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

jooksavage

manual_man wrote: »

The FBI investigation argument is complete bluff and nonsense. The Dems hope to delay and obstruct this til after the midterms, that's always been their game. Going by all the stunts pulled so far, if such an investigation were to be agreed and go ahead, it could very well be dragged out til after the midterms. The play is very simple, most people know it but not all will acknowledge it.

This has been a complete farce for me. I think he will be confirmed and not only that I think more will come out in coming weeks that will damage the Dems ahead of the midterms. Their increasing desperation and complete lowering of any kind of standards (they can blame Trump for this but hey, personal responsibility) is an absolute disgrace and increasingly more people have had enough and are walking away from their politics of division and BS.

If you're talking about lowering of standards, you can start with the sad story of Merrick Garland.


And on that FBI investigation, back in 1991, Grassley and Hatch were gun-ho in favour of it. What's changed? Back then, they had 22 people come in and testify in front of the committee. Now they won't even call on Mark Judge to appear. Ramming through a vote under these circumstances with an already unpopular nominee will have consequences.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

Committed and a report are not the same thing, though it is certainly a little too much of a coincidence.

It seems that the takeaway from today depends on which side of the fence you are on. Over in R-land, there is much support for Graham's performance in particular. One one of the more conservative boards I frequent, they are all but celebrating Kavanaugh's appointment.

Corker is voting for Kavanaugh, apparently.

True enough, it was a political football.

So also the support of Jeff Flake, if one understands his implied support of the judge in his committee-member statement.

It's a pity that the one possible witness in the room to what was alleged did not appear before the committee and give testimony under oath as to what he did or did not see happen in the room. Judge Kavanaugh gave the impression that Mr Judge could not come as he was in alcohol recovery. The judge also said Mr Judge gave a statement under the perjury clause pertaining to the senate procedure but it seems that what actually happened was a lawyer representing Mr Judge sent the committee a letter to the effect "my client says the alleged incident never happened". That missing direct testimony would have made for a two V one testimony scenario in the committee room as to whom to believe with some credibility.

Judge Kavanaugh relied on his repeated understanding that that letter is the same as sworn testimony before the committee under the perjury clause when it was simply a third-hand information letter even though at least one of the committee tried to point out the difference. Judge Kavanaugh is a judge with bench experience and has to know the difference in law between the contents of the third-party letter and sworn testimony. It seems he either doesn't or was simply a deliberately deceitful person in his testimony to the committee. His obvious attempts to filibuster the committee members out of questioning time spoke for itself in regard to that, he didn't want to have to reply with an honest answer.

As far as I could understand, the fourth person named as being a witness at the party was NOT in the room and consequently couldn't verify in any way on what occurred, or didn't occur, in the room, regardless of the house itself.

I reckon it would have been legally possible for a legal representative of the committee to visit Mr Judge, with his lawyer present, to record his testimony under oath and deliver a certified true copy of the testimony with a audio/visual disc recording of the testimony as well under seal to the committee.

I'm going to ignore the batting to and fro of when both parties committee members became aware of the allegation made by the Prof as it's obvious that they were politically deceitful about the date of their knowledge of the allegations. That's just playing to the audience of both parties.

In any case, unless the apparent vote result does turn out differently, the judge is a sure thing as a USSC bench-warmer due to the way the US chooses its USSC judges. It might be time to take the courts out of political privilege and courtship, and make it an independent third part of the US government system.

RobertKK

I see people on social media talking about how calm and reserved that Christine Blasey Ford was and the contrast to the angry Brett Kavanaugh and how she wouldn’t have gotten away with that. That he showed symptoms of being an only child use to getting what he wanted...this from people who believe CBF.
But if you were falsely accused of sexual abuse, would you look calm and reserved about it? Would you be angry? Would you be fed up of the people pushing lies about you? It was very political from all sides in who was pushing who they wanted to believe is telling the truth.

