EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,382
|
Post by EtomicB on Sept 28, 2018 13:13:33 GMT -5
Brookes quote is meaningless. About as meaningless as Chris Dudley's quote. One for, one against. Drawn up by party lines. Dudley saying he "never saw him blacked out" doesn't answer the question of whether he drank so much he doesn't remember everything that happened while drunk.. Kavanaugh is trying to play it like he was always in control when he drank, which is hard to believe for anyone who loves beer... |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,454
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 28, 2018 13:16:56 GMT -5
Trump remarkably composed in response to Flake's action, called Dr. Ford "a very credible witness" and "fine woman". Leaving it up to the Senate but let's see if he orders the reopening of the FBI background investigation. And then wait for the tweets over the weekend!
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,454
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 28, 2018 14:02:35 GMT -5
Mark Judge is a represented person and has retained Barbara van Gelder ("Biz") to her friends -- I know her slightly from her days an Assistant U.S. Attorney in DC. Thus, the FBI can't simply track him down to interview him but must go through counsel. I wonder who is paying Judge's legal fees if I want to go down the path of conspiracy? I see no reason that he would cooperate with the FBI and the FBI lacks its own subpoena power for purposes of a background investigation. If I'm van Gelder, I decline to let my client be interviewed. EDIT: van Gelder says will "cooperate" if investigated "confidentially" whatever that means. The easy out -- "I was such a drunk back then I can't/don't remember." The gaping hole in that argument is that there could be corroborating evidence, if Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee had asked for it before Thursday’s hearing. Ford places a third person in the room at the time of her attack, Kavanaugh’s high school friend Mark Judge. Judge’s presence is a key part of her story, one that struck a former sex-crimes prosecutor as elevating it to the realm of credible: “She put a third person in the room,” Linda Fairstein, former chief of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s Sex Crimes Bureau, told The Washington Post. “If you were making something up, why would you do that?” www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/republicans-are-giving-some-tortured-explanations-moving-ahead-kavanaugh/?utm_term=.e37e2649d77a |
|
|
|
Post by grokamok on Sept 28, 2018 14:13:48 GMT -5
In any case, he should avoid wooded public spaces along the GW Parkway... I doubt there is any true cause for concern for the man, though. Judge should also avoid canoeing on the Potomac as well. See e.g., William Colby  OK. Now I'm a little worried for him. Especially if someone calls in a favor from the aforementioned, um, New Yorkers. Still likely baked. The cynic in me says this was less about Flake's consideration of the situation at hand and more about pre-play against Booker's 2020 run. Kavanaugh is trying to play it like he was always in control when he drank, which is hard to believe for anyone who loves beer... 🎼 ...it makes me a jolly good fellow! ♬ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 14:18:20 GMT -5
You're right that it isn't a court of law. But it is basically a job interview. If these types of things were to come out about me in a job interview (even if not provable in a court of law), I wouldn't get the job. And I'd probably lose the job I have now. I'm a relatively privileged white male. Just not as privileged as Brett Kavanaugh, I guess. And if you truly believe that Dr. Ford was credible, and Kavanaugh was too, why not propose taking the time to explore things further? Why does the "tie" go to Kavanaugh? A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. As others have noted, that's how things work in court. He's not on trial (although he has found a pretty solid "jury of his peers" in all of the privileged white guys on the R side of the Committee). If you think her claims of having been sexually assaulted are credible, you should want to know more. Otherwise, it's just CYA while telling women that they don't matter. "I just don't believe her" is a more defensible position than "I found her credible, but I just don't care." Unless of course, you are picking and choosing which parts of her testimony you think are credible. After all, she said she was "100%" certain Kavanaugh assaulted her. You can't call that credible and then ignore it. |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,454
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 28, 2018 14:27:00 GMT -5
ABA judicial investigation of Kavanaugh in 2006: The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.” “One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.’” A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been “sanctimonious” during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers considered him inexperienced, and one said he “dissembled” in the courtroom. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too/?utm_term=.fd139772bdf5 |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,454
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 28, 2018 15:59:09 GMT -5
Trump bumping against the guardrails: Ordered reopening of FBI background investigation into newly-discovered derogatory information about Kavanaugh to be limited in scope and time. A rare reversal and not a doubling down by Trump. Who'd have thunk it??
