Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*michaelsean*]

Aw man. Buckeyes win, Bengals win, but now reality sinks in and we gotta do this again.

[Belsnickel]

(10-01-2018, 09:31 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Aw man. Buckeyes win, Bengals win, but now reality sinks in and we gotta do this again.

Eh, he's going to be confirmed. The limits being put in place on the investigation help to make sure that the FBI won't be able to show just how untruthful Kavanaugh was in the hearings and make it difficult for them to learn anything beyond what is already known. So the investigation is all just for show so that the GOP can say they acquiesced and try to make the Democrats look bad when they vote against him.

[GMDino]

(10-01-2018, 09:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, he's going to be confirmed. The limits being put in place on the investigation help to make sure that the FBI won't be able to show just how untruthful Kavanaugh was in the hearings and make it difficult for them to learn anything beyond what is already known. So the investigation is all just for show so that the GOP can say they acquiesced and try to make the Democrats look bad when they vote against him.

Here is a good, long read about Kavanaugh's "answers" during the hearing Thursday.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

He probably can't help giving "lawyer" answers that skirt around the actual words, but it's a bad look on him.

Especially when Ford answered the questions.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart

That doesn't mean she is right that it was him who attacked her...just that if is as innocent as his yelling, tear soaked opening statement said he probably should have answered more question yes or no.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2018, 09:12 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Indeed it is, but everyone has biases. I just never deny that I have mine.

Everyone has a memory too; except for that chick on 50 first dates

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2018, 09:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, he's going to be confirmed. The limits being put in place on the investigation help to make sure that the FBI won't be able to show just how untruthful Kavanaugh was in the hearings and make it difficult for them to learn anything beyond what is already known. So the investigation is all just for show so that the GOP can say they acquiesced and try to make the Democrats look bad when they vote against him.

....and so begins the next demand.

[Belsnickel]

(10-01-2018, 04:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Everyone has a memory too; except for that chick on 50 first dates

Your point?

(10-01-2018, 04:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ....and so begins the next demand.

The next demand? I wouldn't consider wanting the prior demand to be done adequately "the next demand." But I guess that all depends on one's biases.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2018, 04:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Your point?


The next demand? I wouldn't consider wanting the prior demand to be done adequately "the next demand." But I guess that all depends on one's biases.

The FBI is investigating if crimes alleged were/were not committed, that's what this investigation is for; there's no bias in that.

Now folks are going to demand they investigate his drinking. It is not a crime to drink if you are of age; there's no bias in that.

[Belsnickel]

(10-01-2018, 04:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The FBI is investigating if crimes alleged were/were not committed, that's what this investigation is for; there's no bias in that.

Now folks are going to demand they investigate his drinking. It is not a crime to drink if you are of age; there's no bias in that.

Except they are not investigating all the allegations and they are not allowed to interview all the named witnesses. Lacking some due diligence, there. Lying under oath to Congress is also a felony, so if he lied about his drinking behavior, that is a crime.

None of that is bias, either.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2018, 08:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except they are not investigating all the allegations and they are not allowed to interview all the named witnesses. Lacking some due diligence, there. Lying under oath to Congress is also a felony, so if he lied about his drinking behavior, that is a crime.

None of that is bias, either.

What witness to the alleged crime are they not allowed to interview?

Dude clearly stated in his interview that sometimes he drank too much; what did he lie about?

Maybe, just maybe a little bias. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-01-2018, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What witness to the alleged crime are they not allowed to interview?

All but one. The only witness they are interviewing is Mark Judge. The other three they are allowed to interview are Kavanaugh and the two accusers from my understanding.

(10-01-2018, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dude clearly stated in his interview that sometimes he drank too much; what did he lie about?

He stated he was never black out drunk. There have been several people that have said that was inaccurate.

(10-01-2018, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Maybe, just maybe a little bias. 

Nope, just basing it off of what has been said in the hearings and reported.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2018, 09:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. All but one. The only witness they are interviewing is Mark Judge. The other three they are allowed to interview are Kavanaugh and the two accusers from my understanding.


