Kavanaugh Confirmation

#5,005
#5,005
evillawyer said:
You guys are looking/asking for smoking gun evidence. You're not going to find it. What you have to look for here are things that corroborate the competing claims, contradictions in testimony, etc.

I think Kavanaugh taking absolute positions on his lifestyle during this time (late HS, early college) is going to hurt him because it is already contracted by other people who knew him well. That hurts his credibility. And more could be forthcoming on this.
Click to expand...

Giving that interview was a mistake. He should have been patient and kept his mouth shut.
 
#5,006
#5,006
NurseGoodVol said:
Meanwhile, back at the batty cave...View attachment 169998
Click to expand...

Last time he pulled this crap it was for some big reveal and lasted like maybe 12 hrs?

Gonna guess this time he got punked and is about to to get professionally punked in the defamation case too and doesn’t want to deal with it. Hopefully all of the @ tweets he’s getting sent still go thru... 😂. No idea though I don’t tweet.
 
#5,008
#5,008
txbo said:
Giving that interview was a mistake. He should have been patient and kept his mouth shut.
Click to expand...

Yep, don't put factual statements out there. That just gives people a hook for locating possible contradictions/inconsistencies. Especially when your best friend wrote a book with the character "Bart O'Kavanaugh," who was not a choir boy.
 
#5,011
#5,011
evillawyer said:
Two points: (1) Not a trial. No rules of evidence here. (2) Even if it were a trial, there are lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow hearsay to be admitted.
Click to expand...
I reject both of your damn points! It doesn’t mean that just because it isn’t a trial that you throw the damn logic behind what is credible and what isn’t out the window! It just means you don’t have a judge saying pound sand counselor. And I’ll guess that’s really what’s at play here. You guys can pipe out anything with giddy delight and not have to prove it. Well too bad we can say you’re FOS it isn’t credible in our minds!

And hearsay is still hearsay! Even if it’s admitted if the other lawyer is doing his job he’s labeled it in the jury’s mind as hearsay!
 
#5,012
#5,012
SpaceCoastVol said:
You're fos. This is a trial.
Click to expand...

No, it's a glorified job interview. There are no findings of fact or law. There is no application of law to facts. The end result will simply be a vote up or down to pass him on to the full senate for a final vote. That's it. Nothing more.
 
#5,014
#5,014
evillawyer said:
Yep, don't put factual statements out there. That just gives people a hook for locating possible contradictions/inconsistencies. Especially when your best friend wrote a book with the character "Bart O'Kavanaugh," who was not a choir boy.
Click to expand...

I agree. Whether the "contradictions/inconcistencies" are truthful or not, he gave them the opportunity by talking. An experienced legal mind should have known better.
 
Last edited:
#5,015
#5,015
NorthDallas40 said:
Last time he pulled this crap it was for some big reveal and lasted like maybe 12 hrs?

Gonna guess this time he got punked and is about to to get professionally punked in the defamation case too and doesn’t want to deal with it. Hopefully all of the @ tweets he’s getting sent still go thru... 😂. No idea though I don’t tweet.
Click to expand...
I don't know if he's still receiving tweets, I'm pretty sure he is. But any follows have to be approved. I think mine will not be, I've been very vocal against him. But I've never shut my account down or blocked anyone soooo....i watch what happens on there mostly, both sides. I must say, there are some real gems on twitter.
 
#5,016
#5,016
evillawyer said:
No, it's a glorified job interview. There are no findings of fact or law. There is no application of law to facts. The end result will simply be a vote up or down to pass him on to the full senate for a final vote. That's it. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
You will reap what you sow when Ginsburg dies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#5,017
#5,017
evillawyer said:
No, it's a glorified job interview. There are no findings of fact or law. There is no application of law to facts. The end result will simply be a vote up or down to pass him on to the full senate for a final vote. That's it. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Just like Mitch told Harry Reid not that long ago ... This stuff is going to come back and bite you in the ass and probably sooner rather than later .
 
#5,018
#5,018
evillawyer said:
Two points: (1) Not a trial. No rules of evidence here. (2) Even if it were a trial, there are lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow hearsay to be admitted.
Click to expand...
and as it is not a trial there is no requirement to accept the hearsay.
 
#5,019
#5,019
txbo said:
I agree. Whether the "contradictions/inconcistencies" are truthful or not, he gave them info that he gave them the opportunity by talking. An experienced legal mind should have known better.
Click to expand...
I've read that he didn't want to go through with this, but others wanted it. Nothing was to be gained by this.
 
#5,020
#5,020
txbo said:
I agree. Whether the "contradictions/inconcistencies" are truthful or not, he gave them info that he gave them the opportunity by talking. An experienced legal mind should have known better.
Click to expand...
That I agree with. He wasn’t force to add those factual statements.

In fact if the moonbats would actually attack that angle and point to a lack of critical thinking on Ks part I’d give them credit.
 
#5,022
#5,022
LouderVol said:
and as it is not a trial there is no requirement to accept the hearsay.
Click to expand...
Don't worry grasshopper. The GOP members of the Judiciary Committee have already said "they'll hear the lady out," but it's not going to make a difference in how they vote.
 
#5,024
#5,024
LouderVol said:
and as it is not a trial there is no requirement to accept the hearsay.
Click to expand...
If it is not a trial, there is no requirement to accept ANY of it. The Judiciary committee could/should just confirm him and send it to the floor. If he gets shot down, the Dems will never get another Supreme Court Justice confirmed in my lifetime.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top