Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, now with New allegations!

[Hoopguru]

Got to revisit this as I realize I let you lead me down the garden path here.

Yes, one is innocent until proven guilty. In a criminal trial.

This is not a criminal trial. This is a job interview, basically.

The burden is not on the job interviewer to show you aren't a good candidate.

The burden is on you to show you are the best available candidate.

Given this and all the other issues with this candidate - wouldn't it make sense the employer to interview another candidate?

barfo

Good point about job interview!
To me with the polarization between the TWO parties anymore, Im not sure you will ever see a bi partisan confirmation ion the future?
So, it appears that whomever has control of congress will get their way if they are aligned with the Commander in Chief.
In this current situation I don't think it would matter who the candidate is, because if he/she is not a liberal, it would be straight no. And if the conservatives didn't have a conservative nominee, the same.
I guess the answer is win congress and Pres!
This in itself is way to political.
Like the Lib's really are sincere and give a shit about this guys character, they are not being honest, whats at stake is all political.
A number of years back when I had to explain to a few of kids why was a certain Pres. (whom I voted for and now regret) was being impeached for sex with an intern in the oval office and it really hurt them to know that could happen. Most liberals (and stadiums full of women didn't seem to think that kind of conduct was to bad.
This my unbiased opinion.

 

[barfo]

Good point about job interview!
To me with the polarization between the TWO parties anymore, Im not sure you will ever see a bi partisan confirmation ion the future?

I have more faith than that. I think a candidate with a clean record will get the votes, whether an R or D appointee.

So, it appears that whomever has control of congress will get their way if they are aligned with the Commander in Chief.
In this current situation I don't think it would matter who the candidate is, because if he/she is not a liberal, it would be straight no. And if the conservatives didn't have a conservative nominee, the same.

Gorsuch got confirmed with a few D votes just a year ago, and that was after the Merrick Garland bullshit.

Like the Lib's really are sincere and give a shit about this guys character, they are not being honest, whats at stake is all political.
A number of years back when I had to explain to a few of kids why was a certain Pres. (whom I voted for and now regret) was being impeached for sex with an intern in the oval office and it really hurt them to know that could happen.

That which could happen? The sex or the impeachment? Or that you voted for him?

barfo

 

[Hoopguru]

So you honestly don't think its very political?

 

[CupWizier]

Good point about job interview!
To me with the polarization between the TWO parties anymore, Im not sure you will ever see a bi partisan confirmation ion the future?
So, it appears that whomever has control of congress will get their way if they are aligned with the Commander in Chief.
In this current situation I don't think it would matter who the candidate is, because if he/she is not a liberal, it would be straight no. And if the conservatives didn't have a conservative nominee, the same.
I guess the answer is win congress and Pres!
This in itself is way to political.
Like the Lib's really are sincere and give a shit about this guys character, they are not being honest, whats at stake is all political.
A number of years back when I had to explain to a few of kids why was a certain Pres. (whom I voted for and now regret) was being impeached for sex with an intern in the oval office and it really hurt them to know that could happen. Most liberals (and stadiums full of women didn't seem to think that kind of conduct was to bad.
This my unbiased opinion.

The senate just passed a budget bill to keep the government in operation when the September 30th deadline comes and goes. It was a 97-3 vote which is about as bipartisan as you can get.

 

[barfo]

So you honestly don't think its very political?

Of course it's very political. It's a political body. That doesn't mean that occasionally people don't vote their conscience.

barfo

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

 

[CupWizier]

Well, after that letter I am totally convinced Kavanaugh is guilty.

I would be interested in him answering under oath as you notice he didn't flat out deny that it didn't happen. Seems like he had a Jeff Sessions moment "I don't recall". lol

 

[Hoopguru]

The senate just passed a budget bill to keep the government in operation when the September 30th deadline comes and goes. It was a 97-3 vote which is about as bipartisan as you can get.

Thats my point...I think the days of bi partizan cooperation are over, as the extreme left & rights are at war.

 

[Hoopguru]

Of course it's very political. It's a political body. That doesn't mean that occasionally people don't vote their conscience.

barfo

I would hope so but I don't see moderates or centrist having much of a voice amongst the extreme progressives & right conservations. In fact, to me it looks like they are virtually at war with one another.
If both those side would compromise, find some common ground and tone the rhetoric down / MEDIA, maybe there could be bi partisan consensus on some important issues facing our Country.

Look at the war that goes on in here with some that are so progressive and conservative all they want to do is knock the other one down.
Same thing going on in a much larger way.

 

[CupWizier]

Thats my point...I think the days of bi partizan cooperation are over, as the extreme left & rights are at war.

Huh, I just showed that the Dems and Repubs worked together and came up with a major bill. Get rid of the Cheeto in charge and things would likely be easier. He has created most of the divide or at least furthered the division.

 

[Hoopguru]

Huh, I just showed that the Dems and Repubs worked together and came up with a major bill. Get rid of the Cheeto in charge and things would likely be easier. He has created most of the divide or at least furthered the division.

