Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Rjd2

Water John wrote: »

Well he thinks Fienstien leaked the letter.

Yep.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

" So whatever" is not a good response to finish an answer.

Very poor, and it was only the first question.

brooke 2

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Claiming "Renata Alumnus" in the yearbook was not a reference to sex but a term of endearment.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Wonder what Renata'a reaction will be to that?!!

RobertKK

I don't believe Christine Blasey Ford. Pushed by the Democrats who acted as if Kavanaugh was a convicted sex offender when questioning her.
I think she is a fantasist, and it is why he is so angry at the allegations.

Manic Moran

batgoat wrote: »

So Manic Moran, simple question. Do you view the allegations as credible?

Yes, I do.

It also doesn't matter much, for two reasons. One, credibility is merely a matter of general perception. This accuser may be credible and truthful. The next may be credible and untruthful. The important bit is the 'what is the truth, as best we can determine?'

Another is similar to the legal doctrine of "fruit of the poisoned tree". You can have iron-clad evidence in your hand, but if it is tainted by the way it was obtained or presented, it counts for absolutely nothing. Because this is a political show, everything has to be viewed through the lens of politics. From that lens, this has been badly handled by everyone involved, with basically the two exceptions of Ford and Kavanaugh. (Edit: Typed before the current questioning)

It is almost like there should be an investigation to make this on board. Wonder why that was blocked?

A good question. As I posted above, I think that would have been a good thing to do. The investigation should also have been asked for two months ago. The investigation should have been granted two months ago. Neither thing happened. There is no good argument for either decision except one. Politics.

So here's the question, do you support processes that root out clean candidates but not candidates with qs about sexual behaviour, drinking, honesty to Senate and finances? Because if you are a stickler for that you are a stickler for failing processes.

Of course not.

I think you're making an assumption that I approve of what happened to Garland. Unfortunately, the issue of political influence over the Supreme Court has been a problem ever since FDR attempted to blackmail Justice Owens into approving the New Deal packages by threatening to pack SCOTUS if he didn't. Fortunately, we've never gotten quite to that level since (in the long run, that rather backfired), but the process has been misused since Bork, been threatened to not even be used since Reid in 2005 said they had no obligation to even vote on a Bush nominee, started to go off the rails when both sides invoked nuclear options to get their judges through, and completely lost the plot with the Garland thing.

Garland should have been confirmed. He was qualified for the position. So was Bork. The process is being abused, but at least there is a known process to begin with, and there is no small amount of merit to the concept that, as they say, elections have consequences.

And that's what this current saga is all about. The next set of elections. Just like the Garland saga. And the Bork saga before that.

aloyisious

The prosecutor in the interviewer is coming out now, and he'll trip himself up. Um, a convenient interruption.

WinnyThePoo

Hes taking a break.

Jelle1880

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't believe Christine Blasey Ford. Pushed by the Democrats who acted as if Kavanaugh was a convicted sex offender when questioning her.
I think she is a fantasist, and it is why he is so angry at the allegations.

How about the other women then ?

Itssoeasy

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't believe Christine Blasey Ford. Pushed by the Democrats who acted as if Kavanaugh was a convicted sex offender when questioning her.
I think she is a fantasist, and it is why he is so angry at the allegations.

Based on what ?

Pelvis

He needed the break, he was on the ropes. The dems would have loved to keep going no doubt.

TomOnBoard

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Hes taking a break.

Aaaahhhh! That's Bass!!

Hurrache

During the studio segue on CNN there was a bit of life relief in the ticker bar

derm0j073

Aside from what did or didn't happen in the past , this is not a good look for a potential Supreme Court justice . Kavanaugh is on his arse out there .

Hurrache

During the studio segue on CNN there was a bit of light relief in the ticker bar

MightyMandarin

I'm not a Trump guy and I really have no idea who to believe here (especially as this isn't a trial and we'll likely never know the truth) but I think people are being incredibly unfair at pointing to his demeanor here.

The guy's going for a job he's wanted for probably his entire life and worked towards, has been placed under incredibly tense scrutiny, has had his entire life has been analysed with a toothcomb in front of the entire world, has been called "evil" and has had all sorts of vitriol (which is far above mere political talk) and has had people oppose him simply because of the idiot president who nominated him and is now being subject to serious allegations which he's never faced before at all (again, not saying he's innocent or Dr. Ford et al are lying, but the fact is the first time he was accused was 10 days ago).

The idea that he's somehow meant to be icy cool in the situation as if he's some emotionless, nerveless legal machine is ridiculous. I think people are really cutting him up for no reason other than the fact we live in the most polarised political climate in decades and sexual assault/harassment has now become a serious topic of discussion.

Manic Moran

Hurrache wrote: »

During the studio segue on CNN there was a bit of light relief in the ticker bar

Did he not make his flight, then?

brooke 2

everlast75 wrote: »

The Dems should allow him to just ramble on and not ask any questions during their time.

He's doing a great job of messing it up himself..

God, he's pathetic.

TomOnBoard

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm not a Trump guy and I really have no idea who to believe here (especially as this isn't a trial and we'll likely never know the truth) but I think people are being incredibly unfair at pointing to his demeanor here.

The guy's going for a job he's wanted for probably his entire life and worked towards, has been placed under incredibly tense scrutiny, has had his entire life has been analysed with a toothcomb in front of the entire world, who's been called "evil" and has had all sorts of vitriol (which is far above mere political talk) and has had people oppose him simply because of the idiot president who nominated him and is now being subject to serious allegations which he's never faced before at all (again, not saying he's innocent or Dr. Ford et al are lying, but the fact is the first time he was accused was 10 days ago).

