Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, now with New allegations!

[dviss1]

Please share.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/kavanaugh-in-1983-letter-to-friends-were-loud-obnoxious-drunks.html

Get this, he signs the letter "Bart"

Like Bart O'Kavanaugh from Judge's book.

The story Kavanaugh has testified doesn't make sense and if it doesn't make sense, it's not true.

He has also proven to be partisan and impartial. Blaming "the left" and"the Clintons".

He needs to have his CURRENT judgeship revoked.

 

[julius]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/kavanaugh-in-1983-letter-to-friends-were-loud-obnoxious-drunks.html

weird how "sheets" (among the list of items that must supply for themselves) is in cursive, TOWELS is capitalized and pi llows is a combo of cursive and drunk.

I get the vibe that the letter is faked.

 

[e_blazer]

Just when you get to thinking you know who the villains are in this swamp drama something comes along and makes you go, hmm.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/usa/440198-kavanaugh-ford-boyfriend-letter-testimony/amp/

 

[CupWizier]

Just when you get to thinking you know who the villains are in this swamp drama something comes along and makes you go, hmm.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/usa/440198-kavanaugh-ford-boyfriend-letter-testimony/amp/

The fear of flying controversy is just another ruse. My wife has flown many times as we use to go to a several tournaments a year out of state to watch our kids play soccer and she usually would take something to help calm her nerves. One can still fly and have a fear of flying.

What makes you wonder is why did this guy choose to go to Faux News rather than testify to the FBI? One outlet you can say anything you want without consequences where the other your testimony is guarded by the law of perjury.

 

[e_blazer]

The fear of flying controversy is just another ruse. My wife has flown many times as we use to go to a several tournaments a year out of state to watch our kids play soccer and she usually would take something to help calm her nerves. One can still fly and have a fear of flying.

What makes you wonder is why did this guy choose to go to Faux News rather than testify to the FBI? One outlet you can say anything you want without consequences where the other your testimony is guarded by the law of perjury.

I don’t know him or anything about him. I don’t know if he gave a copy of the letter to the FBI or not. I don’t know her and I don’t know Kavanaugh. I have no reason to believe any one of them over another. There are plenty of other stories linked in this thread that come from other news outlets that notably lean to the left. I’m just sitting here trying to remain as neutral on this as possible and get as much information as I can. I think we’re way too likely in this country to let our ideologies guide our sense of “truth”. That really needs to stop.

 

[Hoopguru]

I don’t know him or anything about him. I don’t know if he gave a copy of the letter to the FBI or not. I don’t know her and I don’t know the Kavanaugh. I have no reason to believe any one of them over another. There are plenty of other stories linked in this thread that come from other news outlets that notably lean to the left. I’m just sitting here trying to remain as neutral on this as possible and get as much information as I can. I think we’re way too likely in this country to let our ideologies guide our sense of “truth”. That really needs to stop.

You hit the nail on the head!

 

[CupWizier]

I don’t know him or anything about him. I don’t know if he gave a copy of the letter to the FBI or not. I don’t know her and I don’t know Kavanaugh. I have no reason to believe any one of them over another. There are plenty of other stories linked in this thread that come from other news outlets that notably lean to the left. I’m just sitting here trying to remain as neutral on this as possible and get as much information as I can. I think we’re way too likely in this country to let our ideologies guide our sense of “truth”. That really needs to stop.

Too many red flags and there are plenty of others that have clean records to put in this position. His demeanor and personal attack on a political party during his hearing is enough for me to say the guy doesn't deserve a lifetime appointment to the highest court.

 

[Hoopguru]

Too many red flags and there are plenty of others that have clean records to put in this position. His demeanor and personal attack on a political party during his hearing is enough for me to say the guy doesn't deserve a lifetime appointment to the highest court.

I agree because of his attack against the Clintons showed bias, and wouldn't pass him through only because of that. And you know how I feel about them. But even they are innocent till proven guilty.

 

[yankeesince59]

Y'all said she had absolutely nothing to gain. Just disproving the claim

"Ford is a professor at Palo Alto University, where she teaches in consortium with Stanford University. She was, in the past, a visiting professor at Pepperdine University, where she earned a master’s degree in psychology, followed by a doctorate at the University of Southern California and a master’s in education from Stanford.
The idea that she would toss all that aside — the salary and possibly the chance to put any of her degrees into practice again — for some strangers’ cash is preposterous."

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

"Ford is a professor at Palo Alto University, where she teaches in consortium with Stanford University. She was, in the past, a visiting professor at Pepperdine University, where she earned a master’s degree in psychology, followed by a doctorate at the University of Southern California and a master’s in education from Stanford.
The idea that she would toss all that aside — the salary and possibly the chance to put any of her degrees into practice again — for some strangers’ cash is preposterous."

They can't fire her for coming forward. That is the preposterous idea.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Evasive most certainly is lying.

