Kavanaugh Confirmation

#1,880
#1,880
volinbham said:
The timing's intent is to stop the nomination rather than provide for a fair hearing of the claim. The PR strategy executed was designed to sway public opinion against him before he had any chance to defend himself. As you yourself have acknowledged repeatedly we will never know the truth here. As a result, the strategy (the tactics I'm referring to) were designed to maximize the damage to his reputation and minimize his ability to present his own defense. It is cynical exploitation of an allegation.

So comparing to MG - the intent (stop the fair hearing) is the same. However in the case of MG it didn't involve trying to maximize damage to a person in order to achieve the goal.

Also disturbing is how Dems are presenting themselves as pure and virtuous in the process when they are simply making Machiavellian moves to achieve their goals.
Click to expand...

Rebuttals:

"The timing's intent is to stop the nomination rather than provide for a fair hearing of the claim." -- We got plenty of time for a fair hearing. GOP is the party trying to rush the nomination through prior to midterms. So Republicans can't complain there's not time for a fair hearing of these claims.

"The PR strategy executed was designed to sway public opinion against him before he had any chance to defend himself." -- I'm sorry, must have missed that he is barred from going on to TV shows and do interviews to rebut these claims.

"As you yourself have acknowledged repeatedly we will never know the truth here." Absolutely true, we will never definitively know what is true and what is false. But this happens a lot. We ultimately will have to either believe him or her based on testimony, corroboration, etc.

"As a result, the strategy (the tactics I'm referring to) were designed to maximize the damage to his reputation and minimize his ability to present his own defense." Disagree. Whenever these allegations were raised, his reputation would have been under attack. He now has a week to prep for this hearing. He would have had a lot less time if Kamala Harris had just subbed this in for her failed Kasowitz line of questioning.
 
#1,881
#1,881
T-TownVol said:
Bullshat......the accuser could have named him in 2012. Pretty convenient for her repressed memory to come back in July and that K's name gets attached when it did. You fail again.
Click to expand...

I know almost no one who follows non-Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
 
#1,882
#1,882
evillawyer said:
Rebuttals:

"The timing's intent is to stop the nomination rather than provide for a fair hearing of the claim." -- We got plenty of time for a fair hearing. GOP is the party trying to rush the nomination through prior to midterms. So Republicans can't complain there's not time for a fair hearing of these claims.

"The PR strategy executed was designed to sway public opinion against him before he had any chance to defend himself." -- I'm sorry, must have missed that he is barred from going on to TV shows and do interviews to rebut these claims.

"As you yourself have acknowledged repeatedly we will never know the truth here." Absolutely true, we will never definitively know what is true and what is false. But this happens a lot. We ultimately will have to either believe him or her based on testimony, corroboration, etc.

"As a result, the strategy (the tactics I'm referring to) were designed to maximize the damage to his reputation and minimize his ability to present his own defense." Disagree. Whenever these allegations were raised, his reputation would have been under attack. He now has a week to prep for this hearing. He would have had a lot less time if Kamala Harris had just subbed this in for her failed Kasowitz line of questioning.
Click to expand...

The Dem goal was to delay the hearing until conditions are more favorable for them (betting they can win control of the Senate). They managed the release of this information to do maximum damage to Kavanaugh. I'm stunned you condone that but I guess this is the new normal of "big boy pants" you're advocating.

He couldn't take immediate action since the information was leaked in a manner that he could not directly rebut. "He did something bad" What's the rebuttal? Next leak - "it was while he was in high school" Oh, the rebuttal path is clear! "It was an undescribed act against an unnamed person" Still not sure what to rebut. It wasn't until a couple days ago that he had any detail of exactly what it was that he was supposed to do this mythical PR campaign about.

Harris couldn't have asked him about this since DiFi was so dedicated to protecting the accuser's anonymity remember? Plus, Dems know they'd look bad if they jumped him in hearing about this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFallGuy
#1,883
#1,883
evillawyer said:
I know almost no one who follows non-Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
Click to expand...

According to the USAToday article I posted she told her husband about the event in or before 2002. I doubt that something happened in 2012 that triggered these memories unless she forgot them, then she remembered them, then forgot them again and then remembered them in therapy.

So whether or not she was aware of Kavanaugh nomination for the other court it does appear she's been cognizant of the memories since at least 2002.
 
#1,884
#1,884
Trump just cannot help himself from lying, can he?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/trump-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html

The FBI told him they don't want to investigate? The FBI told him this isn't their kind of thing?

"I don't think the FBI really should be involved because they don't want to be involved," Trump said, though he then held open the possibility of the FBI involving itself in the matter. "If they wanted to be, I would certainly do that. But as you know, they say this is not really their thing."
Click to expand...

Jesus F Christ, can't he open his mouth without deflecting and lying? He hasn't asked the FBI about investigating this. Please. Nobody in their right mind thinks he asked their opinion on whether they "want" to investigate it.

He ought to just tell the truth: "I don't see a reason at this point to delay things with an FBI investigation. The Senate is to hold a hearing on it next week and that is I believe sufficient to consider the matter."

But no, he can't just say that, can her? He has to fabricate a claim that he talked to them and the FBI doesn't want to do an investigation. God, it is so infuriating how much he constantly lies to try to make himself look good !!!!!!
 
#1,886
#1,886
Let's be honest. Even if Ford is telling the truth, the Dems don't care. They only want to use her to derail K's confirmation. They know, like everyone knows, it will be almost impossible to prove these claims true or false. This hasn't been brought forward in some altruistic search for justice. It's a means to and end and it's dirty as hell.

I fully expect sometime in the future Republicans will turn this tactic back on the Dems. I also expect when it happens the liberals will cry foul.

And it's not about being unsympathetic to the alleged victim. IF it happened, she has my sympathy. No one should be subject to that behavior. The problem is that IF. She can't prove it happened, he can't prove it didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, HeadVol77 and Grand Vol
#1,887
#1,887
lawgator1 said:
Trump just cannot help himself from lying, can he?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/trump-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html

The FBI told him they don't want to investigate? The FBI told him this isn't their kind of thing?



Jesus F Christ, can't he open his mouth without deflecting and lying? He hasn't asked the FBI about investigating this. Please. Nobody in their right mind thinks he asked their opinion on whether they "want" to investigate it.

He ought to just tell the truth: "I don't see a reason at this point to delay things with an FBI investigation. The Senate is to hold a hearing on it next week and that is I believe sufficient to consider the matter."

But no, he can't just say that, can her? He has to fabricate a claim that he talked to them and the FBI doesn't want to do an investigation. God, it is so infuriating how much he constantly lies to try to make himself look good !!!!!!
Click to expand...


1537296995725.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#1,888
#1,888
Weezer said:
Let's be honest. Even if Ford is telling the truth, the Dems don't care. They only want to use her to derail K's confirmation. They know, like everyone knows, it will be almost impossible to prove these claims true or false. This hasn't been brought forward in some altruistic search for justice. It's a means to and end and it's dirty as hell.

I fully expect sometime in the future Republicans will turn this tactic back on the Dems. I also expect when it happens the liberals will cry foul.

And it's not about being unsympathetic to the alleged victim. IF it happened, she has my sympathy. No one should be subject to that behavior. The problem is that IF. She can't prove it happened, he can't prove it didn't.
Click to expand...


K told Orrin Hatch he wasn't at the party.

If that can be demonstrated through testimony of others to be a lie, is K disqualified from being on the S.Ct.?
 
#1,889
#1,889
volinbham said:
The Dem goal was to delay the hearing until conditions are more favorable for them (betting they can win control of the Senate). They managed the release of this information to do maximum damage to Kavanaugh. I'm stunned you condone that but I guess this is the new normal of "big boy pants" you're advocating.

He couldn't take immediate action since the information was leaked in a manner that he could not directly rebut. "He did something bad" What's the rebuttal? Next leak - "it was while he was in high school" Oh, the rebuttal path is clear! "It was an undescribed act against an unnamed person" Still not sure what to rebut. It wasn't until a couple days ago that he had any detail of exactly what it was that he was supposed to do this mythical PR campaign about.

Harris couldn't have asked him about this since DiFi was so dedicated to protecting the accuser's anonymity remember? Plus, Dems know they'd look bad if they jumped him in hearing about this.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCP201
#1,890
#1,890
lawgator1 said:
K told Orrin Hatch he wasn't at the party.

If that can be demonstrated through testimony of others to be a lie, is K disqualified from being on the S.Ct.?
Click to expand...

According to Hatch. Is the conversation recorded so we can hear what was actually said? Besides, wouldn't that be hearsay evidence? Unless it can be shown that K actually said that, you have no case.
 
#1,891
#1,891
tina_toon_sept18-dem-donkey-1.jpg
 
#1,892
#1,892
lawgator1 said:
Trump just cannot help himself from lying, can he?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/trump-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html

The FBI told him they don't want to investigate? The FBI told him this isn't their kind of thing?



Jesus F Christ, can't he open his mouth without deflecting and lying? He hasn't asked the FBI about investigating this. Please. Nobody in their right mind thinks he asked their opinion on whether they "want" to investigate it.

He ought to just tell the truth: "I don't see a reason at this point to delay things with an FBI investigation. The Senate is to hold a hearing on it next week and that is I believe sufficient to consider the matter."

But no, he can't just say that, can her? He has to fabricate a claim that he talked to them and the FBI doesn't want to do an investigation. God, it is so infuriating how much he constantly lies to try to make himself look good !!!!!!
Click to expand...
So wait, DiFi handed this off to the FBI then the FBI gave it to the White House. How is he lying?
 
#1,893
#1,893
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...

What the Republicans did was wrong. Garland should have gotten a hearing. That doesn't make what the Dems are doing now okay or right. Wrong is wrong. Just because your party is doing it doesn't make it right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and tbwhhs
#1,894
#1,894
lawgator1 said:
K told Orrin Hatch he wasn't at the party.

If that can be demonstrated through testimony of others to be a lie, is K disqualified from being on the S.Ct.?
Click to expand...

Nope because you don't know what was said between OH and K.

If he lied under oath then yes I'd agree with you.
 
#1,895
#1,895
The Descent into Progressive Madness

From Dianne Feinstein to John Kerry to Maxine Waters to Cory ‘Spartacus’ Booker, Democrats are losing their marbles.
The dinosaurs of the party desperately seek relevance by sounding crazier than the new unhinged base that disrupts Senate hearings, loudly pronounces a new socialist future, and envisions octogenarian Maxine Waters as more the future of the party than is septuagenarian Nancy Pelosi. The spectacle is right out of Euripides’s Bacchae, as the creaky old guard of the polis, Tiresias and Cadmus, dress up in trendy, ridiculous ritual costumes to stumble along after the racing and frenzied young maenads in their lethal courtship of suicidal Dionysian madness.

Six-term senator Dianne Feinstein is running against a far more radical Democrat, Kevin de León, in California’s general election. (He added the accent and the “de” to his name in midlife, thereby enhancing his ethnic authenticity.) Feinstein’s current Senate colleague, the junior senator Kamala Harris, has been interrupting, sermonizing, and shouting at the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings in a fashion that generates the media buzz and attention usually reserved for supposedly sober and judicious old hands like Feinstein.

Apparently in reaction to these youthful, far-left challenges, a frustrated Feinstein has decided to descend even lower than Harris, who once, after all, joked about killing Trump. (When asked what she would do if stuck in an elevator with Trump and Pence, Harris answered, “Does one of us have to come out alive?”) Feinstein is now saying that she has had the new “evidence” about Judge Brett Kavanaugh in her possession for at least six weeks. And now, at the eleventh hour after the confirmation hearings are over, it could gin up enough hysteria, without formal refutation, to sink his nomination to the Supreme Court.

Supposedly when Kavanaugh was a 17-year-old in high school (that is 36 years ago), a young female fellow high-schooler (that is, Christine Blasey Ford, the suddenly identified author of the complaint) felt that she was sexually harassed by the teenage Kavanaugh and a chum, and that at this opportune moment, the traumatic experience of more than three decades ago has come to a boil and therefore should be aired precisely when Kavanaugh is likely to be confirmed. Dozens of high-school friends of Kavanaugh have offered testimonies that they never heard of any such assault. His supposed co-defendant adamantly denies the charge. Blasey Ford apparently cannot remember the location or the date of the alleged assault. In her originally anonymous accusation, she claimed that she had sought “medical attention” for the attack. In fact, she is apparently referring, less dramatically, to a visit 30 years later to her therapist, where she mentioned the incident in the course of relationship therapy. And yet the therapist’s notes, taken at the time of her assertions six years ago, do not support her latest version of the teenage Kavanaugh’s alleged assault 36 years ago.

In publicizing the letter anonymously at first, Feinstein apparently had lots of aims besides blowing up the Kavanaugh sure-thing nomination. In the new progressive world of Julia Salazars and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes, Feinstein also wants to strut her ossified progressive fides. That is, she seems desperate to remind California voters that while she may be an 85-year-old white woman, married to a hyper-capitalist billionaire, and a longtime resident of a 20-million-dollar Pacific Heights mansion, she is still a growling hard-left and partisan lioness in winter.

Feinstein also hopes to show that she is still a key Senate player and a newsmaker. Recently, we learned that, for nearly 20 years, she was cuckolded by unknowingly hiring and retaining a chauffeur and personal gofer who all the while was a Chinese spy — a disclosure suggesting that the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was, well, not exactly so intelligent.

Feinstein also hopes to show that she is still a key Senate player and a newsmaker. Recently, we learned that, for nearly 20 years, she was cuckolded by unknowingly hiring and retaining a chauffeur and personal gofer who all the while was a Chinese spy — a disclosure suggesting that the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was, well, not exactly so intelligent.

Descent into Progressive Madness | National Review
 
#1,896
#1,896
lawgator1 said:
Trump just cannot help himself from lying, can he?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/trump-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html

The FBI told him they don't want to investigate? The FBI told him this isn't their kind of thing?



Jesus F Christ, can't he open his mouth without deflecting and lying? He hasn't asked the FBI about investigating this. Please. Nobody in their right mind thinks he asked their opinion on whether they "want" to investigate it.

He ought to just tell the truth: "I don't see a reason at this point to delay things with an FBI investigation. The Senate is to hold a hearing on it next week and that is I believe sufficient to consider the matter."

But no, he can't just say that, can her? He has to fabricate a claim that he talked to them and the FBI doesn't want to do an investigation. God, it is so infuriating how much he constantly lies to try to make himself look good !!!!!!
Click to expand...
We told trump to say that just to piss you off LG. Looks like it worked!
 
#1,897
#1,897
hog88 said:
Nope because you don't know what was said between OH and K.

If he lied under oath then yes I'd agree with you.
Click to expand...


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


Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told reporters Monday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh categorically denied allegations that he committed sexual assault at a high school party in the early 1980s -- and told the senator he was not at a party similar to what his accuser described.


Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, made her name and her accusations public in an interview with The Washington Post Sunday. She claimed Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, tried to remove her clothing and put his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream.


In a statement to Fox News, Hatch's office said that Kavanaugh told the senator "he was not at a party like the one [Ford] describes" and added that Ford "may be mistaking [Kavanaugh] for someone else."
Click to expand...
 
#1,898
#1,898
Weezer said:
What the Republicans did was wrong. Garland should have gotten a hearing. That doesn't make what the Dems are doing now okay or right. Wrong is wrong. Just because your party is doing it doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#1,899
#1,899
lawgator1 said:
K told Orrin Hatch he wasn't at the party.

If that can be demonstrated through testimony of others to be a lie, is K disqualified from being on the S.Ct.?
Click to expand...
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. It’s almost as if Democrats know this, so now they’re introducing this girl. Are they going to try and use her as a corroborating witness?
 
#1,900
#1,900
lawgator1 said:
K told Orrin Hatch he wasn't at the party.

If that can be demonstrated through testimony of others to be a lie, is K disqualified from being on the S.Ct.?
Click to expand...

Given that she's not sure when the party occurred, it's possible but I'm not sure how Kavanaugh can say that with any certainty. I would be surprised if he actually gave such a declarative denial to Hatch.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top