He honestly reminds me of one of those pompous catholic priests who go on and on about all the good and righteous things they’ve done, with this air of indignant arrogance. It’s part of the act, and you realize it when to curtain comes down and you’ve got dozens of molested kids. Yeah, Kavanaugh fits the profile, totally.
rojo wrote:
They keep asking him to ask the president to reopen the FBI investigation. If I were him, I would say, "That's not my job."
But he also says he wants to clear his name. He can ask Trump to tell the Senate to pump the brakes and get and FBI invention done. There are still nearly FOUR months left when Republicans can vote on him. No need to rush. Save your reputation; and if that means destroying FORD's credibility then so be it.
rojo wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
I wasn't until he decided to not say that he's all for the FBI doing an investigation and that when asked if Mark Judge should be investigated by the FBI, he said "he has already given a sworn statement". Nope. If he wanted to clear his good name, he would want to call in anyone and everyone to be interviewed.
He is acting like a guilty person.
If I was him, I would want an FBI investigation. I would actually demand it. I think he doesn't ask for it because Trump and the GOP senators don't want it as it's a stall tactic and he doesn't want to piss of the people whose votes he need.
I think the reasonable thing would be to have like a 2 week investigation. They could easily do it and still vote before the midterms. The question I have is let's say after that he gets voted down, is there time to nominate a new judge before the midterms?
It amazes me that you are talking about "how he is acting." Three witnesses that Dr. Ford said were there say it didn't happen. So we're not talking about an absence of evidence, we're talking about a refutation of allegation.
They keep asking him to ask the president to reopen the FBI investigation. If I were him, I would say, "That's not my job."
However the Republicans are playing it, it's making them look bad. There are easier ways to stir up the base, looking this inept might be one, but there are demons here they're drawing up without reason.
This "FBI" can't stuff is ridiculous. You control the House, Senate and Presidency. And you can't have the FBI do something? Uh, okay.
Rojo, there is nothing to investigate. It’s just hear say. He went through multiple background checks previously that something like this would pop up.
What’s sad is democrats don’t care about Dr. Ford at all. It’s just politics to prevent a Republican from being a Supreme Court judge. Unfortunately, Republicans would probably do the same thing if the shoe were on the foot.
Grassley: Any committee member can ask for an FBI investigation at any time.
Yet Grassley who is refusing to allow an investigation for something that is important.
The is not going down the way the Dems thought it would.
He’s coming across as a emotional, passionate person. Going off script on his opening statement was brilliant. Made him more human and someone people can relate to.
On the other hand, she came off as very rehearsed and someone who has trouble remembering which stories she had told. In the end, I think she ended up more confused by her story.
FFF wrote:
However the Republicans are playing it, it's making them look bad. There are easier ways to stir up the base, looking this inept might be one, but there are demons here they're drawing up without reason.
This "FBI" can't stuff is ridiculous. You control the House, Senate and Presidency. And you can't have the FBI do something? Uh, okay.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to the "deep state" resistance of the FBI... totally biased democrats, all of them
One other thing, everyone talks about it being a lifetime appointment. That's not true .
They could confirm him now. Do an FBI investigation at the same time. If that comes back with some bad evidence, he'd easily be impeached. You can remove a SC justice with 2/3rds vote. If the guy is a gang rapist, everyone would want him out.
rojo wrote:
The question I have is let's say after that he gets voted down, is there time to nominate a new judge before the midterms?
Takes about 2 months to get through the process, so there certainly wouldn't be time to get another judge confirmed before the midterms. Perhaps it could go faster with Barrett as she just went through the process for appeals court last year. But Democrats would do everything they could to slow it down. Regardless of what you think of Ford, Kavanaugh, etc, the end game for Democrats is to delay, delay, delay and win the Senate in the midterms.
rojo wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
I wasn't until he decided to not say that he's all for the FBI doing an investigation and that when asked if Mark Judge should be investigated by the FBI, he said "he has already given a sworn statement". Nope. If he wanted to clear his good name, he would want to call in anyone and everyone to be interviewed.
He is acting like a guilty person.
If I was him, I would want an FBI investigation. I would actually demand it. I think he doesn't ask for it because Trump and the GOP senators don't want it as it's a stall tactic and he doesn't want to piss of the people whose votes he need.
That calling for further investigation might be a stall tactic is a pretty poor reason not to make a reasonable attempt to investigate the claims.
I think the reasonable thing would be to have like a 2 week investigation. They could easily do it and still vote before the midterms. The question I have is let's say after that he gets voted down, is there time to nominate a new judge before the midterms?
It amazes me that you are talking about "how he is acting." Three witnesses that Dr. Ford said were there say it didn't happen. So we're not talking about an absence of evidence, we're talking about a refutation of allegation.
Judge and Smythe have claimed "no recollection" of the event. They haven't refuted the allegation.
They keep asking him to ask the president to reopen the FBI investigation. If I were him, I would say, "That's not my job."
Throwing responsibility back on this president might not be a great political strategy.
rojo wrote:
One other thing, everyone talks about it being a lifetime appointment. That's not true .
They could confirm him now. Do an FBI investigation at the same time.
That is not the proper sequence. They can do an FBI investigation. Anita Hill's took all of three days. The Senate committee can review the new information and still get a vote done on Kavanaugh. Possibly even before mid-terms.
Flagpole wrote:
Are you listening to this? He is clearly guilty. He is answering like a guilty person. I realize perhaps you don't have the same ability of discernment as I do, but it is clear as day.
