Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, now with New allegations!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Will Kavanaugh be confirmed?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Burn it all down

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is pretty interesting - it suggests that the previous background checks on Kavanaugh DID turn up something about either sex abuse or drinking.

barfo
 
MarAzul said:
Dun no! A pardon wipes it clean anyway.
Click to expand...

aww, so you condone the ability for the president to pardon anyone regardless of the circumstances? Sounds like an ability to abuse the power. Oh wait, he already did this with the crooked sheriff from Arizona. He really deserved a pardon right?
 
dviss1 said:
He's not qualified. You only think that because Republicans said it. He's a partisan hack who should've never been awarded his current job key alone the SCOTUS.
He lied in his 2006 confirmation hearing too!
He's never been fit.
Click to expand...
I said it because he's been a Circuit Court judge on what is colloquially called the "second highest court in the country" for over a decade, and when he's had his decision appealed to the SC he's got a better record than Dame's FT%. (13/14)
The American Bar Association called him "well-qualified". He's qualified enough that he's been teaching law at Harvard for a decade after being hired by Elena Kagan, who knows a bit about the law. Don't take my word for it:
Kagan said:
Kavanaugh is “a very attractive nominee because he is so universally respected on the federal bench,”
Click to expand...
Other political analysts have said similar things.
CBS News’ Jan Crawford said court watchers see Kavanaugh as a “real intellectual force as a conservative legal thinker on the court,”
Click to expand...
Then again, (D) senators, including Durbin, torpedoed Estrada's placement (also, truth be told, confirmed as "well-qualified" by the ABA and later by Justice Kagan) because he was a conservative Latino that D's would probably vote for. Kavanaugh is nothing new in the (D) bag of tricks.

We can discuss topics all day long, but your projection of how I think what I think is consistently wrong.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
You literally made up facts today.
Click to expand...

You certainly do have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

You literally think facts can be made up? That's not possible because a fact is just that...

No, I got something wrong. There's a difference.

There's also a difference between you and I. I'll admit when I'm wrong.

So the FBI interviewed her, and Kavanaugh lied about WHEN he knew. There are texts confirming he knew BEFORE the date testified to. He lied about THAT in his hearing too. Now, back to you.

Why lie about it at all?
 
BrianFromWA said:
I said it because he's been a Circuit Court judge on what is colloquially called the "second highest court in the country" for over a decade
Click to expand...

Fair enough. He lied to get that job too.... So... :dunno:
 
dviss1 said:
You certainly do have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

You literally think facts can be made up? That's not possible because a fact is just that...

No, I got something wrong. There's a difference.

There's also a difference between you and I. I'll admit when I'm wrong.

So the FBI some top her, and Kavanaugh lied about WHEN he knew. There are texts confirming he knew BEFORE the date testified to. He lied about THAT in his hearing too. Now, back to you.

Why lie about it at all?
Click to expand...

I don't know how you could have gotten that wrong. There was literally nothing out there that came to that conclusion.

I'll wait to see these texts and the context. Like you, the Media often invents things like this and jumps to conclusions.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
I don't know how you could have gotten that wrong. There was literally nothing out there that came to that conclusion.

I'll wait to see these texts and the context. Like you, the Media often invents things like this and jumps to conclusions.
Click to expand...

Deflect much? Answer the question! Why did he lie about when he knew??

He lied about when he knew in the hearing... WHY?
 
BrianFromWA said:
I said it because he's been a Circuit Court judge on what is colloquially called the "second highest court in the country" for over a decade, and when he's had his decision appealed to the SC he's got a better record than Dame's FT%. (13/14)
The American Bar Association called him "well-qualified". He's qualified enough that he's been teaching law at Harvard for a decade after being hired by Elena Kagan, who knows a bit about the law. Don't take my word for it:

Other political analysts have said similar things.

Then again, (D) senators, including Durbin, torpedoed Estrada's placement (also, truth be told, confirmed as "well-qualified" by the ABA and later by Justice Kagan) because he was a conservative Latino that D's would probably vote for. Kavanaugh is nothing new in the (D) bag of tricks.

We can discuss topics all day long, but your projection of how I think what I think is consistently wrong.
Click to expand...

First, the ABA called for the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh, second,
Nixon was apparently "qualified" to be the president. How'd that work out for the country?
 
dviss1 said:
Deflect much? Answer the question! Why did he lie about when he knew??

He lied about when he knew in the hearing... WHY?
Click to expand...

Like I said, I haven't seen these texts. They haven't been published. Its an NBC Report that didn't print anything out other than they claim to exist. I'll see when the information is all out and make an informed decision.

I know its a new concept for you.
 
CupWizier said:
First, the ABA called for the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh
Click to expand...
False. The President of the ABA did, in a partisan manner that was not upheld by the ABA itself. The ABA graded on his qualifications, and said the President was wrong and reiterated their "well-qualified" grade.
Citing the ABA's "respect for the rule of law and due process," ABA President Robert Carlson wrote in a letter to the Judiciary Committee, "The basic principles that underscore the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI."
Later, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley released a letter by the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which said its members were not told in advance of Carlson's letter, and the panel reaffirmed its well-qualified rating of Kavanaugh.
The ABA committee is nonpartisan, its chairman, Paul Moxley, wrote. He noted that the nominee rating committee "acts independently of ABA leadership."
Click to expand...
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/28/6524...-wants-fbi-investigation-ahead-of-kavanaugh-v
 
BrianFromWA said:
False. The President of the ABA did, in a partisan manner that was not upheld by the ABA itself. The ABA graded on his qualifications, and said the President was wrong and reiterated their "well-qualified" grade.
Click to expand...

