New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Apart from reservations about his partisan bias and judicial temperament, there remain questions about Kav's finances. A large debt was paid off at once, with no indication of where the money came from, and he generally has less money overall than many people would if they were in his exalted circumstances. That might not mean anything; but it could mean bad investments, bad debts, bad judgment, off-the-books income or worse.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/b...es-he-actually-understand-business-2018-07-11
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-many-mysteries-of-brett-kavanaughs-finances/
 
The Big Dog said:
She said she suspected that there 20 people who could corroborate her charges?
Click to expand...

She provided a list of 20 people who she thought might be able to corroborate her account. Perhaps she was not certain if they could corroborate her account.

How to determine? (Hint, learn what the letter "I" in FBI stands for! They could talk to people, if they were allowed!)
 
Bob001 said:
Apart from reservations about his partisan bias and judicial temperament, there remain questions about Kav's finances. A large debt was paid off at once, with no indication of where the money came from, and he generally has less money overall than many people would if they were in his exalted circumstances. That might not mean anything; but it could mean bad investments, bad debts, bad judgment, off-the-books income or worse.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/b...es-he-actually-understand-business-2018-07-11
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-many-mysteries-of-brett-kavanaughs-finances/
Click to expand...

I feel we're missing the forest for the trees, here.
 
Belz... said:
Why do you declare one as partisan and the other not? You don't know these people.
Click to expand...

Because the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has a long track record of examining nominees on both sides of the aisle, and have a demonstrated ability to evaluate them pretty objectively. It's their job, they practice at it, and they've shown they are good at it.

This isn't a mystery.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has a long track record of examining nominees on both sides of the aisle, and have a demonstrated ability to evaluate them pretty objectively. It's their job, they practice at it, and they've shown they are good at it.

This isn't a mystery.
Click to expand...

You've only answered half of my question, though. You still don't know any of the 1700.
 
crescent said:
She provided a list of 20 people who she thought might be able to corroborate her account. Perhaps she was not certain if they could corroborate her account.

How to determine? (Hint, learn what the letter "I" in FBI stands for! They could talk to people, if they were allowed!)
Click to expand...

Is that something that you would suspect that they do, after talking to her for 2 hours, and getting a list of four other people, three of which they talked to and one who refused, to go track down 20 people who we "suspect" "might" be able to corroborate her account?

Say, what if the interviews already taken (including hers) show that to be a total waste of time?

i mean we saw that Ford's list as garbage, what makes you think this would be any better?
 
For Once, I’m Grateful for Trump

For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it.

I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I’m grateful because ferocious and even crass obstinacy has its uses in life, and never more so than in the face of sly moral bullying. I’m grateful because he’s a big fat hammer fending off a razor-sharp dagger.

We will learn soon enough what, if anything, the F.B.I. has gleaned from its investigation of Kavanaugh. Until then, I’ll admit to feeling grateful that, in Trump, at least one big bully was willing to stand up to others.

-- New York Times (Oct 4, 2018)
Click to expand...


Knock me over with a feather, the New York Times has been red-pilled!
 
Belz... said:
You've only answered half of my question, though. You still don't know any of the 1700.
Click to expand...

Neither do you. So why do you think their opinion is relevant? You haven't advanced any worthwhile reason for that either. You've only appealed to their job title, but that's a pathetically weak argument.
 
The Big Dog said:
They went to interview five witnesses she supplied, one refused to be interviewed. They interviewed her directly for two hours...
Click to expand...

The report includes interviews with nine people, six of whom have been identified:
Mark Judge (relating to Ford's claims)
P.J. Smyth (relating to Ford's claims)
Leland Keyser (relating to Ford's claims)
Tim Gaudette (relating to Ford's claims)(allowed only after initial protests by Dems)
Chris Garret (Squi)(relating to Ford's claims)(allowed only after initial protests by Dems)

Deborah Ramirez

That's six that we know the names of. We know they interviewed three others, not four. We don't know if all three related to Ramirez's allegations. We don't know who the tenth person who was contacted but not interviewed is, or which allegation that person might have been connected to.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
I mean "imagine" it, because it did not happen, will not happen and it is absolutely beyond ludicrous to suggest that it would happen...

Oh well, the bottom of the barrel can't be too far away now, right?
Click to expand...

You're saying that Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer lied this morning? I grant you that 100 Senators aren't all packed in that room reading it. But there is only one copy and it is kept in that one room.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Knock me over with a feather, the New York Times has been red-pilled!
Click to expand...


Stephens is the Times' token crazy right-wing columnist. Balance and all that. But don't give it too much weight. He would be writing the same stuff for Breitbart.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...lumn_is_classic_climate_change_denialism.html
https://fair.org/home/three-reasons...-nyt-columnist-and-the-real-reason-he-is-one/

On the other hand, he does have an independent streak.
Conservative New York Times columnist Bret Stephens said President Donald Trump should resign or be impeached and removed from office in light of his former lawyer’s guilty plea.
Click to expand...
https://www.mediaite.com/online/con...sign-or-be-impeached-and-removed-from-office/
 
crescent said:
The report includes interviews with nine people, six of whom have been identified:
Mark Judge (relating to Ford's claims)
P.J. Smyth (relating to Ford's claims)
Leland Keyser (relating to Ford's claims)
Tim Gaudette (relating to Ford's claims)(allowed only after initial protests by Dems)
Chris Garret (Squi)(relating to Ford's claims)(allowed only after initial protests by Dems)

Deborah Ramirez

That's six that we know the names of. We know they interviewed three others, not four. We don't know if all three related to Ramirez's allegations. We don't know who the tenth person who was contacted but interviewed is, or which allegation that person might have been connected to.
Click to expand...

I was counting Rameriz as part of the four they did interview, sorry i did not make that clear. I saw something this morning that there were 5 total Rameriz witnesses and one refused to be interviewed. Oh right, Kennedy said that this morning...
 
Last edited:
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...

You're gullible enough to fall for that old trick? Actually, I guess I'm not surprised--It's the big dog, after all. Confused by Asterisks. LOL

*You can't see this but it would piss you off if you could...Yeah...Just trust me.* LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom