Kavanaugh Confirmation

#2,960
#2,960
volinbham said:
If Kavanaugh had anything to do with a strategy to implicate one of his classmates to save his own a@@ then he can go F' himself. No business being on the court.
Click to expand...

The more I think about the Whelan thing, the more I think it was a trial balloon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TennTom
#2,961
#2,961
Nothing the republicans do would placate the democrats outside of not confirming or continually pushing the vote past midterms.

We see what it is now. Ridiculous demands on the order of proceedings. She cant interview it's too soon. They have to guarantee her safety like that's not possible. She can't testify first, Kavanaugh has to. The FBI has to investigate before she testifies also. Even if the FBI investigated they'll pre-emptively state that only a week or two investigation is insufficient. When the FBI wraps up the investigation there'll be some anonymous source saying the Trump admin told the FBI to wrap in up prematurely.

And the MSM will happily play along and do their part spreading bs "because Trump".
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and SLICKYINC
#2,962
#2,962
volinbham said:
If Kavanaugh had anything to do with a strategy to implicate one of his classmates to save his own a@@ then he can go F' himself. No business being on the court.
Click to expand...

Irony is that a scheme like this would be just the thing to get the FBI involved. If true, of course.
 
#2,963
#2,963
And here we go. Good behavior, teleprompter Donny couldn't last. Will probably slut shame her before the night is done.

 
#2,964
#2,964
bamawriter said:
Saying "what if" doesn't get you out of a libel ruling.
Click to expand...
He merely floated the possibility of the party being at the Garrett house based upon location and house layout ( based on her recollection of house and rooms ). He said that the owner of the house was probably there, therefore one of the others mentioned wasn't, based on the number of people she said were there. He stated that he didn't know what, if anything happened at the house.
 
#2,965
#2,965
1972 Grad said:
He merely floated the possibility of the party being at the Garrett house based upon location and house layout ( based on her recollection of house and rooms ). He said that the owner of the house was probably there, therefore one of the others mentioned wasn't, based on the number of people she said were there. He stated that he didn't know what, if anything happened at the house.
Click to expand...

All of which would be acceptable in court. It is not acceptable from an established columnist on Twitter.
 
#2,966
#2,966
bamawriter said:
Saying "what if" doesn't get you out of a libel ruling.
Click to expand...
He merely floated the possibility of the party being at the Garrett house based upon location and house layout ( based on her recollection of house and rooms ). He said that the owner of the house was probably there, therefore one of the others mentioned wasn't, based on the number of people she said were there. He stated that he didn't know what, if anything happened at the house.
bamawriter said:
Saying "what if" doesn't get you out of a libel ruling.
Click to expand...
Since you too are apparently a lawyer, can Garrett prove that what was written is a lie?
 
#2,967
#2,967
evillawyer said:
And here we go. Good behavior, teleprompter Donny couldn't last. Will probably slut shame her before the night is done.

Click to expand...


It has to be hard to resist feeling like he might be able to make things better for Brett. He might be feeling Tweeter's remorse after this one.
 
#2,968
#2,968
1972 Grad said:
Since you too are apparently a lawyer, can Garrett prove that what was written is a lie?
Click to expand...

I never claimed to be a lawyer. I am, however, a member of the press. I know what is okay and what isn't.

And Garrett isn't a public figure. All he has to prove is that Whelan had a reckless disregard for the truth.

But liability aside, if Whelan's theory wasn't sourced then he has no business being published by any legitimate publication, nor should he be touting his expertise in the field of ethics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newarkvol
#2,969
#2,969
evillawyer said:
No one has the burden of proof. This is not a trial, there is no standard of proof, let alone a burden of proof or production. This is a glorified job interview.

Now, just speaking in terms of fairness and how things usually work in everyday life, the accuser informally has both the burden of proof and production, so Schiff is wrong about this. But he knows that.
Click to expand...

So Schiff is acting like a typical butthurt democrat. Gotcha.
 
Last edited:
#2,972
#2,972
bamawriter said:
I never claimed to be a lawyer. I am, however, a member of the press. I know what is okay and what isn't.

And Garrett isn't a public figure. All he has to prove is that Whelan had a reckless disregard for the truth.

But liability aside, if Whelan's theory wasn't sourced then he has no business being published by any legitimate publication, nor should he be touting his expertise in the field of ethics.
Click to expand...
He would have to prove that the statements are a lie, and that he suffered damages because of them. He never accused Garrett of anything. He stated the house fit the recollections of the woman. Have you read the whole thing? Is the house going to sue him? If so, what lie did he tell about the house?
 
#2,975
#2,975
1972 Grad said:
He would have to prove that the statements are a lie, and that he suffered damages because of them. He never accused Garrett of anything. He stated the house fit the recollections of the woman. Have you read the whole thing? Is the house going to sue him? If so, what lie did he tell about the house?
Click to expand...

He posted Garrett's picture and implied she might have mistaken him for Kavanaugh. The implication is that, if she was in fact attacked, Garrett might have been the real assailant.

If that implication is unsourced (and I have too much respect for Whelan to jump to that conclusion at the moment), then the implication is irresponsible at best and defamatory at worst. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top