Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 03:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What?  You can certainly state your opinion on why events are happening the way they are.  Do you think if I went back through Dr Ford's testimony I couldn't find opinions?

Of course you could. You could start with when she said Judge and Kavs were much more drunk than everyone else.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-04-2018, 04:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: Back when he felt a full, complete and detailed investigation of any and all sexual acts was VERY important?  Indeed.

Actually I think you'll find that Starr was investigating Whitewater and what Clinton got in trouble for was lying under oath, not the sex act(s).  I said then and I say now, Starr had no business investigating Clinton's bj's, but Bill should have refused to answer those questions rather than lie under oath.  I haven't seen you complain about Mueller's Russia probe indicting people for everything under the sun but collusion with Russia.  Perhaps you're just as partisan as those you level that allegation against?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-04-2018, 12:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's definitely an interesting situation with this, because what has changed between when they downgraded him to now? I know you don't know the answers, this is just something I have been pondering. It's also interesting to me because his behavior at the hearing was a violation of what the ABA has out there as like a code of conduct for judges in general. I think the ABA is trying hard not to end up being the center of attention in the fight by not saying anything more than it has.

I think the logical conclusion is that Kavanaugh's subsequent performance on the bench either ameliorated or eliminated their original concerns.  I agree with your last point in its entirety.

[jj22]

(10-04-2018, 03:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What?  You can certainly state your opinion on why events are happening the way they are.  Do you think if I went back through Dr Ford's testimony I couldn't find opinions?

No, under oath (for example) at your trial I can't testify that you killed someone. Then later say well it was my opinion. Perjury wouldn't exist if all we could say was it was our opinion. As you can tell in these debates, opinions supersedes facts regardless of the obvious in many cases (It was a thorough investigation/ignoring the WH statement of it's limits). And that can't be allowed to happen in the court of law (under oath). That's just facts. Nothing political.

They went back through Fords testimony and no Republican can find anything she testified about that was just "her opinion". Found her to be credible. She made statements as fact. Not her opinion. "100%"... remember that powerful statement. Besides the prosecutor wouldn't have allowed for it with her 4 hours of follow up questions and fact finding. Which I know yall appreciated and I'm happy Dems didn't cut her off after 2 questions to play politics during a serious hearing.

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2018, 03:05 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: EDIT: Democrats wanted the Ford accusations investigated. The FBI investigated the Ford accusations and even went outside the scope and talked to the Second Accusor. Now Democrats are saying "NO, WE WANT MORE".

Actually, Democrats wanted all of it investigated; all three accusers and his behavior in high school and college that he had testified about because of concerns over his truthfulness. The White House, under advisement from the Senate Republicans, limited the scope to the first two accusers. You're trying to characterize the Democrat position as moving, but it has been fairly consistent.

(10-04-2018, 03:05 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: It's over and the longer Democrats continue to delay and smear Kavanaugh, the more they can kiss the House and Senate goodbye in November. I'm already thinking that Republicans will pick up seats in the House and Senate if the election was held today. But alas the Democrats have over four weeks to get the people to forget what they have done.

This is one of those things where it baffles me how people can only see one side's hands being dirty. But whatever, not going to get into that argument on here. What I will say is that this is the reason McConnell said he was scheduling the vote this week even before anything came back from the FBI. He WANTS the Kavanaugh nomination to fail.

If it fails, it is a motivator for the GOP in November. If he succeeds, it's a motivator for the Democrats. If the seat is empty when the midterms come around it will fire up the base and drive people to the polls. For the Democrats it is a lose-lose. If they prevent him from being on the bench then it boosts Republican turnout. If they fail, then they have a dishonest and highly partisan Associate Justice on the bench. This is the type of political calculus that kills the Democrats and is why they are terrible at winning elections.

[GMDino]

(10-04-2018, 05:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually I think you'll find that Starr was investigating Whitewater and what Clinton got in trouble for was lying under oath, not the sex act(s).  I said then and I say now, Starr had no business investigating Clinton's bj's, but Bill should have refused to answer those questions rather than lie under oath.  I haven't seen you complain about Mueller's Russia probe indicting people for everything under the sun but collusion with Russia.  Perhaps you're just as partisan as those you level that allegation against?

I agree with the entire bolded part.  I also said, even back then, that Clinton should have resigned.  