The oath says: "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

That means a lie of omission is just that. A fucking lie.

But he lied outright about near everything he said.

Make sense and stop giving these RAPEpublicans cover.

From Trump to, Roy Moore on down... Y'all support rapists and sexual assaulters....

If he is not 100% sure, he is not 100% sure. A lot of nothing here. Nitpicking just to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[BrianFromWA]

This whole "lifetime (20-30 years) job interview means this investigation is ok" thing is interesting to me. I get the logic of it, but I did a check on the Senate tenure of each of the members of the committee, and how long they'd been elected politicians. 40% of them had been politicians longer than 30 years, and only 20% had been in politics <10 years. That may be skewed based on how the Judiciary spots are filled (maybe they're a reward for longer-tenured people, I don't know), but I find it interesting that people who've been in politics for 50 years are turning high-school details into good questions for a job interview.

Grassley 38 years/59 years
Hatch 41 years/41 years ("Among other issues (in the 1976 election), Hatch criticized Moss's 18-year tenure in the Senate, saying "What do you call a Senator who's served in office for 18 years? You call him home.")
Graham 15 years / 26 years
Cornyn 16 years / 20 years
Lee 7 years / 7 years
Cruz 5 years / 5 years
Sasse 4 years /4 years
Flake 6 years / 6 years
Crapo 20 years / 34 years
Tillis 3 years / 10 years
Kennedy 1 year / 19 years
Feinstein 26 years / 49 years
Leahy 44 years / 52 years
Durbin 21 years / 36 years
Whitehouse 10 years / 20 years
Klobuchar 12 years / 20 years
Coons 8 years / 18 years
Blumenthal 7 years / 33 years
Hirono 6 years/32 years (took over after the retirement of Asaka, who'd been in Senate 23 years)
Booker 5 years / 20 years
Harris 1 year / 14 years

I also find it interesting that someone who is hyper-attuned to police brutality and perceived systematic injustice wants to "retire" the American judicial concept of innocent until proven guilty. Going back to Beria's "show me the man, I'll show you the crime." It's like we don't learn from history.

 

[dviss1]

If he is not 100% sure, he is not 100% sure. A lot of nothing here. Nitpicking just to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Huh? What did he say he wasn't 100% sure about?

 

[dviss1]

This whole "lifetime (20-30 years) job interview means this investigation is ok" thing is interesting to me. I get the logic of it, but I did a check on the Senate tenure of each of the members of the committee, and how long they'd been elected politicians. 40% of them had been politicians longer than 30 years, and only 20% had been in politics <10 years. That may be skewed based on how the Judiciary spots are filled (maybe they're a reward for longer-tenured people, I don't know), but I find it interesting that people who've been in politics for 50 years are turning high-school details into good questions for a job interview.

Grassley 38 years/59 years
Hatch 41 years/41 years ("Among other issues (in the 1976 election), Hatch criticized Moss's 18-year tenure in the Senate, saying "What do you call a Senator who's served in office for 18 years? You call him home.")
Graham 15 years / 26 years
Cornyn 16 years / 20 years
Lee 7 years / 7 years
Cruz 5 years / 5 years
Sasse 4 years /4 years
Flake 6 years / 6 years
Crapo 20 years / 34 years
Tillis 3 years / 10 years
Kennedy 1 year / 19 years
Feinstein 26 years / 49 years
Leahy 44 years / 52 years
Durbin 21 years / 36 years
Whitehouse 10 years / 20 years
Klobuchar 12 years / 20 years
Coons 8 years / 18 years
Blumenthal 7 years / 33 years
Hirono 6 years/32 years (took over after the retirement of Asaka, who'd been in Senate 23 years)
Booker 5 years / 20 years
Harris 1 year / 14 years

I also find it interesting that someone who is hyper-attuned to police brutality and perceived systematic injustice wants to "retire" the American judicial concept of innocent until proven guilty. Going back to Beria's "show me the man, I'll show you the crime." It's like we don't learn from history.

Apples to oranges.

You can vote senators out. You can't do that with the SCOTUS.

 

[dviss1]

This whole "lifetime (20-30 years) job interview means this investigation is ok" thing is interesting to me. I get the logic of it, but I did a check on the Senate tenure of each of the members of the committee, and how long they'd been elected politicians. 40% of them had been politicians longer than 30 years, and only 20% had been in politics <10 years. That may be skewed based on how the Judiciary spots are filled (maybe they're a reward for longer-tenured people, I don't know), but I find it interesting that people who've been in politics for 50 years are turning high-school details into good questions for a job interview.

