Kavanaugh Confirmation

#1,901
#1,901
evillawyer said:
The objection that everyone seems to be voicing though concerns TIMING, not the SUBSTANCE of the allegations. I think everyone, if they're being honest, thinks an alleged attempted rape is something the Senate should know about in considering a potential SCOTUS appointment. And the reason people are complaining about the timing here is because they liked the idea of the GOP ramming this appointment through before the midterms and sticking it to the Dems without doing a full review of the guy's documents. So I don't see how using information that everyone thinks is relevant at the most opportune time for the Democrats is somehow immoral. The information should be out there anyway.
Click to expand...

Just hold onto that thought when the next left leaning judge is nominated . You can bet from now on everybody will get down and roll around in the mud .
 
#1,902
#1,902
evillawyer said:
Pretty rich that you are complaining about "tactics" used to thwart a Supreme Court nominee when Mitch flat out ignored his constitutional responsibility by ensuring that the Senate would not give Garland a hearing or up or down vote. Ultimately, your objection boils down to the timing of the release of the harmful information, but those are political concerns, not reputational concerns. The accuser is ALWAYS going to draw first blood and a potentially innocent party will be put on the defensive. That's just the way it works. I don't see how the release of this information now is any more harmful to Kavanaugh's reputation than if it had been released during the hearings. As I said in the prior post, he at least now is not being caught flat-footed.
Click to expand...

First off, I've repeatedly said Garland should have gotten a hearing. That said, he (Mitch) used procedural moves of the Senate to effect his goals.

The Dems are attempting to win by doing maximum damage to a person's reputation since they could not use procedural moves.

It's not hard to label one as more slimy and Machiavellian than the other even if both are examples of bad politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and jaybird_1981
#1,903
#1,903
Boston Vol said:
What “party?” Ford said in her letter that there were only five people there. Pretty s***** party. One of them has said he has no recollection of the events.
Click to expand...

So let's get it all out there. Let's have Judge come and testify under oath to the Senate. He's an alleged witness. But nope, the GOP doesn't want that.
 
#1,904
#1,904
lawgator1 said:
Well, if a Dem Senator asks him: "Did you have a conversation last week with Sen. Hatch in which you told him you were not at the party where this occurred?" and he says no, I did not tell him that, then they should put Hatch under oath and find out if he did.

If Hatch confirms K's testimony, then that means Hatch lied.

If Hatch does not, then it means K lied.

Both cannot be true.

Sen. Orrin Hatch says Kavanaugh denied being at party described by accuser Ford
Click to expand...

I'm good with that as long as DiFi testifies to her conversations with Ford.
 
#1,905
#1,905
Once again people are STILL inserting statements in Ks mouth and holding him to those inserted statements!

The ONLY statement K has known to have stated himself is he did not commit this act, not then or ever! Hatch over stated specifics.

That’s on Hatch, not K
 
#1,906
#1,906
evillawyer said:
The objection that everyone seems to be voicing though concerns TIMING, not the SUBSTANCE of the allegations. I think everyone, if they're being honest, thinks an alleged attempted rape is something the Senate should know about in considering a potential SCOTUS appointment. And the reason people are complaining about the timing here is because they liked the idea of the GOP ramming this appointment through before the midterms and sticking it to the Dems without doing a full review of the guy's documents. So I don't see how using information that everyone thinks is relevant at the most opportune time for the Democrats is somehow immoral. The information should be out there anyway.
Click to expand...

No, I question the substance.
 
#1,910
#1,910
evillawyer said:
The objection that everyone seems to be voicing though concerns TIMING, not the SUBSTANCE of the allegations. I think everyone, if they're being honest, thinks an alleged attempted rape is something the Senate should know about in considering a potential SCOTUS appointment. And the reason people are complaining about the timing here is because they liked the idea of the GOP ramming this appointment through before the midterms and sticking it to the Dems without doing a full review of the guy's documents. So I don't see how using information that everyone thinks is relevant at the most opportune time for the Democrats is somehow immoral. The information should be out there anyway.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe these allegations were brought forth because Di Fi believed them to be true or relevant? I don't. The problem with this is the accusation cannot be proven true or false. The accuser has supposedly said she is not seeking justice. So why should accusations that can't be proven from a woman who wanted to remain anonymous carry substantial weight? Especially if the accuser herself refuses to cooperate?