The idea that he's somehow meant to be icy cool in the situation as if he's some emotionless, nerveless legal machine is ridiculous. I think people are really cutting him up for no reason other than the fact we live in the most polarised political climate in decades and sexual assault/harassment has now become a serious topic of discussion.

Theres a huge difference between righteous indignation and appearing unhinged!

SimonTemplar

So he denied even being in the same house as Dr. Ford. I had previously thought he agreed that he was at the party but didn't commit the assault.

So it is a clear distinction between Ford and Kavanaugh version of events. Either he was in the house or he wasn't. I wonder after all this time, can that be proven. I don't think his calendar is enough.

Itssoeasy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Hurrache wrote: »

During the studio segue on CNN there was a bit of light relief in the ticker bar

Did he not make his flight, then?

Seemed to do his best Lloyd Christmas impression at the airport.

brooke 2

Hurrache wrote: »

His demeanor is terrible, he has no control.

Trump must have broken the TV by this stage! Can't you just imagine him watching this disaster?!! :eek:

Panrich

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm not a Trump guy and I really have no idea who to believe here (especially as this isn't a trial and we'll likely never know the truth) but I think people are being incredibly unfair at pointing to his demeanor here.

The guy's going for a job he's wanted for probably his entire life and worked towards, has been placed under incredibly tense scrutiny, has had his entire life has been analysed with a toothcomb in front of the entire world, has been called "evil" and has had all sorts of vitriol (which is far above mere political talk) and has had people oppose him simply because of the idiot president who nominated him and is now being subject to serious allegations which he's never faced before at all (again, not saying he's innocent or Dr. Ford et al are lying, but the fact is the first time he was accused was 10 days ago).

The idea that he's somehow meant to be icy cool in the situation as if he's some emotionless, nerveless legal machine is ridiculous. I think people are really cutting him up for no reason other than the fact we live in the most polarised political climate in decades and sexual assault/harassment has now become a serious topic of discussion.

He made a highly political statement and that is not appropriate to the position that he is going to fill.

Itssoeasy

SimonTemplar wrote: »

So he denied even being in the same house as Dr. Ford. I had previously thought he agreed that he was at the party but didn't commit the assault.

So it is a clear distinction between Ford and Kavanaugh version of events. Either he was in the house or he wasn't. I wonder after all this time, can that be proven. I don't think his calendar is enough.

I think he's not conceding he was even at the party.

Captain Obvious

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm not a Trump guy and I really have no idea who to believe here (especially as this isn't a trial and we'll likely never know the truth) but I think people are being incredibly unfair at pointing to his demeanor here.

The guy's going for a job he's wanted for probably his entire life and worked towards, has been placed under incredibly tense scrutiny, has had his entire life has been analysed with a toothcomb in front of the entire world, has been called "evil" and has had all sorts of vitriol (which is far above mere political talk) and has had people oppose him simply because of the idiot president who nominated him and is now being subject to serious allegations which he's never faced before at all (again, not saying he's innocent or Dr. Ford et al are lying, but the fact is the first time he was accused was 10 days ago).

The idea that he's somehow meant to be icy cool in the situation as if he's some emotionless, nerveless legal machine is ridiculous. I think people are really cutting him up for no reason other than the fact we live in the most polarised political climate in decades and sexual assault/harassment has now become a serious topic of discussion.

The problem is that he wasn't given a proper vetting beforehand. If you ignored the sexual assault accusations and vetted him properly he still wouldn't look good. There's evidence he committed perjury and withheld documents under the guise of client confidentiality. The GOP also played a part in trying to railroad him through, dropping tens of thousands of documents the night before his hearing. This whole thing was a charade before the accusations made light.

MightyMandarin

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Theres a huge difference between righteous indignation and appearing unhinged!

Right and to me he looks like a man who could be watching his life's goal disappear in front of his eyes simply because he's been caught in a whirlwind of political division and has had his entire reputation smeared on the basis of claims he's (until now) never had levelled against him.

Again, I'm not saying he's innocent, but considering that the guy spent the past weeks explaining his entire record and legal record, but is now being battered in a soap opera (which some sick individuals actually find entertaining) is actually sad really.

Panrich

brooke 2 wrote: »

Trump must have broken the TV by this stage! Can't you just imagine him watching this disaster?!! :eek:

I reckon Trump is loving this. It sounded like Trump co-wrote his speech.

EltonJohn69

Reports say Trump is loving this and ringing senators saying to do the vote on Saturday

Duck Soup

Journalist Eugene Robinson on MSNBC: “You’re wondering if you’re watching someone unravel in front of you.” Nicole Wallace called it “human carnage.”

Just before the break he was bordering on incomprehensible.

splashuum

Burden of proof falls on the accuser. Game over for this witch-hunt. Looking forward to seeing Brett flourish under Trump.

Water John

Thought Trump would like this. Attack is the only form of defence, for him.

SimonTemplar

Duck Soup wrote: »

Journalist Eugene Robinson on MSNBC: “You’re wondering if you’re watching someone unravel in front of you.” Nicole Wallace called it “human carnage.”

Just before the break he was bordering on incomprehensible.

I expected a complete breakdown any moment in the few minutes before the break. He'll probably come back more composed but will he be able to keep it together.