SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,454
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 29, 2018 16:48:00 GMT -5
As I suspected in my previous post. . . But his dissembling about his drinking in his sworn testimony is problematic as well. I guess that is simply going to be ignored? Is the FBI going to investigate his drinking habits in high school and college to see if he was truthful or not? That goes to the heart of character and fitness to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. Not to mention his judicial temperament which was revealed to be quite suspect even if he believes he was truly the target of a left wing conspiracy. |
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,234
|
Post by hoya9797 on Sept 29, 2018 17:17:15 GMT -5
The FBI can not talk to the Safeway to find out when Judge worked there, can not examine the conflicting reports about drinking at Yale, and can not investigate the Swetnick claims, and may not be able to follow up on any new coroberating witnesses that they find. So, that is the list of things the White House is most afraid of.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,234
|
Post by hoya9797 on Sept 29, 2018 17:25:24 GMT -5
Here’s what Trump said about this “investigation” today:
The thing is, he probably thought that was true and is finding out about the limits at the same time we are. He has no idea what is going on in his own admin.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,454
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 29, 2018 17:25:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
A New Low
Sept 29, 2018 18:57:23 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 18:57:23 GMT -5
Literally everyone, including the White House knows this guy tells a lot of lies, but I guess Republicans think that qualifies him to be a a Supreme Court Justice for life..
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,454
|
A New Low
Sept 29, 2018 19:32:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by SSHoya on Sept 29, 2018 19:32:32 GMT -5
Literally everyone, including the White House knows this guy tells a lot of lies, but I guess Republicans think that qualifies him to be a a Supreme Court Justice for life.. It's a feature, not a big. IOW, a bona fide occupational qualification or BFOQ in the parlance of employment law. |
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,680
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 29, 2018 20:26:38 GMT -5
As I suspected in my previous post. . . But his dissembling about his drinking in his sworn testimony is problematic as well. I guess that is simply going to be ignored? Is the FBI going to investigate his drinking habits in high school and college to see if he was truthful or not? That goes to the heart of character and fitness to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. Not to mention his judicial temperament which was revealed to be quite suspect even if he believes he was truly the target of a left wing conspiracy. A guy that lashes out the way Kavanaugh did while sober usually makes for a pretty nasty individual with several pops in him. I'm not saying that's necessarily true of him but, in my experience, the correlation is really strong. |
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,680
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 29, 2018 20:31:46 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? I suppose that's true. It's the language itself that invokes the legal aspect. Then again, I'd answer the accusations truthfully and not lash out at the interviewer asking about the allegations considering, in your scenario, I want the job and the interviewer wasn't the one accusing me of anything. I'd expect that lashing out at the interviewer would cost me the job as well. |
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,680
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 29, 2018 20:43:08 GMT -5
On a side note, I want to say thank you to Ed for continuing to offer his thoughts. I wish more people that share some of his opinions would. I know these are adversarial discussions but I think it's important to get the perspective of those that think differently. Ed signs on knowing he's going to get blasted but I'm very appreciative that he continues to offer his thoughts despite knowing how it's going to go.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,454
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 30, 2018 6:41:38 GMT -5