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,680
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 28, 2018 20:16:06 GMT -5
You're right that it isn't a court of law. But it is basically a job interview. If these types of things were to come out about me in a job interview (even if not provable in a court of law), I wouldn't get the job. And I'd probably lose the job I have now. I'm a relatively privileged white male. Just not as privileged as Brett Kavanaugh, I guess. And if you truly believe that Dr. Ford was credible, and Kavanaugh was too, why not propose taking the time to explore things further? Why does the "tie" go to Kavanaugh? A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Finally! Something on which we can all agree! Now if we can just find the discussion where it's relevant because it's not this one. |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,454
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 29, 2018 6:45:56 GMT -5
“To my Republican colleagues, if you vote ‘no,’ you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics,” he [Lindsey Graham] said. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jeff-flake-takes-center-stage-in-kavanaugh-drama--with-no-clear-final-act-in-sight/2018/09/28/dba15c96-c355-11e8-a1f0-a4051b6ad114_story.html?utm_term=.8eb693ec32f6I guess he missed Trump's Helskinki public slurping of Putin, Trump's post-Charlottesville rant about good people" on both sides", his attack on a Gold Star family (the Khans) and on a Gold Star widow (Mrs. Johnson). Yeah, Lindsey must have been taking a snooze on his fainting couch. Then Graham says: “I am in a different place in terms of ready to vote. I think the process has been abused by our friends on the other side, but Jeff is one of the most decent, sincere people I know,” Graham said. “I will not question his motives, I will honor his request, and when it’s all said and done, Jeff, Susan, Lisa and others who have concerns are being listened to.” Maybe he's bipolar or more likely just a hypocrite like the rest of 'em. |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,454
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 29, 2018 7:43:22 GMT -5
Forget about Roe v. Wade. This is why Trump and Hatch want Kavanaugh: Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trump’s power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldn’t be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example—he was convicted last month in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud—both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws. (Both states have a double-jeopardy law that bars secondary state prosecutions for committing “the same act,” but there are important exceptions, as the Fordham University School of Law professor Jed Shugerman has noted.) If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed, as Hatch wants, then Trump’s pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/trump-pardon-orrin-hatch-supreme-court/571285/ |
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,234
|
Post by hoya9797 on Sept 29, 2018 9:56:37 GMT -5
Leland, the other woman that Dr. Ford said was at the party, is the former GU women’s golf coach.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 29, 2018 10:19:26 GMT -5
A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Finally! Something on which we can all agree! Now if we can just find the discussion where it's relevant because it's not this one. A hypothetical, Tas. Suppose you applied for a higher position but someone accuses you of using the N word or of repeatedly using homophobic language while in high school or college; and, you know that, if it were true, it would, by itself, cost you that new job. Are you not innocent unless the accuser can prove his/her charges? Now I know no analogy is perfect but my hypothetical is similar to that of Brett Kavanaugh. If someone makes a charge against you, are you not presumed innocent even though it is not a court case? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 10:51:57 GMT -5
Finally! Something on which we can all agree! Now if we can just find the discussion where it's relevant because it's not this one. A hypothetical, Tas. Suppose you applied for a higher position but someone accuses you of using the N word or of repeatedly using homophobic language while in high school or college; and, you know that, if it were true, it would, by itself, cost you that new job. Are you not innocent unless the accuser can prove his/her charges? Now I know no analogy is perfect but my hypothetical is similar to that of Brett Kavanaugh. If someone makes a charge against you, are you not presumed innocent even though it is not a court case? Why as an employer should I take that risk? My job is to find the best candidate. Why wouldn't I just go find another qualified candidate who doesn't have these red flags? He's not going to go to jail or face any penalty from the law, the punishment you are describing is him not getting a promotion. If Kav doesn't get a promotion he would be punished by returning to his judgeship in one of the most powerful courts in the country, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On a side note Kavanaugh has told a lot of verifiable lies that should disqualify him anyways. You shouldn't be able to lie your way onto the Supreme Court... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 11:30:05 GMT -5
Conservatives kept a Supreme Court seat open for a year because they simply didn't like his politics. No talk of he was unqualified, or dishonest. No allegations that he was a fierce partisan, or red flags in his background.
They didn't like his politics, so they refused to seat him. Then they bragged about it. With all of the righteous sanctimony coming from the right currently it should be mentioned..
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,234
|
Post by hoya9797 on Sept 29, 2018 12:07:34 GMT -5
Imagine if you are sitting on a board of directors and you are looking to hire a new CEO. You get to a final candidate and find out that there is at least one credible sexual assault allegation against him. When you bring him in to talk about it, he gets beligerant, yells and belittles other members of the board, and tells obvious lies about issues related to the claim. In what world would that guy have any chance at the job let alone be held up as some victim that is deserving of sympathy?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Sept 29, 2018 12:35:39 GMT -5
A hypothetical, Tas. Suppose you applied for a higher position but someone accuses you of using the N word or of repeatedly using homophobic language while in high school or college; and, you know that, if it were true, it would, by itself, cost you that new job. Are you not innocent unless the accuser can prove his/her charges? Republicans 2018 : arguing against employment-at-will to own the libs |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,454
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 29, 2018 13:18:07 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 14:52:46 GMT -5
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,234
|
Post by hoya9797 on Sept 29, 2018 16:22:19 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
A New Low
Sept 29, 2018 16:35:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 16:35:57 GMT -5
Smh....
Why is the WH involved at all in handpicking the probe’s targets?
|
|