Grassley 38 years/59 years
Hatch 41 years/41 years ("Among other issues (in the 1976 election), Hatch criticized Moss's 18-year tenure in the Senate, saying "What do you call a Senator who's served in office for 18 years? You call him home.")
Graham 15 years / 26 years
Cornyn 16 years / 20 years
Lee 7 years / 7 years
Cruz 5 years / 5 years
Sasse 4 years /4 years
Flake 6 years / 6 years
Crapo 20 years / 34 years
Tillis 3 years / 10 years
Kennedy 1 year / 19 years
Feinstein 26 years / 49 years
Leahy 44 years / 52 years
Durbin 21 years / 36 years
Whitehouse 10 years / 20 years
Klobuchar 12 years / 20 years
Coons 8 years / 18 years
Blumenthal 7 years / 33 years
Hirono 6 years/32 years (took over after the retirement of Asaka, who'd been in Senate 23 years)
Booker 5 years / 20 years
Harris 1 year / 14 years

I also find it interesting that someone who is hyper-attuned to police brutality and perceived systematic injustice wants to "retire" the American judicial concept of innocent until proven guilty. Going back to Beria's "show me the man, I'll show you the crime." It's like we don't learn from history.

Also, presumed innocence bullshit argument needs to stop.

He's not on trial, he's in an interview.

One he's failing miserably at.

His credibility is just shot and it's becoming more and more obvious that regardless of whether or not he did it, they'd confirm the assaulter anyway.

Watching both of their testimonies made that abundantly clear.

He did that shit man. He lied too many times and his demeanor was not the one of an innocent man.

The fact that he made his career off of prosecuting the Clintons also proves he's partisan and NOT impartial.

He's not fit for the judgeship he currently holds, let alone the SCOTUS.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Huh? What did he say he wasn't 100% sure about?

On Sept, 22nd, Yarasavage texted Berchem that she had shared the photo with “Brett’s team.”

But when Kavanaugh was asked about the wedding during a committee interview on Sept. 25th, he said he was “probably” at a wedding with Ramirez. Asked if he interacted with her at the wedding, Kavanaugh replied, “I am sure I saw her because it wasn’t a huge wedding,” but added that he “doesn’t have a specific recollection.” Lying to Congress is a felony whether testimony is taken under oath or not.

 

[dviss1]

I also find it interesting that someone who is hyper-attuned to police brutality and perceived systematic injustice wants to "retire" the American judicial concept of innocent until proven guilty. Going back to Beria's "show me the man, I'll show you the crime." It's like we don't learn from history.

Stop. Really. No one wants to argue against all of the red herrings you caught. Throw those bitches back because no one in the history of this country has suggested that.

But you'll happily parrot a right wing talking point like it's the truth.

Again, Kavanaugh ain't on trial so stop attacking that strawman.

 

[dviss1]

On Sept, 22nd, Yarasavage texted Berchem that she had shared the photo with “Brett’s team.”

But when Kavanaugh was asked about the wedding during a committee interview on Sept. 25th, he said he was “probably” at a wedding with Ramirez. Asked if he interacted with her at the wedding, Kavanaugh replied, “I am sure I saw her because it wasn’t a huge wedding,” but added that he “doesn’t have a specific recollection.” Lying to Congress is a felony whether testimony is taken under oath or not.

The FBI investigation says it's true that he exposed his junk to her.

So again, your guy's a goddamn liar.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Stop. Really. No one wants to argue against all of the red herrings you caught. Throw those bitches back because no one in the history of this country has suggested that.

Unless I'm mistaken (which is possible, of course), that seemed like exactly what you said in post 1620. If I misread, then forget it. That post, though, wasn't even the first one in the thread suggesting that victims "always be believed".

 

[barfo]

This whole "lifetime (20-30 years) job interview means this investigation is ok" thing is interesting to me. I get the logic of it, but I did a check on the Senate tenure of each of the members of the committee, and how long they'd been elected politicians. 40% of them had been politicians longer than 30 years, and only 20% had been in politics <10 years. That may be skewed based on how the Judiciary spots are filled (maybe they're a reward for longer-tenured people, I don't know), but I find it interesting that people who've been in politics for 50 years are turning high-school details into good questions for a job interview.

Not that weird given that they are subject to the same sort of scrutiny when they run for reelection - if an opponent can dig up something from their past and use it, they will.

I also find it interesting that someone who is hyper-attuned to police brutality and perceived systematic injustice wants to "retire" the American judicial concept of innocent until proven guilty. Going back to Beria's "show me the man, I'll show you the crime." It's like we don't learn from history.

Who are you referring to here? [Edit: oh, I see, dviss1. I thought you meant one of the senators on the judiciary committee...]

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

But you'll happily parrot a right wing talking point like it's the truth.

Don't project, man. I did original research and posted something I found interesting, based on your exact words. If you disagree, let's talk. If you project, peace.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

The FBI investigation says it's true that he exposed his junk to her.

So again, your guy's a goddamn liar.

Now you are just making shit up.

