New SCOTUS Judge

[Bob001]

.....
I don’t have much doubt that this woman is going to get details wrong. However, the salient facts are likely to be correct. This will hinge on the recollections of the witnesses.

What is most significant at this point is that Ford wants the FBI to re-open the background investigation, and Kavanaugh doesn't. If she has any doubts or reservations about her recollections, she wouldn't want to talk to the FBI -- to which lying is a felony -- and if Kavanaugh was confident of his memories, he would be eager to clear his name and refute Ford. Which one is saying "Ah, no cops!"

Rachel Maddow makes the point that Barbara Ledeen, the person who slipped Kavanugh stolen emails when he was a Bush operative, now works for Sen. Grassley, and Grassley wants to keep any investigation in his office. Surely for her objectivity, of course.

 

[The Big Dog]

I didn't ask a question

Cool

 

[The Big Dog]

What is most significant at this point is that Ford wants the FBI to re-open the background investigation, and Kavanaugh doesn't. If she has any doubts or reservations about her recollections, she wouldn't want to talk to the FBI -- to which lying is a felony -- and if Kavanaugh was confident of his memories, he would be eager to clear his name and refute Ford. Which one is saying "Ah, no cops!"

Rachel Maddow makes the point that Barbara Ledeen, the person who slipped Kavanugh stolen emails when he was a Bush operative, now works for Sen. Grassley, and Grassley wants to keep any investigation in his office. Surely for her objectivity, of course.

which one is willing to testify under oath Monday?

Maddow is, of course, talking out her ass because the FBI investigation of ford's claims would have ZERO to do with the allegedly stolen documents, which were already covered for pete's sake.

 

[BobTheCoward]

which one is willing to testify under oath Monday?

Maddow is, of course, talking out her ass because the FBI investigation of ford's claims would have ZERO to do with the allegedly stolen documents, which were already covered for pete's sake.

Under oath....to a bunch of old idiots who are not capable of ferreting out the truth. The committee is not a credible source of truth

 

[The Big Dog]

Under oath....to a bunch of old idiots who are not capable of ferreting out the truth. The committee is not a credible source of truth

Dianne Feinstein, California, Ranking Member
Patrick Leahy, Vermont
Dick Durbin, Illinois
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
Chris Coons, Delaware
Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut
Mazie "Shut Up men" Hirono, Hawaii
Spartacus Booker, New Jersey
Kamala Harris, California

I dunno about them all being old, but I can not quibble with the "idiot" part

 

[Bob001]

which one is willing to testify under oath Monday?

Maddow is, of course, talking out her ass because the FBI investigation of ford's claims would have ZERO to do with the allegedly stolen documents, which were already covered for pete's sake.

An FBI investigation of Ford's claims would involve the FBI talking to all parties who might have useful information, including her friends, his friends, their teachers, parents whose house might have been the party site, counselors, doctors, etc., etc. She wants to testify after a thorough independent investigation has revealed all evidence. If Kavanaugh has been lying, without an investigation he can just keep lying and not get caught.

Maddow's point is not that the emails are still an issue. Her point is that if Grassley conducts the only investigation, a long-time Kavanaugh ally would be part of it, if not running it.

 

[Minoosh]

The strangest thing about this is how easily it should be to simply replace Kavenaugh with someone else. Surely there cannot be so precious few judges that have the qualifications requisite pro-Trump ideology to be confirmed by the senate

I don't like to use "FTFY," but this may comes closer to the mark.

 

[The Big Dog]

An FBI investigation of Ford's claims would involve the FBI talking to all parties who might have useful information, including her friends, his friends, their teachers, parents whose house might have been the party site, counselors, doctors, etc., etc. She wants to testify after a thorough independent investigation has revealed all evidence. If Kavanaugh has been lying, without an investigation he can just keep lying and not get caught.

Maddow's point is not that the emails are still an issue. Her point is that if Grassley conducts the only investigation, a long-time Kavanaugh ally would be part of it, if not running it.

The problem is of course is that there is no reason that she cannot testify under oath on Monday, and her demands that the FBI investigate her claim before that are baseless.

They delay the vote to investigate her claim, then she makes a new demand, etc etc.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Please try to follow along for once, you claim that no one is accusing them and that all three admitted it is blatantly false.

Two out of three have admitted to being massive drunks and the third was a good friend of theirs. Collectively, I would say they drank a lot by their own admissions. If the third wants to say he was the only friend in the group that didn't drink then that's on him.

I'm not accusing him of being a drunk, but the other two were and their lack of recollection is to be expected based on their own writings.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The problem is of course is that there is no reason that she cannot testify under oath on Monday, and her demands that the FBI investigate her claim before that are baseless.

They delay the vote to investigate her claim, then she makes a new demand, etc etc.

It took three days in the Anita Hill case. Why didn't Grassley just ask for it last week and it would have been done by Monday. Seems like Grassley is selling or trying to hide something. Probably the later.

 

[Minoosh]

And BK and PJ, who the accuser said had one beet.

What's this about beets?

 

[The Big Dog]

Two out of three have admitted to being massive drunks and the third was a good friend of theirs.

Well, by that reckoning she is a massive drunk too, right? And when did BK "admit" to being a massive drunk again?

I quoted two of his girlfriends disputing that.

Looking forward to the evidence for this "Two out of three have admitted to being massive drunks" claim as respects BK.

Tick tock

 

[Bob001]

The problem is of course is that there is no reason that she cannot testify under oath on Monday, and her demands that the FBI investigate her claim before that are baseless.

They delay the vote to investigate her claim, then she makes a new demand, etc etc.

If that happened it would reflect badly on her. For now, she is facing a hostile hearing with no supportive witnesses. She wants all evidence to be revealed first. Why wouldn't Kavanaugh feel the same way?

 

[The Big Dog]

If that happened it would reflect badly on her. For now, she is facing a hostile hearing. She wants all evidence to be revealed first. Why wouldn't Kavanaugh feel the same way?

No, she is not, they offered to do it in public, in private, to send staff there. they are going to treat her with kid's gloves.

BK is going to get excoriated by Shut Up Men Hirono, Spartacus and Kamala and the rest of the "idiots" as our friend referred to them.

 

[Minoosh]

They delay the vote to investigate her claim, then she makes a new demand, etc etc.

A stalling tactic on the eve of a major election? Who would do such a thing?

 

[The Big Dog]

A stalling tactic on the eve of a major election? Who would do such a thing?

Dianne Feinstein, California, Ranking Member
Patrick Leahy, Vermont
Dick Durbin, Illinois
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
Chris Coons, Delaware
Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut
Mazie "Shut Up men" Hirono, Hawaii
Spartacus Booker, New Jersey
Kamala Harris, California

 

[Cain]

I was just listening to a memory researcher on NPR’s Science Friday. He pointed out that all memories are edited and altered over time, and the more they are “used” or remembered, the more distorted they likely become.

This is especially the case with the memories of traumatic events... Psychologists have often done experiments with actors portraying “fights” in front of the class and then asking the class to write down the details... Which are often wildly inaccurate.

We police officers are well familiar with this.

Stephen Jay Gould, in one of his essays, said that he found that two of his cherished childhood memories were both wrong.... In significant details.

I don’t have much doubt that this woman is going to get details wrong. However, the salient facts are likely to be correct. This will hinge on the recollections of the witnesses.

And that's because memories are constructed, not recorded (like a video clip).

 

[crescent]

And when did BK "admit" to being a massive drunk again?

That would the numerous "100 keg club" comments, and quite a few other times he has publicly spoken about it:

Brett Kavanaugh Gave a Speech About Binge Drinking in Law School

 

[The Big Dog]

That would the numerous "100 keg club" comments, and quite a few other times he has publicly spoken about it:

Brett Kavanaugh Gave a Speech About Binge Drinking in Law School

Drinking does not equal admitting that he was a massive drunk, although if we are going by the yearbook?

Would explain why Ford's recollection of the alleged party is so flawed.

 

[Matthew Best]

A top professor at Yale Law School who strongly endorsed supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a “mentor to women” privately told a group of law students last year that it was “not an accident” that Kavanaugh’s female law clerks all “looked like models” and would provide advice to students about their physical appearance if they wanted to work for him, the Guardian has learned.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/20/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-yale-amy-chua