New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

President Trump finally crossed over and managed to mercilessly mock Ford at last night's rally. I'm wondering whether people see a strategy here, or just a*wholery?
 
One more comment, Meadmaker, because it occurs to me that we may simply be talking past each other.

I'm certainly not claiming that a case could be made out of someone's blackouts and from that lead to a conviction of the suspect. That's not at all what I'm saying and I'm wondering if that's what you think you are challenging me on.

I am merely claiming that the suspect's blackouts are a topic of interest and therefore fair game for questioning.

I mean, if this were a criminal trial, what policeman would not find, "Suspect drank himself to black outs on occasions" a point of interest? Not evidence to establish guilt, most certainly, but absolutely relevant to the investigation.

Do you still disagree?
 
Meadmaker said:
A "habit" of being blackout drunk might be of interest, depending on circumstances.
Click to expand...

Very good, I agree. And whether or not there is evidence that Kavanaugh actually was ever black out drunk, for the reason you just stated it is a relevant and fair question to ask him in the hearing.
 
Meadmaker said:
There is no evidence that Brett Kavanaugh had a habit of getting blackout drunk.
Click to expand...

There has been very little time for much evidence to be gathered at all. The hearing was a part of the evidence gathering. And asking Kavanaugh about his drinking was a part of that.

How can you in the same breath say that X is not an issue because there's no evidence of it, and oppose investigation looking for evidence of the same thing?
 
Cabbage said:
One more comment, Meadmaker, because it occurs to me that we may simply be talking past each other.

I'm certainly not claiming that a case could be made out of someone's blackouts and from that lead to a conviction of the suspect. That's not at all what I'm saying and I'm wondering if that's what you think you are challenging me on.

I am merely claiming that the suspect's blackouts are a topic of interest and therefore fair game for questioning.

I mean, if this were a criminal trial, what policeman would not find, "Suspect drank himself to black outs on occasions" a point of interest? Not evidence to establish guilt, most certainly, but absolutely relevant to the investigation.

Do you still disagree?
Click to expand...

If Ford had relayed a distinct memory of Kavanaugh driving to the house in a red Camaro, it would make sense to ask him if he's ever owned/driven a red Camaro. People only act like these questions are out of line because they perceive their political ally to be under assault.
 
Everyone kept telling us that the fbi did the anita hill thing in 3 days. Now a week aint enough.

Who would have guessed that, huh?
 
I Am The Scum said:
Correct.

So here's what I don't get. Earlier in the thread, you said you were torn on Kavanugh because on one hand, you don't trust the guy. On the other hand, you felt that Democrats needed to be held responsible for their bad behavior.

But your latest gripe is that asking about Kavanaugh's drinking is a perjury trap, and that this is just absolutely dreadful. So stick to your own standard. Republicans brought up the subject of his drinking first. You're going to hold them responsible for their despicable behavior, right?
Click to expand...

I didn't see or hear the questioning. (I tuned in just after Lindsey Graham's time. Hannity referenced it, and I changed stations. A few minutes later I got home and turned on television, and watched the remainder of the questioning.)

At this point we could get into some sort of inane back and forth where we argue over exactly the contents of a sentence and whether this one contradicts that one and whether someone really said something or not. That's always good forum fun, but I'll pass this time.

Depending on how she did it, I might criticize her. Did she ask a question about drinking? No big deal. Did she badger the witness and try to introduce facts and witness statements to embarrass him? That is a big deal. That's what I saw the Democratic senators do, and it was really bad.


And don't mistake this for some partisan thing. 20 years ago, the Republicans were the jerks prying into someone's private life. It's a symptom of our times, not of one particular party, but it's really disgusting.

If I can find a clip using a brief search, I'll check out Miller's questions.
 
Meadmaker said:
I didn't see or hear the questioning. (I tuned in just after Lindsey Graham's time. Hannity referenced it, and I changed stations. A few minutes later I got home and turned on television, and watched the remainder of the questioning.)

At this point we could get into some sort of inane back and forth where we argue over exactly the contents of a sentence and whether this one contradicts that one and whether someone really said something or not. That's always good forum fun, but I'll pass this time.