As I suspected in my previous post. . . But his dissembling about his drinking in his sworn testimony is problematic as well. I guess that is simply going to be ignored? Is the FBI going to investigate his drinking habits in high school and college to see if he was truthful or not? That goes to the heart of character and fitness to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. Not to mention his judicial temperament which was revealed to be quite suspect even if he believes he was truly the target of a left wing conspiracy. A guy that lashes out the way Kavanaugh did while sober usually makes for a pretty nasty individual with several pops in him. I'm not saying that's necessarily true of him but, in my experience, the correlation is really strong. Are we certain he was sober when he went on his rant?  Only kidding, sort of. In the hundreds of depositions I have taken I always start off by asking the deponent how they feel, are they on any medications or any reason why the deponent would be unable to testify fully, accurately, etc... IIRC, the "prosecutor" did ask Dr. Ford a similar line of questions. I don't recall that Kavanaugh was asked that by the "prosecutor" before she was sidelined by the Republicans. I believe Nina Totenberg said that one thing she did was that she replayed the testimony of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh without the sound to see only the body language and facial expressions. Her opinion was that the Judge was somewhat unhinged (not her word but how I interpreted what she was conveying). She referenced the Kennedy/Nixon debates where those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy won but those who only listened on the radio thought Nixon did. The second is genuine concern as to whether he was telling the truth and the whole truth under oath — with regard to his acquaintances, sexual innuendos in his yearbook and, most of all, his drinking. These are small matters, his defenders insist; but, whether big or small, his slippery responses have spawned a cottage industry in ferreting out them all. I have no doubt some enterprising attorney will document and then submit an account to the Bar, to the new Democratic majority (if they win a majority in at least one house and look ready to pursue impeachment) and even to the FBI. However, here I want to focus on what may be the most significant issue — whether Kavanaugh’s “big reveal” that he is an angry partisan who thinks Democrats conspired to get him — now disqualifies him to sit on any court, let alone the Supreme Court. www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/29/if-we-want-to-protect-the-supreme-courts-legitimacy-kavanaugh-should-not-be-on-it/?utm_term=.9986350f6ee5 |
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,732 
|
A New Low
Sept 30, 2018 8:07:37 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Sept 30, 2018 8:07:37 GMT -5
I have largely dropped from this thread so as not to inflame.
That said, the “job interview” analogy is a quaint vestige of a bygone time. How may people walk into job interviews where within 23 minutes of your application being submitted, 49% of the hiring committee has announced they will oppose your hiring with “everything they have”?
Not many I suspect. Time was this could be rightly likened to a job interview process. No longer.
I will drop back off this thread now.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Sept 30, 2018 9:29:49 GMT -5
Been thinking about this a lot - what would happen if Kavanaugh were to make an independent decision / one that Trump didn't like?
How fast would Trump threaten him with a *real* FBI investigation into gang rape allegations?
How fast would Trump start talking about the $200,000 debt of his in his podunk rallies, whether or not there's anything suspicious there or not
How fast would Trump start talking about his yearbook page?
Kavanaugh is not only a complete partisan hack, he's a compromised partisan hack. Trump owns him in a way that's beyond ideology, that's beyond partisanship, that's beyond any tribal loyalty. All of this stuff makes great blackmail material for the Republicans to leverage to make sure he stays on the reservation. Kinda think they picked him because his file was so dirty.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,823
|
Post by njhoya78 on Sept 30, 2018 9:46:36 GMT -5
I have largely dropped from this thread so as not to inflame. That said, the “job interview” analogy is a quaint vestige of a bygone time. How may people walk into job interviews where within 23 minutes of your application being submitted, 49% of the hiring committee has announced they will oppose your hiring with “everything they have”? Not many I suspect. Time was this could be rightly likened to a job interview process. No longer. I will drop back off this thread now. Only quarrel I'd have with your comment, Vadi, is that most job interviews aren't for a lifetime position. This is one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2018 10:06:24 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2018 10:29:34 GMT -5
This dude tells a lot of unnecessary lies that make you believe this is just the way he operates.....
