Kavanaugh Hearing

You don't get to pick and choose when to tell the truth when you're under oath. That's not how it works. Would you make the same excuses for a burglar who decided that telling the truth under oath would do him more damage than lying?

There's actually a very easy way to own up to being a douche in high school/college and still come away smelling like roses. Lying isn't how you do it. Don't tell me that Kavanaugh is above the law. That will not fly.

I wouldn't take the yearbook angle at all. It's the most difficult path.

 

Article including links to two letters:
Georgetown Prep Alumni Clarify Meaning of 'Devil's Triangle' in Letter to Judiciary Committee | National Review

Tweet including yearbook excerpt with “Devil’s Triangle 9 founder of the name)” (the 9 appears to be a typo for an open parens):



Juan Carlos Del Real’s yearbook lists: “Lost in Devil’s Triangle 3, 4” (struggling to find where I saw the picture of that one earlier).

 

Kavanaugh made his high school persona an issue when he went on national tv and claimed to be an innocent choir boy. Did anyone make him do it? No.

And maybe he should try being honest, contrite, and apologetic?

Senator: Describe yourself in high school.

Kavanaugh: I engaged in some behavior I'm not proud of. I drank too much at times, acted like a bully to some, made some crude sexual references that were nothing more than juvenile brags, and hurt some people along the way, including my friend Renate. To Ms. Dolphin and others I hurt, I'm sorry. I'm not the silly kid I was 35 years ago and I hope you can accept my apology and understand we all do things as kids were are not proud of.

Senator: Were you ever disrespectful to women?

Kavanaugh: I've said some things I'm not proud of, made a few catcalls and yes, probably made some women uncomfortable. But I never assaulted any women and wholly deny any and all allegations against me.

But if those, Kavanaugh was neither honest apologetic, or contrite. I agree with Kavanaugh that he was too emotional and had the wrong temperament during his testimony. But unlike Kavanaugh, I think this is part of the evidence that shows Kavanaugh is unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice. Throw in partisan to go along with liar (under oath no less) and wrong temperament and you have a man who shouldn't be placed on the highest court in the land.

 

Letter Grassley sent to Ford’s attorneys tonight requesting documentary evidence:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-04 CEG to Dr. Ford Attorneys (Evidence Request Follow-Up).pdf

I would be particularly interested in what the “recently uncovered information” is that Grassley is referring to in the last paragraph, that has caused him to request Ford and her representatives’ communications with: 1) U.S. Senators or their staffs (specifically calling out the offices of Sens. Feinstein or Hirono); 2) the alleged witnesses identified by Dr. Ford; and 3) the other accusers or their representatives.

Grassley seems to be on the warpath about something. If that something is juicy enough, I hope Judiciary sends out subpoenas for those communications once they have the confirmation out of the way.

 

You gotta laugh at the fact that Republicans are preventing the FBI investigation from being released to the public but are also choosing to release and leak information from it that they think is favorable (see misleading WSJ article on Leland Keyser based on what's in the FBI report and Grassley's "Executive Summary"). If that's the game, just release the thing. It's quite clear to any person who isn't a Republican that the "investigation" made no effort to corroborate the accounts of the two accusers. I don't know what damaging info there could possibly be for Kavanaugh.

 

You know what is ridiculous? Kavanaugh lied about his past to protect his image. Did so on national tv and under oath. And you admit he lied, @Gator715, because telling the truth would make him look bad. And if Kavanaugh lied about his drinking habits under oath to protect his reputation, what else did he lie about? And is someone willing to outright lie, under oath, in as Senate Judiciary Committee worthy of being confirmed to the highest court in the land?

 

Not all heroes wear capes...

Thank You!

 

I did not admit that he lied...

I don't know if he lied...

I'm saying the best case the left has that he perjured himself is the common meaning in today's context of the term, "Devil's Triangle."

One thing is presenting information in a favorable light... Something literally every witness does... something every media outlet does... and another is lying about it...

 

The FBI investigation was "a sham."

I did not see this coming, at all...

 

Grassley can suck a fat one. It's a good thing I'm not her lawyer because I'd tell him that. If he wants the documents, he can issue a subpoena. Otherwise, he can shut up. Nobody is impressed by his bluster after the embarrassing manner in which he, his staff, and some of the partisan hacks on his Committee have handled themselves.

Also, he may want to speak with the White House. Raj Shah (Deputy Press Secretary) claimed that the investigation was based on what the Senate Republicans wanted investigated, so the claim that Director Wray made the call is a total falsehood. Grassley is a joke.

 

I'm not suggesting it's okay to lie under oath...

But it's not like there's a specific standard for "excessive drinking" or "being a jerk."

Making such an admission voluntarily, even under oath, is unnecessary and stupid... These are ambiguous terms, that vary in meaning from person to person...

 

I don't even think it's worth the effort to explain again. Go read back through the thread. Anyone who thinks the investigation is anything other than a sham is a partisan hack. The FBI was not allowed to interview the witnesses that the first two accusers said could corroborate their accounts. The FBI did not interview Kavanaugh or Ford. It was political cover, and that's exactly what I told you it would be days ago.