Depending on how she did it, I might criticize her. Did she ask a question about drinking? No big deal. Did she badger the witness and try to introduce facts and witness statements to embarrass him? That is a big deal. That's what I saw the Democratic senators do, and it was really bad.


And don't mistake this for some partisan thing. 20 years ago, the Republicans were the jerks prying into someone's private life. It's a symptom of our times, not of one particular party, but it's really disgusting.

If I can find a clip using a brief search, I'll check out Miller's questions.
Click to expand...

They are on Youtube.
 
Meadmaker said:
I didn't see or hear the questioning. (I tuned in just after Lindsey Graham's time. Hannity referenced it, and I changed stations. A few minutes later I got home and turned on television, and watched the remainder of the questioning.)

At this point we could get into some sort of inane back and forth where we argue over exactly the contents of a sentence and whether this one contradicts that one and whether someone really said something or not. That's always good forum fun, but I'll pass this time.

Depending on how she did it, I might criticize her. Did she ask a question about drinking? No big deal. Did she badger the witness and try to introduce facts and witness statements to embarrass him? That is a big deal. That's what I saw the Democratic senators do, and it was really bad.


And don't mistake this for some partisan thing. 20 years ago, the Republicans were the jerks prying into someone's private life. It's a symptom of our times, not of one particular party, but it's really disgusting.

If I can find a clip using a brief search, I'll check out Miller's questions.
Click to expand...

So am I to understand that you have changed your mind and concluded that asking Kavanaugh about his drinking habits is not, in fact, a perjury trap?
 
I Am The Scum said:
If Ford had relayed a distinct memory of Kavanaugh driving to the house in a red Camaro, it would make sense to ask him if he's ever owned/driven a red Camaro. People only act like these questions are out of line because they perceive their political ally to be under assault.
Click to expand...

Brett Kavanaugh is my political ally?

No. He's a partisan hack. I don't want him on the court. However, if you can't beat him on ideological grounds, I don't want to fall back to personal attacks. That's not the kind of country I want to live in.

Unfortunately, we lost the last election. Yeah, it was on a technicality, but they have the power. They have the White House. They have the senate. They have a list of candidates for the Supreme Court, and none of Thurgood Marshall's disciples are on it. A conservative is going to take Kennedy's place. Just because I agree with Democrats on tax issues doesn't mean I'm willing to turn the Supreme Court nomination process into a mudslinging festival.
 
I Am The Scum said:
So am I to understand that you have changed your mind and concluded that asking Kavanaugh about his drinking habits is not, in fact, a perjury trap?
Click to expand...

See the sentence about "inane back and forth". I'll see if I can see the questioning on youtube.


For what it's worth, Mitchell's questions were theater, too. I just don't think they were theater that were aimed at character assassination, as was the case with the Democrats.
 
It was ten times worse watching Kavanaugh's responses then just reading them. Whether Ford or Kavanaugh was telling the truth is inevitably unknowable by everyone but them.

But Ford presented herself in a highly credible manner never dodging a question. OTOH, Kavanaugh dodged questions and hemmed and hawed. It was a horrible performance.
 
Cabbage said:
One more comment, Meadmaker, because it occurs to me that we may simply be talking past each other.

I'm certainly not claiming that a case could be made out of someone's blackouts and from that lead to a conviction of the suspect. That's not at all what I'm saying and I'm wondering if that's what you think you are challenging me on.

I am merely claiming that the suspect's blackouts are a topic of interest and therefore fair game for questioning.

I mean, if this were a criminal trial, what policeman would not find, "Suspect drank himself to black outs on occasions" a point of interest? Not evidence to establish guilt, most certainly, but absolutely relevant to the investigation.

Do you still disagree?
Click to expand...

I don't think the Democrats were investigating anything during those hearings.


The pattern of alcohol abuse for a suspect would be of interest in the early stages of an investigation. I don't think that was what was going on Thursday.
 
crescent said:
I don't need to know. But you know, THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE needs to know. Are you actually suggesting that there is a reasonable need to limit the judiciary committee's access? To one-hour increments?
Click to expand...

Most likely due to press leaks.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't think the Democrats were investigating anything during those hearings.


The pattern of alcohol abuse for a suspect would be of interest in the early stages of an investigation. I don't think that was what was going on Thursday.
Click to expand...

Based on what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom