasn't received new instruction. And where's Flake, Collins, Murkowski?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1046230634103025664

NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!

They're desperately trying to figure out how to vote for him and keep face, Flake's leaving, so it's no concern for him.

 

[Jhhnn]

They're desperately trying to figure out how to vote for him and keep face, Flake's leaving, so it's no concern for him.

Flake is trying to maintain a place in the political machinery of the GOP despite what the Teahadi crazies have done to him in Arizona. It's an issue of future prospects as a paid talking head, political consultant, lobbyist, think tank operative or whatever. If he votes against Kavanaugh he'll be dead to the people who can make that happen for him. I mean, Kee-rist. If none of that happens he'll have to work for a living.

 

[Starbuck1975]

That's because the GOP has withheld the pertinent documentation from that time period.

Booker for a brief moment exhibited a tenacity to force the release of those documents, and then nothing

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm seeing quite a bit of rationalization in conservative circles that admits Kav was not truthful but excuses it on the grounds that the questions were unfair/embarrassing.

Oh, the Clinton defense. Lovely.

Think Republicans will settle for the same disbarment for the liar?

 

[ch33zw1z]

They missed the opportunity to take him down over his time in the Bush White House and he is not going to lose the votes he needs over beerghazi. If the FBI investigation doesn’t expose anything we don’t already know, he probably has the votes he needs.

Even if the FBI investigation does, he will get the votes. The moral degenerates running this country dont DGAF

 

[Jhhnn]

Booker for a brief moment exhibited a tenacity to force the release of those documents, and then nothing

The GOP isn't giving that up under any circumstances that Dems can create w/o majority power. Shee-it, Sherlock. The fact that they're hiding it tells us what's in it.

 

[Paratus]

I'm referring to this one. It has been reported recently the FBI hasn't received new instruction. And where's Flake, Collins, Murkowski?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1046230634103025664

NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!

They're desperately trying to figure out how to vote for him and keep face, Flake's leaving, so it's no concern for him.

Well let’s look at this from the perspective that conservatives have told us to look at it.

Accusing Trump of lying means we had Trump Derangement Syndrome, so he’s obviously telling the truth.

They also tell us there is a deep state conspiracy to make him look bad and that’s backed up by the anonymous NYT article.

Not doing a thorough investigation makes Trump look bad. So obviously it’s the deep state trying to prevent a full investigation.

So if I was the FBI agent in charge I would do what the President said and do a full and thorough investigation with no limits into Kavanaughs background regardless of what any potential deep state agent telling me to limit the scope. After all it’s what the President ordered on Twitter.

I’m sure the conservatives on this board completely agree with that reasoning.

 

[soundforbjt]

Flake is trying to maintain a place in the political machinery of the GOP despite what the Teahadi crazies have done to him in Arizona. It's an issue of future prospects as a paid talking head, political consultant, lobbyist, think tank operative or whatever. If he votes against Kavanaugh he'll be dead to the people who can make that happen for him. I mean, Kee-rist. If none of that happens he'll have to work for a living.

Yeah, that lifetime pension won't be enough for him.

 

[dainthomas]

Flake is trying to maintain a place in the political machinery of the GOP despite what the Teahadi crazies have done to him in Arizona. It's an issue of future prospects as a paid talking head, political consultant, lobbyist, think tank operative or whatever. If he votes against Kavanaugh he'll be dead to the people who can make that happen for him. I mean, Kee-rist. If none of that happens he'll have to work for a living.

The senate pension is 140k. I think he could scrape by on that.

Besides, a former US senator has crazy connections. He would 100% be able to get a lobbying job somewhere regardless of all this nonsense.

 

[Guru]

Dude democracy is being destroyed in YOUR country. Why won't you fight for it?

Oh yeah, you're really looking forward to right wing authoritarian rule and hope the US falls into the same trap. Poland's government is a shit show and you've been sold a bill of goods.

LOL. I'm not from Poland.

 

[brycejones]

LOL. I'm not from Poland.

Where are you from then? BTW I think this is first time you've denied being from Poland despite being called out a couple of times from there being there.

By your own admission you aren't from or live in the US. So let us know where you are from so we can put your concern trolling and ranting into perspective.

 

[Guru]

I have to agree with you. Senator Grassley should not rule Kavanaugh guilty of attempted rape based on failing to clear reasonable doubt. Nor should he be sentenced to jail for attempted rape.

