New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

The Big Dog said:
After reading the FBI report, The President tweets:

"The harsh and unfair treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is having an incredible upward impact on voters. The PEOPLE get it far better than the politicians. Most importantly, this great life cannot be ruined by mean & despicable Democrats and totally uncorroborated allegations!"

God Bless America!
Click to expand...

You think he actually read it? You're quite naive.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
the burden is "to tell the truth": which he objectively didn't do a number of times.
Now you can argue that he wasn't aware of the facts (like drinking age), or forgot (like when he knew about Ramirez), and so it wasn't lying.

But it certainly wasn't "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" as he swore he would speak.
Click to expand...

In your example, it is. Saying what you believe to be true, even if it means omitting something you forgot, is telling the truth. Truth in that case is a subjective position. The swear doesn't demand omniscience.
 
The Big Dog said:
After reading the FBI report, The President tweets:

"The harsh and unfair treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is having an incredible upward impact on voters. The PEOPLE get it far better than the politicians. Most importantly, this great life cannot be ruined by mean & despicable Democrats and totally uncorroborated allegations!"

God Bless America!
Click to expand...

Trump is not known to be a reader.
 
Lurch said:
Then all the more reason to investigate. But as far as I know the FBI has been ordered to steer clear. And clear of Ford. And clear of Kav. And clear of at least 40 others. Why do you think that is?

After this is over (whether Kav is confirmed or not), do you think Kav will--or at least have a basis to--request an investigation into false allegations, or file charges?

Do you think The Rs will make good on their threat to investigate their fellow committee Ds about their "sitting on" Ford's letter?
Click to expand...


It's not up to the Judiciary committee to do that at this point. If the FBI decides to pursue criminal investigation due to the lies so be it. However, I sincerely doubt that will happen at this point. It is however a possibility.
 
smartcooky said:
You're the one who's being ignorant champ. I didn't mention Swetnick here,

Trump was mocking Dr. Ford, not Swetnick
Click to expand...

It would seem in post 1614 you repied to an email that was written to Avanetti. That is Swetnicks lawyer, and the email was concerning Swetnicks claims. Perhaps you should pay attention to what you're replying to. Swetnick lied her ass off.

Her attorney deservedly got that reply.
 
FBI Report: "After being denied the ability to investigate corroborating witnesses we found no corroborating witnesses"
 
The_Animus said:
FBI Report: "After being denied the ability to investigate corroborating witnesses we found no corroborating witnesses"
Click to expand...

"We find we're having great trouble in locating the enemy."
"Well what methods are you using to find them"
"Well we ask people 'Are you the enemy?' and whoever says 'Yes' we shoot them."

- Parody of military intelligence from Good Morning Vietnam
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
In your example, it is. Saying what you believe to be true, even if it means omitting something you forgot, is telling the truth. Truth in that case is a subjective position. The swear doesn't demand omniscience.
Click to expand...

Yes, and we have to give an informed opinion of whether he knows it to be untrue and is trying to deceive. This is something humans have been doing for thousands of years, and why sometimes we don't believe what others say. This isn't sorcery.
 
The Shrike said:
So, every few pages I chime to remind folks of Kavanaugh's lies last week, and that *that's* the reason he should be disqualified for the privilege of serving on our highest court.

No one seems much interested in the lying from the man, only the stuff that's difficult to corroborate from the women.

Okay, carry on not caring that this lying pile of poo is about to be confirmed to the US Supreme Court.

(Note: Democratic staffer doxxing people? Swetnick fabricating her story? Again, if these are true, throw the book at them.)
Click to expand...
There are at this point over 1200 law professors signed onto a statement saying Kavanaugh isn't fit to sit on the supreme court after his tantrum last Thursday. The Bar Association has withdrawn its recommendation of him pending a full FBI investigation of his perjury. There's no question that he's manifestly unqualified for the post. The only question that remains is if there's the political will to force him through anyway, as the Senate is under no obligation to ensure that he'd actually be a good justice. They are free to confirm any old jackass and face only electoral repercussions.
 
From the NBC Story about the senate's review of the FBI report,

The information in the background investigation file is not marked top secret or classified, but it is not to be leaked or even characterized.
Click to expand...

. . . seriously, not even characterized?

If they were trying to make this look like a coverup, what would they do differently?

FWIW, I can't imagine senators on either side abiding by a strict interpretation of that rule.
 
From the President:

"This is now the 7th. time the FBI has investigated Judge Kavanaugh. If we made it 100, it would still not be good enough for the Obstructionist Democrats."

Poetry
 
dasmiller said:
From the NBC Story about the senate's review of the FBI report,



. . . seriously, not even characterized?

If they were trying to make this look like a coverup, what would they do differently?

FWIW, I can't imagine senators on either side abiding by a strict interpretation of that rule.
Click to expand...

Hmm, you think that they got together with Obama in 2009 to conspire to cover up the process in 2018?

Because as i have already posted, the rules were set in place in 2009 when the Dems were in charge.

Cool theory on the Obama coverup, tho.
 
Meadmaker said:
Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what both sides are worried about? I tend to think that if Kavanaugh is rejected there could be a backlash against the Democrats as this could stir up the Republican base and if he is confirmed that it will mean trouble for the Republicans.

So I am torn. I certainly want at least a Democratic House and I realize the next nominee is likely to be another white anti-choice, anti-people dinosaur so why not let lying rapey boy through?

But I definitely don't want that privileged country club blue blazer lying sexist pig on the Supreme Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom