Reith wrote:
Also, and again although Kavanaugh has committed perjury, Swetnick is a terrible liar. Now Swetnick is saying that she saw Kavanaugh “near the punch bowl.” In her written statement, she said he made efforts to spike the punch bowl. It is a huge backtrack and shows she cannot be trusted.
That reporter appears to be making things up.
You - are the idiot. wrote:
Reith wrote:
Of course she backtracked. If you cannot tell the line of demarcation between a line and a huddle you are too intellectually dishonest and/or stupid to offer anything meaningful here. Or maybe you are a sociopath like Kavanaugh...
Put a bunch of guys in a hallway outside of a bedroom.
Now tell me, are they in a line or a huddle???? And what freaking difference does it make.
Answer: No freaking difference.
A bunch of guys outside a room are not necessarily rapists idiot...BUT if they are lined up to take their turn on a woman inside the room, that is totally different. She first made it sound like it was a lunch line and then she changed her story. She is obviously a liar.
Kavannaugh should be disqualified:
There is simply no room for a judge that is publicly partisan (angry or not) on the supreme court. It is the very least to ask for a judge that appears to be fair and non-partisan.
There are other judges, and there is no real reason to hold on to Kavannaugh.
The fact that Kavvanaugh got angry and blamed the democrats (and the Clintons), was a gift for the committee - this alone should have helped them to decide not to nominate him - there is just no room for this behavior. Even if it was the opposite - blaming the republicans, this should simply not be acceptable.
Sex or no sex, drinking or no drinking,, this behavior ALONE should kill this nomination.
Nominating him will destroy the credibility of the supreme court and may have further consequences on - future nominations, on even more extreme partisanship and splitting this country.
What the heck is so special about him that everyone is holding?
IF THERE IS DOUBT, THERE IS NO DOUBT! bring on the next!
Let's even assume the democrats orchestrated the whole thing as Kavannaugh suggests. It is not for him to pitch this, he should be above this (especially if he is innocent). This is exactly how he is judged and how we want him to judge. This is the supreme court, a life-time position, and we can't take risks.
Let me give you a hypothetical situations:
1. Suppose you want to hire a prinpical for your childrens' school. Now there is some group A of parent that for some reason , whatever it is (they think he is racist, or unprofessional, or there is a chance that he is drinking too much), don't want this candidate to be the principal. Group B of parents do want him.
Now suppose the candidate goes ahead and attacks group A of parents for their claims rather than simply answering questions in a respectful way to try and convince that he is a credible judge and they are mistaking.
Be honest: would you hire this person to be the principal of your children's school?
2. a similar situation can arise when attempting to hire a CEO that the marketing group doesn't like for some reason and he simply attacks them for coming up with some claims. Would n't it be more reasonable to provide respectful answers for why they may be wrong and why he will run the company while listening to ALL workers? would you hire such a candidate? be honest...
This is the future of our kids! we are hiring someone to a life-time position, for one of the most important positions in America.
IF THERE IS DOUBT, THERE IS NO DOUBT
rojo wrote:
If you support Kavanaugh, please tell me how he told the truth about his drinking. It reminds me so much of bill clinton it's amazing. Update: I didn't do what joedirt says I should do in the post below so can someone do what he wants me to do.
I do think he was lying about the yearbook stuff out of embarrassment and greatly downplaying drinking. I don't think you can convict someone for perjury over what was going on in a 16-year-old's mind when he wrote something.
Hardloper wrote:
rojo wrote:
If you support Kavanaugh, please tell me how he told the truth about his drinking. It reminds me so much of bill clinton it's amazing. Update: I didn't do what joedirt says I should do in the post below so can someone do what he wants me to do.
I do think he was lying about the yearbook stuff out of embarrassment and greatly downplaying drinking. I don't think you can convict someone for perjury over what was going on in a 16-year-old's mind when he wrote something.
No, you convict him of perjury for LYING as a 53 year old...if he were to intentionally deceive under oath about whether he cheated on tests as a 12 year old, it is not what went through his mind as a 12 year old that matters as much as his lying as a 53 year old about it. Surely you can comprehend this?
itai3142 wrote:
Kavannaugh should be disqualified:
There is simply no room for a judge that is publicly partisan (angry or not) on the supreme court. It is the very least to ask for a judge that appears to be fair and non-partisan.
There are other judges, and there is no real reason to hold on to Kavannaugh.
The fact that Kavvanaugh got angry and blamed the democrats (and the Clintons), was a gift for the committee - this alone should have helped them to decide not to nominate him - there is just no room for this behavior. Even if it was the opposite - blaming the republicans, this should simply not be acceptable.
Sex or no sex, drinking or no drinking,, this behavior ALONE should kill this nomination.
I absolutely agree with that. His attitude and opening statement were shocking, along with his responses like asking senators if they get drunk. I was expecting one of the Democrats to give up the 5 minutes questioning and simply focus on that aspect, telling Kavanaugh that they didn't know who told him how to act that way, or if he figured it out on his own, but either way it was disgraceful and should be disqualifying for justice on any level.
It really is difficult to believe anyone questioned for Supreme Court nomination could think it was proper to whine and blame it on the Clintons or Democrats losing in 2016. Yet somehow we've got Lindsey Graham ignoring that stuff completely while pretending Kavanaugh is wronged.
Bizarro Trumpeteer world applied to every level
wejo wrote:
joedirt wrote:
Actually, if you notice Kavanaugh's testimony, he is careful not to perjure himself (he will either delay or deflect the question while he considers his words, but he will not lie). As far as the letter from one of his classmates at Yale that Booker read, it would be inadmissible in court as she is stating that he must have blacked out (it would be impossible for another person to determine if someone else blacked out). She could say he drank a lot of beer (which he has already testified to), but she can't say what frame of mind he is in. If you want to talk about respect for the rule of law, he has it. Whereas the Democrats who are calling for the FBI investigation have no respect for the rule of law.
I agree the alcohol thing is deflecting or minimizing. I didn't doubt from his testimony that he drank a lot in college. People can dispute whether they blacked out.
But how do you explain the devil's triangle and boofing? You're going to argue the terms meant something else? I wasn't familiar with the terms and perhaps Devil's Triangle was also the name of their drinking game as well but unless someone else vouched for that I'd say he wasn't telling the truth there. And our legal system is based on telling the truth. Even if she made the whole thing up, he still should tell the truth.
As for Kavanaugh getting pissed, if this whole thing was made up I wouldn't really blame him for being pissed or calling people out. However, I still want him to tell the truth.
Agreed. He just can't lie like that. About the embarrassing things in the yearbook, he could have easily said that they were immature teenagers and said things that he is now embarrassed about instead of coming up with a fictitious drinking game, etc. The problem with lying like that is that it puts into doubt ANYTHING he says.
I am pleased to see you and Rojo being very fair and logical about all of this.
Backtracker wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Show me a post where I said I believed ANY of the accusers. I never said that ever. I DID say we should hear what all of them had to say and that Swetnick had witnesses who would corroborate her story. I actually ALSO criticized Avenatti for backtracking a bit in one of HIS recent television interviews.
Good lord, do any of you people have any ability to read and comprehend?
You backed the wrong horse, brother. Aveneitt's an idiot. Only you believed what they both were spouting off about.
How did those witnesses you said would corroborate her story turn out? Another flagpolian flop.
Just another time where you were wrong. Not that its rare or anything.
I have ONLY said that she seems credible to me and that Avenatti has a good track record. Avenatti is clearly NOT an idiot. Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to two felony accounts of campaign finance law violation and fingered Trump as a co-conspirator because of Avenatti.
Avenatti has just said that he has a witness who will state under oath that she or he (unnamed as of now) witnessed Kavanaugh and Mark Judge spiking the punch with grain alcohol and Quaaludes for the purposes named.
You are quick to claim victory here. Collins has said the FBI needs to interview Swetnick. The witnesses they say exist are still there according to them.
I'm just saying Swetnick and Avenatti deserve to be heard. I have not said ever that I believe anyone. The only thing I DO believe is that Kavanaugh is a liar...it's just not clear how many things he is lying about yet.
Avenatti needs to put up. We shall see if he does.
Reith wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Yeah...I just watched the interview. Despite Snow saying that Swetnick said some things that were different than her written testimony, she didn't say what those were, and I didn't hear any backtracking at all, and I'm sure Avenatti would agree.
Who cares what Avenatti agrees with? Flags, she backtracked by first saying the boys were lined up to rape girls and now she says the boys were huddled up. Credibility matters. Kavanaugh is a lying sociopath and Swetnick is a liar. Case closed.
Meh...waiting outside a bedroom door is what is meant there. You are right about Kavanaugh though.
Exactly right! Kavanaugh is just not at the very big league
itai3412 wrote:
Let's even assume the democrats orchestrated the whole thing as Kavannaugh suggests. It is not for him to pitch this, he should be above this (especially if he is innocent). This is exactly how he is judged and how we want him to judge. This is the supreme court, a life-time position, and we can't take risks.
Let me give you a hypothetical situations:
1. Suppose you want to hire a prinpical for your childrens' school. Now there is some group A of parent that for some reason , whatever it is (they think he is racist, or unprofessional, or there is a chance that he is drinking too much), don't want this candidate to be the principal. Group B of parents do want him.
Now suppose the candidate goes ahead and attacks group A of parents for their claims rather than simply answering questions in a respectful way to try and convince that he is a credible judge and they are mistaking.
Be honest: would you hire this person to be the principal of your children's school?
2. a similar situation can arise when attempting to hire a CEO that the marketing group doesn't like for some reason and he simply attacks them for coming up with some claims. Would n't it be more reasonable to provide respectful answers for why they may be wrong and why he will run the company while listening to ALL workers? would you hire such a candidate? be honest...
This is the future of our kids! we are hiring someone to a life-time position, for one of the most important positions in America.
IF THERE IS DOUBT, THERE IS NO DOUBT
That’s a good way to put it!
Awsi Dooger wrote:
itai3142 wrote:
Kavannaugh should be disqualified:
There is simply no room for a judge that is publicly partisan (angry or not) on the supreme court. It is the very least to ask for a judge that appears to be fair and non-partisan.