Pelvis

RobertKK wrote: »

I see people on social media talking about how calm and reserved that Christine Blasey Ford was and the contrast to the angry Brett Kavanaugh and how she wouldn’t have gotten away with that. That he showed symptoms of being an only child use to getting what he wanted...this from people who believe CBF.
But if you were falsely accused of sexual abuse, would you look calm and reserved about it? Would you be angry? Would you be fed up of the people pushing lies about you? It was very political from all sides in who was pushing who they wanted to believe is telling the truth.

He was plenty calm when he did his Fox interview. He is more than capable of controlling his emotions, his performance yesterday was exactly that, a performance. There were reports that his "emotionless" during the Fox interview was not effective, hence his new tactic yesterday.

RobertKK

Pelvis wrote: »

He was plenty calm when he did his Fox interview. He is more than capable of controlling his emotions, his performance yesterday was exactly that, a performance.

Fox News was like a comfort blanket compared to a senate hearing. He wasn’t face to face with people pushing that he did sexually abuse CBF.

robinph

RobertKK wrote: »

I see people on social media talking about how calm and reserved that Christine Blasey Ford was and the contrast to the angry Brett Kavanaugh and how she wouldn’t have gotten away with that. That he showed symptoms of being an only child use to getting what he wanted...this from people who believe CBF.
But if you were falsely accused of sexual abuse, would you look calm and reserved about it? Would you be angry? Would you be fed up of the people pushing lies about you? It was very political from all sides in who was pushing who they wanted to believe is telling the truth.

If going in for a job interview then shouting and screaming at the interview panel and generally being obnoxious isn't the right way to behave regardless of what they accuse you of. If they are accusing you of something that gets you that wound up then maybe the job isn't for you if you can't keep it together.

Doesn't matter who did what to who now, Kavanaugh isn't suitable for the job. That kind of ranting may be appropriate for a politician, it is 100% not appropriate for a judge.

RobertKK

robinph wrote: »

If going in for a job interview then shouting and screaming at the interview panel and generally being obnoxious isn't the right way to behave regardless of what they accuse you of. If they are accusing you of something that gets you that wound up then maybe the job isn't for you if you can't keep it together.

Doesn't matter who did what to who now, Kavanaugh isn't suitable for the job. That kind of ranting may be appropriate for a politician, it is 100% not appropriate for a judge.

How many job interviews have you attended where around half the panel are accusing you of sexual abuse?

Pelvis

RobertKK wrote: »

Fox News was like a comfort blanket compared to a senate hearing. He wasn’t face to face with people pushing that he did sexually abuse CBF.

He wasn't face to face with his accuser, he didn't even watch her testimony.

Akrasia

RobertKK wrote: »

I see people on social media talking about how calm and reserved that Christine Blasey Ford was and the contrast to the angry Brett Kavanaugh and how she wouldn’t have gotten away with that. That he showed symptoms of being an only child use to getting what he wanted...this from people who believe CBF.
But if you were falsely accused of sexual abuse, would you look calm and reserved about it? Would you be angry? Would you be fed up of the people pushing lies about you? It was very political from all sides in who was pushing who they wanted to believe is telling the truth.

If I was falsely accused of a crime like that, I would calmly state my innocence and agree to an FBI investigation and cooperate fully to clear my name. I would not become evasive and belligerent and try to avoid a proper investigation.

Also If I was accused of those kinds of things my wife would stand by me because she would know that its not the kind of person I am, and she would recognise it as a political hit job.

If his marriage is in trouble because of this. It is because his wife doesn't find the allegations to be out of character and doesn't believe his defense

RobertKK

Pelvis wrote: »

He wasn't face to face with his accuser, he didn't even watch her testimony.

Are you going to claim that the Democrats are not pushing this?

If Bill Clinton was there yesterday, the same Democrats would continue to dismiss the women who say the former president raped and/or sexually abused them, and it would be the Republicans pushing it.

That is what we got yesterday, and Kavanaugh the political football.

robinph

RobertKK wrote: »

How many job interviews have you attended where around half the panel are accusing you of sexual abuse?