Ok..maybe I haven't lost all hope!
It was bad under Obama and Bush too its just getting worse because of the ideology or progreesiveness and conservatism are so different.
Its now more than just unions and blue collar versus conservatives.
Im all for parties working together and getting something done. If its on a conservative watch fine with me or a liberals thats ok too.

 

[MARIS61]

I agree the timing is not optimal but there are a couple additional things to consider, IMO.

-We went through this with another SCOTUS appointee and the woman did go public and testified to behavior that was obviously humiliating to her and was not believed. The accuser did not initially want to go through that.

-She was traumatized enough by the event that she discussed it in counseling 6 years ago and it can be corroborated independently by the therapist and her husband.

-She passed a polygraph test.

Got to revisit this as I realize I let you lead me down the garden path here.

Yes, one is innocent until proven guilty. In a criminal trial.

This is not a criminal trial. This is a job interview, basically.

The burden is not on the job interviewer to show you aren't a good candidate.

The burden is on you to show you are the best available candidate.

Given this and all the other issues with this candidate - wouldn't it make sense for the employer to interview another candidate?

barfo

Fake post.

There is no burden on Kavanaugh.

The burden is on the libs to prove he's unfit for the position. They've already failed, and lost more voters in the process. Any Dem who's watched the hearings has to be embarrassed.

The President chose him to be a SCOTUS judge.

IMHO, the Dems should embrace him quickly, as it's going to cost them in November and he's really a softie. Besides, the next guy up is Thomas Hardiman (my choice).

UNLESS CONGRESS VOTES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT'S CHOICE, IT'S A DONE DEAL.

 

[yankeesince59]

Fake post.

There is no burden on Kavanaugh.

The burden is on the libs to prove he's unfit for the position. They've already failed, and lost more voters in the process. Any Dem who's watched the hearings has to be embarrassed.

The President chose him to be a SCOTUS judge.

IMHO, the Dems should embrace him quickly, as it's going to cost them in November and he's really a softie. Besides, the next guy up is Thomas Hardiman (my choice).

UNLESS CONGRESS VOTES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT'S CHOICE, IT'S A DONE DEAL.

..." CLEAN UP ON ASLE 5! "

 

[MARIS61]

The senate just passed a budget bill to keep the government in operation when the September 30th deadline comes and goes. It was a 97-3 vote which is about as bipartisan as you can get.

It covers only a small part of the government they agree on, the part that pays their salary.

So there's another 97 swamprats still remaining to be drained.

 

[MARIS61]

FBI says there's nothing left to investigate, accuser refuses to testify under oath, it's all a stall/scam, just a replay of the racist and unfounded attack by Dems on SCOTUS judge Clarence Thomas.

 

[yankeesince59]

...correction..."CLEAN UP ON AISLES 5 & 6".

 

[CupWizier]

It covers only a small part of the government they agree on, the part that pays their salary.

So there's another 97 swamprats still remaining to be drained.

FAKE NEWS

 

[MARIS61]

One day after Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., raised concerns about the polygraph test taken by Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford, her attorney is refusing to comment on who paid for the examination or provide additional details on how it was conducted.

And experts contacted by Fox News confirmed that while polygraph examinations can be useful, they are ultimately fallible tools that "can be beaten." Without mentioning any particular instances, one former senior FBI agent said polygraphs would have difficulty detecting deception by sociopaths, psychopaths and committed liars lacking a "conscience."

Even well-intentioned individuals who have come to believe that their false stories are, in fact, true -- whether because of therapist-induced memories or other causes -- can sometimes pass polygraph tests, former FBI officials and psychology experts told Fox News.

Ford provided The Washington Post the results of a polygraph examination conducted by a former FBI agent in August, which reportedly showed that she had been truthful in her allegations. According to the Post, Ford took the polygraph on the advice of her attorney, Debra Katz.

Katz did not respond to numerous requests for comment by Fox News on Tuesday concerning the polygraph.

ATTORNEY FOR KAVANAUGH ACCUSER DOWNPLAYED SEX ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CLINTON, FRANKEN

"If Ms. Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward ... why did she pay for a polygraph in August, and why did she hire a lawyer in August? And who paid for it?" Graham asked.

But several experts told Fox News that viewing polygraphs as reliable lie-detector machines is a dangerous oversimplification.

- Former FBI agent James Gagliano
"It's not the result of the polygraph; it is what polygraph subjects say during the polygraph interview that is most valuable," said Thomas Mauriello, a lecturer in criminology at the University of Maryland who worked as a senior polygraph examiner at the Defense Department.

"The result of a polygraph simply is whether you did or did not respond to a particular question. A response is not a lie, because the polygraph is not a lie detector as most think," Mauriello added. "A response is the activation of your sympathetic nervous system when answering a question asked during the examination."

WATCH: FEINSTEIN ADMITS SHE'S NOT SURE IF ACCUSER IS BEING ENTIRELY 'TRUTHFUL'

Ford announced on Tuesday she would refuse to testify about her allegations, despite numerous invitations from Senate Republicans, until the FBI conducts a full investigation into the events she claims occurred at a house in Maryland more than 35 years ago. Ford has been unable to identify who owned the house in question, or why she was there.