2. He stated he was never black out drunk. There have been several people that have said that was inaccurate.


3. Nope, just basing it off of what has been said in the hearings and reported.

1. So you don't have a name?

2. Yeah, this is something we really should use the FBI to get to the bottom of. College kids assessing other college kids level of intoxication. So we should have the FBI investigate the investigation. Brilliant!!

3. Yep, you definitely aren't looking at this through a biased lens.  

[Benton]

(10-01-2018, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dude clearly stated in his interview that sometimes he drank too much; what did he lie about?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies/amp

I've said before,one of the biggest issues with kavanaugh is he's unable to tell the truth. Was anything he lied about illegal? No idea. Does a scotus need to be able to be honest? Technically I guess not,but it's a good trait to have. 

I just have a hard time trusting someone with no morals.

[Belsnickel]

(10-01-2018, 09:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. So you don't have a name?

2. Yeah, this is something we really should use the FBI to get to the bottom of. College kids assessing other college kids level of intoxication. So we should have the FBI investigate the investigation. Brilliant!!

3. Yep, you definitely aren't looking at this through a biased lens.  

1. I can't remember names and you aren't worth the effort to go digging.

2. If he lied in the hearings it is a crime.

3. I don't see it as a biased thing to want someone with integrity on the bench. But whatever floats your boat.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2018, 11:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. I can't remember names and you aren't worth the effort to go digging.

2. If he lied in the hearings it is a crime.

3. I don't see it as a biased thing to want someone with integrity on the bench. But whatever floats your boat.

Your evaluation of my worth aside: I simply asked because from everything I've read all witnesses will/have been investigated

It sure is. I guess it's just a question if it is something the FBI should be investigating. Like I said; there will always be a new demand. The FBI investigation is to determine if he committed the acts he was accused of.

Of course it's not bias to want someone with integrity on the bench. Water floats my boat. 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-01-2018, 11:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. I can't remember names and you aren't worth the effort to go digging.

2. If he lied in the hearings it is a crime.

3. I don't see it as a biased thing to want someone with integrity on the bench. But whatever floats your boat.

I’m curious as to the black out drunk standard they are employing and who the experts are that will testify to it. You couldn’t possibly get a perjury charge on that.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2018, 11:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m curious as to the black out drunk standard they are employing and who the experts are that will testify to it.  You couldn’t possibly get a perjury charge on that.

Well, if you go by the standard of guilty until proven innocent; then, a fellow college student saying so is most likely grounds for perjury. 

[NATI BENGALS]

Sounds like whiney lil rapey weirdo kav did enough crying and lying the other day.

Cant say i have ever heard of a legitimate investigation that has a 7 day time limit and puts restrictions on investgators.

Crooked ass sham.

Shit show republicans must think the whole country has an IQ level like their base.

Talk shit about DoJ Talk shit about DoJ Talk shit about DoJ. Authorize a sham one way neutered investigation...

Law and order party my fat white ass.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2018, 11:28 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Cant say i have ever heard of a legitimate investigation that has a 7 day time limit and puts restrictions on investgators.

Crooked ass sham.

Quire honestly, if you have a problem with this blame the people who sat on the accusation for close to three months. 

Quote:Shit show republicans must think the whole country has an IQ level like their base.

Yeah, that level of condescension just might be why Hillary is "also ran" and Trump is running the country.  Sad that your blinkered world view forces you to see the opposition as idiots.

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2018, 01:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quire honestly, if you have a problem with this blame the people who sat on the accusation for close to three months. 

The only deadline the Republicans have to squeal about is next year when the newly elected congress is sworn in.   So no way to blame the Dems for the "short" investigation unless it bumps up against that deadline.

So cry all you want to about the "delay", but unless it runs into next year all the blame is on Republicans.

[GMDino]

Geeze republicans are angry about this.

Anyway, one of my favorite highlights of the hearing last week was when Kavanaugh was asked if he was the "Bart O'Kavanaugh" that puked (ralphed?) in his buddies car from drinking.  First he said Judge mixed and matched names then he said, I swear he said this "I don't know".

How could you NOT know if you were the one who tossed cookies in your buddy's car unless a) multiple people did that or b) you were so drunk you forgot.

That, to me, is a yes or no question for a fine upstanding young man like Kavanaugh...if he's really telling us the truth.