New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[Random]

Oh well, it seems that we have reached the scream into the void stage of the "discussion' where the dead-enders conclude Kavanaugh is a 'rapist' despite the fact that there was ZERO evidence at all and in fact the aggrieved party Ford never made such a claim.

say, maybe Hillary Clinton can make her forest available for the folks to scream and cry in, because:

ELECTIONS MATTER.

Congratulations to our newest Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court!

This is not true. There was the testimony of Dr. Ford. I understand that you think that this evidence is flawed, but it is evidence nonetheless. And personally, I found it far more believable than Kavanaugh's run-out-the-clock DARVO act.

 

[theprestige]

FBI director Wray confirms white house limited investigation

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/10/kavanaugh-fbi-probe-limit-888667

I've asked this multiple times already in this thread but the Trumpets don't seem to want to address it. Why did Trump lie to the American people and claim the FBI had free reign to investigate?

Probably because it looks like you're JAQing off.

Trump lies. What's to address?

If you have conclusions and reasoning to support it, go ahead and make your case any time. No need to try to corral other people into whatever performance piece you're scripting in your head.

 

[The Big Dog]

It says that the standard process was used. The standard process is that the white house determines the scope and who can and can't be interviewed. We know the white house limited it because numerous people with information weren't talked to as well as Ford and Kavanaugh and the white house deputy press secretary said as much in a link I provided earlier. Wray admits it was limited in scope and that the scope is determined by the white house though he didn't provide specifics on the limits.

So for the fourth time. Why did Trump lie to the American people about the FBI having free reign to interview who they wanted?

The highlighted part is not supported by the actual testimony, as I have pointed out before.

Further, it appears that what Trump stated was:

"The FBI as you know is all over, talking to everybody ... " Trump told reporters Saturday in Washington on his way to a rally in West Virginia. "They have been all over it already. They have free rein to do whatever they have to do."

So what did they have to do?

"I've ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh's file," Trump said in a statement. "As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week."

What did the Senate request:

The Judiciary Committee officially requested the FBI investigation, saying it should probe "current credible allegations" against Kavanaugh, and Republicans said it would be up to the FBI to decide what allegations are considered credible.

As such, rather than saying the FBI did not talk to certain people because they were instructed not to, the natural conclusion is that the FBI chose not to.

QED.

 

[beachnut]

... Why did Trump lie to the American people ...

Because he is the biggest liar in presidential history.

 

[theprestige]

Because he is the biggest liar in presidential history.

The most obvious, perhaps.

 

[smartcooky]

Be more open minded. People lie for all sorts of reasons. If you include mistakes and delusions there are even more possible explanations for false testimony.

I would be more open minded if Kavanaugh had not clearly and demonstrably lied so often.

I would be more open minded if Kavanaugh had shown restraint and something closer to judicial temperament. (I am reminded of Hilary Clinton testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi without once raising her voice, rolling her eyes, slamming the desk or showing dissent despite eleven hours of intense questioning)

I would be more open minded if the White House had not deliberately withheld his judicial paper trail.

I would be more open minded if he had not characterized "can't remember that happening" as "that didn't happen" - this is Witness Testimony 101, a first year Law student understands this, so I would expect a Federal Judge to do so.

 

[Lurch]

It wasn't an interview at that point. Furthermore, he wasn't playing to you. You weren't his target audience. Your opinion didn't matter. Among the people whose opinion he needed to sway, his performance worked. You may not like that, but objectively speaking, successfully playing to the audience that matters isn't disqualifying for any job.

But the people 'hiring' him (and who he had to impress) are not the only people he will ostensibly and nominally work for. A majority of his 'employers' didn't want him.

 

[Hellbound]

It wasn't an interview at that point. Furthermore, he wasn't playing to you. You weren't his target audience. Your opinion didn't matter. Among the people whose opinion he needed to sway, his performance worked. You may not like that, but objectively speaking, successfully playing to the audience that matters isn't disqualifying for any job.

I see. So that fact that he got the job is proof of the fact that he should have gotten the job.

Glad to see where you stand.

I won't be replying on this again.

 

[Ziggurat]

I see. So that fact that he got the job is proof of the fact that he should have gotten the job.

No. It's proof that his performance in the hearing wasn't disqualifying. Improve your reading comprehension.

 

[Ziggurat]

But the people 'hiring' him (and who he had to impress) are not the only people he will ostensibly and nominally work for. A majority of his 'employers' didn't want him.

Lucky for him, Supreme Court judges are not elected by popular vote.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Lucky for him, Supreme Court judges are not elected by popular vote.

Indeed.

 

[The_Animus]

Probably because it looks like you're JAQing off.

Trump lies. What's to address?

If you have conclusions and reasoning to support it, go ahead and make your case any time. No need to try to corral other people into whatever performance piece you're scripting in your head.

