Kavanaugh Hearing

FYI:

 

Again, it's BS. This is the quote from that article:

"Yes we drank beer, my friends and I, boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer," he said. "The drinking age as I noted was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink."

He said the seniors were legal, not I was legal. I gave you the direct quotes and their conclusion is pretty obviously contrived to any reasonable person. As for your rant, I am not defending the guy in general, only pointing to the specific misrepresentation you put forth. You guys complain about falsehoods whenever someone throws up some garbage Western Journalism article. This is the same thing.

 

It's kind of funny how the Democrats keep pointing to the brevity of his statement and the need to fill in more details. What more can you say than I was never at that party? "At the party I was never at, I definitely didn't participate in a sexual assault that couldn't have happened since the party didn't exist"?

 

Flake is going to vote to advance out of Committee, but he's demanding the floor vote be delayed for a week for the FBI to investigate.

 

First, yeah, you are. You went with Nazis to call "the libs" Nazis and now are just wimping out of your statement.

Second, many of us have stated that we don't know what happened with Kavanaugh and Ford (unlike you who made an accusation against Ford without knowing either). All over the thread. I can point you to an entire list of my posts in particular, where I have said that I don't know what happened in that room and would like a more thorough investigation to find out facts about it. That is not a presumption of guilt. I do know that he lied yesterday because I have a basic knowledge of slang terms and the counter-argument forces me to believe something completely unbelievable, which is that a bunch of prep school kids in the 1980s were so sexually naive that they didn't know the real meaning of any of these words, despite the fact that they spent their free time getting hammered at house parties.

 

He never said he wasn't at the party. He said he didn't recall the events.

 

Kavanaugh advances out of the Committee 11-10. Deal with Flake demands a week to investigate with the FBI.

 

And he can fill in details about a party he doesn't recall? However you want to phrase it, it's the same thing.

 

Okay, then I will ease up on Flake. He at least did something here.

 

If it turns out he is giving regular public speeches at engagements all across the country, I will blast him the same way I blasted Ford for claiming she was so afraid of getting on an airplane that her friends had to help her at the airport so that she had to courage to board.

 

Wow, calling my post a rant, “you guys” calling me an unreasonable person (albeit backhanded), comparing the Chicago tribune to Western journalism? And in 4 sentences too. It’s clear that “reasonable” people differ, I could also quote the AP, The Hill. And dozens of other sources that interpreted them that way.

But that post was very unlike you Pika, so if this is what is left to “debate”, have at it without me.

 

I'm not sure who is the royal "you" in this, but since the Nazi imagery was indirectly aimed at my post, I'll assume I'm a part of that group. So, here you go:

 

Wow.

 

No it isn't, which is why he didn't phrase it in the manner you used. They could also ask him about his meeting with Ford, they can ask him about the topics on which Kavanaugh potentially lied yesterday, they can ask him about the girlfriend's statement, which seems to back some of the accusations, at least against him, and ask if Kavanaugh was involved. There are plenty of topics on which he could be asked (including the central one of that party as they should push more to test the truthfulness of the statement as well).

 

That's more like the Flake I know. Give him a few hours, he'll be back on board.

 

They reported the nomination favorably out of committee, but he said that he doesn't know whether he could be comfortable voting yes on the floor without a brief FBI investigation lasting no more than a week and limited to the allegations currently pending.

Feinstein seems to be confused as hell as to what is happening, she keeps asking what his "amendment" is and what their agreement is, Flake (and others) explained that there is no amendment and it has already been reported favorably, they cannot control what the majority leader does now but it would be hard for him to vote for the nomination on the floor without that.

 

So was that a vote for a 1 week delay and an FBI investigation? The jargon is throwing me. Can someone translate into ingles, por favor?

 

That is what I said.

 

No. It's a gentleman's agreement.