 

[dviss1]

Unless I'm mistaken (which is possible, of course), that seemed like exactly what you said in post 1620. If I misread, then forget it. That post, though, wasn't even the first one in the thread suggesting that victims "always be believed".

Yeah, you misread that. I'm speaking about the court of public opinion.

 

[dviss1]

Now you are just making shit up.

Oh you aren't keeping up I see. You need to pay better attention. This is from the FBI investigation:

WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story

 

[andalusian]

This whole "lifetime (20-30 years) job interview means this investigation is ok" thing is interesting to me. I get the logic of it, but I did a check on the Senate tenure of each of the members of the committee, and how long they'd been elected politicians. 40% of them had been politicians longer than 30 years, and only 20% had been in politics <10 years. That may be skewed based on how the Judiciary spots are filled (maybe they're a reward for longer-tenured people, I don't know), but I find it interesting that people who've been in politics for 50 years are turning high-school details into good questions for a job interview.

Grassley 38 years/59 years
Hatch 41 years/41 years ("Among other issues (in the 1976 election), Hatch criticized Moss's 18-year tenure in the Senate, saying "What do you call a Senator who's served in office for 18 years? You call him home.")
Graham 15 years / 26 years
Cornyn 16 years / 20 years
Lee 7 years / 7 years
Cruz 5 years / 5 years
Sasse 4 years /4 years
Flake 6 years / 6 years
Crapo 20 years / 34 years
Tillis 3 years / 10 years
Kennedy 1 year / 19 years
Feinstein 26 years / 49 years
Leahy 44 years / 52 years
Durbin 21 years / 36 years
Whitehouse 10 years / 20 years
Klobuchar 12 years / 20 years
Coons 8 years / 18 years
Blumenthal 7 years / 33 years
Hirono 6 years/32 years (took over after the retirement of Asaka, who'd been in Senate 23 years)
Booker 5 years / 20 years
Harris 1 year / 14 years

I also find it interesting that someone who is hyper-attuned to police brutality and perceived systematic injustice wants to "retire" the American judicial concept of innocent until proven guilty. Going back to Beria's "show me the man, I'll show you the crime." It's like we don't learn from history.

I believe I addressed this issue before in this thread (but I am sure it is easy to miss) - and I think there should be term limits to most of these positions - senate, congress, supreme court judges etc...

This would solve an awful lot of stuff here.

An alternate option, given that you "lose" institutional knowledge here - is that the supreme court judges go to re-confirmation every X years, just as senators / congress members go for re-election.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Not that weird given that they are subject to the same sort of scrutiny when they run for reelection - if an opponent can dig up something from their past and use it, they will.

I feel though, that term-limit arguments, which isn't up for debate here, tend to focus on the inability, once inside the system, to get someone "voted out". Just as an example, from politics here in FL:

The system is rigged to practically guarantee incumbents re-election. We’re talking re-election rates of 95 percent, thanks to unlimited campaign donations, the power incumbents have to force vested interests to cough up the cash, free media, free travel, free taxpayer-funded mailers and more.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...ss-has-11-approval-ratings-96-incumbent-re-e/

 

[BrianFromWA]

Yeah, you misread that. I'm speaking about the court of public opinion.

Fair enough. I've seen enough of that type spouted that that's where my head immediately went.

You weren't active when we were talking about the "job interview" aspect about 100 posts ago, so I'd be interested in your thoughts on what got brought up. If this was a job interview (I contend it's not, but I get why someone would say that) then he would be under significantly more protections from these allegations than he is. Not to say it shouldn't be brought up or investigated fully, but it cannot legally be a job interview.

 

[yankeesince59]

They can't fire her for coming forward. That is the preposterous idea.

...it's not about getting fired, it's about getting hired going forward...but you already knew that, right?

...but according to you she subjected herself to to public ridicule, death threats, huge security fees, etc., all in return for money that she did not know in advance that would come to fruition, much less the amount from a gofundme account she could not have known about in advance and she did not initiate herself.

...where do you get this twisted logic from?...It seems you simply type anything that comes to mind without really thinking or researching.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Oh you aren't keeping up I see. You need to pay better attention. This is from the FBI investigation:

WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story

NBC News is the FBI? And there is nothing there about the FBI concluding that he exposed his junk to her.

Ramirez was interviewed by the FBI. Nothing more.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

...it's not about getting fired, it's about getting hired going forward...but you already knew that, right?

...but according to you she subjected herself to to public ridicule, death threats, huge security fees, etc., all in return for money that she did not know in advance that would come to fruition, much less the amount from a gofundme account she could not have known about in advance and she did not initiate herself.

...where do you get this twisted logic from?...It seems you simply type anything that comes to minds without really thinking or researching.

I don't think fame and fortune were her objectives.

I think she is likely a never trumper trying to stop him or his agenda at all costs. Liberals are so fucking triggered, living in a fantasy world.