You wanted Kavanaugh confirmed before the investigation and before the hearing. That's your opinion. But don't try and tell me that this was a real investigation. At least be honest about that.

 

You're acting as though his defining features in high school are your perception that he was a bully to people, when you don't even know the guy... Not that he was a big football guy... not that he was a stellar student, not that he gained admission to Yale for undergrad and law school...

No, according to you, "who he was in high school" is a bully, a guy who made women feel uncomfortable maybe twice... and essentially a childish brat... That is a mischaracterization of who he was... From the way I see it, he was an exceptional young man, with the flaws of a typical teenage young man... assuming of course the allegations are untrue, which I am... and the yearbook references are as he claims them to be...

 

Anyone who thinks 7 FBI investigations into Kavanaugh isn't enough information to make a vote one way or another is a "partisan hack."

 

Oh, if I were her lawyer I definitely would too.

In large part because the list of things Judiciary has suddenly started to demand be produced - particularly when the vote is already moving forward - could be read as suggesting that the Committee is trying to figure out whether there was an effort to obstruct its functions that would justify DOJ referrals.

 

Yep. Fall back on the recycled Republican talking point. It speaks volumes. You can disagree with my opinion all you'd like. However, I have remained a lot more open-minded than most. I have been a lot more honest than most. When Julie Swetnick had that disastrous interview, I changed my position on her and her accusations. I admitted that Ben was right and I was wrong. When Avenatti came forward with another person, I wrote it off because of all that. When I was presented with strong evidence that Kavanaugh was telling the truth about the yearbook inside jokes, I accepted it and changed my stance.

It is a great disappointment to me that you won't do the same. Ramirez gave them 20 people, and they were able to interview none of them. The only people they interviewed with regard to her allegation were the people who disputed her account in the New Yorker article. Think about that for a second. They were unable to talk to any witness who might support her story, but they were allowed to talk to the witnesses who disputed it. Look at Dr. Ford. They were allowed to talk to the witnesses who said they had no recollection. They weren't allowed to talk to any of the witnesses who Dr. Ford's lawyer offered up as potential corroboration. That was the "investigation" we got. They omitted any witness who could support the two accusers and talked to all of the witnesses who didn't.

And then there's the fact that they were not allowed to interview Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh. Why not allow that? Lying to the FBI is a felony. If Dr. Ford made it all up, they could press her on the details and corner her. Ask yourself why the White House and Senate Republicans wouldn't want Judge Kavanaugh being interviewed by the FBI.

Now, ask yourself how an investigation controlled by Don McGahn, a friend of Kavanaugh's who is the one who got him nominated in the first place, is going to be fair to the accusers.

Honesty goes a long ways with me. It's what makes a person credible. You can disagree with me until the cows come home, but if you're honest, I will at least respect you. We may not agree, but there's always some middle ground. When you refuse to cede any ground on any issue, I can't see you as credible. That's actually the exact problem I have with Judge Kavanaugh. He took the approach of deny everything and cede no ground. For me, that destroyed his credibility.

If you really want to die on the hill of arguing in favor of the bait and switch, you are welcome to do that, but I can't respect that. You're better than that.

 

If I were her counsel, my irritation with him would be the shameful manner in which he and his Committee have conducted themselves since the hearing. I imagine our friends on the conservative side of the aisle will say that Dr. Ford and the other accusers deserve the treatment they received, but Grassley and his Committee acted in an extremely partisan manner. As a lawyer, I'm not going to do them any favors when it's clear that their goal is to attack and discredit my client.

 

I'll concede ground on some issues... Many issues...

But not this...

I don't care that this isn't a criminal trial... I believe that the standard of presumption of innocence means something beyond that of a criminal trial...

The fact that it took @GatorBen providing evidence to prove to you why one of the allegations against Kavanaugh is the fundamental point of disagreement between you and me... The burden is not on Kavanaugh to prove his innocence... He really doesn't have to do anything, yet, he was willing to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee the next day... the burden was on Ford, Ramirez, Avenatti, etc. to prove he's guilty... They didn't have one week.... they've had over 35 years... in the Senate's case regarding Ford they had 6 weeks. They didn't consider it an urgent issue, Ramirez didn't feel comfortable coming out until she spoke with her attorneys who "refreshed her memory." Frankly, I don't see anything, here. Even after the FBI looked into it, as you wanted... But that wasn't good enough for you because they found no smoking gun... It would never have been good enough for you until you found outright evidence one way or another... even though we likely would have found none... it's hard to prove something didn't happen... I can't prove that God doesn't exist... I can only fail to prove that he does exist.

You've made it quite clear what you believe about the standard of presumption of innocence. If there's only value of that in a courtroom and on a piece of paper for you, then we aren't going to agree on much regarding this case....

 

As opposed to those on the left side of the aisle?

Don't play coy, the games are going both ways.... and the Democrats have been far more vicious than Grassley or the Republicans have... That shouldn't even be a question...

 

Once again he is not a 17 year old anymore. No 17 year old male should be on the supreme court or even a jury. Is there any reason that the adult Kavanaugh shouldnt be on the court? The other two women making claims dont seem credible at all to me.