That still isn't quite right. An ABA committee responsible for the qualified/not qualified rankings disagreed with the president. The ABA itself has 400,000 members.

Also, what makes the President's letter "partisan" in your eyes?

barfo
 
e_blazer said:
I’m asking you for your source that the FBI report says that. According to multiple news sources, the report hasn’t been filed yet.
Click to expand...

The news outlets day The FBI questioned her. The report not being filed means nothing.

She was questioned, gave her story and Kavanaugh LIED about when he knew. No one is answering the WHY question.
 
dviss1 said:
The news outlets day The FBI questioned her. The report not being filed means nothing.

She was questioned, gave her story and Kavanaugh LIED about when he knew. No one is answering the WHY question.
Click to expand...

That’s not what I am asking you. You said, “The FBI investigation says it's true that he exposed his junk to her.

I am asking because I would really like to know if that is true, or if you said something you didn’t mean.
 
Last edited:
BrianFromWA said:
By the committee pointing out that their response, unlike the President's, was "non-partisan". Maybe I took liberties there?
Click to expand...

Well, there's nothing that makes a committee inherently non-partisan, even if they claim they are.

I don't think we have any evidence that either the President or the Committee are or aren't non-partisan.

barfo
 
EL PRESIDENTE said: ↑

" Motive is the reason for doing something, and having something to gain is just having something to gain."
==========================================================================
..."having something to gain" and "a motive to do something" are not the same thing....lmao.
...Wow, just wow.
 
Last edited:
yankeesince59 said:
EL PRESIDENTE said: ↑

" Motive is the reason for doing something, and having something to gain is just having something to gain."
==========================================================================
..."having something to gain" and "a motive to do something" are not the same thing....lmao.

...Wow, just wow.
Click to expand...

No one else cares. I'm right, you are wrong. That's basically all there is to it.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
No one else cares. I'm right, you are wrong. That's basically all there is to it.
Click to expand...

...you care...and you are wrong and you know it...you shit the bed once again.

...one more time, just for you;


mo·tive
ˈmōdiv/
noun
  1. 1.
    a reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden or not obvious.
 
yankeesince59 said:
...you care...and you are wrong and you know it...you shit the bed once again.

...one more time, just for you;


mo·tive
ˈmōdiv/
noun
  1. 1.
    a reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden or not obvious.
Click to expand...

Yes, the motive is the reason to do something.

Her motive was to either:

1. Stop Trump and his agenda

or

2. Exact revenge on the bro she used to stalk/obsess about as a teenager

The $750 grand and being made a leftist hero is just icing on the cake.
 
^^^Sorry, it's too late....I win again, you lose again...that's really all there is to it.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
Yes, the motive is the reason to do something.

Her motive was to either:

1. Stop Trump and his agenda

or

2. Exact revenge on the bro she used to stalk/obsess about as a teenager

The $750 grand and being made a leftist hero is just icing on the cake.
Click to expand...

Pulling something out of your ass doesn't make it true, it just makes it stink.
 
It appears that Sheila Jackson Lee's staff (who is on the Judiciary Committee) was doxxing Republican senators during the hearings.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/jackson-cosko/

Jackson Cosko, who calls himself a “Democratic Political Professional” with cybersecurity expertise, is accused of crimes for allegedly doxing Republican Senators during the Brett Kavanaugh/Christine Blasey Ford hearings.

The United States Capitol Police arrested the suspect who allegedly “posted private, identifying information (doxing) about one of more United States Senators to the internet,” a statement said.
Click to expand...

Authorities have not released the details of the alleged offenses. According to Roll Call, on Monday, October 1, 2018, “Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s home addresses in Kentucky and Washington D.C. were added to his public Wikipedia page.” The site added that, during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing involving Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford, “the personal home addresses, home phone numbers, cellphone numbers and email addresses of Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Orrin G. Hatch and Mike Lee, both R-Utah, were added to the public Wikipedia pages from what appeared to be an IP address connected to the Capitol.” It was then sent to thousands of people through a Twitter account.

A post in 2016 indicated Cosko used to work as a staffer for Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer. “Padres in our nation’s capital for Close Up: Washington D.C. Thanks to Jackson Cosko ’09, a staffer for Senator Boxer, for meeting with us!” read the tweet from Serra High School.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
e_blazer said:
That’s not what I am asking you. You said, “The FBI investigation says it's true that he exposed his junk to her.

I am asking because I would really like to know if that is true, or if you said something you didn’t mean.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It's what she reported to the FBI and its been proven that he lied about the date he knew she'd reported it. It will eventually come out but they haven't come out with their report. She has corroborating text messages. There was no reason to lie about the timeline. But was there? Why did he lie?
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
It appears that Sheila Jackson Lee's staff (who is on the Judiciary Committee) was doxxing Republican senators during the hearings.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/jackson-cosko/





Click to expand...


This is a confusing post. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is on the House Judiciary committee, so she's got nothing to do with the confirmation.

How is the handing of an envelope to the lawyer connected to the doxxing? It's hard to understand why Ford's lawyer would need hard copies of Mitch McConnell's home address.

barfo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top