New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Sen. Kennedy breaks down the FBI report: “There were ten witnesses, one declined to talk to the FBI. Five with respect to Dr. Ford’s allegations four with respect to Mrs. Ramirez’s allegations. No corroboration. I really wish you could see this”

KENNEDY: “There’s no corroboration, and I really wish you see this, let me say that again, I really wish you could read this report, there are things in there that really make me angry.”
 
I dont think the investigation into the sexual assault was incomplete or that further investigation into that would be more illuminating. I think it was a virtual impossibility to corroborate or refute Dr. Ford's testimony.

What makes it a sham is they knew that going in. That the investigation would be a show to present how fair the GOP is before their predetermined vote. If instead they investigated Kavanaugh's truthfulness, I'm confident that the conclusion would be different.
 
acbytesla said:
You don't think 1700 law professors opinions on the suitability of a candidate for a Supreme Court Justice are likely to be more expert than Joe Schmoe?
Click to expand...

They might be more "expert". But they're no less partisan.

If you want to look at a non-partisan expert evaluation of Kavanaugh, then go ahead and check out the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary's rating for him. They rate him as well qualified. Alternatively, you could ask fellow judges and lawyers who have actually worked with him what he's actually like. But this self-selected sample of complete strangers? There's no reason to take it as anything other than a political opinion.
 
acbytesla said:
I dont think the investigation into the sexual assault was incomplete or that further investigation into that would be more illuminating. I think it was a virtual impossibility to corroborate or refute Dr. Ford's testimony.

What makes it a sham is they knew that going in. That the investigation would be a show to present how fair the GOP is before their predetermined vote. If instead they investigated Kavanaugh's truthfulness, I'm confident that the conclusion would be different.
Click to expand...

There was a movie called "The Gambler" starring Kenny Rogers. In the end, Rogers and his opponent went all in on a poker hand. Rogers won the hand with a straight flush.

His opponent got angry saying the game isn't over. Deal the cards, he said. Rogers asked him, how long will we keep playing? Until you finally win?
 
acbytesla said:
From my perspective, it isn't just his words that don't make him believable, it's his tics and demeanor. The pauses,, the umms and ahhs etc.
Click to expand...


Oh, I agree. But Meadmaker seemed disinclined to find video of the hearing, so I thought that might be better than nothing.

The partisan rants by Kavanaugh et.al. come through loud and clear even in the transcript.

But the Republicans are just going to wave that all away and say we can't corroborate her story and confirm the lying POS.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Kinda convenient, ain't it. Make sure that no one who has come forward to corroborate any of the stuff that puts Kavanaugh in a less than perfect light gets interviewed.

And then crow endlessly that they can't find any corroboration.
 
Ziggurat said:
They might be more "expert". But they're no less partisan.

If you want to look at a non-partisan expert evaluation of Kavanaugh, then go ahead and check out the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary's rating for him. They rate him as well qualified. Alternatively, you could ask fellow judges and lawyers who have actually worked with him what he's actually like. But this self-selected sample of complete strangers? There's no reason to take it as anything other than a political opinion.
Click to expand...

Nice try.

Neither of which take into account Kavanaugh's partisan conspiracy laden rant or his obvious dishonesty where he obfuscated, dodged and outright lied. The law professors letter OTOH was in direct response to that.
 
acbytesla said:
I dont think the investigation into the sexual assault was incomplete or that further investigation into that would be more illuminating. I think it was a virtual impossibility to corroborate or refute Dr. Ford's testimony.

What makes it a sham is they knew that going in. That the investigation would be a show to present how fair the GOP is before their predetermined vote. If instead they investigated Kavanaugh's truthfulness, I'm confident that the conclusion would be different.
Click to expand...

Did Flake know when he tapped Coons' shoulder and they negotiated the supplemental investigation? Did Mitch O'Connell use Flake's opening in a way Flake didn't anticipate, but now has to be behind because . . . why?
 
Ziggurat said:
They might be more "expert". But they're no less partisan.

If you want to look at a non-partisan expert evaluation of Kavanaugh, then go ahead and check out the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary's rating for him.
Click to expand...

Why do you declare one as partisan and the other not? You don't know these people.
 
The Big Dog said:
Sen. Kennedy breaks down the FBI report: “There were ten witnesses, one declined to talk to the FBI. Five with respect to Dr. Ford’s allegations four with respect to Mrs. Ramirez’s allegations. No corroboration. I really wish you could see this”

KENNEDY: “There’s no corroboration, and I really wish you see this, let me say that again, I really wish you could read this report, there are things in there that really make me angry.”
Click to expand...


And observers note that the FBI did not interview at least 40 people whose names were offered as witnesses by Ford or Ramirez, or who themselves tried to contact the FBI directly. This was a whitewash.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?noredirect=on
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...have-not-been-contacted-fbi-kavanaugh-n916146
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...l-now-line-up-behind-kavanaugh/?noredirect=on
 
Joecool said:
There was a movie called "The Gambler" starring Kenny Rogers. In the end, Rogers and his opponent went all in on a poker hand. Rogers won the hand with a straight flush.

His opponent got angry saying the game isn't over. Deal the cards, he said. Rogers asked him, how long will we keep playing? Until you finally win?
Click to expand...

And if the dealer is cheating for Kenny and Kenny knows the cards are stacked in his favor he can pretend to be fair knowing all the time it isn't.
 
Ziggurat said:
If you want to look at a non-partisan expert evaluation of Kavanaugh, then go ahead and check out the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary's rating for him. They rate him as well qualified.
Click to expand...


I suggest you look again. Last I heard, they had downgraded that rating.

Alternatively, you could ask fellow judges and lawyers who have actually worked with him what he's actually like.
Click to expand...


Who, as I've been hearing on NPR, are also less than fully supportive of his nomination.
 
luchog said:
I suggest you look again. Last I heard, they had downgraded that rating.




Who, as I've been hearing on NPR, are also less than fully supportive of his nomination.
Click to expand...

I suggest you do so because i posted the actual facts that show they have not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom