New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Take 911 Conspiracy Theories elsewhere or the MODS will.


Mateen posted the below on Facebook the morning before the nightclub shooting. Some here on the international skeptics forums would call it an afterthought…
“You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes..now taste the Islamic state vengeance,” Mateen posted early Sunday morning



I'm not sure why you mentioned "9/11 conspiracy theories", but I'm glad you brought them up because of the similarities.

What did Cheney really mean when he said stand down?
What did Kavanaugh really mean when he said boofing?
 
I know. But are they really not able to act independently of Trump's orders?

Let's say they go and interview Person A on the list and they say, "Person X has told me that they witnessed everything\" or for the sake of complete impartiality "Person X has told me that Dr Ford made up the whole thing", but Person X is not on the list, does this mean that the FBI cannot interview them?

Or let's say that a pile of evidence mounts up and it is damning, at least of one person's story, but it will take a few weeks to leaf through it. Now, I can understand if the Senate says that they are going to take the vote anyway, but I cannot understand the idea that the FBI must suspend their investigation because it went longer than a week. That would be insane!

Two things you might be getting conflated:

1: This is just a background check sort of investigation, not a criminal investigation. The sorts of crimes claimed by Ford would not normally be investigated by the FBI anyway, because they would not be federal crimes. If they find evidence of criminal activity, they might be able to continue investigating that - at least if the criminal activity is something that would be a federal crime. Otherwise, it is just find out what you can during the time you have, to see if there is anything to suggest we should hire someone else.

2: The news reports said that the investigation would not look into allegations made by Julie Swetnick. So if someone who they interviewed with regards to the investigation into Ford's allegations says something in regard to Ford's allegation, they can follow through on that. They just could not look into Swetnick's allegations, or any of other more anonymous stories circulating out there (one story of a rape on a boat, another of an assault at a restaurant)(At least, that was my understanding.)

2b: The President seems to have retracted the restriction against investigating Swetnick's claims anyway.
 
Last edited:
Okay, to summarize
1) you do NOT think that he was "completely honest" during questioning, and
2) you do not care that a supreme court justice is not completely honest during testimony

When I said mostly, what I had in mind was when he answered that he did not believe he drank excessively when asked by a senator. I'm not 100% sure he was completely honest with that answer, but it would take something a lot less subjective for me to believe that he was unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
 
Already answered, you just ignored it.

No, you didn't.

All you said was this:
When anyone says the language he used in his yearbook quotes means something different than what he says they mean.


Disagreeing with someone or thinking that they're lying isn't a conspiracy theory.

So again, what is this conspiracy theory you're alleging?
 
I'm not sure why you mentioned "9/11 conspiracy theories", but I'm glad you brought them up because of the similarities.

What did Cheney really mean when he said stand down?
What did Kavanaugh really mean when he said boofing?

The question of what Cheney said is part of a larger narrative that constitutes an actual conspiracy theory.

What is the conspiracy theory behind questioning the veracity of Kavanaugh's testimony?
 
Ironic that the forum conservatives are accusing liberals of fomenting conspiracy theories about Kavanaugh (without being able to articulate what exactly those conspiracy theories are), and meanwhile this:

Actually, he testified under oath that the Democrats were conspiring against him as revenge for Hillary's loss to Trump.
In other words, Kavanaugh is guilty of having a keen grasp of the obvious.
 
Sen. Feinstein — who is more to blame for this three-ring-fecal-festival than any other actor — began her questioning of Kavanaugh by raising an allegation that he ran a rape gang. He responded angrily. And now she’s offended by the partisanship? Please.

-- Senator Orrin Hatch (Sept 30, 2018)


"Three-ring-fecal-festival."

Yep, well put!
 
you are evading the question.
If it can be shown that Kavanaugh lied in front of the Committee, would that disqualify him because of perjury?

Or is this a special case where it depends a lot on the topic, the severity, the number of false claims?

Yes, if it's an actual lie and not something that he forgot or misremembered.

Do you believe Kavanaugh's clear and emphatic statements under oath that he never suffered any sort of memory impairment at all as a result of excessive alcohol consumption while in high school?

Was he clear on that? I have the impression he was quite evasive. But I haven't checked a transcript.

I believe he knows he's had blackouts and just wanted to dodge the question.


Here is the series of questions Rachel Mitchell asked Kavanaugh on that topic during the hearing (shortly before her assistance seemed to become unwelcome by the GOP members). From the WaPo transcript of the proceedings.

MITCHELL: When you talked to Fox News the other night, you said that there were times in high school when people might have had too many beers on occasion. Does that include you?

KAVANAUGH: Sure.

MITCHELL: OK. Have you ever passed out from drinking?

KAVANAUGH: I — passed out would be — no, but I’ve gone to sleep, but — but I’ve never blacked out. That’s the — that’s the — the allegation, and that — that — that’s wrong.

MITCHELL: So let’s talk about your time in high school. In high school, after drinking, did you ever wake up in a different location than you remembered passing out or going to sleep?

KAVANAUGH: No, no.

MITCHELL: Did you ever wake up with your clothes in a different condition, or fewer clothes on than you remembered when you went to sleep or passed out?

KAVANAUGH: No, no.

MITCHELL: Did you ever tell — did anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didn’t remember during a time that you had been drinking?

KAVANAUGH: No, the — the — we drank beer, and you know, so — so did, I think, the vast majority of — of people our age at the time. But in any event, we drank beer, and — and still do. So whatever, you know.

MITCHELL: During the time in high school when you would be drinking, did anyone ever tell you about something that you did not remember?

KAVANAUGH: No.


These denials seem to be pretty unequivocal to me. Not evasion.

Never passed out. Never blacked out, Never had any episodes where he didn't remember something from while he had been drinking.

Just some beers with the boys. :rolleyes:

It would have been helpful if Mitchell had been permitted to question him in greater depth, but somehow that didn't seem to happen.
 
Last edited:
Okay, to summarize
1) you do NOT think that he was "completely honest" during questioning, and
2) you do not care that a supreme court justice is not completely honest during testimony

No one has advertised his intention to be a partisan hack on the court more.
 
Not so fast. The one fact-checkable thing that Hatch said is a gross misrepresentation of Feinstein's questioning of Kavanaugh.


What a pathetic whiney little bitch. ...I'm talking Kavanaugh not Feinstein. Cowardly wimp. No wonder Trump likes him. He has the backbone of a jelly fish. Now I really don't want him.
 
Last edited:
Saw this on twitter earlier regarding statute of limitations and Kavanaugh.


Thanks for that. It clears up some confusion. I had seen pretty authoritative sounding statements that said the statute of limitations had expired, but other statements that it had not, and my own reading of Maryland law suggested that it had not. Apparently, the laws have changed since 1982, so current law is not the relevant law to apply.


So, there isn't anything that Kavanaugh, Judge, or an assaulter to be named later need fear in terms of criminal prosecution.
 
Saw this on twitter earlier regarding statute of limitations and Kavanaugh.

You know when you bring up the statue of limitations it doesn't exactly exude confidence in Kavanaugh's innocence.
 

Back
Top Bottom