The conclusions and reasoning has been addressed by others numerous times in this thread. My point is that the Trumpets like to do just about anything other than acknowledge those conclusions and reasons.

Or like you, they pretend it's no biggie when Republicans lie about important things like FBI investigations or Russian collusion, or under oath during senate hearings.

They lied? Aw Shucks. Now what about those dastardly democrats!

 

[The Big Dog]

The conclusions and reasoning has been addressed by others numerous times in this thread. My point is that the Trumpets like to do just about anything other than acknowledge those conclusions and reasons.

Or like you, they pretend it's no biggie when Republicans lie about important things like FBI investigations or Russian collusion, or under oath during senate hearings.

They lied? Aw Shucks. Now what about those dastardly democrats!

Well, I cited the actual quotes and statements which show that what you said he said is not accurate.

 

[Meadmaker]

I would be more open minded if Kavanaugh had not clearly and demonstrably lied so often.

I would be more open minded if Kavanaugh had shown restraint and something closer to judicial temperament. (I am reminded of Hilary Clinton testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi without once raising her voice, rolling her eyes, slamming the desk or showing dissent despite eleven hours of intense questioning)

I would be more open minded if the White House had not deliberately withheld his judicial paper trail.

I would be more open minded if he had not characterized "can't remember that happening" as "that didn't happen" - this is Witness Testimony 101, a first year Law student understands this, so I would expect a Federal Judge to do so.

Perhaps it wasn't clear that my post referred to the possibility of false testimony by people other than Kavanaugh.
Your assertion was that only Kavanaugh had a motivation to lie. I'm saying you should consider the possibility that others also may have had a motivation to lie, or that there could be other explanations for false testimony.


You cannot reasonably infer that Ms. Ford must have been telling the truth based on the fact that you cannot come up with a motivation for her to lie.

 

[Meadmaker]

None of that matters, I don't like his views on the 4th amendment but I don't need to claim he's a rapist or attempted rapist with little to no evidence to not like the guy.

One of the really awful things about introducing the personal attacks at the last minute was that it guaranteed that those attacks and Kavanaugh's response to them would dominate the news coverage, people's opinions, and people's memories of the whole confirmation process. There are important issues about the role of the courts that could have been addressed, but that doesn't make for quality television.

However, I would remind people that there have been three highly contentious sets of hearings in my memory (Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh) and the only time the attempt to block a nominee actually succeeded was the one where the objections had nothing to do with personal attacks.

 

[smartcooky]

Perhaps it wasn't clear that my post referred to the possibility of false testimony by people other than Kavanaugh.
Your assertion was that only Kavanaugh had a motivation to lie. I'm saying you should consider the possibility that others also may have had a motivation to lie, or that there could be other explanations for false testimony.


You cannot reasonably infer that Ms. Ford must have been telling the truth based on the fact that you cannot come up with a motivation for her to lie.

People lie when

They have something to hide, e.g. one or more bad acts.
The truth might be embarrassing or show them in a bad light
They have something to gain

You may be able to come up with lots of other specific reasons why people lie, but they will all fall into these three general categories

Only two people were testifying in that hearing

1. Brett Kavanaugh, who for me, checks all three boxes.
2. Dr. Christine Ford, who for me, does not check any of the boxes.

I am pretty sure I know who was lying, and it was not Dr. Ford.

 

[smartcooky]

One of the really awful things about introducing the personal attacks at the last minute was that it guaranteed that those attacks and Kavanaugh's response to them would dominate the news coverage, people's opinions, and people's memories of the whole confirmation process. There are important issues about the role of the courts that could have been addressed, but that doesn't make for quality television.

However, I would remind people that there have been three highly contentious sets of hearings in my memory (Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh) and the only time the attempt to block a nominee actually succeeded was the one where the objections had nothing to do with personal attacks.

Q: When does an accusation become a "personal attack"?

A: When you can prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that those accusations were completely false.

That did not happen with either the Anita Hill accusations against Clarence Thomas, or the Christine Ford accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.

I still believe both women were telling the absolute truth about what happened to them, and that they have correctly identified the perpetrators.

 

[sylvan8798]

Stick a fork in her, she done.

it was posted earlier.

Lets put a Ford on the Barbie!

I find your choice of language fascinating. Any reason you are advocating poking or barbecuing a woman who is no longer relevant anyways? It's over. You won. Now you want to commit violent acts against someone.

 

[The Big Dog]

I find your choice of language fascinating. Any reason you are advocating poking or barbecuing a woman who is no longer relevant anyways? It's over. You won. Now you want to commit violent acts against someone.

oh jesus

 

[crescent]

Kavanaugh's got about 15 misconduct complaints filed against him, all stemming from issues or actions related to the confirmation hearings (not from his time as a judge prior to that).

Chief Justice Roberts transfers Kavanaugh misconduct complaints to 10th Circuit