The job probably isn't for him then is it? Those accusations are not going anywhere based on his performance so he'd best get used to it, or drop out.

batgoat

RobertKK wrote: »

I see people on social media talking about how calm and reserved that Christine Blasey Ford was and the contrast to the angry Brett Kavanaugh and how she wouldn’t have gotten away with that. That he showed symptoms of being an only child use to getting what he wanted...this from people who believe CBF.
But if you were falsely accused of sexual abuse, would you look calm and reserved about it? Would you be angry? Would you be fed up of the people pushing lies about you? It was very political from all sides in who was pushing who they wanted to believe is telling the truth.

Blasey Ford's life has been ruined from this. She has a security detail, she's had to move home twice. She is subject to all sorts of threats and is the main subject of mocking and targeting by The_Donald gang. She has plenty of reason to be angry but came across amazingly.

Also worth noting that he called one victim "a joke" and point blank refused to explain why... He came across awfully and lied repeatedly including with the slang words, the remarks in the yearbook in general he has misrepresented. A potential supreme court judge who appears to be incapable of being honest under oath.

Pelvis

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you going to claim that the Democrats are not pushing this?

If Bill Clinton was there yesterday, the same Democrats would continue to dismiss the women who say the former president raped and/or sexually abused them, and it would be the Republicans pushing it.

That is what we got yesterday, and Kavanaugh the political football.

The democrats are pushing for an investigation into a credible accusation of sexual assault.

Those monsters.

Akrasia

Pelvis wrote: »

He wasn't face to face with his accuser, he didn't even watch her testimony.

Which is another lie. Why would he not watch her testimony?

Like seriously.

He's supposed to be a judge.

RobertKK

Akrasia wrote: »

If I was falsely accused of a crime like that, I would calmly state my innocence and agree to an FBI investigation and cooperate fully to clear my name. I would not become evasive and belligerent and try to avoid a proper investigation.

Also If I was accused of those kinds of things my wife would stand by me because she would know that its not the kind of person I am, and she would recognise it as a political hit job.

If his marriage is in trouble because of this. It is because his wife doesn't find the allegations to be out of character and doesn't believe his defense

It is not Kavanugh’s job to tell the FBI to investigate. Why would an innocent person want an investigation based on hearsay?
Look at RTÉ who put out a program on national TV accusing a priest of sexual assault while on the missions. They were all on the steps of the court house when RTE agreed they had lied. It took the supposed victim to say it was not true.
In this case the supposed victim is pushing it and why would anyone want to leave themselves open to what will come down to simply guessing?

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

I see people on social media talking about how calm and reserved that Christine Blasey Ford was and the contrast to the angry Brett Kavanaugh and how she wouldn’t have gotten away with that. That he showed symptoms of being an only child use to getting what he wanted...this from people who believe CBF.
But if you were falsely accused of sexual abuse, would you look calm and reserved about it? Would you be angry? Would you be fed up of the people pushing lies about you? It was very political from all sides in who was pushing who they wanted to believe is telling the truth.

He went to pieces. If you did that in a courtroom your lawyer would have his head in his hands.

This man is going for one of the top positions in the land. If he can disrupted that easily then get someone else. What if a topic close to his heart comes up for debate. What if something with regards to sexual assault comes up and he remembers this? Can he be trusted to make a calm decision with respect to the law?

I think it was a tactic but I guess annoyed at the false accusation or simply indignation that his past deeds might actually effect him are possibilities for that performance.

batgoat

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not Kavanugh’s job to tell the FBI to investigate. Why would an innocent person want an investigation based on hearsay?
Look at RTÉ who put out a program on national TV accusing a priest of sexual assault while on the missions. They were all on the steps of the court house when RTE agreed they had lied. It took the supposed victim to say it was not true.
In this case the supposed victim is pushing it and why would anyone want to leave themselves open to what will come down to simply guessing?

The "supposed victim", are you really trying to imply that she's lying? She named him to her husband years ago btw. And the rape was detailed to counsellor years back too from what I gather.

DrumSteve

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not Kavanugh’s job to tell the FBI to investigate. Why would an innocent person want an investigation based on hearsay?
Look at RTwho put out a program on national TV accusing a priest of sexual assault while on the missions. They were all on the steps of the court house when RTE agreed they had lied. It took the supposed victim to say it was not true.
In this case the supposed victim is pushing it and why would anyone want to leave themselves open to what will come down to simply guessing?

