Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!
  1. Hi there... Can you please quickly check to make sure your email address is up to date here? Just in case we need to reach out to you or you lose your password. Muchero thanks!

Kavanaugh Hearing

Discussion in 'GC Hall of Fame' started by ursidman, Sep 4, 2018.

  1. philobeddoe

    philobeddoe GC Hall of Fame

    5,930
    87
    373
    Apr 11, 2007
    I'm sure the Times and Yorker would find these people is they existed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. LouisvilleGator

    LouisvilleGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,180
    189
    1,933
    Oct 16, 2012
    Using the what if what if what if burden of proof you love to use for Kavanaugh, I would say not only did McLean try to get Keyser to lie, she has told hundreds of lies to the FBI about this and should be removed from her job immediately.
     
  3. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    14,519
    14,446
    3,363
    Jun 14, 2007

    8th time the charm, maybe???

    :ninja2::monkey:o_O
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  4. LouisvilleGator

    LouisvilleGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,180
    189
    1,933
    Oct 16, 2012
    Prediction on the reply to this: But what if what if what if what if...
    LOL
     
  5. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Guardian of the GC Galaxy

    Apr 3, 2007
    Nonsensical analogies don't help your arguments.

    We don't know what was communicated between McLean and Keyser, so there is no way to know if she was pressured intentionally.

    With Kavanaugh, I didn't use "what if burden of proof". I used his words.

    We have the knowledge of the affidavits he misrepresented. We have the yearbook terms and their meanings - both pop culture meanings at the time and the words of his classmates. We have the knowledge of the environmental case he misrepresented from the lawyer who came forward to refute Kavanugh. So we do know in fact that he lied.

    Show me what was said between McLean and Keyser where this pressure was claimed, and you may have a relevant analogy.

    The only thing that I've seen, is the McLean called Keyser to let her know that Kavanaugh was misrepresenting her statement in the hearing. And we all know that happened, so it doesn't sound like "pressure" - just information. Maybe there was something else.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Guardian of the GC Galaxy

    Apr 3, 2007
    I read that summary from Grassley earlier today.

    We do not know what those witnesses testified to. We do know that people came forward to be interviewed claiming knowledge of the event, that the FBI did not talk to. We do know that one of them heard about the event from an eyewitness who he could name for the FBI.
     
  7. Trickster

    Trickster VIP Member

    10,111
    2,472
    3,233
    Sep 20, 2014
    My opinion.
    What is so darn disturbing about the Kavanaugh Affair is that Dr. Ford was entirely credible to almost everyone who saw and heard her, and that includes Fox News. That means she was believable as to the occurrence of the incident AND as to the perpetrator. I don't think one can willy-nilly decide to believe one but not both.

    Nonetheless there were those who asserted she must have been mistaken as to the latter, which is absurd, and still others who said she had no corroboration, which is a legitimate concern. In other words, those people believed her, but wanted an excuse to approve Kavanaugh anyway.

    As to the supposed lack of corroboration, there are rarely witnesses to these things, and the victims are usually too ashamed and traumatized to say anything. More importantly, however, she did have corroboration: her therapist notes and the polygraph.While a polygraph is not admissible in a court of law, it is nonetheless used regularly by law enforcement and others, including the FBI, to assess the veracity of a witness. Thus, there was sufficient corroboration of the accusation to shift the burden to Kavanaugh to prove otherwise. He clearly did not. Insisting it wasn't him without corroboration was not proof.

    Thus, the excuses that a credible witness was wrong as to the perpetrator and had no corroboration in any event are thoroughly bogus excuses by a panel of white Republican men intent on confirming him. What men of good faith, not acting solely for a political end and with true sympathy for Dr. Ford, should have concluded was that there was enough doubt to nix the nomination and ask the president to submit a less controversial candidate, such as he did with Gorsuch. Not only did they not do that, their token FBI investigation was clearly a sham as one week was woefully insufficient.

    So, once again, women get the shaft for the sake of political expediency. The GOP should be ashamed of its needless stubbornness at the expense of yet another violated woman.

    A final note. I am a Democrat, but I prefer moderates of either party on SCOTUS. If any president nominates a qualified candidate of impeccable character, he or she should be confirmed. It is understood that the voting will go according to party lines, and that the minority will seek by legitimate means to block the nominee. That's the politics of the process.

    I initially would have confirmed.Kavanaugh despite my reservations about his views and impartiality. Once Dr. Ford testified, however, serious doubt entered my mind, doubt which Kavanaugh did not dispel by his impassioned denial. Where there is such doubt regarding a Supreme Court nominee, that nominee should never be confirmed.

    Thank you for reading and considering this viewpoint.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2018
    • Winner Winner x 6
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 3
  8. GatorBen

    GatorBen Premium Member

    6,380
    1,068
    2,968
    Apr 9, 2007
    For those interested, you can watch Kamala Harris campaign for President on the Senate floor by way of colloquy with Da Nang Dick and Patty Murray right now.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. mutz87

    mutz87 p=.06

    38,228
    33,866
    4,211
    Aug 30, 2014
    Bottom line is that it is likely a federal judge and nominee for SCOTUS lied multiple times under oath, yet will be confirmed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
    • Wish I would have said that Wish I would have said that x 1
  10. diehardgator1

    diehardgator1 VIP Member

    6,206
    197
    418
    Apr 3, 2007
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. LouisvilleGator

    LouisvilleGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,180
    189
    1,933
    Oct 16, 2012
    Man, I hope they pick her or Warren. Either one would get destroyed by Trump.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. steveGator52

    steveGator52 GC Legend

    839
    230
    1,908
    May 3, 2016
    DC Metro area
    Ramirez’s accusations were confirmed in the same manner it was confirmed that Ferris Bueller was sick, right?

    My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who is going with this girl that said she saw Brett Kavanaugh show his penis to Ramirez at 31 flavors.
    Were you there?
    No.
    Thank you for your time.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. diehardgator1

    diehardgator1 VIP Member

    6,206
    197
    418
    Apr 3, 2007
    What about Spartacus
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    21,429
    1,782
    1,763
    Apr 8, 2007
    I don't know about Harris but if Warren is the Democratic nominee Trump could experience the worst defeat by an "Indian" adversary since George Armstrong Custer met Sitting Bull's warriors at the Little Big Horn.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 1
  15. Trickster

    Trickster VIP Member

    10,111
    2,472
    3,233
    Sep 20, 2014
    Bullshit!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Guardian of the GC Galaxy

    Apr 3, 2007
    The Priest who heard about it at the time of the event, claims that he heard about it from an eyewitness who he knows. The FBI could speak with both the Priest and the witness who told him about it.

    I know that Priests have gotten a bum rap of late, but still tend to think of them as pretty honest in general. Of course, your mileage may vary.
     
  17. GatorBen

    GatorBen Premium Member

    6,380
    1,068
    2,968
    Apr 9, 2007
    Collins sounds like a yes based on the beginning of her speech. Hasn't said yet, but her speech began by lamenting that this nomination seems more like the conclusion of a gutter political campaign rather than the Senate fulfilling its solemn duty, and lamenting the race to oppose the nomination prior to it even being announced who it was.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. mutz87

    mutz87 p=.06

    38,228
    33,866
    4,211
    Aug 30, 2014
    You have to know that the investigation by the FBI was bs, limited by the WH.
     
  19. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    18,185
    6,157
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    It's a yes.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    21,429
    1,782
    1,763
    Apr 8, 2007
    Looks like Collins and Flake are both yes so it's pretty much a done deal.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1