Now since Senator Grassley is not a judge, this is not a court, and Kavanaugh is not on trial what’s your point?

Mediocre entitled white men who rage and cry when stressed, make threats, and lie in confirmation hearings about their teenage binge drinking do not deserve to be Supreme Court Justices.

Even if he is given the position he will not have earned it. It will be in effect a participation trophy albeit one with significant consequences for the rest of the country.

If there is no evidence, there is no evidence. What does it matter what room it is in? You know? There is no evidence to support Ford's story, therefore he should be confirmed if that is your primary issue with him.

Personally my issue with him was the fact that he didn't respect the 4th and 5th amendment in many of his rulings and writings, but unfortunately democrats decided to make it about wild rape accusations that even if they are true, by the fact that they happened 36 years ago are unprovable. These are so odl accusations that there is no way to prove them, so this whole thing stinks of political manipulation.

 

[Aegeon]

If there is no evidence, there is no evidence. What does it matter what room it is in? You know? There is no evidence to support Ford's story, therefore he should be confirmed if that is your primary issue with him.

We have already established this is not true. (You can argue there is not enough evidence yet, but that is not the same thing, and there are of course additional accusations against Kavanuagh, plus clear evidence he did in fact lie regarding certain points in his testimony.) On top of that you clearly have not even done some of the basic research on the circumstances of Ford's claims, so you are really wasting all our time posting in this thread.

 

[FelixDeCat]

So far,according to a report I just heard on the news, the FBI hasn't even contacted Ford yet.

She is too busy trying to remember if anyone else touched her 40 years ago so she can stay in the limelight.

 

[Guru]

As noted, it would have been surprising if she remember the details of the party did given the circumstance, while Judge would have plausible motivation to lie if he simply didn't remember the event because he was so drunk.

There indisputably is circumstantial evidence in favor of her claims, including her discussing the assault years ago, naming Kavanaugh in relation to the assault specially to the Washington Post prior to him being nominated by Donald Trump as Supreme Court Justice (although admittedly once he clearly was one of the possible candidates), plus her polygraph results.

I don't see what what you expect to prove with your false claims other than a lack of concern with accuracy or your lack of personal integrity.

Okay, all of what you wrote are claims! Okay? None of it is evidence. Her stating stuff is NOT evidence.

Polygraph is a bit more credible, now that I read that she did in fact took a polygraph test it does add a little bit of credibility, but polygraph tests are not evidence either. As I've said its very easy for a trained professional to consistently pass the polygraph with lies, average results themselves are often inconclusive and erroneous and thus polygraph testing is INADMISSIBLE in court.

So NONE of what you wrote is evidence. Polygraph test adds a little bit of credibility to her story, in terms of she believing that she was sexually assaulted, but again that is not evidence because of the nature of polygraph results, they are illegitimate, the test itself is not consistent and scam free.

Look we have history of false polygraph tests putting innocent men in prison, who took the test to exonerate themselves, and ended up incriminating themselves, only for years later to be exonerated due to DNA testing and confirming they are innocent. Sometimes the pressure of the situation can make you fail the polygraph test.

So there are good reasons why polygraph tests are illegitimate and inadmissible in court!

 

[umbrella39]

don't feed the troll children...

 

[brycejones]

don't feed the trolls children...

FTFY since they are crawling out of the woodwork

 

[Aegeon]

Okay, all of what you wrote are claims! Okay? None of it is evidence. Her stating stuff is NOT evidence.

You're simply outright factually mistaken here. At best there is a language issue here if you are from a foreign country, or you are simply clueless, or intentionally lying about this. We have established you do not know basic things about the case, or apparently even the definition of evidence. (Its not as strong as something like a video or eye witness to the actual assault, but on top of the polygraph when she has previously talked about this and what circumstances is relevant evidence in comparison to her only suddenly bringing the assault for the first time up once Kavanaugh was actually nominated as some people on the internet had basically claimed.)

 

[fskimospy]

You're simply outright factually mistaken here. At best there is a language issue here if you are from a foreign country, or you are simply clueless, or intentionally lying about this. We have established you do not know basic things about the case, or apparently even the definition of evidence. (Its not as strong as something like a video or eye witness to the actual assault, but on top of the polygraph when she has previously talked about this and what circumstances is relevant evidence in comparison to her only suddenly bringing the assault for the first time up once Kavanaugh was actually nominated as some people on the internet had basically claimed.)

Uhmm, let’s remember that her testimony is literally eye witness evidence to the assault.