Yes, why would an innocent person want this?

RobertKK

batgoat wrote: »

The "supposed victim", are you really trying to imply that she's lying? She named him to her husband years ago btw. And the rape was detailed to counsellor years back too from what I gather.

Alleged would have been a better word as none of us know.

Akrasia

Even the republicans, while defending Kavanaugh, still said they believed Ford and had sympathy for her. You can't have it both ways.

If Ford is a victim, then there was an assault, and she has stated 100% certainty that Kavanaugh was one of the assailants

RobertKK

DrumSteve wrote: »

Yes, why would an innocent person want this?

Because innocent people do get accused and innocent people do get convicted.

everlast75

Putting aside that I am pro-choice, and I am putting that aside, I found his initial performance before the Senate suspect and my gut reaction would be not to confirm him, if I had that choice.

Moving on then to yesterday, there are a series of questions I believe strike to the heart of the issue.

1) Do you believe her. If the answer is yes, either
a) She is insane and believes it, even thought it didn't happen
b) It happened, but it wasn't him
c) He did it.

I don't think she is insane. I don't think it was mistaken identity. I believe therefore that he did it. Nothing he said or did made me think anything to the contrary.

Everything else is irrelevant. Whether she is Democrat or not. Whether the Democrats sought her out. All of it - ALL OF IT - is irrelevant. He should not be nominated at this moment in time.

Just because it suits the Democrats that this happens to scupper his nomination does not mean that it should go ahead as a result.

I believe that there should be an FBI investigation and that Mark Judge should be interviewed. He is a corroborating witness and a literal witness to the complaint.

The next logical step is to ask yourself, if he did it, whether you believe he should be confirmed regardless of that fact. I don't

RobertKK

Akrasia wrote: »

Even the republicans, while defending Kavanaugh, still said they believed Ford and had sympathy for her. You can't have it both ways.

If Ford is a victim, then there was an assault, and she has stated 100% certainty that Kavanaugh was one of the assailants

Politics, they all on both sides think first about the voters.

FreudianSlippers

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you going to claim that the Democrats are not pushing this?

If Bill Clinton was there yesterday, the same Democrats would continue to dismiss the women who say the former president raped and/or sexually abused them, and it would be the Republicans pushing it.

That is what we got yesterday, and Kavanaugh the political football.

Yeah Bill Clinton got impeached.

everlast75

RobertKK wrote: »

Because innocent people do get accused and innocent people do get convicted.

You would think that a Supreme Court Judge would have more faith in the judicial system, eh?

Pelvis

A guest on Christ Hayes made the point that the republicans pretty much ended the prosecutors questioning once she brought up his entry of the 1st July, where he went for (brew)"skis" at Timmy's house with Mark Judge and PJ and a couple of others. This would fit Ford's description of the night in question.

aloyisious

RobertKK wrote: »

Fox News was like a comfort blanket compared to a senate hearing. He wasn’t face to face with people pushing that he did sexually abuse CBF.

Agreed. The judge does know what a cross-examination grilling is about and agreed to the nomination by Don. It's worth noting that the prosecutor didn't get to pursue Judge Kavanaugh much in comparison to her much-interrupted interview of the Prof.

I actually was looking forward to her doing the job the committee brought her in to do but it seems the committee members forgot all about her presence and purpose by not volunteering her their speaking time to her for the purpose when it came to the judge, as against the Prof. That failure speaks for itself as to the actual reason behind the hearing: a played-out-in-public spat between the two parties about privilege in appointing the USSC positions in what is supposed to be a separate arm of the US Govt system. It told the truth instead. Justice was also a victim :pac:

DrumSteve

RobertKK wrote: »

Because innocent people do get accused and innocent people do get convicted.

So we should never have investigations?

FreudianSlippers

I've seen swiss cheese less hole-y than Kavanaugh's testimony yesterday.

mcmoustache

The American Bar Association have called for his nomination to be delayed while a Jesuit magazine has called for his nomination to be withdrawn despite publicly supporting him previously. I guess the liberals must have got to them too.