New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

The willingness to paint Kavanaugh as the victim is particularly disappointing. The claim of "perjury trap" would be funny if it weren't so sad.
 
River said:
Alright, so lets say that do exactly that and come back and say yup, these people said Kavanaugh drank, heavily and was a dick when he was drunk.

Is it more he said she said? Or does it mean more because; the FBI asked the people instead of the same exact penalty of lying by submitting a sworn statement to the judiciary committee?
Click to expand...

I can’t parse your last sentence. Also, I’d need a transcript of Kav’s testimony to see his exact phrasing and meaning when he characterized his drinking, as the issue of lying to Congress might come up.

Concerning the Ford allegation, testimony confirming his heavy drinking would undercut an implicit (explicit if Kav said as much in the hearing) defense that he never drank so much he’d pass out and therefore would have remembered if he had committed the attack.
 
River said:
Mueller 2.0? No restrictions or boundaries, a free check to investigate as long and as deep as democrats insist? Or limited in scope? Longer than a month? Be specific.
Click to expand...

Yes. No restrictions or boundaries. Investigate as long as it takes to shame Republicans into dropping him as a SCOTUS nominee. He is guilty of perjury, and that should have been enough to disqualify him.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yes. No restrictions or boundaries. Investigate as long as it takes to shame Republicans into dropping him as a SCOTUS nominee. He is guilty of perjury, and that should have been enough to disqualify him.
Click to expand...

Pretty much Mueller 2.0

So, democrats are for not investigating an actual crime, but searching for the possibility of a crime as long as it takes to find one and if you dont find one you keep looking until you do. (indefinitely) until you obstruct enough to get your way.

Childish horse crap.

The Senators are perfectly capable of making a vote, and will do so this week. After they do a limited scope investigation, as was requested.
 
River said:
Pretty much Mueller 2.0
Click to expand...

Yes, one where crimes are being uncovered would be nice, just like Mueller has been doing.

Your whining about obstruction is irrelevant. Republicans have made obstruction an art form and modus operandi the day Obama won his first POTUS election.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Was this intended to be a negative comparison? Mueller's investigation has been quite fruitful.
Click to expand...

To them, it's still a giant conspiracy even though Mueller has found plenty of Russian connected crimes. They like to ignore facts because facts do not help their cause.
 
Paul2 said:
I can’t parse your last sentence. Also, I’d need a transcript of Kav’s testimony to see his exact phrasing and meaning when he characterized his drinking, as the issue of lying to Congress might come up.

Concerning the Ford allegation, testimony confirming his heavy drinking would undercut an implicit (explicit if Kav said as much in the hearing) defense that he never drank so much he’d pass out and therefore would have remembered if he had committed the attack.
Click to expand...

You're going to actually make that argument? Because someone was drunk enough to pass out, or has been claimed to have been by someone at one point in their life = he did it?

lol!
 
Last edited:
Hey guys, don't ever get drunk enough to pass out in your life. If you do, you're automatically implicated in dirty deeds. Don't do it!
 
River said:
Pretty much Mueller 2.0

So, democrats are for not investigating an actual crime, but searching for the possibility of a crime as long as it takes to find one and if you dont find one you keep looking until you do. (indefinitely) until you obstruct enough to get your way.
.....
Click to expand...

The issue is not any crime. The issue is whether Kav has displayed deficiencies of character in his youth and throughout his life that make him unfit to sit on the Supreme Court. His belligerent, bellicose, partisan, blatantly dishonest performance at his hearing should be enough to send him packing. And by "packing," that only means he returns to his lifetime appointment on the second highest court in America. Not quite ruination.

The Federalist Society has a long list of Certified Conservatives®️ that could be nominated to the court. Kav can't possibly be the best of that bunch.
 
River said:
You're going to actually make that argument? Because someone was drunk enough to pass out, or has been claimed to have been by someone at once point in their life = he did it?

lol!
Click to expand...

Read what I wrote again. I was deliberately very careful in what I said. Please parse my words more carefully because I said no such thing as you claim.
 
Paul2 said:
Read what I wrote again. I was deliberately very careful in what I said. Please parse my words more carefully because I said no such thing as you claim.
Click to expand...

Your post was mocked for saying something that it didn't actually say by a person who claims not to be a Trump supporter that happens to support everything Trump does.
 
Bob001 said:
The issue is not any crime. The issue is whether Kav has displayed deficiencies of character in his youth and throughout his life that make him unfit to sit on the Supreme Court. His belligerent, bellicose, partisan, blatantly dishonest performance at his hearing should be enough to send him packing. And by "packing," that only means he returns to his lifetime appointment on the second highest court in America. Not quite ruination.

The Federalist Society has a long list of Certified Conservatives®️ that could be nominated to the court. Kav can't possibly be the best of that bunch.
Click to expand...

Well my position is well known. However, not based on allegations that are not corroborated and in some cases refuted by alleged witnesses that the accuser named. He was dumb under oath, and probably described some of those terms differently than their actual meaning. (imho purposely to avoid embarrassment) This to me cost him my vote. It matters to be honest or not, especially when its hard to be.

However, I hope Fords allegations are looked into. Also, the behavior of the lawyers on the democrats side. This whole thing stinks.
 
River said:
You're going to actually make that argument? Because someone was drunk enough to pass out, or has been claimed to have been by someone at one point in their life = he did it?

lol!
Click to expand...

Did Big Dog hijack your account?

His point is that the lying shows an attempt at covering something up.

Imagine a robbery occurs and the crook gets away in a black car. Jim is suspected of committing the robbery. When given details of the crime, Jim says, "That's not possible, I don't have a black car."

If it turns out that Jim was lying, and that he does, in fact, have a black car, we have good reason to believe that Jim is (badly) covering his tracks. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's guilty of the robbery, of course, but honesty would have made his innocence more believable.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Did Big Dog hijack your account?

His point is that the lying shows an attempt at covering something up.

Imagine a robbery occurs and the crook gets away in a black car. Jim is suspected of committing the robbery. When given details of the crime, Jim says, "That's not possible, I don't have a black car."

If it turns out that Jim was lying, and that he does, in fact, have a black car, we have good reason to believe that Jim is (badly) covering his tracks. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's guilty of the robbery, of course, but honesty would have made his innocence more believable.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid of flying, and won't be able to fly there. We will need to delay a few more days. (then i fly there and its discovered i fly all the time for pleasure and work) Same thing? Explain.
 
What behavior by the Democrats' lawyers need to be investigated? Their due diligence? Are you talking about the story made up by Lindsey Graham?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom