Yes, I have made it clear what I believe about the presumption of innocence and due process. They're buzzwords that non-lawyers throw around haphazardly. I have the legal knowledge to call BS on it. There is no presumption of innocence outside of the court of law. There is no entitlement to due process for judicial nominees outside of what the Constitution guarantees. Throwing around legal jargon isn't going to impress me. I actually understand those concepts, and I know that they don't apply here. Sell that talking point to someone who isn't a lawyer. You're not going to score points here. Kavanaugh has every right to refuse to turn over documents to the Democrats if they aren't going to subpoena them. And no, the Democrats haven't been "far more vicious." Both sides are holding their own quite well. Yes, adult Kavanaugh lied under oath. Once again, the Supreme Court's legitimacy rests on the faith of the populace. If you think one of the justices being alleged to have committed attempted rape won't undermine that legitimacy on 5-4 decisions regarding women's rights, I think you're not correctly evaluating the optics.
You seem to be analyzing his reaction through the prism, and on the premise, that he actually raped doc Ford. I must assume that you have raped a woman before, if you cant understand why he'd be as pissed as he was. If not, im pretty sure youd be pissed as hell if bs allegations were levied against you. Not only would uou be unable to keep your faux halo on...youd prolly fling it at one of the senators who insinuated that you were guilty as alleged. ...but then, maybe YOU really are an *angel.*
The dude is destroying himself. All he had to do was tell the truth, apologize for youthful indiscretions and say he never assaulted anyone.
Yep, sorry. Not going to disqualify a guy just because you lefties THINK he stumbled in a hearing which only occurred because the left was trying to sabotage him and accuse him of things that never happened. He had every right to be upset and people like Feinstein, Ford and Katz belong in a prison cell.
I don't know if they are or aren't. They're leaking information that is helpful to them from the FBI report that they refuse to release to the public. However, the basis for that article is very questionable. It is quite unclear what Ms. Keyser actually said to the FBI because we're not getting her words. The underlying basis for her feeling "pressured" that they actually gave in the article wasn't anything approaching egregious. It sounded quite reasonable to me. In order for them to validate the story, they'd need to give us her exact words. Without it, we don't know if it's their PERCEPTION that she felt pressured or if she actually said she was feeling/being pressured.
LMAO! Now, alleged sexual exploits in HS are irrelevant... Thats rich! NB: they were ALWAYS irrelevant.
Yes, he is. He is about to achieve his lifelong dream of being on the SCOTUS. He's just destroying himself, I tell ya. Destroying himself.
The FBI cares. As he is not a witness, as that implies being at the scene of the crime, which he was not, the FBI is not interested in talking to him since his secondhand information is hearsay. Once again, the FBI is not investigating a crime. It is a background check. Only people with firsthand knowledge of the alleged events warrant being interviewed, especially after this became a political knife fight and people like Roche and Avenatti are trying to insert themselves in the process to further their own personal and/or political ends. That is exactly what you are saying as you don't think one of the first question the FBI is going to ask about someone is their drinking in college. The FBI is going to talk to enough people to get a very good and detailed understanding of what Kavanaugh's behavior in college was like. Just because they didn't talk to his freshman roommate who clearly was not his friend and was not around after freshman, doesn't mean the FBI didn't do a good job. They will have talk to enough people to get them to a spot where they feel comfortable providing an assessment. Ramirez's accusation has now been investigated. You don't think it is clear that Roche and Kavanaugh didn't like each other? The phrase "I tried to be civil." when referring to his interactions with Roche, didn't clearly show that to you? Wow! A reading of Kavanaugh's testimony about Roche makes it extremely clear that they were not friends, did not like each other, and never hung out after freshman year. Not in a FBI Background check they are not. You might want to check the FBI's Exec Summary, as one of the Ramirez's witness refused to be interviewed by the FBI. I bet having subpoena power would have been helpful there. See post 6627. I stated I would want to hear a Senator that has read the report confirm that description of it.
You mean theyre not toting the libby dem narrative. Yall really miss the days of Barry /dems / MSM / Am. Politiburo monopoly on info. ... Seems so long ago...
If the status of this circus was a football game, it would be UF (the Pubs) vs. Powder Puff U. (the Dems) in the season opener in which the latter gets paid by the minute of play. It's 69-0 and the Dems want overtime. "No mas," "No Mas." Where is Roberto Duran when the Dems need him?
Hi, I'm a lawyer. You throwing around the term "hearsay" isn't going to score you any points. There's no bar on hearsay here. He is a witness. He has relevant information. The FBI was not ALLOWED to talk to him, so don't try to claim that they weren't interested. That's an intellectually dishonest argument. The FBI is investigating events that would purportedly disqualify Kavanaugh from being on SCOTUS. People with any relevant knowledge warrant being interviewed. Any person who has conducted investigations or worked with people who do conduct investigations would tell you the same. You follow all credible leads. It's quite noticeable that you didn't address my hypothetical or point about snitches and informants. You know I am right, but you don't want to admit it. If this is the hill you want to die on, by all means. Are you talking about the Executive Summary that Chuck Grassley's people created? Because that's not the FBI's Executive Summary. Painting it as such is dishonest. I already read it. And it appeared to me that the witness who refused to be interviewed was one of the group of people who was accused of being involved in the prank. They never interviewed any of the other witnesses her lawyer gave who they felt could corroborate her account. They only interviewed the ones who disputed it. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Of course I'd be pissed if BS allegations were leveled against me. Why on earth is that reason to repeatedly lie on a range of issues including what silly sex terms we referenced in a HS yearbook, or to intentionally misrepresent affidavits on record, or to intentionally misrepresent his own judicial decisions on record? How about instead of lying about everything, he step up and be a freaking man and own up to once having been a silly boy who made some mistakes? It ain't that damned hard and it sure as hell isn't too much to expect. Your comments projecting on how I would react to rape charges against me are personally insulting. Cut the shit. Seriously. But to that point, if I know I'm innocent I would just tell the truth. I've never assaulted any woman, but if I had done such a thing and had the character of a little boy as Kavanaugh appears to, I probably would lie my ass off and yell and rant like a petulant child.
Collins is a definite yes. Flake is being Flake. I still think he votes yes. Manchin will vote yes if they have 50 votes without him.