Even if you don't believe the Dr Fords and others allegations you can't rationally deny that, at least on other matters, Brett Kavanaugh lied. He did it deliberately and repeatedly for personal benefit. If you want to argue it doesn't matter, do that, but he did lie.... A lot.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,454
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 30, 2018 10:39:14 GMT -5
Add he lied about connections to Yale to the list... This dude tells a lot of unnecessary lies that make you believe this is just the way he operates..... Even if you don't believe the Dr Fords and others allegations you can't rationally deny that, at least on other matters, Brett Kavanaugh lied. He did it deliberately and repeatedly for personal benefit. If you want to argue it doesn't matter, do that, but he did lie.... A lot. Brett Kavanaugh is not telling the whole truth. When President George W. Bush nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2006, he told senators that he’d had nothing to do with the war on terror’s detention policies; that was not true. Kavanaugh also claimed under oath, that year and again this month, that he didn’t know that Democratic Party memos a GOP staffer showed him in 2003 were illegally obtained; his emails from that period reveal that these statements were probably false. And it cannot be possible that the Supreme Court nominee was both a well-behaved virgin who never lost control as a young man, as he told Fox News and the Senate Judiciary Committee this past week, and an often-drunk member of the “Keg City Club” and a “Renate Alumnius ,” as he seems to have bragged to many people and written into his high school yearbook. Then there are the sexual misconduct allegations against him, which he denies. How could a man who appears to value honor and the integrity of the legal system explain this apparent mendacity? How could a man brought up in some of our nation’s most storied institutions — Georgetown Prep, Yale College, Yale Law School — dissemble with such ease? The answer lies in the privilege such institutions instill in their members, a privilege that suggests the rules that govern American society are for the common man, not the exceptional one. [N.B. The same applies to Bill Clinton -- narcissistic behavior believing that the rules do not apply to him but absent the wealthy upbringing] www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/kavanaugh-is-lying-his-upbringing-explains-why/2018/09/27/2b596314-c270-11e8-b338-a3289f6cb742_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ansWhile the boozy yearbook page might be attributable to youthful exaggeration, the outsize role of drinking among affluent teens like Kavanaugh’s classmates is consistent with the patterns seen in developmental psychology research. Over the past few decades — starting at Yale, then Columbia University’s Teachers College and now Arizona State University — my colleagues and I have been studying students in high-achieving, elite schools. These are institutions with excellent test scores, rich extracurricular and advanced academic offerings, and graduates headed to selective colleges and, ultimately, to positions of power as adults. Across the country, we have recurrently found that students at such schools show higher rates of disturbance compared with average American teens. Their problems range from depression, anxiety and self-harm to random acts of delinquency and, yes, abuse of drugs and alcohol. www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/many-teens-drink-rich-ones-like-kavanaugh-are-more-likely-to-abuse-alcohol/2018/09/28/6bb641aa-c27c-11e8-97a5-ab1e46bb3bc7_story.html?utm_term=.6db216db1fc8 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2018 11:41:34 GMT -5
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,680
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 30, 2018 22:13:55 GMT -5
I have largely dropped from this thread so as not to inflame. That said, the “job interview” analogy is a quaint vestige of a bygone time. How may people walk into job interviews where within 23 minutes of your application being submitted, 49% of the hiring committee has announced they will oppose your hiring with “everything they have”? Not many I suspect. Time was this could be rightly likened to a job interview process. No longer. I will drop back off this thread now. It is "quaint" in a way. What's not is a victim of assault, who attributes that to a nominee to the SCOTUS, making her experience known to a nation. It's difficult enough to do that in therapy. In front of a committee on national tv? Do you, in your heart of hearts, believe that that's a small thing to have done or something someone would have done if she weren't certain about what she experienced? There's nothing quaint about that. Personally, I can't think of a single reason to expose oneself that way unless one felt no other recourse. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
A New Low
Oct 1, 2018 5:45:23 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2018 5:45:23 GMT -5
I have largely dropped from this thread so as not to inflame. That said, the “job interview” analogy is a quaint vestige of a bygone time. How may people walk into job interviews where within 23 minutes of your application being submitted, 49% of the hiring committee has announced they will oppose your hiring with “everything they have”? Not many I suspect. Time was this could be rightly likened to a job interview process. No longer. I will drop back off this thread now. “Time was”....a few months ago when Neil Gorsuch was nominated? In the end, he peeled off a few conservative D votes, but was still strongly opposed by 45% of the hiring committee. The underlying sentiment from Republicans here remains the same: The privileged white male who has had every opportunity available to him, and has leveraged all of those opportunities to rise to a lifetime position in what might be the second most powerful court in the country, is a victim. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2018 7:07:30 GMT -5
So it's over, right?
|
|
Only kidding, sort of. In the hundreds of depositions I have taken I always start off by asking the deponent how they feel, are they on any medications or any reason why the deponent would be unable to testify fully, accurately, etc... IIRC, the "prosecutor" did ask Dr. Ford a similar line of questions. I don't recall that Kavanaugh was asked that by the "prosecutor" before she was sidelined by the Republicans. 
