Could be a lie. For argument's sake, let's say it is a lie. That would go to her credibility for sure, if it is. As Kavanaugh's repeated lies in this hearing and back to 2004 and 2006, go to his credibility. And his fitness for this lifetime appointment.
Should he be removed from his current "lifetime" appointment? Why is he fit for one "lifetime" appointment over another? I ask that rhetorically. As this has nothing to do with his qualifications. And I am sorry. Patrick Leahy is not someone I would put much faith in. Lifelong politician that leaked intelligence. Then you add this fiasco.
He should probably be impeached from his current appointment. Absolutely he should be if he lied under oath in in his prior confirmation hearings.
That's a tougher question. To remove him, I think you need evidence that would meet at least a preponderance of the evidence standard (that's my personal opinion, not the law). To deny him a promotion, I don't think you need the same. While his partisan rants violated the Judicial Code of Conduct and would disqualify him from SCOTUS for me, I don't consider that sufficient to remove him from the bench. I think it undermines his credibility as a judge, but impeachment should be reserved for the most serious of offenses. However, if they can prove he lied under oath, that would suffice for me.
Pretty obvious why Katz does not want to release the polygraph examination to the JC. What's that I hear? "Lock her up? Lock her up?"
The democrats have some serious problems and no wonder they dont want the vote as the polls are shifting hard in the Republicans favor : "Now to the connection with the midterm elections. Could it be that the treatment of Kavanaugh by the Democrat mob is swinging votes to the GOP? The Republican candidate for the Senate in North Dakota is 10 points ahead of the sitting Democrat. In Indiana, the Republican is 2 points ahead of the sitting Democrat. In Texas, Ted Cruz has stretched his lead to 9 points. And in Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn is ahead by 3. Fl is a dead heat Missouri dead heat Democrat opposition to Kavanaugh increasingly frantic: Varney My Grandson just turned 18 Sunday registered yesterday as a Republican Great job
It really is amazing just how certain some can seemingly be in their belief that nearly every event, big or small, inevitably falls so neatly in line with their political inclinations. All the witnesses against Kavanaugh, Trump, Moore, and so on are vile liars, out for political blood. Meanwhile those against Schneiderman, Franken, or what have you are all brave women courageously telling the truth. When the FBI investigates Kavanaugh, they are professionals that would never succumb to a hint of political bias or allow any undue influence from the White House to impact their investigation. At the same time, if the same FBI declines to prosecute Hillary or investigate Trump, and it's because of virulent deep state corruption. Clear political biases from judges on the right side of the isle require no comment, but any hint of the same from anyone on the left and it's an unforgivable breach of judicial ethics and decorum. On and on it goes, with clock-like predictability, without a hint of introspection. I frankly don't understand why someone would so willingly buy into such a delusion. But I suppose when you wrap your identity up so thoroughly in a tribal identity, the truth, facts, objectivity, all become secondary to the goal of defeating the "other tribe" by any means necessary. When you see the enemy at the gates, you don't stop to think that maybe they have a good reason for their attack. You just see your tribe under assault. Whatever the reason, wrong or right, if successful, the attack will weaken your tribe and strengthen the other. So you resist and fight back. Time after time. Either not knowing the truth or not caring, because the tribe's survival and eventual victory matters more than anything else. It's ironic, the same instinct that has allowed humans to survive and flourish is what may prevent us from ever truly achieving a just society.
Law question, Since Ford introduced parts of her poly graph test and parts the sessions with the her head shrink could the committee get a Judge to issue a order to release the full details ?
Putting aside the fact that's Fox, there is a downside to the vote happening for Republicans. If (likely when) Kavanaugh is confirmed, it's going to ignite a fire under the people who opposed him. On the other hand, we're still a month away from Election Day. With the Kavanaugh fight over and a victory for Republicans, will there be the same enthusiasm as there is now? There are two credible accusers. Whether or not they have sufficient proof for a criminal conviction, they can still be victims. Painting Kavanaugh as the victim will score points with white men, especially working class white men, but it is alienating women.
You know republicans didn’t really ask for that investigation, but I’m not talking reality anyway. I’m talking partisan perspectives, which virtually always point to the problems of the other side.
I thought the dems were going to have huge gains. This disgusting charade is going to hurt that big time imo. The person with common sense and human decency can see right through this. While both parties are not good. The dems and the way they have treated BK have found a way to show they are the lowest of the low in humanity. The pubs may be at the low end. But you have to work in order to be as bad as the dems based on the escapade we are watching unfold.
No, I think the interview with Judge is a good thing. I would just like them to be able to follow-up on what they discussed with him for that entire time. It just sort of kills the notion that you were selling of "What would they have to ask him," as I doubt they spent that amount of time on six sentences.
This is why you shouldn't buy what somebody like Stuart Varney is selling you. Here are the actual polling results from those states. RealClearPolitics - Election 2018 - North Dakota Senate - Cramer vs. Heitkamp RealClearPolitics - Election 2018 - Indiana Senate - Braun vs. Donnelly vs. Brenton RealClearPolitics - Election 2018 - Tennessee Senate - Blackburn vs. Bredesen RealClearPolitics - Election 2018 - Florida Senate - Scott vs. Nelson RealClearPolitics - Election 2018 - Missouri Senate - Hawley vs. McCaskill RealClearPolitics - Election 2018 - Texas Senate - Cruz vs. O'Rourke Essentially, he engaged in a lot of hand waving around polls to make a point. If the latest poll was most useful, he chose that. If the Fox News poll was most useful, but wasn't the latest, he chose that. If the overall results were most useful, he chose that. If none of them worked, he went with "dead heat," which isn't easily empirically falsifiable. But the empirical situation is far more complicated than what he is selling you. BTW, many of the polls he references were taken prior to the Kavanaugh hearings. For example, because the Tennessee poll that told him what he needed for the argument (and what you wanted to hear) was the Fox News poll, he went with a poll that was in the field from 9/8-9/11. There has been no polling since the hearings, although the CNN poll that showed Breseden +5 was in the field later than that.
And if he actually did it, would that make him the lowest of the low of humanity? Or have you decided that he must not have because it isn't convenient for your own perspective to think that he might have. Do you think that would make him lower than the people asking him about it?