Whether Clinton's lying fell under the scope of the Starr investigation I can't say.  But the genies is out of the bottle as they say.  And the role of the special prosecutor is what it is now.

Nonetheless I was referring to Kavanaugh's view of the Starr investigation report not the actual investigation itself.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 05:22 PM)jj22 Wrote: No, under oath (for example) at your trial I can't testify that you killed someone. Then later say well it was my opinion. Perjury wouldn't exist if all we could say was it was our opinion. As you can tell in these debates, opinions supersedes facts regardless of the obvious in many cases (It was a thorough investigation/ignoring the WH statement of it's limits). And that can't be allowed to happen in the court of law (under oath). That's just facts. Nothing political.

They went back through Fords testimony and no Republican can find anything she testified about that was just "her opinion". Found her to be credible. She made statements as fact. Not her opinion. "100%"... remember that powerful statement. Besides the prosecutor wouldn't have allowed for it with her 4 hours of follow up questions and fact finding. Which I know yall appreciated and I'm happy Dems didn't cut her off after 2 questions to play politics during a serious hearing.

I just provided you with an example. What method did this 15 year old girl use to determine Kavs and Judge were much more drunk than the rest?

[GMDino]

(10-04-2018, 05:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I just provided you with an example. What method did this 15 year old girl use to determine Kavs and Judge were much more drunk than the rest?

Maybe because they were trying to sexually assault her?

[jj22]

She still stated it as fact, not opinion.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2018, 03:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  When folks want to ignore due process and assume guilty until proven innocent, we are tearing at the very fabric of our Nation. 

That has never been the standard when applying for a job or seeking a position on the Supreme Court.

If your baby sitter was charged with raping a child I guarantee you would not say "Lets not fire her until she is proven guilty.  Otherwise we will be destroying the very fabric of the nation."

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(10-04-2018, 05:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, Democrats wanted all of it investigated; all three accusers and his behavior in high school and college that he had testified about because of concerns over his truthfulness. The White House, under advisement from the Senate Republicans, limited the scope to the first two accusers. You're trying to characterize the Democrat position as moving, but it has been fairly consistent.


This is one of those things where it baffles me how people can only see one side's hands being dirty. But whatever, not going to get into that argument on here. What I will say is that this is the reason McConnell said he was scheduling the vote this week even before anything came back from the FBI. He WANTS the Kavanaugh nomination to fail.

If it fails, it is a motivator for the GOP in November. If he succeeds, it's a motivator for the Democrats. If the seat is empty when the midterms come around it will fire up the base and drive people to the polls. For the Democrats it is a lose-lose. If they prevent him from being on the bench then it boosts Republican turnout. If they fail, then they have a dishonest and highly partisan Associate Justice on the bench. This is the type of political calculus that kills the Democrats and is why they are terrible at winning elections.

That's because of your bias, you can't see how the Democrats are hurting themselves, which is how I see it because of my bias. I see how the Republicans bent over backwards to accommodate Ford and Democrats. I also see how Democrats have no intention of being fair towards anyone Trump nominates. I also think that if Trump were to say "2+2=4" Democrats will yell "YOU'RE LIEING". But of course, that's my bias

If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, it's because Republicans failed to confirm him and I think the Democrats will take the House and Senate if that happens. From the get go, this was the plan of Democrats except they went to far and now it has backfired. The longer they oppose this nomination, the more seats they will lose barring Trump doing something stupid between now and election day, which we all know he will do.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 06:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That has never been the standard when applying for a job or seeking a position on the Supreme Court.

If your baby sitter was charged with raping a child I guarantee you would not say "Lets not fire her until she is proven guilty.  Otherwise we will be destroying the very fabric of the nation."

Charged by whom; One person just said my babysitter raped someone and all the people that person said saw it has no idea what they are talking about?  Guarantee all you want; however, you might be surprised who I would give the benefit of innocence to. 

And I get you trying to make yourself feel better about the bastardization of due process and presumption of innocence (especially being as you propose to be a member of the judicial system), but it does not change one bit what the left tried to do to this guy. 

[Dill]

(10-03-2018, 10:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ford has been interviewed by 10 Senators and one expert investigator under oath. She has been asked plenty questions. Perhaps Ford's attorneys think they will ask her the extra special FBI question that will suddenly make her remember everything and make those she claimed as witness to suddenly remember they do remember the party. 

