Kavanaugh Hearing

Ummm, you may want to look back at who was on what opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius.

 

There's a 3rd option that you'd have effectively disprove and rule out, to get to perjury--and thats if he heard Ramirez was going allege something, but he didnt know what the nature of the allegation was, until after the NYer article came out.

 

When did he, himself, hear about it? From whom did he hear about it? You assume he heard about it before the story ran, but his testimony under oath flatly contradicts that. Nowhere in his statement does he specify either of those two facts. Instead, you ignore his testimony to give him the assumption that would exonerate him from perjury. You're doing mental gymnastics.

Again, you have no basis for assuming that he heard BEFORE the New Yorker story. His testimony flatly contradicts that, and your claim about hearing that he called around has no specificity on when. Further, you can't set up a defense for an allegation you don't know. Yet, the NBC article claims that the text messages show that Kavanaugh was asking that woman to come out in his defense and refute the allegations. You can't do that without knowing the charge.

He got caught. You can't dance around it all you want. They asked him a very specific question, he answered it, and NBC's reporting makes it quite clear that he perjured himself if their reporting is accurate.

 

Was it not Kennedy's vote that was the "swing vote"?
I'm sure I remember Republican voters being outraged that he "betrayed" them.

 

Billy bob smoked weed, barry smoked weed and inhaled (that was the point!), and W. wss an alcy, and did coke iirc...

They were all POTUS. Top dog in US gov't, 1 of 1.

Kav is proposed to SCOTUS, 1/9, based on his acumen in INTETPRETTING the USC.

Hes qualified, notwithstanding what dirt the Left brings up from college.

Again, only POLITICS serves to *disqualify* him.

 

Nope.

Opinions were as follows:

Majority (as to parts I, II, III-C) - Roberts, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan
Concurrence (as to part IV) - Roberts, joined by Breyer and Kagan
Concurrence (as to parts III-A, III-B, III-D) - Roberts
Concur/Dissent (as to parts I, II, III, IV) - Ginsburg, joined by Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan as to various parts
Joint Dissent - Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Dissent - Thomas

 

Again, hear about WHAT?

Hearing she had dirt on him, =/= knowing what that alleged dirt entailed.

 

Also, read the transcript in full. Here's a passage from page 18:
Judge Kavanaugh. The New York Times says as recently as last week, she was calling around to other classmates saying she wasn't sure I had done this.

Here's from page 20:
Judge Kavanaugh. They couldn't -- the New York Times couldn't corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least -- and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that.

Kavanaugh never gives any specifics about how he heard about it. When earlier asked about the allegations, as he did in his testimony, he relies on the NYT's account of her calling around. If Kavanaugh had heard she was calling around before the story ran, why wouldn't he say so? Why did he repeatedly rely on the NYT's account of it? Why did he never give any specifics? You want us to make logical leaps based on nothing. You have nothing to back up the jumps you're making (that Kavanaugh knew before the stories ran that she was calling around). Kavanaugh never says that.

However, he does say this (pg. 18):
Redacted. All right. My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker?

Judge Kavanaugh. No.

He also said this:
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.

Those statements are clear. You don't need to make any assumptions or logical leaps. Yet, those statements are contradicted by what NBC is reporting. I'll go ahead and quote Nate Silver here, because he's right on the money:

 

And Billy Bob had his law license revoked for 5 years, because he perjured himself to make himself look better in a (gasp)... sexual harassment case!!

 

So tell me how it passed? Sorry I'm not a legal scholar. Why was it all the stories I read have Kennedy as the swing vote? Are all the accounts I read wrong? Just asking.

 

None of which rules out Kav learning about the nature of the allegations from the NYr article.

IOW, unless and until u can disprove that, there's no evidence thst his answer was dishonest (let alone a lie, let alone perjury).

 

There is a difference in being aware of what a specific allegation is and hearing that someone is calling around to old classmates asking them about something that may/may not have happened.

Kavanaugh stated he did not know what the allegation was. There is nothing in the NBC story that states Kavanaugh or his team were talking specifically about what Ramirez was accusing him of. Kavanaugh did state in his testimony that he personally heard, not read, heard, that Ramirez was calling around about something. Why would he say that he had personally heard that Ramirez calling around about the allegation after the accusation had come out and it was reported in the New Yorker that she was doing it?