There are other judges, and there is no real reason to hold on to Kavannaugh.
The fact that Kavvanaugh got angry and blamed the democrats (and the Clintons), was a gift for the committee - this alone should have helped them to decide not to nominate him - there is just no room for this behavior. Even if it was the opposite - blaming the republicans, this should simply not be acceptable.
Sex or no sex, drinking or no drinking,, this behavior ALONE should kill this nomination.
I absolutely agree with that. His attitude and opening statement were shocking, along with his responses like asking senators if they get drunk. I was expecting one of the Democrats to give up the 5 minutes questioning and simply focus on that aspect, telling Kavanaugh that they didn't know who told him how to act that way, or if he figured it out on his own, but either way it was disgraceful and should be disqualifying for justice on any level.
It really is difficult to believe anyone questioned for Supreme Court nomination could think it was proper to whine and blame it on the Clintons or Democrats losing in 2016. Yet somehow we've got Lindsey Graham ignoring that stuff completely while pretending Kavanaugh is wronged.
Bizarro Trumpeteer world applied to every level
The simple truth! In a normal world the sexual assault or the drinking or the lying wouldn’t matter any more. In this hearing he proved he is not a the right fit for this job.
So, in the last day, we have found out:
1) Kavanaugh was involved in a bar fight while drunk while a student at Yale.
2) New former classmate at Yale says Kavanaugh was a stumbling drunk and basically lied to the Senate Committee about his level of drinking.
3) There is apparently some evidence in the form of text messages, that Kavanaugh knew about the Ramirez accusation before it became public. This is important because he testified under oath that he found out when everyone else did...when it was published.
4) Julie Swetnick's lawyer Michael Avenatti has announced that he has a witness who will testify that he or she (unnamed so far) saw Kavanaugh and Mark Judge spike punch with grain alcohol and Quaaludes.
He sounds like a Prince (No disrespect intended to the greatest guitarist of the last 30 years, the late, great Prince).
download and copy wrote:
It'a all out there, somewhere. wrote:
He doesn't need one and doesn't need a camera, just download/copy from the net, which he did.
LOL . . . he Photoshopped the BS claims. You are incredibly dumb to think people post their personal yearbooks and diaries on the internet. Dumb. Really dumb. Incredibly dumb. IQ45 dumb.
Fox News don't need copies from the net, they now have originals that they've been displaying on TV, so if anyone can find dirt in them they can. I'm guessing they'll be more than Chrissy squirming with anticipation right now.
Mo v rupp wrote:
The simple truth! In a normal world the sexual assault or the drinking or the lying wouldn’t matter any more. In this hearing he proved he is not a the right fit for this job.
Translation = "The sexual assault case turned out to be too weak so let's pivot to a different reason we don't like him"
Hardloper wrote:
Mo v rupp wrote:
The simple truth! In a normal world the sexual assault or the drinking or the lying wouldn’t matter any more. In this hearing he proved he is not a the right fit for this job.
Translation = "The sexual assault case turned out to be too weak so let's pivot to a different reason we don't like him"
Wrong translation. I believe he is lying about many things. But I literally don’t care anymore because he just not a good fit to this prestigious job. His behavior over the hearing should simply disqualified him.
Would you hire someone who attacks some of the school board during interviewing to the principal of your children school? (regal dress if what some of the board has agains the candidate).
Be honest! Is attacking the board the way to answer questions or concerns?
Mo v Farrah wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
Translation = "The sexual assault case turned out to be too weak so let's pivot to a different reason we don't like him"
Wrong translation. I believe he is lying about many things. But I literally don’t care anymore because he just not a good fit to this prestigious job. His behavior over the hearing should simply disqualified him.
Would you hire someone who attacks some of the school board during interviewing to the principal of your children school? (regal dress if what some of the board has agains the candidate).
Be honest! Is attacking the board the way to answer questions or concerns?
It's not a job interview. It's an investigation into a sexual assault accusation which Dianne Feinstein leaked and then lied about it in order to stall and obstruct his nomination.
Hardloper wrote:
Mo v rupp wrote:
The simple truth! In a normal world the sexual assault or the drinking or the lying wouldn’t matter any more. In this hearing he proved he is not a the right fit for this job.
Translation = "The sexual assault case turned out to be too weak so let's pivot to a different reason we don't like him"
Whether he is lying (probably is about some things) will be revealed.
The point is this: I didn’t like scalia’s opinions nor Gorsuch’s but I respect these people for their integrity. Kavanaugh lost it in this hearing by attacking half the committee. I lost my respect to him and don’t trust him in the most important position.
Why do you want him so much in office? There are other judges out there.. why not find someone who just has the maturity and integrity with no partisan behavior
Not sure I agree.. wrote:
traditional conservative republicans always vote in mid-terms
No demographic always votes in midterms, not even seniors. The ones you know aren't representative.
It's also not just about voting, but their mood. Fired-up voters influence other voters, reluctant voters do not. That's why Hillary lost. Remember her photoshopped campaign rallies to make it look like there was a crowd?