No Dem should balk about Ford or Kavs not being interviewed. They had the opportunity to have an investigator interview Ford, but they wanted to spend that time hailing her a hero for asserting unsubstantiated claims. They had the opportunity to question Kavs, but they wanted to spend that time talking about his yearbook. 

Any thought on evidence rebutting what the women say being considered attacks? 

No, I found Trump's remarks to be below the office of POTUS. While 100% true; leave it to other folks.

Ford has been asked "plenty" of questions--and given convincing answers. What is needed now is not more "memories" but third party corroboration.

Senate "interviews" are not the same as FBI questioning. And one reason why that is, is because the Senators do not have the time and resources to question all parties mentioned in Ford's testimony and follow any leads from them. Journalists were their only source of background info. When allowed, FBI investigators make a point of cross examining sources, rigorously, systematically, and professionally addressing questions those like you ask above--witnesses who suddenly claim they do not remember, which can be for a number of reasons, including staying out of the limelight, avoiding repercussions. The FBI follows leads, compares notes on different sources, returns to ask about discrepancies. As I say--SYSTEMATIC.

Another reason is that Senators grandstand and play to voters.  They are not single-mindedly establishing a factual record free of inconsistencies. That is why more than an interview--ground work--is needed in cases such as this.

Had an FBI investigation preceded the Senate's question and answer session, that could have greatly affected which questions were asked and followed up.

You appear not to have noticed that "Bart's" yearbook helps substantiate Ford's claims--and certainly that he lied under oath.  Asked if he had ever attended a party such as that described by Ford, with "PJ" and Judge and heaving drinking, he said unequivocally 'NO.'  But his own calender puts him at such a party with the afore-named partiers.  That's why they "spent time talking about his year book."

Sounds like you take the Trump view of yet another woman alleging sexual assault. And you support him putting another man with similar inclinations on the Supreme Court--even if you agree that he shouldn't mock her publicly.  

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2018, 03:05 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: It's over and the longer Democrats continue to delay and smear Kavanaugh, the more they can kiss the House and Senate goodbye in November. I'm already thinking that Republicans will pick up seats in the House and Senate if the election was held today. But alas the Democrats have over four weeks to get the people to forget what they have done.

I am sure that is what they are telling you in the echo chamber, but public opinion polls say otherwise.

An overwhelming majority felt the accusations deserved investigation.  Beyond that the public is split in their support of Kavanaugh.  Mor epeople believe he should be confirmed, but there is not a huge backlash against the Dems for delaying the vote for an investigation.

The only people squealing with self-righteous indignation are the ones that were going to vote Republican anyway.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2018, 06:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Charged by whom; One person just said my babysitter raped someone and all the people that person said saw it has no idea what they are talking about?  Guarantee all you want; however, you might be surprised who I would give the benefit of innocence to. 

And I get you trying to make yourself feel better about the bastardization of due process and presumption of innocence (especially being as you propose to be a member of the judicial system), but it does not change one bit what the left tried to do to this guy. 

I know exactly who you would give the presumption of innocence to...….the Republican.  

The only people that Ford said saw what happened were the 2 perpetrators.  Is anyone surprised that they what happened.

And you can crow about "due process" all you want but the fact remains that it only applies to criminal proceedings.  And it is hilarious to hear the people on the right who love to chant "Lock up Hillary" even though she has been thoroughly investigated and cleared of any criminal ctivity squeal about how they are the champ[ions of due process.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 06:19 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. Ford has been asked "plenty" of questions--and given convincing answers. What is needed now is not more "memories" but third party corroboration.

2. Senate "interviews" are not the same as FBI questioning. And one reason why that is, is because the Senators do not have the time and resources to question all parties mentioned in Ford's testimony and follow any leads from them. Journalists were their only source of background info. When allowed, FBI investigators make a point of cross examining sources, rigorously, systematically, and professionally addressing questions those like you ask above--witnesses who suddenly claim they do not remember, which can be for a number of reasons, including staying out of the limelight, avoiding repercussions. The FBI follows leads, compares notes on different sources, returns to ask about discrepancies. As I say--SYSTEMATIC.

3. Another reason is that Senators grandstand and play to voters.  They are not single-mindedly establishing a factual record free of inconsistencies. That is why more than an interview--ground work--is needed in cases such as this.

4. Had an FBI investigation preceded the Senate's question and answer session, that could have greatly affected which questions were asked and followed up.

