TRANSLATION (of what you're seeing here): Mitchell's write up is a well thought out, logical analysis of events, statements and timelines, so we need to castigate her as a political operative instead of what she actually is: a veteran sex crimes prosecutor who has worked on cases like these for 25 years.
The Repbulicans. Actually, they delayed anything to do with even a hearing on any appointment for the SC under the previous administration--- for over 9 months. And now the Republicans want to cry foul. Did I mention how much I detest hypocrisy. I guess the Dems are starting to see how the game is played these days.
Whether or not a perjury conviction is likely is aside from the point of whether we should confirm a nominee to the USSC who repeatedly perjures himself. He lied over and over again. Intentionally. Clearly. He also acted like a little whiny bitch, and went off on a paranoid partisan rant that puts into question both his stability and his ability to act as an objective judge on the highest court in the land. There should be no question that his nomination should have been pulled. Any POTUS with an ounce of character or integrity would have done so on Friday. Nor should there be any question that if this goes to a vote on the full Senate floor, he should be voted down. It's not like there aren't plenty of other good conservative judges that can be confirmed. The push to confirm someone who is so obviously unfit for this job is beyond me. Of course in this world of blind partisanship, the good of the country plays no role.
either of which should disqualify him as a SC justice. And in fact after his display of brutal partisanship, he should not be on a Federal Appeals Court.
The Republican senators are afraid to cross Trump, plain and simple, on this or anything else. Who wants to be tweeted about and called names by the POTUS? Who wants to face the base? The exception in this case is Flake, who, guess what, isn't running for reelection. He can therefore show an ounce of backbone and integrity. And the POTUS caved when confronted with character.
Trump is a remarkable political tactician, especially for someone with no real political experience. This is his game and it's being played beautifully. If he gets Kavanaugh confirmed, it basically shows he can do whatever he wants. You can cry about it all day long, but the man is a brilliant general in the field of political warfare.
The FBI interviews will not be different because the FBI lacks any subpoena power to compel anyone to talk to them, answer questions not addressed in their statements, or questions that they don't want to answer. All the witness have lawyers now and the only thing those lawyers are going to be focused on is limiting the client's legal exposure to any charges. They have all already provided written statements to the JC under penalty of perjury. Their stories cannot change significantly without being charged with perjury and so their lawyers are going to limit what the FBI can ask them about to ensure that there are no discrepancies that could be considered to constitute perjury. And there is nothing the FBI can do to stop this since they lack subpoena power.
Having a political leaning is one thing. What I saw from BK is a man enraged by the very people who will be bringing their cases before him. He has said as much under oath. Even Kennedy couldn't vote against the ACA as unconstitutional. We all know his leanings. But he still took a hard look at the case. BK assures me he has no interest in that.
Almost as big as the bombshell thst some even drank beer in high school, and had stupid shit written in their yearbooks!!!
He never says that. You are reading what you want to read in his comment. He never gives any timeline for when he heard about her calling in your quote. And in one of the quotes from the Tweets I posted, he plainly says that the NYT said she was calling around. If he heard it personally before the NYT reported that, why would he rely on the NYT there? Further, if he heard that she was calling around and didn't hear what she was alleging, how did he start trying to arrange a defense for an allegation he knew nothing about? I'd love to hear your answer to that question. It leaves us with two possibilities: 1. Kavanaugh is telling the truth, but he knew what she was going to allege because he did it (quite possible considering she said that Kavanaugh and his group were trying to create a defense as far back as July); or 2. Kavanaugh lied under oath about never discussing or hearing about her allegation before the New Yorker story. It's a bombshell. Kavanaugh got gotcha'd. She makes it quite clear what she wants investigated. And anyone with prosecutorial experience knows why what the Republicans did here was incredibly deficient. Even Mitchell herself called it a deficient process. Spare me the futility argument. It's a bad one. It's always been a bad one.
'Aggressive drunk".... IN COLLEGE??? Disqualifies someone from court duty??? BS. The guy has a 25 year track record that qualifies him eminently for SCOTUS. Only politics might DISqualify him.