You are a disgrace to the common-law standards of English-speaking countries. Emigrate.
rojo wrote:
It amazes me that you are talking about "how he is acting." Three witnesses that Dr. Ford said were there say it didn't happen. So we're not talking about an absence of evidence, we're talking about a refutation of allegation.
They keep asking him to ask the president to reopen the FBI investigation. If I were him, I would say, "That's not my job."
Tucker and Keyser were not in the room and would not have seen the assault. Dr. Ford was spot on when she noted that neither would have remembered anything because nothing bad happened to them at the party. Judge was basically an accomplice. Everything about him is pretty pervy. So, I would not expect him to come out and say "oh yeah, we did it."
rojo wrote:
One other thing, everyone talks about it being a lifetime appointment. That's not true .
They could confirm him now. Do an FBI investigation at the same time. If that comes back with some bad evidence, he'd easily be impeached. You can remove a SC justice with 2/3rds vote. If the guy is a gang rapist, everyone would want him out.
I don't think you have been paying attention. There are quite a few Republicans who think that would be a plus...
Only one supreme court justice has ever been impeached in the history of the country. He was acquitted. So while it may be theoretically possible to remove one, it is for all practical purposes a lifetime appointment as that would be unprecedented.
asdghj wrote:
.... the end game for Democrats is to delay, delay, delay and win the Senate in the midterms.
But you are okay with the Republican's tactic to delay, delay, delay and win the Presidency before allowing a nominated SCOTUS to be heard from.
rojo wrote:
One other thing, everyone talks about it being a lifetime appointment. That's not true .
They could confirm him now. Do an FBI investigation at the same time. If that comes back with some bad evidence, he'd easily be impeached. You can remove a SC justice with 2/3rds vote. If the guy is a gang rapist, everyone would want him out.
Why would you ever confirm someone who is under investigation by the FBI? There shouldn't be multiple rape allegations against a SC justice, especially when being confirmed.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Are you listening to this? He is clearly guilty. He is answering like a guilty person. I realize perhaps you don't have the same ability of discernment as I do, but it is clear as day.
You are a disgrace to the common-law standards of English-speaking countries. Emigrate.
It's not a trial. Legal standards have nothing to do with it.
rojo wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
I wasn't until he decided to not say that he's all for the FBI doing an investigation and that when asked if Mark Judge should be investigated by the FBI, he said "he has already given a sworn statement". Nope. If he wanted to clear his good name, he would want to call in anyone and everyone to be interviewed.
He is acting like a guilty person.
If I was him, I would want an FBI investigation. I would actually demand it. I think he doesn't ask for it because Trump and the GOP senators don't want it as it's a stall tactic and he doesn't want to piss of the people whose votes he need.
I think the reasonable thing would be to have like a 2 week investigation. They could easily do it and still vote before the midterms. The question I have is let's say after that he gets voted down, is there time to nominate a new judge before the midterms?
It amazes me that you are talking about "how he is acting." Three witnesses that Dr. Ford said were there say it didn't happen. So we're not talking about an absence of evidence, we're talking about a refutation of allegation.
They keep asking him to ask the president to reopen the FBI investigation. If I were him, I would say, "That's not my job."
You are right that he SHOULD be asking for an FBI investigation. Why not? He said he wants to clear his name. So, why not? I don't buy the GOP or Trump wish. He is fighting not just for the job of the Supreme Court but possibly the job he has, the coaching he does, his marriage for all we know, his reputation. He could say "The Majority Party and the President don't want an FBI investigation to stall the process". He's not saying that at all. Also, he COULD say, "if I am NOT confirmed, I will demand an FBI investigation to clear my name." He has also not done that.
People say things that they wouldn't under threat of perjury in an official investigation.
Also, I agree that while Dr. Ford seems very credible that as far as burden of proof, unless Mark Judge were investigated and he corroborated her story, Kavanaugh likely could not be found guilty in a court of law. But, we are talking about two other accusations also, and the bar isn't the same as finding him criminally guilty. The bar is whether any investigation or comments from Kavanaugh or Ford or anyone else makes enough Senators decide to vote no.
Now, he just started barking back at question askers "Do you drink beer?" "Have you ever passed out?" Really bad form. THEY ask the questions. HE answers them.
He's guilty of something that he doesn't want known. For sure.
Kavanaugh, Schmavanaugh wrote:
rojo wrote:
One other thing, everyone talks about it being a lifetime appointment. That's not true .
They could confirm him now. Do an FBI investigation at the same time. If that comes back with some bad evidence, he'd easily be impeached. You can remove a SC justice with 2/3rds vote. If the guy is a gang rapist, everyone would want him out.
I don't think you have been paying attention. There are quite a few Republicans who think that would be a plus...
Only one supreme court justice has ever been impeached in the history of the country. He was acquitted. So while it may be theoretically possible to remove one, it is for all practical purposes a lifetime appointment as that would be unprecedented.
Plus he is very, very clearly perjuring himself on the questions about his drinking. The Republicans don't care. If current day perjury isn't moving the needle, there is no reason to think that past rape would. Ask Kevin Cramer.
rojo wrote:
One other thing, everyone talks about it being a lifetime appointment. That's not true .
They could confirm him now. Do an FBI investigation at the same time. If that comes back with some bad evidence, he'd easily be impeached. You can remove a SC justice with 2/3rds vote. If the guy is a gang rapist, everyone would want him out.
True...and I think that could happen, especially with Avenatti's client. Of course, it it HARDER to go that route, and who knows what decisions he might make before then.