5. You appear not to have noticed that Kav's yearbook helps substantiate Ford's claims--and certainly that he lied under oath.  Asked if he had ever attended a party such as that described by Ford, with "PJ" and Judge and heaving drinking, he said unequivocally 'NO.'  But his own calender puts him at such a party with the afore-named partiers.  That's why they "spent time talking about his year book."

6. Sounds like you take the Trump view of yet another woman alleging sexual assault. And you support him putting another man with similar inclinations on the Supreme Court--even if you agree that he shouldn't mock her publicly.  

1. Yeah, those "I don't remember" answers have been very convincing. I think a 3rd, 4th, and 5th party have corroborated this. They don't know what the hell she's talking about either.

2. The FBI interviewed the "witnesses" and I'm sure they did all you say. They just didn't need Ford to tell them again that she doesn't remember anything.

3. No doubt the Dems grandstanded. The GOP brought in a professional examiner, but the Dems wanted to congratulate Ford for inventing electricity.

4. There was an FBI investigation

5. I saw screenshots of Kav's yearbook and as I've offered to others. Share your empirical evidence that he lied or else quit trying to push opinion off as fact.

6. It can "sound like" to you all you want. What you "sound like" to me is that you could give 2 shits about the rule of law. You've made up you mind and no lack of evidence is going to change it. It's that cognitive dissonance I was referring to earlier.   You and others just cannot admit to yourselves how despicable you've been throughout this process. 

Have you ever read To Kill a Mockingbird ?

[Dill]

(10-04-2018, 03:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: I admit it is very hard to run against Trump when none of his supporters care what he says or does...they just believe everything he says.

Denies having an affair...denies knowledge of paying off the woman he slept with...get caught talking about and a paper trail of the payment and the republicans don't care.

Lies every day...Republicans don't care.

So when the Democrats say "Hey, this guy might have a shady past.  We have a couple people who say he did some bad things" the GOP just spins in into an attack on their Golden Calf Trump and the Republican voters tighten up, hold their nose and defend him.

Trump is a master conman.  To the point that his supporters will admit everything that is wrong with im and everything that makes him not only a bad POTUS but a bad human being...and then they still support him because not doing so would be admitting they got hoodwinked.

Rep. Well said.  That is the central problem in U.S. politics right now.

We are arguing about who's lying--Ford et al. or Kavanaugh.  Hard to assess how determination of truth works when so many do not care that the man presiding over the Executive right now lies constantly--and his supporters agree that he does. But if anything that strengthens their support. And they equivocate and argue standards down to justify his continuance in office.

But they still think it important whether Ford is lying.  We have a president who works at destroying others reputations, but no hesitation to accuse Ford of that. 

Trump could lead a chant "Believe the men" at one of his rallies, and "lock her (Ford) up."   A bad human being. Yes. But still ok.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2018, 06:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You and others just cannot admit to yourselves how despicable you've been throughout this process. 

It was not despicable to ask for an investigation of Ford's claims.   

It is despicable to chant to lock a person up even after there has been a thorough investigation that cleared her of any crime.  But you refuse to admit that because that is your side.

I have never said Kavanaugh was guilty.  I have just said we need an investigation.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 06:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I know exactly who you would give the presumption of innocence to...….the Republican.  

The only people that Ford said saw what happened were the 2 perpetrators.  Is anyone surprised that they what happened.

And you can crow about "due process" all you want but the fact remains that it only applies to criminal proceedings.  And it is hilarious to hear the people on the right who love to chant "Lock up Hillary" even though she has been thoroughly investigated and cleared of any criminal ctivity squeal about how they are the champ[ions of due process.

This is the second time in 2 nights that you have slurred me by stating you know what I would do.

Her friend doesn't remember the event; nor does she know who Kavs is. Does that surprise you?

Well, I'll give folks the presumption of innocence in my daily functions and I've never said lock Hillary up. I did notice you didn't answer the question I posed at the beginning of my post. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-04-2018, 06:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It was not despicable to ask for an investigation of Ford's claims.   

It is despicable to chant to lock a person up even after there has been a thorough investigation that cleared her of any crime.  But you refuse to admit that because that is your side.

I have never said Kavanaugh was guilty.  I have just said we need an investigation.

Does saying she broke the law but didn't intend to really clear her fo any crime, though?