If the JC wants to talk to him about this, he can point to his comments and say that was before the articles came out. Can you disprove that?

 

And what does that say should happen to Kavanaugh for perjuring himself? Repeatedly.

 

@ *lawyer* -feel free to ignore me all u want, it just lets my rhetorical questions make their point all the more compellingly.

IOW, it seems you don't have an answer for them, right?

 

Now this the way a true and unbiased investigation should be handled. Strange they did not want the FBI to investigate Ellison The democrats like to keep it fair and above board. Just proves and crooked the liberal democrat left is :

Lawyer who cleared Ellison of domestic abuse allegations is partner at firm that donated $500G to Dems

A lawyer who “was unable to substantiate” the domestic violence allegations against Rep. Keith Ellison is a partner of a law firm that donated more than half a million dollars to Democrats since 1998, with nearly $50,000 to the embattled Congressman running for the state’s Attorney General position.

Susan Ellingstad is a partner at Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P law firm and was picked by Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party to investigate Karen Monahan’s allegations of domestic abuse after she came forward in August.

At the time, the party’s chairman Ken Martin said Ellingstad was hired to make sure the probe “wouldn’t be colored by people with associations with the party.”

Lawyer who cleared Ellison of domestic abuse allegations is partner at firm that donated $500G to Dems

 

You seem to forget what it took to reach the conclusion of perjury there.

Let us know when yall resch that point here.

 

Individual mandate was upheld on the basis of the taxing power by the Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan majority.

The Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clauses were found insufficient to support the individual mandate by a majority of justices (the combination of the Joint Dissent and the Roberts individual concurrence).

Coercive aspects of the Medicaid expansion were found unconstitutional by a majority of justices (the combination of the Joint Dissent and the Roberts, Breyer, Kagan concurrence), although the non-coercive aspects were upheld by a majority of justices (the combination of the Roberts, Breyer, Kagan concurrence, which would have found it severable, and the Ginsburg, Sotomayor concur/dissent that would have upheld the Medicaid expansion in its entirety).

In short, aspects of it were upheld as constitutional by various combinations of Roberts and the liberals. The Joint Dissent (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito) would have struck the law down in its entirety. Other aspects of it were found unconstitutional (or not supported on the constitutional basis argued by the government) by various combinations of the dissenters, Roberts, Breyer, and Kagan.

It's a really complex set of opinions, but long story short as relevant to your question, Kennedy only joined an opinion that would have struck the ACA down in its entirety as unconstitutional. So he definitely did not vote to uphold it.

 

Keeping in mind that her analysis was based solely on the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford rather than a comprehensive investigation her conclusion was reasonable. Also keep in mind that she used the standard for a potential criminal prosecution not to determine suitability for the position to which he was nominated.

 

I mean, basically the accuser says she has a tape that proves her story, and has refused to show it to anyone. The most crooked investigation in the world isn't going to cover up a video or audio tape released to the media. Likewise, the most objective investigation in the world will probably come to a similar conclusion if key evidence is withheld.

 

1. How do you go about arranging a defense to something you don't know about?
2. If Ramirez called old classmates and asked them about what happened and then those classmates talked to Kavanaugh, how would Kavanaugh not hear about the allegation?
3. You have an easy path to victory here. Point me to where Kavanaugh explicitly said under oath that he heard from classmates before the stories ran that Ramirez had called them.

I have explicit testimony on my side. I am asking for you to provide the same. Providing vague testimony and then making logical leaps from nothing because it benefits your argument is not an effective defense. You're arguing that Kavanaugh contradicted himself without any clear testimony supporting that.

You're making an assumption with no basis in fact that if Kavanaugh personally heard, he did so before the stories ran. There's never any indication that is the case. His testimony paints the opposite picture. If he did personally hear, the only logical assumption is that he heard after he checked with friends following the New Yorker and NYT stories. Otherwise, his testimony is in conflict. If he did it the way I said, his testimony is consistent. You assume without any basis that he did it beforehand because that's the only way to save him from perjury charges (even though, it really doesn't).

Of course, if Kavanaugh's team was checking around in July (as the NBC article says), that would clearly show he's been lying. So we'll see what comes of it. If the FBI won't step in, I hope she goes to the Democrats.

I already have with his sworn testimony. You have seized on one line and given it a meaning that conflicts with everything else he's said on the topic with no basis to do so.