We will never reasonably know what did or did not happen 35 years ago. And an accusation with no evidence to support its veracity should not carry the weight to bring someone down.

What might have happened is not the issue here because we cannot know what did happen. What is at issue is a political stunt pulled by Di Fi to derail the process. If the Republicans had engaged in this tactic, Dems would be screaming to high hell. As I said before, wrong is wrong, no matter who does it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and jaybird_1981
#1,912
#1,912
NorthDallas40 said:
Once again people are STILL inserting statements in Ks mouth and holding him to those inserted statements!

The ONLY statement K has known to have stated himself is he did not commit this act, not then or ever! Hatch over stated specifics.

That’s on Hatch, not K
Click to expand...


I don't know about that. Hatch said that to a lot of reporters on video, then in a statement to Fox. That was followed up by a statement by his spokesperson confirming it.

Hatch Aide: Kavanaugh Said He Was Not At Party With Accuser

Orrin Hatch: Kavanaugh says he wasn't at the party in question, accuser might be "mixed up"; Update: HS girlfriends vouch for Kavanaugh

I don't think you are going to be able to pass that off as Hatch overstating what K told him in their call.
 
#1,913
#1,913
evillawyer said:
So let's get it all out there. Let's have Judge come and testify under oath to the Senate. He's an alleged witness. But nope, the GOP doesn't want that.
Click to expand...

He has nothing more to offer than what he's publicly stated. Dems want to blow this up as a delaying tactic. That's pretty obvious.
 
#1,916
#1,916
lawgator1 said:
I don't know about that. Hatch said that to a lot of reporters on video, then in a statement to Fox. That was followed up by a statement by his spokesperson confirming it.

Hatch Aide: Kavanaugh Said He Was Not At Party With Accuser

Orrin Hatch: Kavanaugh says he wasn't at the party in question, accuser might be "mixed up"; Update: HS girlfriends vouch for Kavanaugh

I don't think you are going to be able to pass that off as Hatch overstating what K told him in their call.
Click to expand...

Unless you have tape of K saying it himself, it's still just hearsay, not factual evidence.
 
#1,919
#1,919
Hatch just got this “ party “ and the one he threw for Moses for his 17 birthday mixed up . We are lucky he still remembers how to tie his shoes .
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#1,921
#1,921
Weezer said:
He has nothing more to offer than what he's publicly stated. Dems want to blow this up as a delaying tactic. That's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...
Little bit different to make a denial to press and to do the same under oath. Plus, he's gone back and forth between do not recall and categorical denial.
 
#1,922
#1,922
evillawyer said:
Little bit different to make a denial to press and to do the same under oath. Plus, he's gone back and forth between do not recall and categorical denial.
Click to expand...

I believe he's stated that he's never witnessed K act in such a way. I don't believe he's gone back and forth on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#1,925
#1,925
lawgator1 said:
I don't know about that. Hatch said that to a lot of reporters on video, then in a statement to Fox. That was followed up by a statement by his spokesperson confirming it.

Hatch Aide: Kavanaugh Said He Was Not At Party With Accuser

Orrin Hatch: Kavanaugh says he wasn't at the party in question, accuser might be "mixed up"; Update: HS girlfriends vouch for Kavanaugh

I don't think you are going to be able to pass that off as Hatch overstating what K told him in their call.
Click to expand...
I listened to the whole damn audio when it came out yesterday. Yes I indeed stand by my statement and you guys keep putting words in Ks mouth.

Hatch (and his aid) over stated!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top