@CaptUSMCNole I'll even repost the entire exchange to allow you to review it: Your argument fails. Even if we accept your assumption that Kavanaugh is claiming he personally heard about her calling around BEFORE the NYT reported it and before the New Yorker story (which is quite questionable because he never makes that claim), Kavanaugh still CLEARLY said under oath (TWICE) that the first he heard of or discussed her allegation is when the New Yorker ran the story. That is 100% incompatible with what NBC is reporting above. They are reporting that Kavanaugh started calling around to formulate his defense BEFORE the New Yorker story. How can you formulate a defense to an allegation you never heard or discussed? There are two possibilities: 1. Kavanaugh knew without having heard about it because he did it; or 2. Kavanaugh lied under oath. I'll quote the relevant testimony directly from the transcript of the hearing: KENNEDY: Are Ms. Ramirez’s allegations about you true? KAVANAUGH: Those are not. She — no — no — none of the witnesses in the room support that. The — if that — that had happened, that would have been the talk of campus in our freshman dorm. The New York Times reported that as recently as last week, she was calling other classmates seeking to — well, I’m not going to characterize it — but calling classmates last week and just seemed very — I’ll just stop there. But that’s not true. That’s not true. HATCH: When did you first learn of Dr. Ford’s allegations against you? KAVANAUGH: It was a week ago Sunday when — the Washington Post Story. HATCH: Isn’t that amazing? Did the ranking member raise these allegations in your one-on-one meeting with her last month? KAVANAUGH: She did not. HATCH: Did the ranking member raise them at your public hearing earlier this month? KAVANAUGH: No. HATCH: Did the ranking member raise them at the closed session that followed the public hearing? KAVANAUGH: She was not there. HATCH: Did the ranking member or any of her colleagues raise them in the 1,300 written questions that were submitted to you following the hearing? KAVANAUGH: No. HATCH: When was the first time that the ranking member or her staff asked you about these allegations? KAVANAUGH: Today. HATCH: When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you? KAVANAUGH: In the last — in the period since then, the New Yorker story. -------------------------------------- If Kavanaugh personally heard before the NYT reported it, why did he not say so during the hearing? Why did he rely on what the NYT reported? And as you can see there, Kavanaugh clearly says that first he heard about her allegations is when the New Yorker ran it. If that's the first he heard, how was he reaching out to set up a defense BEFORE the New Yorker ran the story? The dude got caught. He perjured himself. The other option is that he could formulate a defense because he didn't need to hear the allegation to know what it would be. That's even more damning.
Laughable. Go read the actual quote. Kavanaugh says he read the NYTimes could not substantiate it and she was calling around about it. New sentence, here is what Kavanuagh says: "And I, at least -- and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that." Kavanaugh stated he was aware of Ramirez's calling around to other classmates independent of the new Yorker story and the NYTimes and he mentioned it in his testimony. If the JC really wants to question him in detail about this, he'll be able to point to those comments.
You forgot: #3: Kavanaugh was aware that Ramirez was calling around to other classmates about accusing him of something but was not aware what the exact allegation was. You are also conveniently leaving this quote out of your post: "And I, at least -- and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that." page 20, line 18 from the following link: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18 BMK Interview Transcript (Redacted)..pdf Kavanaugh specifically mentions that he personally heard that Ramirez was calling classmates independently of NYTimes and New Yorker. Next.
according to Rex Tillerson we have a "moron" in the WH Now we are to give a lifetime position to a man of questionable character on the SC. Do we have to continue with this lowering of the bar in every important position in the government. This is not high school. But what you do there does matter. I didn't ever drink and do "stupid shit" and I'm not wishing for a position on the SC much less a simple job elsewhere. My yearbook has no references to "stupid shit" I did or said. Integrity is a lifetime appointment you give yourself. We all make some mistakes, but the things that shine light on who BK was and, evidenced by his angry rant, still is, are cause for dismissal.