"It's totally inappropriate for someone to demand we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 35-year-old allegation when she won't go under oath and can't remember key details including when or where it happened," a federal law enforcement official told Fox News.

Asked what it meant that Ford had passed a polygraph, Mauriello said flatly, "absolutely nothing."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, seemed to admit as much Tuesday night, even as she insisted Ford was credible.

"This is a woman who has been profoundly impacted by this," Feinstein told Fox News. "Now, I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...user-christine-ford-comes-under-scrutiny.html

 

[CupWizier]

One day after Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.said polygraphs would have difficulty detecting deception by sociopaths, psychopaths and committed liars lacking a "conscience."

So why not let the FBI investigate like they did in the Thomas/ Hill situation. Why are the republicans always in a hurry to pass things without proper vetting and doing the investigation? Nothing to worry if he is innocent.

 

[MARIS61]

So why not let the FBI investigate like they did in the Thomas/ Hill situation. Why are the republicans always in a hurry to pass things without proper vetting and doing the investigation? Nothing to worry if he is innocent.

No Federal crime has been alleged.

Quick Wizkid, what does the F stand for in FBI?

No local police can investigate either as she claims to not know where the alleged party took place, when it allegedly took place, what the party was for, anyone else at the party, why she was at the party, how she got there, how she got home...

It's not clear any actual crime is described in her story.
Annnnnnnnnd...

If a crime occurred the statute of limitations makes the point moot.

 

[MARIS61]

So why not let the FBI investigate like they did in the Thomas/ Hill situation. Why are the republicans always in a hurry to pass things without proper vetting and doing the investigation? Nothing to worry if he is innocent.

So you won't mind if I tell the Oregonian, your Facebook friends, your employer... that you confessed to child porn back in the day? You won't mind if the FBI shreds your life before your eyes?

Nothing to worry if you are innocent.

 

[barfo]

No Federal crime has been alleged.

Quick Wizkid, what does the F stand for in FBI?

No local police can investigate either as she claims to not know where the alleged party took place, when it allegedly took place, what the party was for, anyone else at the party, why she was at the party, how she got there, how she got home...

It's not clear any actual crime is described in her story.
Annnnnnnnnd...

If a crime occurred the statute of limitations makes the point moot.

It's a Federal job. The FBI does background checks for federal jobs.

The statute of limitations does not apply to background checks. This isn't a criminal investigation.

barfo

 

[barfo]

So you won't mind if I tell the Oregonian, your Facebook friends, your employer... that you confessed to child porn back in the day? You won't mind if the FBI shreds your life before your eyes?

Nothing to worry if you are innocent.

That makes very little sense, as you surely know. The FBI does not post its background check results on Facebook.

barfo

 

[yankeesince59]

...Maris61...well, if nothing else, he's consistent.

 

[CupWizier]

No Federal crime has been alleged.

Quick Wizkid, what does the F stand for in FBI?

No local police can investigate either as she claims to not know where the alleged party took place, when it allegedly took place, what the party was for, anyone else at the party, why she was at the party, how she got there, how she got home...

It's not clear any actual crime is described in her story.
Annnnnnnnnd...

If a crime occurred the statute of limitations makes the point moot.

and that is a lie. FBI investigated the situation between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. FBI vets a lot of politicians that need to be cleared. Why do you unreal Americans always want to avoid investigations. Don't you think that a lifetime appointment is worth investigating?

 

[CupWizier]

So you won't mind if I tell the Oregonian, your Facebook friends, your employer... that you confessed to child porn back in the day? You won't mind if the FBI shreds your life before your eyes?

Nothing to worry if you are innocent.

Yes, so why not allow the investigation? What's the hurry?

 

[MARIS61]

It's a Federal job. The FBI does background checks for federal jobs.
barfo

Been there, done that.

Passed with flying colors.

 

[MARIS61]

Yes, so why not allow the investigation? What's the hurry?

It's ILLEGAL under The Constitution.

The DNC is quite able to hire it's own investigators (I hear James Comey and Andrew McCabe are looking for work) to look into vague and changing allegations produced by political activists when no evidence of any crime is present.

The Federal Justice System is prohibited from doing so, with good reason.

 

[MARIS61]

That makes very little sense, as you surely know. The FBI does not post its background check results on Facebook.

barfo

They post them to their .gov website, which has a share with Facebook function.

Keep fawning ignorance.

 

[yankeesince59]

It's ILLEGAL under The Constitution.

The DNC is quite able to hire it's own investigators (I hear James Comey and Andrew McCabe are looking for work) to look into vague and changing allegations produced by political activists when no evidence of any crime is present.

The Federal Justice System is prohibited from doing so, with good reason.

They post them to their .gov website, which has a share with Facebook function.

Keep fawning ignorance.

...lol...that doesn't sound logical to me.

...you're known for copying and pasting, so I'm naturally curious as to why you didn't do that here...do you have links to support your claims?.